Wish List

[ScottWAR]

Originally Posted by spillblood

I agree on the idea bombers should have a short range, that they must be one square away from the target, because you see: If they bomb a target, they have to be directly over it.

Bombers dont use bombs,...they use air to ground missles which do have a much longer range in real life than any air to air missles,..so bombers having a longer range than fighters is realistic. However,...the tactical map is too small for fighters to use their addvantage effectively,..the ability to move faster. A bomber can make two moves and be in range to hit anything on the map.

[ScottWAR]

Originally Posted by ScottWAR

Bombers dont use bombs,...they use air to ground missles which do have a much longer range in real life than any air to air missles,..so bombers having a longer range than fighters is realistic. However,...the tactical map is too small for fighters to use their addvantage effectively,..the ability to move faster. A bomber can make two moves and be in range to hit anything on the map.

Correction,...the bombers in this game dont use bombs.

I guess it would be possible to mod in bombers,.......a regular bomber that has to be within 1 or 2 hexes to hit,..but that does significant more damage..........

I also like to see a unit that can shoot down missles....... but I have no idea how that could be implemented without a major change in the game itself.

[Skirmisher]

Originally Posted by ScottWAR

I also like to see a unit that can shoot down missles....... but I have no idea how that could be implemented without a major change in the game itself.

You'd just need anti missle missles, then maybe advanced lasers in the higher tech.

[Skirmisher]

The advanded area SAM (anti air) might allready cover that.

I have not built any anti air units yet because I haven't needed them. Standard fighter aircraft have been doing a nice job of that.

[spillblood]

Some modifications I can think of:
- Include some kind of retreat option in battles (some other users of this forum already suggested that). In the present version battles always end in the total annihilation of either your or your enemy's troops. I don't think this is realistic. You should have to try reaching your starting end of the map to make your troops retreat so that the enemy can decimate fleeing troops when he's in range. When there's no adjacent own territory to the one that's being attacked retreat should be impossible (you could cut off enemy troops this way).
- Fortifications are totally pointless when having no troops in the territories. This is a bit annoying at present because you always have to destroy them and they can't fight back when you attack a territory containing fortifications. Bunkers should be able to fire back even if there is no infantry in the territory. Another option would be that a battle involving fortifications and no other units in the defender's force should automatically end in defeat for the defender.
- AI should be modified again to not attack neutral territories when it's threatened by a strong enemy.

[spillblood]

Different AI difficulties you can set for each player would also be nice. And more game modes need to be included. Having to conquer every neutral territory after you defeated your opponents is just boring.

[spillblood]

Another thing: Nukes are way too powerful and too cheap. A way to hinder players from just buying 20 nukes and destroying half of the map would be for example specialized anti-nuke defenses. Nukes should be made more expensive. Maybe a new building type could be included, a silo that can load up and fire nukes that have been produced in the same territory so that you can't fire all nukes at once. And mobile launchers and subs should be able to load up nukes, too. In the present version they seem to have infinite nuclear ammo and you just can bomb your opponent every turn with them. Having to load up ammo would reduce their power. Another thing: Why can nukes only be fired at targets on the same continent (At least it seems so)? You can't bombard sea territories and other continents with nukes in the present version which is a bit unrealistic.

[spillblood]

Originally Posted by ScottWAR

Bombers dont use bombs,...they use air to ground missles which do have a much longer range in real life than any air to air missles,..so bombers having a longer range than fighters is realistic. However,...the tactical map is too small for fighters to use their addvantage effectively,..the ability to move faster. A bomber can make two moves and be in range to hit anything on the map.

I meant carpet bombing, which modern bombers are also capable of, but
you're right. The movement range of the bombers should be reduced. Maybe the attack range could be increased with higher tech levels (better guided bombs/ missile tech available)

[Frontman]

My wish (dream list)--

1. Radar stations would cost significantly more and have more range.

2. If the game can simulate the radar abilities of AWACs then it should be able to design in a Jammer plane. Oh like an Aardvark or a Prowler. That would be fun to see. Drape the fog of war over your opponent. (I've built and attacked with Stealth but what do they really do?)

OTHER THOUGHTs-- Air Transporting since the patch too easy. I run my attacks like Halo drop ships. In a single round, I can C5 drop in my tank, capture 3 countries, bring up the C5 and be loaded to fly next round onto virgin territories. This is far too easy. Prior to the patch I could cap like this if 2 countries were unguarded and then had to keep an eye on it. (Lets make it harder. Much harder.)

3. Someone already said this but--- aircraft should have a CAP presence and be able to flank off air movement in country beside them.

What do you think?