Two suggestions for gameplay.

[AFJuvat]

Hello all,

I did a search and did not find anything quite like what I am suggesting, so I apologize if this has been covered previously.

My suggestion would be to expand the capabilities of both the fighter and the bomber so they can attack ground targets before DEFCON 1.

Fighters, replicating the ability to carry anti-radiation missiles, can damage or destroy radars. Something along the lines of three successful fighter attacks destroy a radar

Bombers, replicating the ability to carry anti-runway\ground penetrating weapons can damage (i.e. kill aircraft) or destroy airfields as well as damage silos. As an example, each successful bomber attack destroys "X" number of fighters or bombers, with the airfield being destroyed if attacked and there are no aircraft left.

In my opinion, this would radically change the dynamics of game play in as much as you would have to carefully place your units, as well as reducing the "throw away" status of aircraft.

[xander]

Yes, this would radically change the dynamic of the game, and completely unbalance it. Nukes become not nearly as important, and the whole point of the game is to use nukes. Sorry, I don't like this idea one bit.

xander

[ynbniar]

as well as reducing the "throw away" status of aircraft.

Also, I believe, though am not proficient at this myself, that some of the better players are extremely adept at keeping both bombers and fighters for as long as possible.

Probably something to do with "micro-ing", yet another thing I need to brush up on.

Bombers are certainly not "throw away" units and are key to a winning strategy in my opinion.

[Hyperion]

Much to my surprise (as i only saw this yesterday when playing, gotta love still being surprised by this game) i managed to score points in defcon 2...or was it 3, i dont remember. but it definatly wasnt defcon 1 because i checked when i was confused. Id launched fighters as scouts over spain and they were near a silo, which in turn was near a city and my opponent went down 1 point and i went up 1 point. Admittedly not a great deal but i took it as a good omen and thanked my escaping fighter pilot for downing his plane in their city. or for friendly fire, whichever caused this
Probably not a new phenomenom.

[Tucsoncoyote]

Now I had an odd thought about how to improve the game, and i think the weakest link here is the ability to 'scout' using fighters for recon. so I thought "What if we put "Tankers" into the game?

Now a (Refueling) Tanker is nothing more then a 'flying gas can' that is just flying a circular point.. and all it's used for is to 'extend' the range of a plane (Be it bomber or fighter) thus allowing for deeper penetration into a territory.

Now there is a downside to the tanker idea.. and that is you have to keep the tankers out of radar range of any territory, if they are picked up by a radar station , Silo, or even an airbase, They're fair game to be shot down.

So in a way the plus of a Tanker is to extend range of a fighter or a bomber, for better recon/ target selection, the downside is that they're viable targets even on Defcons 3-1, if they are picked up on Radar... so what about this idea?

Tucsoncoyote--

[bert_the_turtle]

We've basically already got them, they're called carriers

[Tucsoncoyote]

We've basically already got them, they're called carriers

True but you can't land , 'Land-based Fighters or bombers on Carriers.. even when carrier based fighters and bombers are destroyed, land based fighters can't be sent out to the carriers to support them (or can they and no one gave me the memo)

Tucsoncoyote--

[Montyphy]

Fighters and bombers from airfields CAN land on carriers

[Weps]

Fighters and bombers from airfields CAN land on carriers

but only if there is still space on them !

[Montyphy]

Fighters and bombers from airfields CAN land on carriers

but only if there is still space on them !

That goes without saying.

[Weps]

Fighters and bombers from airfields CAN land on carriers

but only if there is still space on them !

That goes without saying.

For you, me and a lot of others yes. For him, who knows, he might have been trying to land fighters on a full carriers afawk =]

[Montyphy]

Fighters and bombers from airfields CAN land on carriers

but only if there is still space on them !

That goes without saying.

For you, me and a lot of others yes. For him, who knows, he might have been trying to land fighters on a full carriers afawk =]

"even when carrier based fighters and bombers are destroyed, land based fighters can't be sent out to the carriers"

[Weps]

Fighters and bombers from airfields CAN land on carriers

but only if there is still space on them !

That goes without saying.

For you, me and a lot of others yes. For him, who knows, he might have been trying to land fighters on a full carriers afawk =]

"even when carrier based fighters and bombers are destroyed, land based fighters can't be sent out to the carriers"

oops didnt see that =]

still puzzles me why he failed tho