Airstrike nerf

[KathrinaHunt]

Hey Guys... i am really disappointed about the airstrike nerf.... isnt there a Chance to get at least double the damage of what it has now? .... or will it stay forever this weak?

Think airstrikes are one of the niced Features of RenX.... really sad 2 see that ist not used very often anymore...

[ARC_trooper]

Airstrikes were too powerfull imo in beta I, you could destroy a bunch of vehicles for a small ammount of $. I do agree that i havent really heard many airstrikes these days and i dont know what they have done to the damage ratio

[SFJake]

It completely ruined the game pre-nerf

They still need to not work over beacons.

I'd still rather they not be in the game at all, but at the very least nope, don't buff them, by all the gods.

[Terekhov]

They were a good idea, just need to be refined more. A smaller area of damage combined with a clearer representation of that area for the caller plus higher damage for the area that IS struck would be a good compromise

[Valor]

I still think the best way is to make them do more damage only on your teams half of the map.

[sterps]

Since the nerf, airstrikes are next to useless. I never buy them anymore, and they're definitely not worth $800. I agree they needed a nerf, but they were definitely nerfed too much.

A friend and I ran some tests after the patch by grouping all of GDI's vehicles in a bunch, and all of Nod's in another. We then took a turn to airstrike each others vehicles, with ourselves amongst the vehicles as a hotwire/techncian. The only vehicle that was destroyed was the humvee, not even the hotwire or technician were killed. The buggy, arty and mlrs had below 50% hp. Where as the rest, had quite above 50%. The mammy had 75% and the flamer 82%.

You know they're useless when a player uses an airstrike on a group of attacking vehicles, and none of the vehicles move and repairers just take cover in vehicles, because they receive little damage. When the airstrike is over, the little damage is quickly repaired.

What I'd suggest is keep all changes, but give the airstrike a damage buff of 50%.

[SFJake]

I don't see why thats necessary.

A single bomb can do 100 damage to an infantry and the airstrike throws quite a lot of bombs. That is huge, and I never stay around an airstrike as an engi/hot or I'm very likely to die.

Damage against vehicles isn't insignificant either especially for all the range and area of effect it has.

Both of those mean its totally unwise to stay around the airstrike.

So using airstrikes to break siege works just fine. Thats all its supposed to do.

[Darkraptor]

I think the price for the airstrike should be now 600 credits.

If you make the airstrike cheaper, it would be a compensation to the weaker damage.

And player are more able to call two airstrikes at ones to breack the siege.

[GatsuFox]

Since the nerf, airstrikes are next to useless. I never buy them anymore, and they're definitely not worth $800. I agree they needed a nerf, but they were definitely nerfed too much.

A friend and I ran some tests after the patch by grouping all of GDI's vehicles in a bunch, and all of Nod's in another. We then took a turn to airstrike each others vehicles, with ourselves amongst the vehicles as a hotwire/techncian. The only vehicle that was destroyed was the humvee, not even the hotwire or technician were killed. The buggy, arty and mlrs had below 50% hp. Where as the rest, had quite above 50%. The mammy had 75% and the flamer 82%.

You know they're useless when a player uses an airstrike on a group of attacking vehicles, and none of the vehicles move and repairers just take cover in vehicles, because they receive little damage. When the airstrike is over, the little damage is quickly repaired.

What I'd suggest is keep all changes, but give the airstrike a damage buff of 50%.

Airstrikes shouldn't flat out kill tanks, it should just be to help kill them. It should just help and not be the end all solution to mass tanks.

I think the damage should be slightly buffed, very slightly, but it needs a revamp on its mechanics. It still isn't clear where the airstrike will deal damage for both parties (the placer and the victims) so it's almost random what happens. It's too hard to know how to take advantage of it.

[R315r4z0r]

I don't think airstrikes were adjusted properly. I agree with the price increase but it had too much of a damage nerf.

Players aren't afraid of them anymore so they don't bother getting out of the way when they are called in. They should do enough damage to cripple a group of tanks that don't bother to react. It shouldn't completely obliterate an enemy attack, but make them scatter and have to regroup. It does, however, have to effectively kill techs that don't find cover.

I still stand by my concept of player cooldowns. You use it then you have to wait 5 minutes or whatever to use it again.

Also, you shouldn't be able to use airstrikes on beacons.

[sterps]

Airstrikes shouldn't flat out kill tanks, it should just be to help kill them. It should just help and not be the end all solution to mass tanks.

