Glad to see alot of you agree with me. Now sure, a stealth bomber may not be able to land on a carrier in real life. But look at it this way. Carriers in real life do carry planes used for bombing runs, so this is just a lack of different units in the game, so you should have a bomber type unit on a carrier. What they could do is just not obsolete the standard bomber, up its stats to be comparable to the stealth bomber (just without the stealth ability to evade interception), and allow that to be put on a carrier. And with regards to the Doolittle raid, Willowmound is right. It wasn't intended to do any real damage, it was just a morale victory. Kind of like saying "well the japs hit us at pearl, so lets show them we can hit their home too". Now one can argue that it was difficult to launch these bombers from a carrier, but keep in mind that WW2 carriers were nowhere near the size of modern day carriers.
Carriers nerfed why?
- Thread starter DaLagga
- Start date
sturmtrupp
Chieftain
The Last Conformist said:
Yeah, wouldn't be such a necessity if one could make airfields, and refuel in route.
oldStatesman
Cybernaut
The carrier based A-7 Intruder Attack plane, deployed with the US Fleet from the mid 1960's until almost the turn of the century, could carry a larger bomb load than the WWII era B-17 heavy bomber. Size isn't everything. And this plane was a dedicated bomber, not a fighter/bomber....it had NO defensive armament...no guns, no air-to-air missiles, just jamming gear and chaff.Willowmound said:
A carrier based bomber would be a welcome unit addition.
Shaihulud
Deity
You could edit fighters to be able to make it able to do bombing, not too high of course. That is what I will do when I get the game. Oh and I want lethal bombardment by planes too.
Bombers are much better at it.Runriot
Chieftain
You cant make airfields like in civ III anymore?sturmtrupp said:
Damn, that sucks! We need some clever modder to mod civ III worker built tile fortifications and airbases that adapt with the changing tech level.
Actually, seems to me that the whole naval and air system needs to be totally reworked. God, I need to find out how mod for this game
Billy Rubin
breakdown product of HB
Aussie_Lurker said:
No need to be sorry - it's exactly what I want
- guess it must have just been bad luck in my games - all the "invasions" I've seen were ridiculous - I didn't even bother building more military when someone not on my continent declared war. One partial reason might possibly be that I allways managed to make some fairly strong civ(s) in between us or beneath him declare war on the aggressor, so maybe they were too busy fighting them off or their armadas were sunk on the way...
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
No he wouldn't. There's a reason the Doolittle raid was a one-off affair.Andicus said:
Something that would make sense would be carrier-based dive bombers or torpedoplanes for anti-shipping duties.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Andicus said:
No, he wouldn't because
1)It was a one-time affair (as TLC pointed out)
2)It required extensive modification to allow the B-25 to take off from carriers, which made them extremely vulnerable.
and, more importantly than even that re : Heavy bombers...
3)Jimmy Doolitle would not disagree about HEAVY bombers on carrier, because his Doolittle raid, which had all those difficulties already, was done with smaller and lighter MEDIUM bombers - NOT heavy ones.
Heavy Bombers - most often four-engine : B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster, etc.
Medium Bombers - most often twin-engine : B-25 Mitchell (which Doolittle used), B-26 Marauder, the Japanesse Betty, etc.
Light Bombers - most often single-engined, and generally specialized - dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc - TBF Avenger, SBD Dauntless, Junker Stuka, Japan's Kate and Vale, etc.
Light Bombers were frequently deployed from carriers. Medium bombers were used once or twice, under extre circumcstances. Heavy bombers were never deployed from carriers, and Doolittle would agree to that.
I quite happy to have 3 (alright return to four) planes on a carrier. In fact the way th navy operated in civ III was great. Removimg bomber from carrier seems realistic as around the WWII time there was a major difference between land based and carrier based air abilities. I think the other ships (battle ships, destroyers) is were the real problem lies. Can someone tell me what to do with these vessels once I have defeated enermy navies, and reduce any seaside cities to zer0 %. No much that I can see. The games makes a point of emphesizing the difference between coal and oil based naval operation, and to hold on to the atvantage as long as possible. Why? Surely these unit should still be able to interact with land based unit that are near the coast. I believe that the whole thing of barrage in civ 4 ( to combat stack of doom) is ill concieved. I remember being attacked by maybe 75 or more units from the enermy in civIII, and being able to handle it through air power, and other barrage abilities (artilery, battle ships and destroyers near coastal invasions, cruise missiles). ??????
You know those annoying Open Borders treaties all the AI demand of you?
USE 'EM!
You can operate your bombers from something FAR better than a carrier -- you can base them to AI cities you have Open Border treaty with. Unless that AI is at war, your bombers are invulnerable when landed -- the AI you are at war with will have to declare war on the AI who owns the cities you are basing your bombers at!
This is fairly unrealistic, as not many countries will allow, say, the U.S. to base their bombers there ... but hey, the AI rams Open Borders treaties down your throat, sooner or later its payback time!
USE 'EM!
You can operate your bombers from something FAR better than a carrier -- you can base them to AI cities you have Open Border treaty with. Unless that AI is at war, your bombers are invulnerable when landed -- the AI you are at war with will have to declare war on the AI who owns the cities you are basing your bombers at!
This is fairly unrealistic, as not many countries will allow, say, the U.S. to base their bombers there ... but hey, the AI rams Open Borders treaties down your throat, sooner or later its payback time!
