Suggestion: strengthen the carrier!!
- Thread starter graves_09
- Start date
Aramil799
Chieftain
We've heard a lot of arguments in the past three pages, but the only poster who evidently has experience with this is Sansloi36, who posted on the first page- he served on an aircraft carrier for several years, and thus, his suggestions should be considered more heavily than the rest of us armchair admirals.
I'm in San Diego visiting relatives right now, and in San Diego harbor there are two carriers- the USS Midway, built in 1945 (and refitted in the 60s), and the USS Ronald Reagan, the Navy's most modern carrier.
The differences couldn't possibly be more striking. The Reagan can carry more, is faster, has longer range, and has markedly better defense systems. The need for an upgradeable carrier in BtS is very apparent, as the current model represents a WW2 age carrier, not modern nuclear-powered supercarriers.
Even though carriers are now better in BtS, they're better because other features have been nerfed, not through their own power. And naval combat in Civ4 is already so unrealistic that this minor change for the better doesn't have enough impact to suitably change things.
As someone mentioned, in every modern crisis, the question is "Where's the nearest carrier?" In the naval battles over the past 60 years, you see an overwhelming number of pictures of carrier-based planes attacking ships, not battleship confrontations. There's a reason why the US hasn't built battleships in decades, but continues to turn out massive supercarriers...
In Civ4, things are absolutely reversed. The battleship rules the seas, and the carrier is only there as a support unit. In BtS things have been made a bit more realistic, because there are actually missile cruisers in modern times and again carriers are relatively more powerful, but you still rarely have battles like the ones that happened in history: Midway, Leyte Gulf, Coral Sea, Rolling Thunder, Desert Shield, etc.
It's completely unrealistic for aircraft not to be able to destroy ships: In real life, fighters don't just 'damage' the enemy and wait for the surface vessels (counting historical precedent, these vessels would most likely be dozens of miles away). Admittedly this would have a balancing efect, but as someone said before, that effect would just be countered by everyone paying more attention to naval aviation and less to battleships (I can't think of a single battle since mid-WW2 when battleships were used at all...)
The argument shouldn't be over whether carriers should be intrinsically powerful, because it seems like the vast majority believe that the carrier is a transport, not a fighting unit in itself. Carriers just don't fulfill their realistic role in BtS, and that doesn't make sense, since there's no balance or other reason for them not to do so.
Regarding the questions of individual carrier power, it does have merit that a carrier would have things like first strikes, improved recon range, and so on. However, this should be based on the number of fighters aboard- therefore, I'd propose that a carrier gains 1 first strike chance and +1 visibility range per fighter aboard (giving regular carriers a maximum of 3 of each, and supercarriers 5-6 or so). The first strikes wouldn't be a huge influence, and I believe that first strikes don't count into strength calculations for which unit gets attacked first in a stack, so it wouldn't make carriers more vulnerable in that way. The recon advantage is realistic, because carriers conduct basic patrols, notwithstanding their strike and intercept abilities, which would increase visibility.
If my proposition would make carriers too powerful, then perhaps only fighters that haven't used their move (those tasked to intercept, heal, or skip turn) could affect the first strikes and visibility, and not fighters that actually attacked.
One final idea is to have a medium bomber unit, which would be able to be placed on carriers or shore, that would give carriers a bit more punch against shore defenses.
*Whew* that's incredibly long... sorry about that
I'm in San Diego visiting relatives right now, and in San Diego harbor there are two carriers- the USS Midway, built in 1945 (and refitted in the 60s), and the USS Ronald Reagan, the Navy's most modern carrier.
The differences couldn't possibly be more striking. The Reagan can carry more, is faster, has longer range, and has markedly better defense systems. The need for an upgradeable carrier in BtS is very apparent, as the current model represents a WW2 age carrier, not modern nuclear-powered supercarriers.
Even though carriers are now better in BtS, they're better because other features have been nerfed, not through their own power. And naval combat in Civ4 is already so unrealistic that this minor change for the better doesn't have enough impact to suitably change things.
As someone mentioned, in every modern crisis, the question is "Where's the nearest carrier?" In the naval battles over the past 60 years, you see an overwhelming number of pictures of carrier-based planes attacking ships, not battleship confrontations. There's a reason why the US hasn't built battleships in decades, but continues to turn out massive supercarriers...
In Civ4, things are absolutely reversed. The battleship rules the seas, and the carrier is only there as a support unit. In BtS things have been made a bit more realistic, because there are actually missile cruisers in modern times and again carriers are relatively more powerful, but you still rarely have battles like the ones that happened in history: Midway, Leyte Gulf, Coral Sea, Rolling Thunder, Desert Shield, etc.
It's completely unrealistic for aircraft not to be able to destroy ships: In real life, fighters don't just 'damage' the enemy and wait for the surface vessels (counting historical precedent, these vessels would most likely be dozens of miles away). Admittedly this would have a balancing efect, but as someone said before, that effect would just be countered by everyone paying more attention to naval aviation and less to battleships (I can't think of a single battle since mid-WW2 when battleships were used at all...)
The argument shouldn't be over whether carriers should be intrinsically powerful, because it seems like the vast majority believe that the carrier is a transport, not a fighting unit in itself. Carriers just don't fulfill their realistic role in BtS, and that doesn't make sense, since there's no balance or other reason for them not to do so.
Regarding the questions of individual carrier power, it does have merit that a carrier would have things like first strikes, improved recon range, and so on. However, this should be based on the number of fighters aboard- therefore, I'd propose that a carrier gains 1 first strike chance and +1 visibility range per fighter aboard (giving regular carriers a maximum of 3 of each, and supercarriers 5-6 or so). The first strikes wouldn't be a huge influence, and I believe that first strikes don't count into strength calculations for which unit gets attacked first in a stack, so it wouldn't make carriers more vulnerable in that way. The recon advantage is realistic, because carriers conduct basic patrols, notwithstanding their strike and intercept abilities, which would increase visibility.
If my proposition would make carriers too powerful, then perhaps only fighters that haven't used their move (those tasked to intercept, heal, or skip turn) could affect the first strikes and visibility, and not fighters that actually attacked.
One final idea is to have a medium bomber unit, which would be able to be placed on carriers or shore, that would give carriers a bit more punch against shore defenses.
*Whew* that's incredibly long... sorry about that
Aramil799
Chieftain
EDIT: Double post, sorry
sansloi37
Chieftain
So, do any of the expert modders out there know how to create an automatic air-strike (similar to interception)?
I do vote for that!!!
Automatic "ship" interception by carrier airplanes and giving ship bonus to fighters planes is the way to go.
Now the battleships would fear the mighty power of the air force
.Note that the Pacific battle in WW2 is THE war involving carriers because no airport could be at range to strike enemy's ships. Today, USA use aircraft carriers in over-sea wars. Of course, carriers are less useful when you have a ground airport near
. In our modern world, the geo-strategical situation favorise the use of carriers. Enemies would be nearer, USA wouldn't have built so many carriers.If I had to fight a battle on another continent, I would bring carriers too.
DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
We've heard a lot of arguments in the past three pages, but the only poster who evidently has experience with this is Sansloi36, who posted on the first page- he served on an aircraft carrier for several years, and thus, his suggestions should be considered more heavily than the rest of us armchair admirals.
I'm in San Diego visiting relatives right now, and in San Diego harbor there are two carriers- the USS Midway, built in 1945 (and refitted in the 60s), and the USS Ronald Reagan, the Navy's most modern carrier.
The differences couldn't possibly be more striking. The Reagan can carry more, is faster, has longer range, and has markedly better defense systems. The need for an upgradeable carrier in BtS is very apparent, as the current model represents a WW2 age carrier, not modern nuclear-powered supercarriers.
