arado234 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I think planes shouldnt just be able to land in the middle of nowhere .There is noway you could land hundreds of planes on a vacant friendly tile(especially in Russia)and still be able to use them for anything(including spotting or escaping enemy attack).They should either have to be based on or beside a friendly city or within a certian number of tiles of an H.Q.The H.Q.would also have to be within normal supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 You know this really is a good point. I know that a tile includes what,.. like 2500 square miles. You would think that in that vast expanse that enough grassy, flat areas could be improved to support an air group within the confines of an SC turn. So what do you think, let's use the SC figures with historical facts. At maximum deployment of serviceable aircraft we'll round the Luftwaffe to 4000 planes, this includes transports. Now we can have as many, with the hard build limits, 12 air units and 3 FJ, 2 FJ if you don't build them right away, so 14 total. 4000 divided by 14 = 286 aircraft per SC unit, based and supported in a 2500 square mile tile? Sound outrageous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 SeaMonkey I can always rely on you to add the technical details I usually leave out.Thankyou kindly. I forgot to mention that in Third Reich and probably other games you are given 3 air bases you can deploy to any land hex(tile) friendly to you and in normal supply at the start of your turn.Maybe this could be looked at for a patch or perhaps SC3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The K Man Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I don't think you should be able to place them in mountains or swamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 Yes mountains and swamps should definitley be out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Definition breeds clarity my good a234, always obliged to help simplify the process of decision making. I have to agree with logic, its apparent that unlevel obstructed tiles yield a greater opportunity to not construct an AB, but it can be done to a limited extent. No M&S basing. There might have to be some adjustments in the map geography or it will again change strategies(minimize). Not alot of basing is going to happen in places like Turkey. How about adjacent to an engineer unit(entrenched?) or in a constructed fortification signifying a built airstrip? [ May 10, 2008, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I don't think that we really need airbases. And swamps, mountains, deserts, jungle or ice weren't & aren't real obstacles if you want(ed) to build an airbase. In a civilisation setting airbases make sense, but not in SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted May 12, 2008 Author Share Posted May 12, 2008 xwormwood I agree that you could build an airbase almost anywhere but in the time frame of 1 week your planes can function from a hex that at the start of your turn was the enemies.The plane units in this game indicate hundres of aircraft.There is noway you could build a fully functioning airbase in 1 week that in some cases is hunndres of miles from the nearest railhead in some of the worst weather possible and some of the most inhospitable terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The K Man Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 How come you can fly into rain or snow, but not out of it? Shouldn't you be restricted from all rain/snow squares? That also brings us back to paratroopers, (the ultimate hero's) who can fly in sleet, snow, or rain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Airbases would just tie WaW and down further in the tactical, leave less room for strategy. 2500 square miles? that would fit the whole luftwaffe twice over. only thing maybe is to limit them in them being based in the mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted June 1, 2008 Author Share Posted June 1, 2008 I know airbases would limit strategy but imho when planes land on new territory they shouldnt be able to just be fully functionable that turn(spotting)and their next turn.When you conquer new cities and ports it takes time for them to come up to full strength,why not airbases and the planes on them? I agree with you Minty about mountains and I would like to also add swamps to that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts