Belmakor Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Just thought that there is no real reason to only allow two aircraft and the dropship as only the interceptors appear in the air combat anyway. In fact, it actually means that you can't always defend your drop-ship adequately against a heavy fighter flanked by two fighters as you simply can't carry enough missiles! Hopefully this is something you will consider Chris? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yes, I think this is something I'd consider implementing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yeah it would be useful to have a full squadron defending. It would be nice to be able to do the same thing with the transport planes as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 can the transport planes get taken out too? I haven't seen that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Romance Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 can the transport planes get taken out too? I haven't seen that yet. Unfortunately, yes they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyDylan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And when they do... bye bye squad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamoecw Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Unfortunately, yes they can. this is a very good feature, not sure what to do about the escort issue, other than allow 3 planes to protect it. another option is to send the chinook into air combat with no weapons, so that the fighters wouldn't be trying to kill the pursuers, but delay them long enough for the chinook to get away. then when back on the geoscape have the chinook and surviving escort gain some distance from their pursuers, rinse and repeat until they get back to base. though if the chinook gets away, maybe it could have escaped for good, depending on how hard you feel having your chinook survive should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 1 missile would take out the Chinook. Having such a slow target would be pretty much guaranteed to be fatal. Having 3 interceptors protect the transport would be better. A warning message to let you know that you have a transport to lose if you don't win (or hold out for so much time) would be nice as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amiga4ever Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 3x Interceptors + chinook sounds good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belmakor Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 Unfortunately, yes they can. Can you clarify that by transport you mean C-17? I had no idea they could be destroyed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Belmakor: yes the C-17s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belmakor Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 Belmakor: yes the C-17s In that case I would call for squadrons to support the C-17. It would have to be an option on the transfer screen though which might be complicated. Would it be better if C-17s couldn't be destroyed? It pretty much means you can transfer mid/late game what with all those aggressive fighters appearing from space and actively hunting you down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 When the enemies come in waves you can either risk the transport being attacked or you can wait until the skies are clearer. At the moment you need to manually protect the transport but a more automated method would be better. Maybe you should be able to click on the transport on the geoscape and launch fighters as if it was an intercept? They could then tail it until they reach the end of their fuel. If enemies attack the transport they have to deal with the escort before they can destroy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceVamp Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Yes. One could send out a meeting escort from the receiving end to escort the other half of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belmakor Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 When the enemies come in waves you can either risk the transport being attacked or you can wait until the skies are clearer.At the moment you need to manually protect the transport but a more automated method would be better. Maybe you should be able to click on the transport on the geoscape and launch fighters as if it was an intercept? They could then tail it until they reach the end of their fuel. If enemies attack the transport they have to deal with the escort before they can destroy it. In theory this should work and be encouraged. However in practice it is not very reliable. 1. Sure you can launch a squadron at almost the same time but then you have to manually select them and waypoint so as to keep abreast of the transport as it moves. A little fiddly. 2. The UFOs can come out from space almost anywhere, and can quite easily jump down and reach their maximum speed quickly. Its certainly possible you won't manage to intercept them manually. Sure they come in waves, but how do you know its actually a lull between waves. What if its just your radars haven't picked up the enemy yet? 3. There is no current benefit of moving more than one good in the same C-17. In fact the current set up actually encourages you to send out one item at a time so that if the C-17 does get shot down you don't lose much cash. i.e. it should probably be a set cost for the C-17 and it should have an item/space limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonVanCaneghem Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) The 3 vs 3 air combat is good, but I think we need to take a page from Star Control 2 here. You can create as large of a squadron as you want from your base (though naturally, bases will impose a limit due to hangers taking up space). In each combat you can have one "wing" of up to 3 interceptors. When those 3 are either wiped out or forced to withdraw (or manually withdrawn), you can send in another wing as reinforcements. If possible, it would be nice to be able to designate wings manually so that you could decide which ones to send in first. Imagine... the aliens using massive fleets as well and going on strafing missions for a late-game type of terror attack. Though at that point it gets a little hard to justify there not being tons of regular military jets counter-attacking... which could be cool, but it's a lot of extra features to add. In the meantime, I think the first part would be nice to have! Edited May 3, 2012 by JonVanCaneghem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 In theory this should work and be encouraged. However in practice it is not very reliable.1. Sure you can launch a squadron at almost the same time but then you have to manually select them and waypoint so as to keep abreast of the transport as it moves. A little fiddly. 2. The UFOs can come out from space almost anywhere, and can quite easily jump down and reach their maximum speed quickly. Its certainly possible you won't manage to intercept them manually. Sure they come in waves, but how do you know its actually a lull between waves. What if its just your radars haven't picked up the enemy yet? 3. There is no current benefit of moving more than one good in the same C-17. In fact the current set up actually encourages you to send out one item at a time so that if the C-17 does get shot down you don't lose much cash. i.e. it should probably be a set cost for the C-17 and it should have an item/space limit. None of which addresses the actual point in the post you quoted. You agreed at length with the first part about having to do it manually at the moment and that not being such a good method. You ignored the part of the post that suggested an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belmakor Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 None of which addresses the actual point in the post you quoted.You agreed at length with the first part about having to do it manually at the moment and that not being such a good method. You ignored the part of the post that suggested an alternative. Oh yeh, my bad! My brain didn't register his solution, only the part about manual control which I am heartily against as you can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I did get that impression Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.