Even though carriers are now better in BtS, they're better because other features have been nerfed, not through their own power. And naval combat in Civ4 is already so unrealistic that this minor change for the better doesn't have enough impact to suitably change things.
As someone mentioned, in every modern crisis, the question is "Where's the nearest carrier?" In the naval battles over the past 60 years, you see an overwhelming number of pictures of carrier-based planes attacking ships, not battleship confrontations. There's a reason why the US hasn't built battleships in decades, but continues to turn out massive supercarriers...
In Civ4, things are absolutely reversed. The battleship rules the seas, and the carrier is only there as a support unit. In BtS things have been made a bit more realistic, because there are actually missile cruisers in modern times and again carriers are relatively more powerful, but you still rarely have battles like the ones that happened in history: Midway, Leyte Gulf, Coral Sea, Rolling Thunder, Desert Shield, etc.
It's completely unrealistic for aircraft not to be able to destroy ships: In real life, fighters don't just 'damage' the enemy and wait for the surface vessels (counting historical precedent, these vessels would most likely be dozens of miles away). Admittedly this would have a balancing efect, but as someone said before, that effect would just be countered by everyone paying more attention to naval aviation and less to battleships (I can't think of a single battle since mid-WW2 when battleships were used at all...)
The argument shouldn't be over whether carriers should be intrinsically powerful, because it seems like the vast majority believe that the carrier is a transport, not a fighting unit in itself. Carriers just don't fulfill their realistic role in BtS, and that doesn't make sense, since there's no balance or other reason for them not to do so.
Regarding the questions of individual carrier power, it does have merit that a carrier would have things like first strikes, improved recon range, and so on. However, this should be based on the number of fighters aboard- therefore, I'd propose that a carrier gains 1 first strike chance and +1 visibility range per fighter aboard (giving regular carriers a maximum of 3 of each, and supercarriers 5-6 or so). The first strikes wouldn't be a huge influence, and I believe that first strikes don't count into strength calculations for which unit gets attacked first in a stack, so it wouldn't make carriers more vulnerable in that way. The recon advantage is realistic, because carriers conduct basic patrols, notwithstanding their strike and intercept abilities, which would increase visibility.
If my proposition would make carriers too powerful, then perhaps only fighters that haven't used their move (those tasked to intercept, heal, or skip turn) could affect the first strikes and visibility, and not fighters that actually attacked.
One final idea is to have a medium bomber unit, which would be able to be placed on carriers or shore, that would give carriers a bit more punch against shore defenses.
*Whew* that's incredibly long... sorry about that
Great Post
....as you said, a modern aircraft carrier seen in person, is quite a breathtaking sight. They really are huge, almost like small floating military bases, which as you excellently described, they are...marioflag
History Addict
We've heard a lot of arguments in the past three pages, but the only poster who evidently has experience with this is Sansloi36, who posted on the first page- he served on an aircraft carrier for several years, and thus, his suggestions should be considered more heavily than the rest of us armchair admirals.
I'm in San Diego visiting relatives right now, and in San Diego harbor there are two carriers- the USS Midway, built in 1945 (and refitted in the 60s), and the USS Ronald Reagan, the Navy's most modern carrier.
The differences couldn't possibly be more striking. The Reagan can carry more, is faster, has longer range, and has markedly better defense systems. The need for an upgradeable carrier in BtS is very apparent, as the current model represents a WW2 age carrier, not modern nuclear-powered supercarriers.
Even though carriers are now better in BtS, they're better because other features have been nerfed, not through their own power. And naval combat in Civ4 is already so unrealistic that this minor change for the better doesn't have enough impact to suitably change things.
As someone mentioned, in every modern crisis, the question is "Where's the nearest carrier?" In the naval battles over the past 60 years, you see an overwhelming number of pictures of carrier-based planes attacking ships, not battleship confrontations. There's a reason why the US hasn't built battleships in decades, but continues to turn out massive supercarriers...
