Aircraft Move v Attack Range

That would be a lot better

Also...there could/should be the ability to adjust the movement speed to potentially give longer range?

Well, in this game if you change your mind while flying to your destnation you can just click stop and the aircraft will return to the airbase, similarly, you can change your direction to attack a unit. So they need fuel for your return trip for that reason. Although it would be nice for the game to have a "one-way move" option, but for me the freedom of re-positioning your aircraft is better for more range.

TomtheBuilder wrote:

but for me the freedom of re-positioning your aircraft is better for more range.

He's saying that he likes having the option to change his mind, sending the aircraft to a different destination, or sending it back to its current home base. That's more important than having a longer movement range. Not saying I agree/disagree

I like this but I think they would have to make the distance shorter to keep planes balanced

Yes, that's a problem. Already planes are too powerful, and too easy to move around the world. Real planes don't work like that. The USAF can't just re-base all its bombers on a Caribbean island, then move them to Iceland, then move them to Germany. Once established, they are very difficult to move, even more difficult than land units.

z00mz00m wrote:

Yes, that's a problem. Already planes are too powerful, and too easy to move around the world. Real planes don't work like that. The USAF can't just re-base all its bombers on a Caribbean island, then move them to Iceland, then move them to Germany. Once established, they are very difficult to move, even more difficult than land units.

Runways. Bigger, heavier planes require longer runways.

Repair facilities. Every type of plane requires different, specialized repair facilities, equipment, and trained mechanics.

Ordnance. Bullets, cannon rounds, mines, depth charges, bombs of different shapes and sizes. Supply depots and factories used to produce those things.

Every time the air force, or the navy, build a base, they construct it for certain types of missions, performed by certain types of planes. Changing over to a different mission would be hugely expensive, wasteful, and time consuming. Like transforming an amusement park into a university or a residential neighborhood. It's months-to-years of construction.

Let's say you have a huge air base with long runways and bunkers full of bombs that can level an industrial city. This base is far from the front line, because it's expensive and strategic bombers have a long range. Are you going to use this base for fighter planes, which will spend half their fuel getting to the front?

Flip the script, build a fighter plane base on a tropical island. It's good for scouting missions and providing air cover for the navy. How are you going to base long-range bombers? Where are the runways going to go? Where will you find space for bunkers and hangars? How are you even going to bring enough bombs and fuel to this island to operate the bombers?

The whole idea of moving a bomber wing is ridiculous. There's a reason the US Air Force couldn't bomb Japan until around 1945. By then, the war was already won, and US forces owned the entire Pacific Ocean.

Just to be clear, so moving the plane around the world is easy but expensive in the preparation, right.

According to your statement, making the airstrip more expensive to build, is near to realistic.

In my opinion, the simplest way to improve air mechanics without rebuilding the whole game is to increase air field requirements for different planes.

Interceptors and naval bombers, level 1, for the same reason they work on aircraft carriers.

Tactical bombers and dive bombers, level 2 air fields.

Strategic bombers and rocket fighters, should only operate from level 3 air fields.

This is nowhere near realistic, but it gets a step closer to realism, with little effort on the part of the game designers.

z00mz00m wrote:

There's a reason the US Air Force couldn't bomb Japan until around 1945.

well, techincally they did bomb japan before 1944 or 45 becuase of the doolittle raid

It came from an aircraft carrier, and the planes couldn't even make it back there, so it was merely symbolic/propaganda. You can't base really heavy bombers on a carrier to do some decent devastation.

Yeah i know that, but it was A bombing. Also do you reckon you know more than me about WWII K.Rokovvski? My nickname is WWII Expert no joke

GrandEmpire wrote:

Yeah i know that, but it was A bombing. Also do you reckon you know more than me about WWII K.Rokovvski? My nickname is WWII Expert no joke

GrandEmpire wrote:

Yeah i know that, but it was A bombing. Also do you reckon you know more than me about WWII K.Rokovvski? My nickname is WWII Expert no joke

Making Strat bombers require lv3 airbases would make them entirely useless compared to any other air unit and they are already very specialized and expensive so making them even more expensive would have the few people that use them disappear.

The only time I could think of using strat bombers is in the Battle of Britain event.

Otherwise, you really want to capture whole cities.

And there is no point in destroying a city you will soon own.

I DID earn that nickname.