Air Change

Additional Units

Evil4Zerggin: Gunships may need units to cover the following:

Marmoth: Core flying bombs could be designed to hit air well (additional air damage?). Btw, they should make less chain reaction to have a chance to hit when numerous (perhaps remove some hp). For arm, T1 gunship could have some AA abilities (replace lazer type?). In anyway, gunship AA should be only a way to defend and not to take air superiority against aircrafts.

  • Saktoth: Krow and Vindi are good vs air: I suggest we take a page out of their books and give the Banshee and Rapier a more flexible turret, as the AA multirole options for gunships. Flying Bombs wont hit air, forget it, they're practically skimmers. Either that or we could make Vindi the AA option, but its already multi-role (In fact i think we should make it worse vs air).
  • Im not sure both gunships and planes should have anti-sub weaponry. They're already immune to subs. If you want to take on ships, use fixed-wing not gunships. I think thats reasonable. Its not like subs can hit air.



  • Relative costs of air pads and aircraft.
    • Expensive aircraft, cheap air pads: Encourages many and forward air pads, which are less risky if they are cheap, and allows expensive aircraft to fly sorties more often since closer air pads reduce travel time.
    • Expensive air pads, cheap aircraft. Encourages rear air pads, since more important to protect air pads. One might keep more aircraft on hand than can be supported by air pads in order to have the best one available for each situation.
  • Maximum operating ranges of aircraft.
    • Low range: Presumably this would make aircraft stronger to compensate. Air power is then more strongly local. Not sure how well the engine handles this though, especially making sure they land when not in use, although much can be h4xed.
    • Long range: Air more of a global force.
    • Note: Fuel use is 1 per second. 50 fuel will get an aircraft all the way across Altored.
  • Survivability of aircraft.
    • High survivability improves air pad dynamic, but also suffers from quantization (one bomber might survive one AA, but ten bombers against ten AA will probably get at least a couple shot down).
  • Number of attack runs per sortie.
  • Attack run behavior.
  • Number of bases per pad; repair/refuel rate.
  • Sea air pads.
    • Arm has carrier at T1; should Core get some form of air pad there as well? Is air pad + missile + drones + anti too much for one unit?

Licho: im open to any suggestions. I think pads should be more expensive than now.

Air and Sea

Error: Failed to load processor Poll
No macro or processor named 'Poll' found

quantum: I think planes should only be able to build surface sea buildings. I already implemented this some time ago.

Evil4Zerggin: Surface-only is fine for now, but when we integrate land and sea air I think we should allow both surface and underwater.

Licho: I agree with quantum. I think air should only build surface structures. I dont want air to become ultimate all-buildable constructor. In BA air is limited even more than land and you would make it the ultimate con. It should have very limited sea capability (surface mexes and some defensive structures) only.

Evil4Zerggin: It's not like air would get to build any more than amphs or hovers. Besides, we're moving in the direction of integrating land/sea structures as well (unless you also think that is a bad idea, which is another issue altogether).

Licho: well I think its a bad idea. Some integration is ok but dont overdo it. In most RTS games its "integrated" and it's not very fun.. It usually means that u can use air as main "tank" force. I always disliked that. I want air to stay in support role.

Evil4Zerggin: Is that really a function of what structures that air cons can build, though? It seems to me that the reason that air is more of a support role in most *A mods than most RTS stems from a greater advantage over land in speed at the cost of durability, and more focus on the ability to strike expensive, soft targets rather than direct combat; in other words, it's the combat units, not the constructors (most RTS I've played don't have flying constructors per se, at any rate, although I haven't played a huge number).

CarRepairer: I agree with quantum too. Make everything behave intuitively. Air/hover cannot submerge so they shouldn't build underwater where they cannot see or reach. Ships are submerged and can "reach" above and below the surface. If air can build on the highest moutain peaks like an all-terrain, and the lowest ocean depths like a sub, then that is too much. At least restricting it to above the surface of the water makes sense to think about.

Evil4Zerggin: One problem, though, is that a lot of structures have been made amphibious, e.g., energy/metal storages. If we were to disallow planes from building them, we would have to split them back into land and sea versions, which leads to somewhat redundant buildlist items. (Car: Just kludge it - have both an amphib and non amphib file for each relevant structure type, give air the non-amphib. It's messier in the underlying unit folder but neater for the player)

Neddiedrow: Licho, I would contest the assertion that air is support as it is now. While it is harder to use than in say BA or TiA out of the gate, you can main-line with it in some situations, and in team games it remains viable as a Commander-focused start. Be that as it may, I think that exclusively underwater structures should not be available to air construction units for the sake of logic, but the problem Zerg indicated above would need to be addressed, and preferably not by reintroducing redundancy.

Marmoth: For me, air should be able to build everything in sea as long as it is not underwater. Technical issues like the one raised by Evil4Zerggin should not come in consideration when evaluing how the game should be (as a result). (some solutions: standard mexes on water should be floating ones, other semi-sub structures shouldn't be buildable by plane if they dont reach the water surface - i dont know exactly how to implement it but it should be possible).