Modern navy issues

First off I think we need a bigger selection of modern naval units because I don't believe the few units that are available reflect actual navies very well. Beside that has anyone else noticed you can only move four spaces with the carrier and it can only carry fighters? One can argue the game play balance issue for limiting carrier movement to four spaces but in actuality carriers can move much greater distances than destroyers and battleships when you take into account that they don't need to refuel (although they still need to do unreps for food). So dismissing the movement as a balance issue I see absolutely no excuse for not letting a carrier have bombers embarked. That is absolutely ridiculous and I can't think of one good reason for it. I'm sure at least the bombers will be adjusted in a mod.

SlayerofDeitys said:

First off I think we need a bigger selection of modern naval units because I don't believe the few units that are available reflect actual navies very well. Beside that has anyone else noticed you can only move four spaces with the carrier and it can only carry fighters? One can argue the game play balance issue for limiting carrier movement to four spaces but in actuality carriers can move much greater distances than destroyers and battleships when you take into account that they don't need to refuel (although they still need to do unreps for food). So dismissing the movement as a balance issue I see absolutely no excuse for not letting a carrier have bombers embarked. That is absolutely ridiculous and I can't think of one good reason for it. I'm sure at least the bombers will be adjusted in a mod.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, it was like them not allowing armys to be airlifted in Civ3. The thing though to realize is that their focus is not the modern era (though I would definitly like it to get a little more attention), but the ancient and medieval eras, something that they succeeded rather well at. These are things that shouldn't have happened though, but I guess they had balence issues during playtesting with the values that you want.

lost_civantares said:

The thing though to realize is that their focus is not the modern era (though I would definitly like it to get a little more attention), but the ancient and medieval eras, something that they succeeded rather well at.

Click to expand...

Well, if you take into account that the units in medieval and ancient are pretty much the same as the previous game, I have to wonder why they didn't take more time about future military stuff.

I feel they neglicted almost every part of the military, new stuff wouldve been great, like stacking forces (a la army).

You have an arty and a tank together attacking? +2 combo, you have 10 archers defending +5 combo, you have 1 swordsman, 1 archer, 1 spearman, 1 cavalry = +5 combo.

I like the new "upgradeable" units, but in the field of battle, teamwork is greater than 5 unit fighting alone.

i always thought the carrier should have the highest rate. Since you always need to have it defended by something bigger then it would have never been a balance issue.

You would not have wanted to lose 4 bombers and the carrier to a frigate because you left it undefended..

In regards to carrier movement rates, I'd say that Aircraft Carriers should have movement rates above Battleships but below Destroyers. WWII and modern destroyers are still faster than either generation's aircraft carrier. Some might argue that modern ACs are nuclear powered, but Destroyers aren't, so carriers should have greater movement rate. I believe that movement rate represents the unit's speed, not it's range. If you start getting into "range" than it opens up a huge can o' worms about the need for supply ships and cr@p like that -- so let's just stick with the basics here.

nattivillin, you don't have to worry about losing an undefended carrier and 4 bombers to a frigate, because Civ4's Aircraft Carrier can't carry bombers and can only carry 3 aircraft.

That said, Civ4 is more realistic because neither the WWII Bomber or the Stealth Bomber can fly off a carrier deck IRL. Anyone who saw "Pearl Harbour" (my sympathy for wasting 3 hours of your life ) knows that even a relatively small B-17 can't takeoff and land on an aircraft carrier, so there's no chance that a B-29 or B-2 can. The Navy used light bombers that could operate off carriers, but those aren't included in Civ4. Instead, it's been simplified to permit Fighters and Jet Fighters to bomb fortifications and airstrike ground/navy units.

Now I'm sure some players (myself included) would prefer a wider assortment of aircraft, but that's what expansion packs and mods are for.

Soryn Arkayn said:

In regards to carrier movement rates, I'd say that Aircraft Carriers should have movement rates above Battleships but below Destroyers. WWII and modern destroyers are still faster than either generation's aircraft carrier. Some might argue that modern ACs are nuclear powered, but Destroyers aren't, so carriers should have greater movement rate. I believe that movement rate represents the unit's speed, not it's range. If you start getting into "range" than it opens up a huge can o' worms about the need for supply ships and cr@p like that -- so let's just stick with the basics here.

nattivillin, you don't have to worry about losing an undefended carrier and 4 bombers to a frigate, because Civ4's Aircraft Carrier can't carry bombers and can only carry 3 aircraft.

