Aircraft Refuelling Options in Sanctuary Shattered Sun

[Al]

Let's consider the options available for aircraft refuelling.

Aircraft refuelling isa crucial element in sustaining air superiority. There are various options for refuelling airborne forces, each with its own advantages and considerations.

Traditional Airbases:
The classic approach involves using airbases for aircraft refuelling. Players can construct dedicated airbases that serve as centralized hubs for refuelling operations. While this method ensures a secure and controlled environment for refuelling, it may require careful planning to place airbases strategically and protect them from enemy attacks.

In-Air Refuelling Units:
For a more mobile and flexible solution, players could deploy in-air refuelling units. These would be specialised aircraft that can rendezvous with other planes mid-flight, extending their operational range without the need to return to a base. This option adds a layer of strategic depth, enabling players to maintain constant pressure on the enemy without sacrificing precious time for refuelling. It would be a tactical option to destroy refuelling craft rather than attack craft.

Mobile Refuelling Stations:
Introducing a unique twist, players could be required to deploy mobile refuelling stations on the battlefield. These stations can move across the map, providing a strategic advantage by allowing aircraft to refuel closer to the action. However, players must be cautious as these stations may become vulnerable targets for enemy forces so would need to be defended against ground attack.

Strategic Capture Points:
Encouraging map control and strategic play, certain key capture points on the battlefield can be designated as refuelling zones. Holding these points grants players the ability to refuel their aircraft, promoting a dynamic and contested environment as both sides vie for control over these critical locations. We already know that key locations such as the weather control station will be strategic areas to fight over. Perhaps this could be another.

Refuelling Drones:
Embracing cutting-edge technology, players can deploy refuelling drones to replenish aircraft on the go. These drones offer a swift and autonomous refuelling solution, but players must protect them from enemy interception. This option combines efficiency with vulnerability, adding an intriguing risk-reward dynamic.

 

[Random Guy]

Idk, for me fuel mechanic I'd more of an annoyance, since for example in supreme commander it is there, but it doesn't really matter anything. It takes not little time to run out of it on t1 interceptors and almost never for any tier above, doesn't do anything except you have to go for a refuse after like 10 minutes(because t1 interceptors are never in the air all the time, so it takes much longer before they run out of it), and I don't think you would never have a safe minute to go back and refuel everybody. Only case where I could imagine for fuel to matter is on some ridiculous size maps where most of the map is water, because otherwise you can always just drop some engineers and build refueling platforms right there. Otherwise I don't see any reason to add such extra units as air refueling plane and drones or mobile refueling playform

Fuel mechanic from my point of view is just extra bit of not always necessary micro that doesn't really make game any more interesting, just sometimes annoying untill you build few of those refueling stations and forget that fuel is ever a problem

 

[Brodes]

Strategic Capture Points:
Encouraging map control and strategic play, certain key capture points on the battlefield can be designated as refuelling zones. Holding these points grants players the ability to refuel their aircraft, promoting a dynamic and contested environment as both sides vie for control over these critical locations. We already know that key locations such as the weather control station will be strategic areas to fight over. Perhaps this could be another.

Maybe this can be developed. In C&C Generals there were all sorts of different structures which could be captured and offered unique abilities. Maybe something like a capturable Omni?

 

[Random Guy]

Maybe this can be developed. In C&C Generals there were all sorts of different structures which could be captured and offered unique abilities. Maybe something like a capturable Omni?

Omni radar early on is just straight up OP, especially if the range of omni part is big enough to interfere with EDA trying to use stealth. Map control is already very important because of extractor placement and possibility to build long range artillery and such itself, and on top of that Sanctuary specifically will have Weather control systems, so you have to not add more strong points of interest to be usable, because it may as well make it impossible to win after one team captures it.

 

[Al]

Omni radar early on is just straight up OP

Likewise. Weather control station early on would also be OP. Map design is key.

 

[Random Guy]

Likewise. Weather control station early on would also be OP. Map design is key.

Not really, since it works both ways, you can use it to get an advantage like if enemy went navy and you froze it, but it can be predicted and countered in front, you may as well be caught in counter attack because of the choice you made yourself. Omni radar on other hand works only one way and would most likely give you full radar coverage of most of the map, since it is most likely to be in the center and it can not be countered really

 

[Al]

You don’t think the ability to decide if navy could be used is OP? Alright then.

 

[Random Guy]

You don’t think the ability to decide if navy could be used is OP? Alright then.

Huh? What do you mean by that?

Huh? What do you mean by that?

Oh, I am stupid, I thought it was in another thread.

You don’t think the ability to decide if navy could be used is OP? Alright then.

Kinda, but enemy has a proper chance to prepare for it and counter that. Remember, it works both ways, if you have navy too, obviously both of you will be affected and so chances that you might not do that are high, but if you are not building navy, enemy can see that and not spend much resources into the navy, especially since you have no navy and he doesn't have to spend much resources to keep control of it, this stuff is predictable and can be countered. With Omni radar it does not works both ways and there are no real consequences or risk is using it, it is only the pure advantage for you and enemy can not possibly counter that in any way, it does not create any interesting gameplay

 

[Sprouto]

View attachment 160
Let's consider the options available for aircraft refuelling.

