Aircraft - wat should be done.

how should aircraft be procured?

  • calling them in as a small group/individual
  • having an airfield and building.

0 voters

hi there.

as i saw in a previous post on aircraft the developers were looking at the call in method of aircraft.
however, i am personaly extremely against this. 1 key reason why is due to the masses of AA your enemy can have - he might have 50 AA guns to take down the lone bomber you can dispatch. but putting a cap on AA doesnt work as not all of the field would be coverable.
my solution to this is a airfield that produces aircraft and can have parking areas built onto it. that way it gives the unique, realistic feal spring:1944 already has. that allso helps prevents there been a AA/aircraft ratio of 50:1. of course, aircraft shouldn’t be the cheapest thing, and we know why. but having to call them in is plain boring.

thanks,

litlepetslinki

(ps. hello! first post)

We’ve been through this more than once, but let’s start again.
First, the called-in planes are commandable. You can direct them in such a way to avoid AA positions (and if there is no such a way, then why call them in the first place?).
Second, as it is now, they have no ‘cooldown’, so you can in theory order a few sorties all at once (so that more than 1 group appears), provided you have lots of CP available.
Third, the airfield is such a large building that on most maps there are very few (if any) locations suitable for it (unlike the current radar which is rather small). Combine that with availability of long-range arty, and you should see that average life expectancy of an airfield is about 1 munite after first enemy scout sees it (and maybe even less - if you see planes lifting off, you often can figure out where the field might be).

well - realism. if you can’t keep a airfield on the map then who says you can keep one off the map?
and, reality crunch. think - why would you have to waste tons of CP to call in aircraft once then waste it again to call them in again when you can just build your own for the one off price? hell, a fuel limit could be implemented. also, having the call in reduces maximum attack size because we can only have so many command points at a time where as a airfield would allow us to slowly build up a big airforce, then launch a strategic bombing campaign followed up by invading ground troops. call-in would not allow that since troops would get the crunch and use all the CP for replacement. that would leave them aircraftless and left for meat to defences.

do you grasp wat i am trying to get across?

EDIT: on small maps, if its too small to have a airfield, then why even bother using aircraft? hell, Bocage could fit a airfield.
so could all the other maps. but i do see your point with long range artillery. buildings with camo? :stuck_out_tongue:

Realism matters, yes. That’s why you don’t see any (usable) airfields closer than at least 10km from the front line (more like 30-50 km), which will exceed the size of any Spring map yet made. All because of the same long-range arty, irl AND in S’44.
Plus, a battalion/regiment level commander (which you are in S’44) is very rarely given his own aircraft, that’s why they come back offmap after mission.
Unlike the A mods, in S’44 your force is not the whole army of your side on the planet, is not self-sufficient and should expect support from other friendly units. Aircraft are only a start of this system, ships can very well be called in via a similar routine once they are included (that’s not yet decided though).

well i think both ideas have pro and contra arguments and two ideas are good but i think “if” you can call the planes all maps need “surrounding terrain” where maybe you can see the airfield? ^^ and from that you can call them in to the map.

Or the maps will be made bigger and only on the really big maps is an airfield buildable?
Anyway I personaly would prefer the buildable Idea but to call them in the heat of battle would be cool to i think and maybe something new in Spring… ^^

Your concept of ‘realism’ is rather flawed. Forward commander of a small force (battalion size at most) storing aircraft on the ground within a kilometer or two of the enemy? “Strategic bombing” refers to the use of hundreds of heavy bombers (which we are not including in the game) in a determined effort to destroy the strategic resources of an enemy - cities, factories, powerplants, ect. That does not include small force concentrations in tiny skirmishes.

Even forward airfields were never intentionally built anywhere near front lines - the only time you’d see aircraft taking off from a field and attacking things in the immediate vicinity is if the enemy had advanced far enough to threaten the field with capture.

At some point in the future we may see a map with a usable airfield of some kind, but the core aircraft mechanic is not going to change.

mhmm during ww enemys try to captcher the enemy airbases if its a strategy point? mhhmm maybe you guys include a “neutral”-airfield in the map and it can taked by everyone (like a flag but longer to takeover) and from this base you can build planes and use them? well idk if this would be a good idea but i need to say that i like the idea “to call them in the map” better and better …

It’s still quite possible to “save up” for rather large air armadas to launch a massive air assault on the enemy. It requires not requisitioning units for a bit, sure, but you’re still able to call in a couple dozen fighters, or 8-10 fighter-bombers or attack aircraft, or ~a half dozen attack bombers. Anti-aircraft is also very vulnerable to all types of attack; even a dogfighter can take out an AA rather easily.

mhmm i think it would be save resources (Computer resources) too if you only can call them in, i like the idea ^^

Call-in is the way to go, and it’s the way it’s going to go.

IMO there are some issues with the call-in mechanic and the aircraft buildtree (or lack thereof), but it’s a fundamentally sound idea.

The higher tier planes aren’t done yet, felix :stuck_out_tongue:

Nah, the issue is more that, by building a radar you get insta-pwnage stuff immediately, rather than a gradual step-up of killing power with increasing investment of command.

It’s like Tiger II being in the Vehicle Yard.

Unless it’s changed…

Obviously plane balance is still heavily WIP.

The planes cost different amounts, and none of them can be used to go for a direct attack on the enemy HQ immediately (they spawn with AA around them).

But yeah, we to play more to sort out air balance a bit.

haha its 50-50 now. That poll is currently useless, then :smiley:

Even in reality airfields were not much more than a command tower, maybe a few plane baracks and some slightly prepared runway.

Could the “airfield” as building not just be a tower and the planes start on the gras?

Creating planes could be a compromise: Creating actually means calling them in, and once they arrived on the map they can refueled and reloaded on the “improvised” airfield.

Edit: I know you probably don’t like the question, but is there any date when planes will be implemented? Just a rough idea? Within next 3 monts? 6? 24?

Aircraft are already implemented, the only hold is playtesting. They are WiC style, as discussed earlier - you build a command/control radar/radio set, and order missions on specific targets.

Uhh, I don’t mean to sound rude here, but the argument that airfields are not feasible, because the current set of maps doesn’t support them, is a pretty empty argument to me. Aircraft make up a key element of the wide variety of units you can have in most RTS games, including among them, in the future, Spring 1944. You design maps for features - not the other way. Like I have stated here, it’d be good to have both options, which one is used would be defined either by the host or in the map file. Spring 1944 is also going to have a navy as far as I know, yet there are few water maps suitable for that. Are the ships going to spawn out of thin air without ship construction sites and harbors? No? Airfields would certainly be worth the effort to have maps designed to suit them.

There are engine limitations which make units as large as our airfields very ugly. A 40x40 footprint is impractical to construct in the normal way, since the unit can then either build things from 200 meters away, or can’t ever build the airfield without being inside the footprint. Further, simply spawning the airfield (to avoid the engine problems with construction) inevitably causes problems with shearing terrain and unit pathing (given the massive size).

In terms of maps, there is very much an upper feasible size limit. Even the largest Spring map is too small for it to make sense to have an airfield constructed there.

As for large ships - yes, they are in fact going to spawn at map edges and drive in. The point is that as a battlefield commander, doing any more than prepping units for immediate usage makes no sense, and a forward commander would never be fueling/arming planes within a few kilometers of the conflict except in emergency situations - likewise for big ships. In terms of gameplay, there is no way to make a factory unit large enough to house some of our ships (or a runway) without causing the problems mentioned in the first paragraph.

Planes are implemented, and they are as they are. I do not forsee any drastic change to their functionality.

Plus, making planes able to takeoff/land requires their models to have retractable landing gear. All the fighters are modeled with it, but my newer plane models do not have it (not that any of those are textured yet).

hmm, how about an option in MOD OPTIONS where u can have either call-ins/air fields/none. this would help keep the fights even and let players decide for themselves which is better. also, after a little bit of time(say, 1 week) u can just have a poll, and if everyone says one way or the other, get rid of the other things that has the lowest votes. also i think if u were to add an airfield, u should have parking positions for the planes. it would ease the super spam problem. like say, one plane parking hold 4 planes. u can have at max like 10-20 of those. Then AA would be limited too. say 50 AA per faction. plus if a group of players spams AA in one place, then there is always a ground invasion followed by a bombing raid. i think we should also add fuel like in NOTA.

EDIT: btw, i voted for airfields. :slight_smile: