Another gamey exploit is . . .

[stockwellpete]

. . . moving an aircraft unit into a city to prevent it being taken when no other units are able to reach the city in time. If aircraft units always recoiled if engaged by land units then this would deal with this problem. Air units unable to recoil for lack of space would be destroyed.

[Crazygunner1]

The idea behind aircraft is not only that planes are flying but that it also symbolises an aircraft base with crew for an entire air flotilla. The crew members and the tools they have put up small resistance when attacked.

I think it's resonable and quite expensive to use them in defense

[Myrddraal]

We did actually consider putting an 'always retreat' feature for aircraft, to prevent their use as last ditch defences, but the point is that you're supposed to be able to catch and attack them.

As Crazygunner said, it's a very, very expensive way to protect a city. Actually it's so expensive that unless you are on the brink of surrender, it's almost certainly not worth doing.

[stockwellpete]

We did actually consider putting an 'always retreat' feature for aircraft, to prevent their use as last ditch defences, but the point is that you're supposed to be able to catch and attack them.

Well, you should still be able to attack them on the ground as you can now - but after any such combat my suggestion is that they should automatically retreat so they cannot be used as last ditch defenders.

As Crazygunner said, it's a very, very expensive way to protect a city. Actually it's so expensive that unless you are on the brink of surrender, it's almost certainly not worth doing.

The ruse was used to stop my lead unit in a breakthrough capturing a city - it was then cut off, it went out of supply and was destroyed. If the aircraft unit had not been put there my unit would have entered the city, taken the PP's away from the enemy and even if it had been subsequently cut off it would still have been on half supply. My opponent would then have had to deal with the unit on his next turn. Quite a big difference in outcomes, I think.

[Crazygunner1]

True, but i think that was à tactical costly brilliant play by the opponent. Sure it is bitter when it happens and you have my sympaties, but i think that should be allowed to sacrifice a unit in order to gain some vital time

[stockwellpete]

True, but i think that was à tactical costly brilliant play by the opponent. Sure it is bitter when it happens and you have my sympaties, but i think that should be allowed to sacrifice a unit in order to gain some vital time

Well, if you do a "reality test" on the situation - would a squadron of bi-planes flying into a city be able to stop an army corps? Answer? No, definitely not.

[darkiemond]

Yes, but this isn't reality, is it? It's just a numbers game and with some rules and limitations based on WW1. And even if a squadron of byplanes would never be able to hold a city against infantry in real life it totally makes sense for the game.

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I know it is not reality - I am not living in a foxhole or anything like that. That's why I put speechmarks around the term "reality test". But some of us like to make things as historically accurate as is possible for a computer game. Others are not so bothered - and I think that we have different views about that particular discussion.

[darkiemond]

Sorry if I sounded a little too harsh, didn't mean to.
And you are right, in my book a good gaming experience always trumples historical accuracy.

[Plaid]

Well, if you do a "reality test" on the situation - would a squadron of bi-planes flying into a city be able to stop an army corps? Answer? No, definitely not.

Well, if you would like further "reality test" army corps was out of supply, and should be busy dying from hunger instead of attacking anything