Aircraft refuelling isa crucial element in sustaining air superiority. There are various options for refuelling airborne forces, each with its own advantages and considerations.

Traditional Airbases:
The classic approach involves using airbases for aircraft refuelling. Players can construct dedicated airbases that serve as centralized hubs for refuelling operations. While this method ensures a secure and controlled environment for refuelling, it may require careful planning to place airbases strategically and protect them from enemy attacks.

In-Air Refuelling Units:
For a more mobile and flexible solution, players could deploy in-air refuelling units. These would be specialised aircraft that can rendezvous with other planes mid-flight, extending their operational range without the need to return to a base. This option adds a layer of strategic depth, enabling players to maintain constant pressure on the enemy without sacrificing precious time for refuelling. It would be a tactical option to destroy refuelling craft rather than attack craft.

Mobile Refuelling Stations:
Introducing a unique twist, players could be required to deploy mobile refuelling stations on the battlefield. These stations can move across the map, providing a strategic advantage by allowing aircraft to refuel closer to the action. However, players must be cautious as these stations may become vulnerable targets for enemy forces so would need to be defended against ground attack.

Strategic Capture Points:
Encouraging map control and strategic play, certain key capture points on the battlefield can be designated as refuelling zones. Holding these points grants players the ability to refuel their aircraft, promoting a dynamic and contested environment as both sides vie for control over these critical locations. We already know that key locations such as the weather control station will be strategic areas to fight over. Perhaps this could be another.

Refuelling Drones:
Embracing cutting-edge technology, players can deploy refuelling drones to replenish aircraft on the go. These drones offer a swift and autonomous refuelling solution, but players must protect them from enemy interception. This option combines efficiency with vulnerability, adding an intriguing risk-reward dynamic.

The relationship of refueling to 'time on target' is a critical balance issue between air units and other arms. Air units are traditionally powerful units, but highly constrained by the necessity of both re-arming and refueling. Regardless of how that may be achieved, and all of the ideas are viable, I think that adding that layer to air operations is important, as it addresses the weakness in many previous RTS that gives overpowering ability to air units.

 

[Al]

Agreed. Air on account of its manoeuvrability is, if not over-powered, certainly significant in terms of game impact. Reducing the effectiveness of air power through issues such as refuelling would improve game experience.

 

[Random Guy]

The relationship of refueling to 'time on target' is a critical balance issue between air units and other arms. Air units are traditionally powerful units, but highly constrained by the necessity of both re-arming and refueling. Regardless of how that may be achieved, and all of the ideas are viable, I think that adding that layer to air operations is important, as it addresses the weakness in many previous RTS that gives overpowering ability to air units.

Air is actually not really overwhelming or strong if it is 1v1. Lately I lost like 3 last times when I played a naval map and I went for t2 air when enemy went for t2 navy. Air cam be countered by both naval and land. The issue for people comes from team games, where if one player is lost to his opponent, the strength if this enemy is gonna go on other player and it snowballs . If Sam's happens with land or naval you will get the same problem of losing, just Air cam be in more places at a time and it is its strength. It is inefficient to any other dedicated AA and is not OP, I don't think this another layer of complexity that is just annoying(and I would even say unfriendly towards new people, since you would always have to pay attention to it and they are generally bad at it) is good to add. There are already so many things to keep track on, adding another one that isn't even fun is just not a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Sprouto]

The idea that a game may have a higher degree of 'learning' involved with it, should not be a detractor - and assuming you want layers of skill to evolve, rather than it just be a button mashing exercise, suggests that mastery of various abilities, by the player, is a good thing indeed. Fuel operations - and the appropriate timing in the use of air assets, rather than just incessantly hurling them at your opponent, is what sets one game apart from another.

 

[Random Guy]

The idea that a game may have a higher degree of 'learning' involved with it, should not be a detractor - and assuming you want layers of skill to evolve, rather than it just be a button mashing exercise, suggests that mastery of various abilities, by the player, is a good thing indeed. Fuel operations - and the appropriate timing in the use of air assets, rather than just incessantly hurling them at your opponent, is what sets one game apart from another.

Except in this situation, the difference is if you can destroy 7 extractors normally or 4 because of flight limit. It doesn't add any strategic gameplay value, just an annoying chore of returning air units back all the time. Air unit operations are still limited in time by how soon the mobile AA comes. Forcing a player to bring another land or naval unit to be able to attack anything gives a lot of time for the opponent to just prepare and make the air raid useless. Air sucks when fighting AA, this is why the only reason why air is good is because of its mobility and ability to go everywhere, and such radical fuel mechanic change would strip this away, making air half useless in most of the times. Air should be balanced with other stats rather then taking away the core reason of why air is good.

 

[Sprouto]

I rather believe that the core reason as to why air is 'good' is it's speed of response - rather than both speed AND unlimited range.