Yes that true, but I think the gernal thought was the value of the navy, and specifically carrier, which unfortunatly ( I loved my civ III navies) is another reason why navies are crap in civ 4. And you are also right about being unrealistic. IN WWII russia would not allow US planes to use it as a staging area for mission against japan even though russia was at war against german, who in turn were allies with japan, and who they knew they would probably go to war with in the rear future.
AnotherJon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 55
Chibiabos said:
On the contrary I would say this is very realistic. Were the no fly zones over northern and southern Iraq not policed from Turkey and Saudi Arabia?
weasel77066
Prince
This seems to be a constructive thread. Lots of good points and reasonable suggestions. I also think that the navy and air power is lacking.
Seems to me that the earliier ages have much more variety and thought put into them. Different units and abilities for a player to customize his standing force.
When it comes to the modern age, everything is essentially lumped into general categories. I think the addition of a more variable force is needed to make the modern age more interesting. I read through alot of threads from people who can't stand playing through it. This might help. Air power needs work. At least in the form of Medium bombers, transport helicopters, and cargo planes.
Navy could use a larger variety. I would like to see a return of the missile sub, maybe the inclusion of a PT Boat (a light inexpensive torpedo boat) and cruisers.
I sure do miss paratroopers as well. Airbases also maybe some form of naval base.
Special forces would be fun addition, expensive units with special abilities (say perhaps, ability to capture airbase, kidnap great people, call an airstrike which would increase a bombers attack, etc..)
Then it seems the late stage of the game would have to be slowed down greatly in order to have time to build things. My game that went past the modern age was so fast I barely squeezed out one carrier before launching the spacecraft. This current game Im playing 'epic' mode to see if it will slow daown any, otherwise I'll have to adjust modern age game time or shields or something.
PS- I was going to mention -basing air units in a friendly nations city- but someone already has, so thats about it. Have fun and beware the Aztec with a nuclear missile.
Seems to me that the earliier ages have much more variety and thought put into them. Different units and abilities for a player to customize his standing force.
When it comes to the modern age, everything is essentially lumped into general categories. I think the addition of a more variable force is needed to make the modern age more interesting. I read through alot of threads from people who can't stand playing through it. This might help. Air power needs work. At least in the form of Medium bombers, transport helicopters, and cargo planes.
Navy could use a larger variety. I would like to see a return of the missile sub, maybe the inclusion of a PT Boat (a light inexpensive torpedo boat) and cruisers.
I sure do miss paratroopers as well. Airbases also maybe some form of naval base.
Special forces would be fun addition, expensive units with special abilities (say perhaps, ability to capture airbase, kidnap great people, call an airstrike which would increase a bombers attack, etc..)
Then it seems the late stage of the game would have to be slowed down greatly in order to have time to build things. My game that went past the modern age was so fast I barely squeezed out one carrier before launching the spacecraft. This current game Im playing 'epic' mode to see if it will slow daown any, otherwise I'll have to adjust modern age game time or shields or something.
PS- I was going to mention -basing air units in a friendly nations city- but someone already has, so thats about it. Have fun and beware the Aztec with a nuclear missile.
Captain2
ಠ_ృ
yeah i dont trust those open border things, a mongol AI used it to take over one of my cities, he placed alot of his troops in my borders then it did a culture flip and it already had the mongol troops inside it so i couldnt just take it back
Suspiria
Warlord
I would love to see airbases brought back. Best thing about Civ2 was the airbases.
And yes they do need a Navy fighter that can be used with aircraft carriers. Would love to see tonnes more units modded into civ4.
And yes they do need a Navy fighter that can be used with aircraft carriers. Would love to see tonnes more units modded into civ4.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
One use of a navy once you've done the pillaging and bombarding is to just sit in the surrounding tiles of the city. By doing so, you'll prevent the city from using any of the water tiles. This will almost certainly result in quite a severe starvation of a highly populated city.
Remember also that units can attack cities and units from transports (amphibious invasions) where they have the amphibious promotion or not. They will be at 50% strength if they fon't have the promotion, but at least this should lead to a greater use when trying to take a city by surprise. Certainly, increasing the capacity of the transport ships would definitely help in their usefulness, both in the hands of the human and the AI. Having only 4 units in a modern transport isn't going to unsettle the majority of modern civs.
How navies operate will require a bit of a re-think though if Firaxis want to make them more instrumental in Civ 4.
Remember also that units can attack cities and units from transports (amphibious invasions) where they have the amphibious promotion or not. They will be at 50% strength if they fon't have the promotion, but at least this should lead to a greater use when trying to take a city by surprise. Certainly, increasing the capacity of the transport ships would definitely help in their usefulness, both in the hands of the human and the AI. Having only 4 units in a modern transport isn't going to unsettle the majority of modern civs.
How navies operate will require a bit of a re-think though if Firaxis want to make them more instrumental in Civ 4.
Meglomania
Chieftain
AnotherJon said:
Hmm, not really the norm, and a no fly zone is a lot different to having a 3rd of a countries airforce based in a city for the sole purpose of pounding another country into the ground (who they are usually at peace with and quite often have friendly relations with!). Can't see many countries allowing that to happen in the real world, and if so then there would most likely be a lot of gp/turn going one way for the privilege.
We really do need a new fighter / bomber for carriers or just allow bombers in them (nowhere near as bad as the exploit of basing your whole airforce in a friendly city, thus making the invasion of that beach head city to move the entire airforce to much easier) In there current state the only use I can see for carriers is to protect a stacked invasion fleet from bombers as it is approaching an enemy coast, or for that one island city to knock down some defence (where artillery / naval bombard and a collatoral heavy tank would be most cost efficient).
Similar threads
