Finite flight range for aircraft ANSWERED

[Dahdee]

Currently planes can stay airborne indefinitely. They should have a "vanishing" effect that reflects their operational range. This effect would require a player to return to an airfield after a specified time frame based on the unit for refuel/repair, or lose the plane. This is a realistic game mechanic, and it has already been similarly used in relation to subs being forced to surface. Airfields would have a "delays vanishing" ability that caps at the maximum range for the units returned to it. This will add realism and depth to the game as it will require a more strategic approach to aircraft deployment. It will likely add more variety to the game as well if operational range must be considered. Perhaps the same high damage, fast planes we always use may not always be the best choice (looking at you, jets) if a plane cannot infinitely loiter for months or years in game time.

[HauptmannHorst]

I would support this idea. If handled right
For example the movement of planes would have to be reconsidered. If for example a plane has a speed of 10, now it's not a big deal to move only 1 or 2 squares because you have unlimited time to complete a journey but now it would be unrealistic to "lose" the remaining squares you could move. So now you have to be able to: move 3 squares up to an enemy unit performe the attack and "withdraw" with the 7 squares left, otherwise any form of dogfight over enemy territory would be rendered impossible.

[Dahdee]

I agree with you completely, and that would be part of it. I saw in another thread, I believe it was Stratego that said this, that a units range is factored into it's speed. So, I'm assuming their operational range is also in the XLS. IRL dogfights lasted between seconds and minutes, not weeks and months. What this would do is recreate that. Certain planes would definitely be able to strike into enemy territory, and just like IRL they would need to withdraw. There were many planes that had drop tanks as well. You could use the planes as they were actually used. Some were fast interceptors, some served patrol functions. Many instances where planes were also forced to ditch because they stayed in a fight too long. Also many missions where bombers could only be escorted so far due to range and then they were on their own. Definitely this would involve some adjustments to current stats, and it would probably be good to add a fourth carrier space to airfields as well, for your units on standby. I see how this worked for subs, forcing them to surface. For me, and this is just my opinion, the sub change is pure goodness. I'd like to see it happen for planes as well. Currently we have so many planes in the game, but really how many do you use, right? We use the same ones every time because they have best balance of speed and power. It's like they may as well not exist in the game. This way maybe more find use. Maybe such and such plane is not as powerful as this other one, but it outranges the higher damage one because it had drop tanks... suddenly it has a use. Certainly it will curtail jet spam late game. It's not like jets were the most common aircraft in late stages of the war. We have great piston engine planes late war that are never used because we just build a jet and fly it nonstop for weeks or months. This is meant to end that, and bring the realism we brought to the sea with the sub changes, to the skies as well.

[Dahdee]

Also, once returned to the airfield, not have to wait for your range to build back up. Just like with the subs, you land a turn, longer if you wish to repair fully and it takes more than a turn, just as now, and then you can be back in the air again.

[TntAttack]

@Stratego (dev)

What do you think? Perhaps this idea might be break a few maps so alternatively we should give engineers the ability to build airstrips so that there would be enough to accommodate plane refuelling.

If this is too much logistics, another idea we could do is decrease plane speed by half whenever out of "operational" flight turns as a incentive to get planes back to base but not fully punishing the player for it.

[DreJaDe]

@Stratego (dev)

What do you think? Perhaps this idea might be break a few maps so alternatively we should give engineers the ability to build airstrips so that there would be enough to accommodate plane refuelling.

If this is too much logistics, another idea we could do is decrease plane speed by half whenever out of "operational" flight turns as a incentive to get planes back to base but not fully punishing the player for it.

There are many reason why this is rejected...

What about tanks? What about soldiers? What about cars? What about trucks?

All of this require their own fuels which would then complicate the game. Even many mil sim type games doesnt have fuels with some even have aerial repair that doesnt make sense.

[Stratego (dev)]

Stratego (dev)

What do you think? Perhaps this idea might be break a few maps so alternatively we should give engineers the ability to build airstrips so that there would be enough to accommodate plane refuelling.

If this is too much logistics, another idea we could do is decrease plane speed by half whenever out of "operational" flight turns as a incentive to get planes back to base but not fully punishing the player for it.

i dont like the hassle with fuel in game, so this is true for this too.
i remember stopping playing with a game because they introduced fuel - became a logistical nightmare.

[godOfKings]

Wat about like the undead flesh golem with extended leaving, or was it bone golem? Basically within airport aura and range they can stay as long as they want, but if they want to attack they have to quickly do an attack and return to airport again b4 they crash, airport could make a 1 turn fuel that could increase leaving turns a lot, within airport aura range the extended leaving of plane will not decrease