 

[Random Guy]

(Damn, fir some reason it didn't send this 6 hours ago, so I do it now)
If such a mechanic was implemented in supcom for example, it would be terrible from the start of the game. Can't build a bomber to do early raiding against opponent. can't send interceptors to intercept enemy's dropship to kill it on big naval maps, dropping onto the enemy's base would be extreme difficult and chances of enemy reacting and moving defenses here are huge and even if it goes through you can not properly cover the units from air. I am somewhat skilled and better then majority of players in FAF and I still wouldn't have time to micro these annoying features of air units, on many maps would not even bother making anything except some interceptors because having a need to bring some land or naval refueling units would give my opponent more then enough time to prepare and completely counter any attack from air. If fuel mechanic was implemented in the way it is described here, half the people would not even bother using it, especialy the new players who do not have attention and APM to properly use air, it would be more efficent for them to spend it on any other thing

 

[Random Guy]

I rather believe that the core reason as to why air is 'good' is it's speed of response - rather than both speed AND unlimited range.

Response speed matters nothing if they are limited by range. You don't need to react to enemy's air raid with your interceptors because there would not be any since air raiding is now trash. If enemy doesn't skip AA, using gunships against land is useless, waste of resources. Normally if you build gunships you can at least try and raid enemy if his land army has AA. Such aggressive fuel mechanic would make these raids significantly more weaker and so unappealing for players to use. If you need a relatively slow naval unit to get to the enemy for a raid, he would have more then a ton of time to move AA there or build a new one, which would male air raids useless.

 

[Sprouto]

Supcom already has a fuel mechanic for air units - and air units will automatically seek an airstaging pad when low on fuel. I don't see this mechanic being any different, in fact, it has more options than the existing Supcom mechanic. The fuel range is a critical balancing tool that allows the air units to have natural feeling impact - while keeping them from completely dominating the game. If you abstract this, then you have to compensate in so many other un-natural ways that will simply confuse the player. I really don't buy into your defense on this matter - air units have always been limited by fuel range - and no one coming from any kind of background would challenge that premise.

 

[Random Guy]

Like, do you know that fuel in supcom matters nothing? It limits really nothing, only ever problem with it is with t1 interceptors. Units are not limited by fuel and they are mostly fine, especially in 1v1. Should I remind you that most people don't play 40x40 km maps where fuel on interceptors can matter? I have never seen any gunship or bomber run out of fuel, it is definitely not a limiting factor in supcom, and it is mostly fine. You aren't supposed to be all good with using only 1 type of units anyway. If enemy won air and you didn't win anything elsewhere, it is your problem. If enemy fought for air controll and won it, he has right to use air units offensively properly. Your suggestion of fuel mechanic would extremely limit usability of air and tie it to land or navy

 

[Random Guy]

If you abstract this, then you have to compensate in so many other un-natural ways that will simply confuse the player.

Also, you know what is unnatural? Plane in 28th century be limited to 10 or less minutes of flight in the air. The requirement of those special fuel refueling units and stuff everywhere would be hard to manage for any new player and so would discourage them from using it offensively entirely. Using air properly requires attention and is already problematic for many new players, fuel mechanic would make it even worse

 

[Sprouto]

Like, do you know that fuel in supcom matters nothing? It limits really nothing, only ever problem with it is with t1 interceptors. Units are not limited by fuel and they are mostly fine, especially in 1v1. Should I remind you that most people don't play 40x40 km maps where fuel on interceptors can matter? I have never seen any gunship or bomber run out of fuel, it is definitely not a limiting factor in supcom, and it is mostly fine. You aren't supposed to be all good with using only 1 type of units anyway. If enemy won air and you didn't win anything elsewhere, it is your problem. If enemy fought for air controll and won it, he has right to use air units offensively properly. Your suggestion of fuel mechanic would extremely limit usability of air and tie it to land or navy

It matters quite a bit - and you should remind yourself that the community in which you play SCFA is not all there is. There are many others, that do play on 40k maps on a very regular basis - some even 80k - and fuel time matters quite a bit. It was never intended that the game would limit itself to shoebox sized maps. If that's what you prefer, then you should say so - and be clear that you don't want any level of realism for any part of the game. There are many that can accept that - and I don't speak for the developers in that regard - the final say will be theirs.

If you want abstracted air units, then you need to consider operational range tethers, or air units with restricted weapons and low flight speeds - otherwise you allow the unlimited range to be that 'goto' feature that no other unit can match - capable of operation at any distance, over any terrain, at high speed - which is why the fuel mechanic was created for Supcom in the first place. They crossed this issue during development, and wrangled with precisely these same questions. Yes - it requires more intensive management - which is entirely the point - and yes - it was intended to be like that, just as it is with modern air operations - as they were looking to create a game with realistic operational aspects.

We really shouldn't be trying to compare one with the other - as I'm sure that while the development teams does indeed draw inspiration and example from many sources, they'll arrive at their own conclusions on these matters. You've provided your viewpoint based on your experience, and I provided the same, based upon mine. This is all we can appropriately offer.