That said, Civ4 is more realistic because neither the WWII Bomber or the Stealth Bomber can fly off a carrier deck IRL. Anyone who saw "Pearl Harbour" (my sympathy for wasting 3 hours of your life ) knows that even a relatively small B-17 can't takeoff and land on an aircraft carrier, so there's no chance that a B-29 or B-2 can. The Navy used light bombers that could operate off carriers, but those aren't included in Civ4. Instead, it's been simplified to permit Fighters and Jet Fighters to bomb fortifications and airstrike ground/navy units.

Now I'm sure some players (myself included) would prefer a wider assortment of aircraft, but that's what expansion packs and mods are for.

Click to expand...

The US Navy's A-6 Intruder, a dedicated carrier based bomber, (it had no defensive guns or armament except flares/chaff, and was not extremely manuverable) could carry a much larger bomb load than the WWII era B-17. Not exactly a 'light' bomber. Range was the big difference.

oldStatesman said:

The US Navy's A-6 Intruder, a dedicated carrier based bomber, (it had no defensive guns or armament except flares/chaff, and was not extremely manuverable) could carry a much larger bomb load than the WWII era B-17. Not exactly a 'light' bomber. Range was the big difference.

Click to expand...

But there's no A-6 in Civ4 presently, so it's a moot point, isn't it?

My point was that the WWII Bomber and Stealth Bomber are too big to launch from an Aircraft Carrier, both in Civ4 and IRL.

All sorts of bomber aircraft, including the A-6 Intruder, can be modded into Civ4, but of the aircraft already in the game, only the Fighter and Jet Fighter can and should be allowed to operate from the carrier.

Soryn Arkayn said:

In regards to carrier movement rates, I'd say that Aircraft Carriers should have movement rates above Battleships but below Destroyers. WWII and modern destroyers are still faster than either generation's aircraft carrier. Some might argue that modern ACs are nuclear powered, but Destroyers aren't, so carriers should have greater movement rate. I believe that movement rate represents the unit's speed, not it's range. If you start getting into "range" than it opens up a huge can o' worms about the need for supply ships and cr@p like that -- so let's just stick with the basics here.

nattivillin, you don't have to worry about losing an undefended carrier and 4 bombers to a frigate, because Civ4's Aircraft Carrier can't carry bombers and can only carry 3 aircraft.

That said, Civ4 is more realistic because neither the WWII Bomber or the Stealth Bomber can fly off a carrier deck IRL. Anyone who saw "Pearl Harbour" (my sympathy for wasting 3 hours of your life ) knows that even a relatively small B-17 can't takeoff and land on an aircraft carrier, so there's no chance that a B-29 or B-2 can. The Navy used light bombers that could operate off carriers, but those aren't included in Civ4. Instead, it's been simplified to permit Fighters and Jet Fighters to bomb fortifications and airstrike ground/navy units.

Now I'm sure some players (myself included) would prefer a wider assortment of aircraft, but that's what expansion packs and mods are for.

Click to expand...

I will concede that WW2 bombers and stealth can't fly from a carrier. (IIRC correctly however while the B-2 most certainly cannot I swear the F-117 Nighthawk can, however I couldn't find information on it. I do have a friend who is an AC however so I will get back with a definitive answer). I agree with supply ships complicating things but why then does refrigeration give you a bonus to movement? So if nothing else supplies are indirectly addressed as something that is included in your movement. As far as the carrier being outrun by a destroyer that simply isn't true. I was stationed aboard a DDG for 3 years as part of the Nimitz battle group. While I can't comment on the speeds I saw at full speed runs the official numbers are 30+ knots. Impressive but I can attest to the fact that the Nimitz at least ( a super carrier granted) can run circles around an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. I really didn't think about the other types of stealth planes other than the F117A so thanks for pointing that out however I think they should have included carrier capable bombers, as was pointed out already they do exist even if the Nighthawk is not one.

not to get off topic , but the new AC's like the Nimitz are much FASTER than anything else on the water. Ill agree with the previous poster, being stationed aboard a carrier i guess you get to know more.

The f-117's cant land on a carrier yet if ever. While it may fit because of its size, the problem in real life is the abuse carrier landings do on aircraft and the f-117 is too sensitive.

I think its a recourring theme that the modern units of civ4 seem to be quite lacking. Some people love to do war with archers, im a modern military guy, i am 100% defense until i have my first calvary or infantry.

nattivillin said:

not to get off topic , but the new AC's like the Nimitz are much FASTER than anything else on the water. Ill agree with the previous poster, being stationed aboard a carrier i guess you get to know more.

The f-117's cant land on a carrier yet if ever. While it may fit because of its size, the problem in real life is the abuse carrier landings do on aircraft and the f-117 is too sensitive.

I think its a recourring theme that the modern units of civ4 seem to be quite lacking. Some people love to do war with archers, im a modern military guy, i am 100% defense until i have my first calvary or infantry.

