Air fuel restrictions

[Pluto77189]

I recall being disappointed from the start (Supcom beta) regarding the power and utility of air units. I stopped playing TA because of the T2 fighter spam, and I didn't like seeing the same problem in supcom.

It's not nearly as bad, as air fighters can't target ground like in TA. But still, you have a swarm of T3 fighters, you dominate. Basically, the air game dominates the ground game. And the ground game is deep.

I was wondering if anyone has created a mod which severely limits the utility of air units by stripping them of much of their fuel/range? They would be no less effective--when you have provided them forward operations bases/carriers/fatboys/czars. For big maps, this would mean a lot more thought would have to be put into managing aircraft. You may be able to get an ASF across a big map, but without a carrier, it's run out of fuel. This would prevent a turtler from spamming air without expansion on a large map. It'll also require investment and defense of air pads.

If you had to refuel all 138 of your fighters much more frequently, you wouldn't just send them across the map unassisted. I think this would be a fun way to limit air without limiting the units' abilities.

Has this been done?

(I will be playing FAF soon - I am upgrading my PC this weekend)

[Apofenas]

The fuel mechanic is cancer in this game. If it was suddenly removed - nobody would ever notice or miss it because doesn't bring anything except making you fight UI.

[keyser]

well i guess it was a way of balancing the different tech of the air on very big map 40x40/80x80. Can imagine interceptor having way better stat for same mass investment compared to asf; but lacking on fuel. In this case, inte are aimed to defend bases while asf can actually travel between bases. But nobody play this kind of maps anyway.

[armacham01]

Nobody plays those kind of maps, and also, the reason interceptors can't cover big areas is not so much the fuel requirement, but the fact that they move so much slower than ASF.

So you don't actually need a fuel mechanic to give ASF an advantage on large maps. (Also, if you can micro the ASF, so they don't just turn in tight circles in the middle of an inti ball, they are much more mass efficient than interceptors)

Air staging is of course still useful in general because of the ability to cheaply heal the planes. And carriers are still useful not only for repairs, but also because they can hide the number/type of planes inside them and they can manufacture planes. So eliminating the fuel mechanic would not actually make any unit type obsolete.

We could also consider removing the fuel mechanic for anything EXCEPT t1 interceptors. I don't think there would be a big difference in gameplay if ASF never ran out of fuel. As long as the fuel mechanic was confined to a single unit type, it would not be complicated for players to learn. It would preserve the reasons for having fuel requirements in the first place, but also make the game less complicated with regard to every other unit type. the in-game explanation could be pretty simple (interceptors are intended to be very cheap and disposable so they don't have a power plant inside, but all of the other planes have it)

[Axle]

100% with apofenas fuel mechanics only impact is to frustrate. (except for mercy, i think fuel limit on mercy is good)

[____]

Yeah, I really don’t like the fuel mechanic either.

Air staging has become a lot better over the years, though it still takes ages to refuel your units with it since they just behave horribly when doing so (e.g. by making pointless turns). I feel like always when I want to refuel my air, it is needed somewhere else instead and I have to cancel the whole process. It actually kind of keeps you from playing the game since you are forced to do an unnecessary secondary step to keep your air operational instead of just building and then using it like with all other units.

I would be 100% on board with removing it altogether.

[armacham01]

The fact that people often land their planes does make the game a bit more interesting. If they are landed in the wrong place, they can be killed by tanks/artillery. They can be taken out with a billy nuke, etc.

A lot of this is dumb. If you accidentally land your interceptors near enemy tanks, it would make sense for them to take off immediately. But they don't. They just sit there and die a sad death unless you manually move them. That happens all the time in games and it is not particularly interesting. It can be amusing to watch a replay where someone has 20 parked intis that start dying to lobo fire, but I can't say that it actually makes the game better. Removing the fuel mechanic would get rid of this, which is not a bad thing.

On the other hand, when someone intentionally parks their ASF in a certain place, if you can find a way to hit them with land units, TMLs, artillery, etc. then it seems like a decent thing for the game. The game would be rewarding someone for playing smart. So I don't hate that aspect of ASF fuel requirements. Getting rid of fuel requirements have benefits and drawbacks.

I guess there is still some incentive to land your planes: you can keep the ASF together in a tight pack. If you have them patrolling over a large area, they might be scattered when a big air fight happens. So we would probably start to see people putting ASF on patrol in very tight circles, so they can keep the planes together without having them landed. This would look stupid. It can be a dramatic moment when a lot of planes suddenly take off from the ground. If we get rid of fuel requirements, we might lose that, unless there is some other incentive to land your planes. We don't want to make a change that takes away from the majesty of the game's graphics/presentation.

[Sprouto]

In The LOUD Project we considered this very subject at some great length - and made the move to considerably shorter fuel times. This change, in turn, dramatically increased the importance of judicious use of air staging and the planning of air operations with range as an aspect. While long-range air operations are still possible, the time-over-target is dramatically reduced, meaning that targets need to be focused upon, with little room for wandering about.

Now, on 20k maps and less, it's not really much of a concern, but beyond this, there is a perceptible shift in the overall value of air units in comparison to other arms (land and naval).

[Pluto77189]

That's what I'm talking about. I used to like the big maps - 40 and occasional 80km maps. They become air centered nuke fests. I felt air with much less fuel would shift the game so that it required more planning, more strategy, especially in using air. Now it's point and click, watch target die. If you had to fuel the things in between takeoff and target, you will have to consider that.

[Rikai]

Now, on 20k maps and less, it's not really much of a concern

Sadly for your project, 20km and less are the only maps that get played => are relevant.