I think the damage should be slightly buffed, very slightly, but it needs a revamp on its mechanics. It still isn't clear where the airstrike will deal damage for both parties (the placer and the victims) so it's almost random what happens. It's too hard to know how to take advantage of it.

That's why i said a 50% buff...

50% of it's current damage (which is half), then added on top. That still shouldn't kill arties and MLRS.

This would assist in breaking tank concentrations up more and not be the 'end all' for tanks, but just damage them a bit more. The spread damage of each shot is very little now and damage buff would balance this.

I don't see why thats necessary.

A single bomb can do 100 damage to an infantry and the airstrike throws quite a lot of bombs. That is huge, and I never stay around an airstrike as an engi/hot or I'm very likely to die.

Damage against vehicles isn't insignificant either especially for all the range and area of effect it has.

Both of those mean its totally unwise to stay around the airstrike.

So using airstrikes to break siege works just fine. Thats all its supposed to do.

Well that's the point isn't it, to not hang around an airstrike when one is incoming.

If you stand around in the field or battlefield, your likely to be sniped in one shot, shelled by a tank or just flat out killed.

Point being, you shouldn't stand around in one area for too long in any situation.

At the moment, airstrikes are doing a lousy job in assisting in breaking sieges... Infantry only sometimes receive damage, you can stand in the middle of an airstrike area as any infantry with the possibility of coming out unscathed.

Tanks don't even flinch from them, and their damage is quickly repaired.

I'm in agreement with what R315r4z0r is saying.

[Soldieroffate]

Airstrike pre beta 2 was OP. You can easily destroy an entire column of tanks with just two of them and everyone abused the hell out of them.

The price balance was okay, but the damage output is laughable now to the point where I don't see them being used anymore. The only good purpose for them is to act as a credit sink when you have too much money to throw away.

[iran]

Airstrikes are pretty much useless right now and it completely kills the meta-game, on C&C_Field GDI has a 90% win rate now.

[GodRider]

Just increase the price and so increase the damage.. So it would be a powerful weapon that cost a big amount of credits to sweep out some tanks.

[SFJake]

Airstrikes are pretty much useless right now and it completely kills the meta-game, on C&C_Field GDI has a 90% win rate now.

See, this is the problem. People that think Airstrike are some kind of fix to anything. They aren't. Airstrike break more shit. The fact that Nod always loses on Field speaks of many other balance problems that actually need to be adressed. Not a retarded "blow it all" button.

[R315r4z0r]

For the record, Iran is trolling.

[SFJake]

Oh, I didn't notice the name. I should have known.

[Terekhov]

Also, you shouldn't be able to use airstrikes on beacons.

You have 40 (50?) seconds to disarm a beacon. An airstrike is 10s. If your team is that bad, they should lose anyway.

See, this is the problem. People that think Airstrike are some kind of fix to anything. They aren't. Airstrike break more shit. The fact that Nod always loses on Field speaks of many other balance problems that actually need to be adressed. Not a retarded "blow it all" button.

Really, Nod losing on field? I win as Nod as much or *more than* GDI on that map. Doing it wrong if you're losing.

[SFJake]

Yeah. -Me-. I know people tend to utterly suck and I almost brought up the point, but dont waste my fucking time telling me to get better.

[Savas]

What a bad move to nerf the airstrikes and listen to people that basically want to make this game another game they have played and I thought I read somewhere that's exactly what they DON'T want to ever do.. Those suggesting to remove it completely out of the game, this was the exact signs.

If you considered airstrikes to be too powerful for the value of it, then it should have been upped in price slightly and kept the same effect..

- It was one time use,

- the risk of dying and not even using it,

- the risk of using it and not getting any kills because they moved away..

This is what made it balanced, If you're clustered up and you hear airstrike, then DUH you move out of the cluster.. No lets not use our brains, let whine about 700 credits being a simple trade off.. If that was the case then everyone would be buying airstrikes instead of anything else.. What a pathetic reasoning.

If you made the error to stay and camp in one spot and in a cluster then you obviously deserved to be taken advantage of.. It REDUCED the camping that is in this game, it tipped the tide of war to those paying attention and rewarded the better team. Now that it's been nerfed, it feels like a camping game, sitting outside bases waiting to sneak a nuke in, because my last game, we tried rushing with 6-7 tanks against nothing but infantry and ALL got wiped out without even getting their tower..

