Air Defense Mission changes in Server question
Gemini
During a spirited discussion in the Dopplganger Blitz, questions
regarding Air interception and missions arose. In February, the posting of the
change-log indicates that:
"Air defense is no longer separate from interception. Putting a plane on
air defense now merely changes where it intercepts."
I assume that it means you no longer get to intercept at 1/2 mobility when
your planes are on Air Def. missions - however, info mobility reads that planes
intercepting whilst on Air Defense missions are only charged 1/2 mobility -
otherwise, info mbility indicates that mission reactions are charged at full
mobility.
Can someone clarify "Air defense is no longer separate from
interception."? This is important, as Air Defense Missions can really help when
you need to save mobility. I'd rather put all planes on Air Def and limit their
area with radius if they get charged only 1/2 mobility - but of not, then its
much easier to just use the range command.
Sincerely,
Gemini
]g[
Gemini
> different for interception, escort and other flights. Flying a mission
> cost 1/4[*] of normal.
>
> Option MERC scaled the cost by 100/eff, and capped the result at mob+32.
>
> Empire 2 made MERC non-optional.
>
> Empire 3 introduced new mobility rules. Short range flights became a
> bit cheaper, long range flights a bit more expensive. The bonus for
> missions was reduced to 1/2. It was also documented in info Mobility
> for the first time. Oh, and the mission command charged half an
> update's worth of mobility.
>
> Empire 4 made mission free again, but dropped the mobility bonus. Info
> Mobility wasn't updated. I'm going to fix that.
>
> So, the change of air defense mobility cost happened long before the
> folding of air defense into interception. Some 12.5 years :)
>
> Thanks for pointing out the info bug!
Thanks for the reply, Markus.
Curious, over the years it seems that the code has been changed in order to
make it easier for attacking air to "get thtough". Examples being the change in
the abort formula made it less likely for a plane to abort - at the risk of a
higher chance of being shot down and the mobility bonus has been reduced from a
to decent number, to nothing.
What would the reasoning be behind this? It was always my impression that war
games always made it a bit more difficult for the attacker; usually giving the
defender several bonuses.
Planes are very cheap to build, so the risk of getting them shot down is quite
worth it of they get through. And the fact that the defender has to keep *so*
many more planes to defend against "mobility attacks" makes it appear that game
very much favors the attacker.
Since the AI for missions is pretty dumb, and they're generally used to
automate defenses when the player cannot be on to react to an attack, shouldn't
we give the benefit of the doubt to the defender - stuff using missions? Like
reduced mobility and increased attack values? Not by a whole lot, but enough to
put the onus on the attacker. The ideas behind this are that, say, the mobility
bonus is because reacting units have a single clearly defined goal against a
known target. Attacker pays for price b/c of the logistics and fog of war
involved in making the attack - yes those units/mil are in the hex, but, a hex
is a big place, where exactly are they - thus the full mobility. Small defense
bonus since the attackers have to commit themselves and make themselves a bit
vulnerable to do the attack - whereas the defender can take certain liberties.
Just some thought - I'm probably overlooking ways that these things can be
exploited - and through a realative newcomer lens, but, was curious if nothing
else about the changes over the years.
Gemini
Scott