Click to expand...

I've been doing some investigating regarding modern warships and unfortunately it's inconclusive. Both the Nimitz-class carriers and modern destroyers/frigates have a top speed of "30+ knots". I suspect that the exact speed is withheld for secrecy.

So it would appear that modern carries and destroyers are equally fast. Even if carriers were faster, I wouldn't want it in Civ4 because there's the freak possibility that one of my carriers could breakaway from its escorts and come under attack. I'd rather they moved at the same rate, just to be safe.

But I definitely think that Battleships should be changed so that they're slower than Carriers, as they are IRL.

As for Civ4's units, I think the Devs tried to distribute them equally over the 6000 years of gameplay. I rarely goto war before I acquire Knights, but I mass produce Archers and then Longbowmen because of their superior city defence in Civ4. I perform my major conquests in the Rifleman/Cavalry era, and by the time I develop tanks and bombers I'm usually the dominant Civ.

I wouldn't object if to more modern military units though. There's three that I'd really like. First, either add Radar Artillery like in Civ3 or give basic Artillery a two-square bombard radius. Second, I'd prefer Mobile SAM vehicles like in Civ3 rather than Civ4's SAM Infantry because the latter can't keep pace with my mech stacks. Third, add Nuclear Subs, which should be faster than any warship.

why don't you just edit your carrier speeds and edit so bombers can carrier base. is this possible?

Once any of your navy has reudced cities defences to 0%, they become all but useless, this seems a hage waste compared to civ 3, especially considering the fact that artilery can accomplise this

Very good point about that. You should be able to bombard units or at least the defence bonus that units receive from tiles. You should also be able to destroy terrain improvements the same way you could in civ3

zoommoom said:

Once any of your navy has reudced cities defences to 0%, they become all but useless, this seems a hage waste compared to civ 3, especially considering the fact that artilery can accomplise this

Click to expand...

1) One of the importan point of Navy is NOT let ennemy transport Unload their stuff in you cities. For example My cities are pretty much undefended, except on the ennemy frontier. If the ennemy can bring a transport with some marines, my city is DOOMED.

2) You can blow food ressources, which is a pretty good thing.

3) Artiller4y moves SO SLOWLY on the ennemy territory, that using it on cities is too long.

Whether or not bombers should be available off carriers would seem to depend on whether or not bombers in the game are strategic or tactical, largely.

Remember, the only 'bombers' that have flown from a carrier are basically fighters - actually, I think the US NAvy's terminology is Strike Fighter.

The only thing close would be the Dolittle raid on Japan - and even then so much had to be stripped out of the aircraft, they were defenceless and had only enough fuel for a one way trip - also recalling that these aircraft were probably about the same size as current generation fighters anyway.

Is it really realistic to base a B52 off an aircraft carrier?

The obvious solution to those who want bomber aircraft on carriers in to create a new unit, the Strike Aircraft. It would be a fighter without the air superiority misson, and have roughly half the bombard damage of a modern bomber. If you wanted to get fancy, you give it a slight bonus against SAM infantry due to the jamming pods these crafty employ for defense.

But, as I have stated in other threads in the Gen Disscussion forum, the entire modern navy needs to be reworked in civ IV. Hell, navies have always been thin in civ games, but IV is taking the cake... so to speak.

I have proposed the following new units and changes to existing units:
*ASW choppers, Deployable from Pocket carriers (2 units) or Destroyers (1 unit) They detect subs on recon missions, and can attack them on strike missions
*Strike Aircraft (see above)
*Cruise/Anitship missile treated as an aircraft, ignores fortifcations but not culture defenses, interceptable
*Tactical Nuke same as Cruise missile, but has 75% chance to kill anything in target tile, leaves fallout in target tile only, 40% of the time
*AGEIS type cruiser/destroyer units for carrier air protection with a much higher intercept rate than the standard destroyer.
*Upping the carrier to 4 fighter & 4 strike aircraft.
*Nuke subs with 3 ICBMs, OR 3 cruise OR tactical nuke missiles.
*Essex/Pocket carrier class units to carry 4 gunships for amphibious assualts
*Battleship able to bombard naval/shore targets upto 2 squares away

These changes will make the navy a more potent tool of war, allowing for limited land strikes and support of amphibious invasions, while still being exposed to airstrikes, bombers, and other naval units. Course, it would also be nice to be able to bombard enemy tile improvments, but thats another thread altogether

Of course, to build a good sized combined arms naval taskforce, you would need either unbelievably massive production, or more turns int he modern era to build it up.