I don't enjoy games that promotes camping.

[Krose21]

Agree completely. Only thing I like about the nerf is no more mass insta kill of infantry, I like the damage it does to infantry as it is now, makes it more of the defensive tool it should be.

[R315r4z0r]

Also, you shouldn't be able to use airstrikes on beacons.

You have 40 (50?) seconds to disarm a beacon. An airstrike is 10s. If your team is that bad, they should lose anyway.

55 seconds until impact. 45 seconds until imminent.

Airstrikes attack a target for about 5-8 seconds. However there is also a significant delay after they are targeted... about another 5-8 seconds. So that's a potential 16 seconds. People hear the airstrike announcement and get to cover because they don't know where or when the strike is coming.

So, in 45 seconds, you need to find and travel to the beacon, kill the planter and potential defender(s), then equip a repairgun and disarm the beacon. If an airstrike is called, you only have about ~28 seconds to do this. Also, for the record it takes about 10 seconds for a single engineer to disarm a beacon.

Now, this isn't taking obvious variables into consideration.

-How many people are defending the beacon if any?

-How many people are available to disarm the beacon?

-How many beacons were placed?

-How many airstrikes were placed?

If you place a beacon and then have a series of other players place airstrikes at about a 10 second interval from each other, then the beacon becomes impossible to disarm no matter how good your team is.

[Terekhov]

Also, you shouldn't be able to use airstrikes on beacons.

You have 40 (50?) seconds to disarm a beacon. An airstrike is 10s. If your team is that bad, they should lose anyway.

55 seconds until impact. 45 seconds until imminent.

Airstrikes attack a target for about 5-8 seconds. However there is also a significant delay after they are targeted... about another 5-8 seconds. So that's a potential 16 seconds. People hear the airstrike announcement and get to cover because they don't know where or when the strike is coming.

So, in 45 seconds, you need to find and travel to the beacon, kill the planter and potential defender(s), then equip a repairgun and disarm the beacon. If an airstrike is called, you only have about ~28 seconds to do this. Also, for the record it takes about 10 seconds for a single engineer to disarm a beacon.

Now, this isn't taking obvious variables into consideration.

-How many people are defending the beacon if any?

-How many people are available to disarm the beacon?

-How many beacons were placed?

-How many airstrikes were placed?

If you place a beacon and then have a series of other players place airstrikes at about a 10 second interval from each other, then the beacon becomes impossible to disarm no matter how good your team is.

I've already posted a lengthly reply on this topic here; I'll quote part below:

Teamwork/coordination is part of what makes RenX a fun game to play; I disagree that we should coddle players and take away from what can be the most exhilarating experience in a match. Cutting off half the map or giving airstrikes a marathon cooldown are two ways to take away from that, and I'm not buying either. That Said:

You're right that they're too OP with regards to nukes/ions at the moment. An interval of 30 to 40 seconds between airstrikes would be perfectly reasonable, and ensure that the attackers would only have one chance at a good airstrike for the duration of a beacon countdown. Perhaps even increasing it to 1min 30sec or 2min wouldn't be a terrible thing.

I don't think airstrikes need to be nerfed in other ways; they have become exactly what they were meant to be: a tool in the toolbox, not an answer for all problems. It's an additional element of strategy which adds value to the game, and should stay as-is with tweaks to their frequency.

So:

Put some rule in place to keep more than one airstrike being launched into the beacon's area during launch time? Absolutely, this makes sense. I disagree that the airstrike needs any more of a nerf than it's already been given, however.

At this point it needs tweaks that buff and nerf its different attributes (/visibility/damage/damage spread) to make it viable again without raising too many protests from the anti-airstrike zealots.

[Quackmaster]

Hey Guys... i am really disappointed about the airstrike nerf.... isnt there a Chance to get at least double the damage of what it has now? .... or will it stay forever this weak?

Think airstrikes are one of the niced Features of RenX.... really sad 2 see that ist not used very often anymore...

I wish they would change the A-10 a bit, the bombs it drops seems to be the only good thing about it, the main cannon doesn't really do much damage it seems, hell there like explosive rounds coming from a Gatling gun, you'd think they would hit more stuff. I also don't really like how the A-10's will go in a middle-left-right pattern or what ever, I wish they were just straight on.. Some may not agree with me, but I think this would be pretty cool. Also make the AC-130 do more damage to vehicles, if I'm in a APC, and someone calls in a AC-130 on me, and most bombs hit I really don't take much damage. You'd think the bombs from the gunship would deal about the same damage from 1 shot of the arty. Just my 2 cents.

