Air bases and air fields

I agree. If planes want to land then it can on the Air Field. But nothing can be built on it. There is a difference between a Air Base and a Air Field

Funny, I had brought that idea up a week ago in another thread. I'm all for that idea.

Thanks for your support, Hobbs99 and Injinji. Please ask other players you are connected with to keep this thread alive and growing and we might get some results.

This was already discussed in another forum thread, not sure where it is anymore.

The final idea was, that airfields being built too quickly would give air units a huge advantage of being able to keep up with armies, without the worry of long airbase build times.

Edit:

The thread it was originally brought up on, was here Building Naval Base in 15 minutes? Completely unrealistic

I had this idea last year too. People convinced me it would unbalance the game, so I haven't given it a second thought.

This game should be realistic.. To build a Navel Base it shouldn't take 15 minute it should take 12 hours. But a Air field should take 1 hour to build. Remember you can't build anything on it you can only fly on it.

While I agree that a 15 minute naval base is unrealistic, I think that 9 hours for a usable airbase is a good number. It gives you the ability to fall back from an enemy advance and not be chased instantly by planes.

Wise Odin, I think you are missing the point between air field and air base. (I read the thread on naval bases.)

As far as unbalancing the game, VorlonFCW, (impressed by quick response) isn't that kind of the point ? I am all for an uneven playing field as long as it is my favour... Furthermore, ack ack is available. -Air superiority, accompanied by air-to-ground strikes, historically has been a pain for ground troops.

I am not a programmer so I have a no idea what is involved in creating a new structure (or a unit, as I am suggesting). The limitations of the unit are subject code,right? Movement, set-up time, limits on supplies for aircraft...

Is this something that could be given a test run, beta-game? I would be happy to give it a go.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Airbases, though, can operate at 50% completion.

Also, all a Naval Base does, in itself, is allow for the faster embarking or disembarking of units. For a fairness setting, this does not affect nearly as much, as your enemy quickly reaching much further with his air force.

More on this, is available in the post I linked to, above (and here Building Naval Base in 15 minutes? Completely unrealistic

Speaking from a strategy point of view if your not planning your air base builds to support your fronts

whats the tactical point of having some special unit racing to the front and building an air strip there?

Where as your next air base build should be on your front line your holding and if you want more

air range over the enemy territory why would'nt you recon with your mobile infantry to take a few

unguarded provinces and lay some air base at 50% while your pushing your front forward.

I find what some think is a great idea is already in the game.

(Um - if you are talking from a strategy point of view, then ... tactical point? )

OK. Think North Africa, Russian steppes - long way between towns. Air support and cover , speed of deployment (relative, see post above).

Again, difference between air base and air field.

Just food for thought.

The issue is, the ability to instantly have air strips to use, with fueling and refitting capabilities, will drastically change the game, in making air forces reach much greater. It isn't a matter of, "if it's not broke, don't fix it" but it is, instead, "don't break good mechanics"

Remember, the sudden air strips you want the ability to make, will also be used against you. At that point, you might complain how easy it is to extend the reach of an air force.

WiseOdin wrote:

The issue is, the ability to instantly have air strips to use, with fueling and refitting capabilities, will drastically change the game, in making air forces reach much greater. It isn't a matter of, "if it's not broke, don't fix it" but it is, instead, "don't break good mechanics"

Remember, the sudden air strips you want the ability to make, will also be used against you. At that point, you might complain how easy it is to extend the reach of an air force.

Wise Odin, sure you have played this game for a lot longer than I have, and that you are so involved in the forum also indicates that you enjoy it - a lot. However, did you even stop to consider the merits of what I am proposing or is your default setting to suggested change to argue against it? Yes, the game would change. It might be even more fun.

No Suomi, Odin has a perfectly legitimate reason to be against this idea. Even thought this is mitigated from the version previously discussed (in this case, it would AT LEAST require an AA-speed unit to race to the front and spend some time setting up the base), I presume the idea is to operate aircraft sooner, right? Well, in a breakthrough situation, it is important that the defender gets at least SOME time to defend. Believe me, nine hours isn't even very much, and there is no need to take that down even further.

Something else I keep noticing about ideas being proposed: people always think about "how cool it would be to use new feature X". Very seldom, people think "how hard it would suck if my enemy used feature X against me". People should really do that more often when making suggestions.

The point is not that there would be aircraft units in the game faster than currently available.

The point I am asking to be considered is to enable aircraft to operate closer to the ground combat (or more frequently).

Be it far from me to suggest that the reason for not changing anything are not legitimate.

What I am suggesting, though, that some brainpower be spent in exploring the merits of the idea.

I fully realise that anything can and will be used against anyone, including myself, in the court game.

At the end of the day this is only a game which we enjoy.

warms,

Suomi Hunajaa

Brain power was spent.

What I meant: aircraft can effectively OPERATE faster after a breakthrough.

The current situation, where the exploit phase cannot be IMMEDIATLY supported by air, but is delayed by 9 hours, is good.

'(Exploit phase' - are you not being one-sided here, thinking only of offence? ok, rhetorical question. )

As discussed, there are several points and angles to be considered. Thanks. Ultima dictum.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

No Suomi, Odin has a perfectly legitimate reason to be against this idea. Even thought this is mitigated from the version previously discussed (in this case, it would AT LEAST require an AA-speed unit to race to the front and spend some time setting up the base), I presume the idea is to operate aircraft sooner, right? Well, in a breakthrough situation, it is important that the defender gets at least SOME time to defend. Believe me, nine hours isn't even very much, and there is no need to take that down even further.

Something else I keep noticing about ideas being proposed: people always think about "how cool it would be to use new feature X". Very seldom, people think "how hard it would suck if my enemy used feature X against me". People should really do that more often when making suggestions.

Now, as for the actual thing being discussed, I see where the idea is coming from, but it probably wouldn't be a good idea without some major debuff applied to the aircraft using said airstrip(wether that be limiting the aircraft per field to 1, reducing the range of the aircraft, or damaging aircraft which use said airfield. Or making the field itself very vulnerable, to the point 1 or 2 good combat ticks of artillery bombardment can ground all aircraft operating from said field, and a single strategic bomber can obliterate them if patrolling overhead of them). Aircraft are strong enough as is, especially tactical bombers, which can usually reach 3 to 5 provinces into enemy territory without any problem at late game. Do we really need air fields which extend the range of aircraft even further into enemy territory in a shorter space of time than 9 to 18 hours? I don't think so.

Nova Topaz. thank you for your well-considered response. Best one of the lot.

Hey, I am glad we all looked at this.

Game on. Gotta go.

There should be a difference between a Air Base and a Air Field. An Air Field is a place where Aircraft can fly on it and refuel. Air Base is a place where you can build Aircraft. @WiseOdin If It's unrealistic to get a Navel Base in 15 minutes then how is it realistic for a Air Base to be built in 18 hours that can be used for everything what people don't need!!!. And that same Airbase can build and refuel unit's. This game is built on realism not on a fair level ground. Fine if it should be built like that why not ban Rocket's, Nukes and make everything like Scissors, Paper, Rock. I think the Air Field should be added to this game and it should take 1 hour to build it. In real life a Aircraft can land anywhere except the ground needs to be flat. But an Airfield can ONLY Refuel and land Aircraft.