Bombers on carriers, is a non issue, it doesnt happen never has. Quoting 'doolittle raid' is pointless, that was a suicide mission and those bombers( small bombers) were never meant to be recoverd. Fighter\bombers are what gets launched off of carriers, the fighters in civ4 are fighter\bombers so a fail to see what the problem is. Now you should be able to put more then 3 planes on a carrier, with that I agree. What I really hate about modern warships is there is really no point in making anything other then battleships and carriers, the rest are useless. IMO the biggest problem was nerfing the subs, subs should be allowed to pick what ship in a stack to attack(transports\carriers). Becuase that option has been removed subs are almost totally useless, and because subs are useless destroyers are useless. The civ4 navy needs nothing more then a stack of battleships with a couple carriers for air cover and that is what really sucks about the modern navys in civ4.

there ought to be 2 generations of each modern warship, ww1-ww2 era and then post ww2 era. Helicopters should be able to take off all carriers, as their first uses were on carriers. I like runriot's idea of anti-sub helis on destroyers and carriers. Using the modernized Iowa class battleships as the second gen.battleship (you all know the Missouri and New Jersey), helis could be used on battleships too. Runriot when you say "pocket carrier" I assume your talking about amphibious assault carriers, which can also act like transports. The abilities you gave your pocket carrier would seem to make it worth building when a Nimitz could do the same thing, but if it were combined with the transport i think we would have a very interesting unit. I have a feeling that such ships aren't as fast as a supercarrier or a ww2 Essex class. Wether or not carriers should carry bombers is debatable, becuase even though the B-17 couldnt operate on a carrier a modern fighter like the F-16 or F-18 can carry just as much. I like the idea of naval attack planes but it may be simpler just to have a naval fighter that can be used as an attack plane. The perfect example is the F-18 Hornet. The fighter jet already in the game(F-16) ought to have the same bombard as the bomber. A naval based attack plane like the ww2 helldiver should be used for earlier gen. It should have a bonus against naval targets. Anti Submarine Warfare really ought to be a seperate tech. In ww2 the Allies developed very effective ASW which included the use of planes, but the Axis didn't.
Battleships, like destroyers, should be divided into 2 generations-dreadnoughts, which are slow and can't intercept aircraft, and battleships which would really be like the modernized Iwoa class. These should be able to intercept aircarft, carry a helicopter and launch cruise missiles. More on the cruise missiles later. The battleship or fast- battleship should have and equal movement rate to the carrier. I agree with Runriot that battle ships should bombard 2 squares away like it did in civ3.
Submarines really need some improvement. Ive said this on another that a sub should sink any ship except for a destroyer. This would give the destroyer its historical use in the game. I was dissapointed to see that nuclear subs weren't in civ4. Old subs were almost always slow(an exception would be the german type XXI), but I've heard of nuclear subs being faster than anything else. Its hard to give it a movement rate because any reference to their speed simply says +30 knots.
I really liked the destroyer in civ4 and I think it should be the fastest unit. At least for the old generation of ships. This allows one to see an enemy sub, sink it, and return to the fleet. I was thrilled to see a ship with intercept abillity, and I think there should be promotions for this area. The modern replacement for the destroyer should of course be the AEGIS cruiser. It should have an improved intercept ability like Runriot said, and have the ability to launch cruise missiles.
I wish cruise missiles would come back in civ4. All they need is longer range, at least as much range as a jet fighter. It would be a great thing for bombarding enemy ships and for land bombardment. Battleships and AEGIS cruisers would now become quite important for bringing strong artilery and bombardment across the ocean. We wouldn't feel the hurt of the weakened(or should i say more practical) carrier so much.
The carrier of course would be important for providing air cover, as it was in history.
With these simple changes we've been talking about navies would gain their real life importance be a lot of fun. Im big on sea warfare myself, and i always enjoyed finding uses for my navy in civ3. One of my favorite tactics was using planes or ship guns to bombard an enemy ship to weaken it, then finnishing it off with a suface ship. I found out the hard way that I had to have carriers with jet fighters if i was going anywhere near where planes could take off. You can win a war with armys alone but its so much more fun to use navies.

One thing i forgot to add. Now that the F-22 is in service, or it was supposed to be in sevice by now, researching stealth should open up a REAL stealth fighter that can do air superiority missions. The YF-35 may be a decade from entering service, but I still think a stealth navy fighter/attack plane should be in the game.

I think aircraft carriers should have been faster simply because anything with that much in shields total counting planes really deserves "oh crap speed". You should only be able to run one down if it makes an offensive move. Otherwise it should be allowed to run. Then i might make them!

Right now there is jsut to much money. Or maybe if the aircraft got a free rebase if the aircraft carrier was destroyed. Then atleast they would have defensive use without a big risk.

destroyers have huge speed in this game and relatively nice strength. This makes them my general all purpose naval unit.