[R315r4z0r]

So:

Put some rule in place to keep more than one airstrike being launched into the beacon's area during launch time? Absolutely, this makes sense. I disagree that the airstrike needs any more of a nerf than it's already been given, however.

At this point it needs tweaks that buff and nerf its different attributes (/visibility/damage/damage spread) to make it viable again without raising too many protests from the anti-airstrike zealots.

That's over complicated and confusing. "You can use an airstrike in that area except for if someone else is using an airstrike in that area." New players won't understand it let alone care to try.

One of the first rules of designing a game is to not frustrate new players with obscure rules and regulations they would have no means of understanding without previous experience.

One of two things need to be adjusted to address this issue.

1. All bases need anti-air defenses. Anti-air defenses will defend against all airstrikes placed within the base's proximity. Destroy the AA, gain the ability to deploy strikes in their base.

2. Disable beacon airstrikes completely.

[goztow]

Is it just me or is the airstrike already nearly useless at this moment?

[SFJake]

Is it just me or is the airstrike already nearly useless at this moment?

They still see dumb over-beacon usage.

Otherwise useless.

Remove it from the game already.

[RoundShades]

I always thought airstrikes are area denial. Basically, their only use is to get breathing room when sieged by tanks (because yours can heal and theirs can't if theirs is being airstrike), to cover beacons (which isn't op, it is money well spent, like driving an APC through a base to park atop a beacon at it's 25 second mark), and to have SOMETHING if your base can't produce infantry or vehicles.

Disabling airstrikes in-base as long as an "AA" exists sounds interesting, it doesn't break any of the above, and does sort of allow a very very mild buff. Although, I don't understand why they don't make it where it brings a tank down to half health, and infantry down to near dead in 2 hits which means they need to escape the airstrike area by the last hit. They have "armor types" to fine-tune the damage for tanks and infantry seperate.

A 15 second cooldown for team use of airstrikes makes sense, since airstrikes require air support and air support can "already be tied up/in use" (and that voice message can play when one tries to even bring out binoculars while airstrike is already out)

[Truxa]

On the field map, or other maps for that matter, it isn't possible to deploy an airstrike across the map. It seems limited to distance. This is portrayed as the circled target area on the ground not being displayed.

This very same feature (not displaying the target area) could be implemented in a "no go area" e.g. inside a base with AA up, or near a beacon or even when the team-timer is up, it will not display at all! (or perhaps faded out so atleast you can get a good aim)

It doesnt need to be complicated, if it's not visible to deploy, you can't. Newguys understand that. Smart newguys ask why. Dumb guys will keep binoculars on and wait for the timer to expire and drop the strike there and then with a higher chance of being sniped down (for being exposed)

Or as an extra UI timer in the middle bottom screen next to the maptimer, the airstrike timer is displayed?

[Blade]

I would say that the damage output to light armor should be increased a lot. Just the 30mm rotary cannon on the A-10's should slice through arties like butter. Heavy armor would still take low amounts of damage.

Also there should only be one airstrike going on at a time.

[Truxa]

I would say that the damage output to light armor should be increased a lot. Just the 30mm rotary cannon on the A-10's should slice through arties like butter. Heavy armor would still take low amounts of damage.

Also there should only be one airstrike going on at a time.

I agree! Especially with the 1 airstrike at a time thing. It's kindof like the vehicle production queue, vehicles don't all pop up at once, but in 5 (or so) seconds intervals.

Downside though, is that when 3-4 people put an airstrike on the exact same area, that area is inaccessible for a long period of time.

[Blade]

Maybe just cock-block it entirely during the period of the airstrike and make like a text pop up with a sound when you try.

[omega79]

after playing serval games i think the arstrikes fit perfectly as they are

[Truxa]

after playing serval games i think the arstrikes fit perfectly as they are

Agreed

[cncforever]

I'm getting a bit tired of people complaining about the inovations of this game. If the Devs listen to them, all you will be left with is a generic game with a face lift. Sure, the original renegade was great but this is an opportunity to turn greatness into something even better.

I agree Airstrikes are too nerfed but getting rid of them? Why?

People want to stop infantry vehicle surfing, they want to stop early APC rushes, they want to stop infantry from being able to use a vehicle to climb walls, they want to stop anything that adds more fun to the game. Are people on a quest to make this game more boring or something?

I have used Airstrikes as a distraction to create confusion during a rush or a beacon placement. I hope the Devs don't listen to all of these people who want to make this game a clone of the commercial ones we know off.

This is not Renegade, it is Renegade X and we should be glad of improvements or added features. Airstrikes fit the game so well, it feels like it has always been in them.

[MajorLunaC]

People want to stop infantry vehicle surfing, they want to stop early APC rushes, they want to stop infantry from being able to use a vehicle to climb walls, they want to stop anything that adds more fun to the game. Are people on a quest to make this game more boring or something?

They certainly shouldn't all be gotten rid of, but you have to understand that they produce severe imbalances at times that ruin the fun of the game. They need to have some reasonable and fair limits. You would know this if you've ever seriously played as a Tech on defense (especially as the only Tech). Base defenses, especially automated ones, are severely lacking (especially for a game based on strategy), putting a ludicrous burden on Techs to take on the task all on their own. Relying on noobs to do or know anything is ridiculous. Deployable Turrets should be a solution (already was a concept by the devs before Beta 1). It would add a whole new strategic element to the game (really the game is mostly tactical at the moment, not strategic except for rushes, mines, and base defenders).

The early APC and infantry rushes just take advantage of pre-start time when normal people might take breaks or get ready. The base has no mines, no defenses, and no one is prepared. It is a natural time that people have and HAVE TO let their guard down. This is a game design flaw. It takes no effort, fight, skill, ability, knowledge, or anything to accomplish. Maybe not even luck. It is sheer stupidity and ruins what would normally be a fun, hard-fought game for everyone (easily being able to beat the enemy is boring and lame ... noobs and morons might not understand this). It's not about winning. I don't mind losing one bit, if it's a fair and hard-fought fight (or at least people somewhat tried). Someone must win and someone must lose. It's the fight that matters. The end result is meaningless.

Vehicle Surfing = Fun. Vehicle Surfing with 6 Techs on top making an Orca invincible = NOT FUN. The real issue is being on top of flying vehicles where you can't be shot almost at all (especially at the vehicle ceiling). If they were hanging on the sides or down repelling ropes, it would be no problem. A solution might be to make soldiers weigh much more, because lifting vehicles with air vehicles has a weight limit. So, only 2-3 soldiers MAX on top of any flying vehicle. Another way is to make flying vehicles have a slippery top.

Every item and ability MUST have a counter, but it should be limited by having to choose the right counter at the right time. Airstrike -> Counter with 30 second deployable Air Forcefield Dome in a small area (all vehicles and ppl must crowd under the small forcefield dome ASAP!), purchased. If you don't have one, you get damage. If you don't time it right, you get damaged. If you don't get under it in time, you get damaged. Many enemies entering the base -> Countered by Deployable Turrets -> Countered by Stealth Black Hand -> Countered by Mines -> Countered by Technicians defusing. And so on ... The right place at the right time with the right equipment and setup.

I agree, add more items, but that balance out other items. For every problem add a solution, but one that one must be appropriately prepared (place, time, setup). Few will have the right solution at the right time and in the right place.

[cncforever]

People want to stop infantry vehicle surfing, they want to stop early APC rushes, they want to stop infantry from being able to use a vehicle to climb walls, they want to stop anything that adds more fun to the game. Are people on a quest to make this game more boring or something?

They certainly shouldn't all be gotten rid of, but you have to understand that they produce severe imbalances at times that ruin the fun of the game. They need to have some reasonable and fair limits. You would know this if you've ever seriously played as a Tech on defense (especially as the only Tech). Base defenses, especially automated ones, are severely lacking (especially for a game based on strategy), putting a ludicrous burden on Techs to take on the task all on their own. Relying on noobs to do or know anything is ridiculous. Deployable Turrets should be a solution (already was a concept by the devs before Beta 1). It would add a whole new strategic element to the game (really the game is mostly tactical at the moment, not strategic except for rushes, mines, and base defenders).

The early APC and infantry rushes just take advantage of pre-start time when normal people might take breaks or get ready. The base has no mines, no defenses, and no one is prepared. It is a natural time that people have and HAVE TO let their guard down. This is a game design flaw. It takes no effort, fight, skill, ability, knowledge, or anything to accomplish. Maybe not even luck. It is sheer stupidity and ruins what would normally be a fun, hard-fought game for everyone (easily being able to beat the enemy is boring and lame ... noobs and morons might not understand this). It's not about winning. I don't mind losing one bit, if it's a fair and hard-fought fight (or at least people somewhat tried). Someone must win and someone must lose. It's the fight that matters. The end result is meaningless.

Vehicle Surfing = Fun. Vehicle Surfing with 6 Techs on top making an Orca invincible = NOT FUN. The real issue is being on top of flying vehicles where you can't be shot almost at all (especially at the vehicle ceiling). If they were hanging on the sides or down repelling ropes, it would be no problem. A solution might be to make soldiers weigh much more, because lifting vehicles with air vehicles has a weight limit. So, only 2-3 soldiers MAX on top of any flying vehicle. Another way is to make flying vehicles have a slippery top.

Every item and ability MUST have a counter, but it should be limited by having to choose the right counter at the right time. Airstrike -> Counter with 30 second deployable Air Forcefield Dome in a small area (all vehicles and ppl must crowd under the small forcefield dome ASAP!), purchased. If you don't have one, you get damage. If you don't time it right, you get damaged. If you don't get under it in time, you get damaged. Many enemies entering the base -> Countered by Deployable Turrets -> Countered by Stealth Black Hand -> Countered by Mines -> Countered by Technicians defusing. And so on ... The right place at the right time with the right equipment and setup.

I agree, add more items, but that balance out other items. For every problem add a solution, but one that one must be appropriately prepared (place, time, setup). Few will have the right solution at the right time and in the right place.

You make a lot of great points. I have only been Tech more casually but even then Ive noticed the limitations and struggled to protect buildings or counter attacks. I think instead of removing all 'features' that are discovered, I think the Devs should comsider balancing them and embracing them with restrictions so they become part of the game play. When I see people talk about removing it period, then it has the potential to keep the game where it is. Your suggestions are great because it poses a compromise.

I'm sure if everyone discussed this that we could come up with better soltions than just removing them. Concerning the early APC rushes, it is annoying and although Ive been in teams that have countered many early ones without a problem, if it succeeds it does make for boring gameplay.

Better base defences would solve that. If one were to reduce starting credits for all players that might work otherwise people will just donate and pool credits. There is so much more potential with this game.

[isupreme]

I would shift the airstrike to emphasize damage to players and not change the damage to vehicles.

I would like to see it used primarily as another tactic to defend a beacon. This is Especially Nice because no one player can carry a beacon and an airstrike. So it encourages teamwork between players.s

[SFJake]

I would shift the airstrike to emphasize damage to players and not change the damage to vehicles.

I would like to see it used primarily as another tactic to defend a beacon. This is Especially Nice because no one player can carry a beacon and an airstrike. So it encourages teamwork between players.s

What?

No.

Just no.

That is its worst, cheapest use and pretty much the entire reason I despise airstrikes.

They should not even be usable over beacons. Thats not teamwork, thats cheapening the entire game.

But then again thats what airstrikes do in general -> cheapen the game.

[MajorLunaC]

How about no airstrikes in enemy base areas? That would mean no beacon + airstrikes, but still allow defending your base vs vehicles when your infantry + vehicles are down. Theoretical reasoning: Satellite Defense Systems that take out enemy high-altitude air strikes? Everything else is too far away (like for Mobile Ion Cannon or Ravenshaw's).

[ARC_trooper]

Airstrikes are/were great for breaking a siege, a bunch of mammy's being supported by techs can result in only mammy's who aren't healed any more. I like that idea, that adds to the gameplay.

However the fact it can be used over an ion/nuke is kinda silly, who would fly over a nuke? Or fly through an ion blast? No thanks! I think that you can put an airstrike somewhere, however when there's a nuke/ion being placed in that region the airstrike gets cancelled.

[MajorLunaC]

I think that you can put an airstrike somewhere, however when there's a nuke/ion being placed in that region the airstrike gets cancelled.

Yeah, but that poses the problem of "where'd my airstrike go!? I spent my last money on that!" Maybe just an airstrike in progress: If an airstrike is called in an area and then a beacon is placed in the same area, the airstrike is cancelled. If a beacon is placed in an area, trying an air strike in the same area simply doesn't work (isn't valid or out of bounds) and you get to keep your airstrike or use it elsewhere. If airstrike bombs are already dropping in an area and then a beacon is placed, I guess it really doesn't matter because the bombing will be over quick.