In Civ4, things are absolutely reversed. The battleship rules the seas, and the carrier is only there as a support unit. In BtS things have been made a bit more realistic, because there are actually missile cruisers in modern times and again carriers are relatively more powerful, but you still rarely have battles like the ones that happened in history: Midway, Leyte Gulf, Coral Sea, Rolling Thunder, Desert Shield, etc.
It's completely unrealistic for aircraft not to be able to destroy ships: In real life, fighters don't just 'damage' the enemy and wait for the surface vessels (counting historical precedent, these vessels would most likely be dozens of miles away). Admittedly this would have a balancing efect, but as someone said before, that effect would just be countered by everyone paying more attention to naval aviation and less to battleships (I can't think of a single battle since mid-WW2 when battleships were used at all...)
The argument shouldn't be over whether carriers should be intrinsically powerful, because it seems like the vast majority believe that the carrier is a transport, not a fighting unit in itself. Carriers just don't fulfill their realistic role in BtS, and that doesn't make sense, since there's no balance or other reason for them not to do so.
Regarding the questions of individual carrier power, it does have merit that a carrier would have things like first strikes, improved recon range, and so on. However, this should be based on the number of fighters aboard- therefore, I'd propose that a carrier gains 1 first strike chance and +1 visibility range per fighter aboard (giving regular carriers a maximum of 3 of each, and supercarriers 5-6 or so). The first strikes wouldn't be a huge influence, and I believe that first strikes don't count into strength calculations for which unit gets attacked first in a stack, so it wouldn't make carriers more vulnerable in that way. The recon advantage is realistic, because carriers conduct basic patrols, notwithstanding their strike and intercept abilities, which would increase visibility.
If my proposition would make carriers too powerful, then perhaps only fighters that haven't used their move (those tasked to intercept, heal, or skip turn) could affect the first strikes and visibility, and not fighters that actually attacked.
One final idea is to have a medium bomber unit, which would be able to be placed on carriers or shore, that would give carriers a bit more punch against shore defenses.
*Whew* that's incredibly long... sorry about that
Very well thought and informative post, but this is not a wargame and the game doesn't even remotely simulate ancient medieval or modern warfare.Considered you have just units with different strength only balance counts.And actually naval warfare in BtSis really unhistorical (it's not just a problem of Carriers) but it works.If you take in account game balance, the only thing which could be done is just giving carriers a +1 aircraft load, or making at least one fighter loaded by fighter defend the Carrier if attacked.I would have liked also to see a Naval Bomber unit.
This discussion has come up several times. I don't know but I personally find Carriers are indeed the most versatile unit in the game. I think I explain why it is in many of my other posts. If used correctly, you can build a Carrier and it will be around the entire game. Only having to replace its aircraft from time to time but not often. You don't need many Carriers, only a few is necessary in most situations. No modern navy is complete without at least a Carrier or two. The backbone of my modern navies are Destroyers. I also noticed the AI has and will use Carriers too. My last game it was bombing my improvements with Carrier Fighters. As far as Carriers needing improvement in the game, I guess they have to be careful how much they improve them or they could become too powerful.
Aramil799
Chieftain
Heh, thanks for the compliments
. I was feeling a bit pleased with myself, until I realized I made a stupid error in double posting... ah well.I see what you mean Marioflag, and this certainly isn't a wargame- but I can't really see any drawbacks to making things more realistic in this particular circumstance. After all, making carriers more powerful would just adjust the balance at sea, as someone pointed out earlier- it wouldn't unbalance the game, just redirect the balance to make people focus more on aerial interception, for defense, and fighter strikes, for attack. Thus, the game gets more accurate without losing any playability- it seems like a win-win situation.
So I think that extra first strikes and reconnaissance should be added based on aircraft loaded for both regular carriers and a potential 'supercarrier' unit. I don't think the holding power of the regular carrier needs to be improved- it seems to mirror what WW2 carriers could hold, anyways. But modern carriers, as DrewBledsoe pointed out, are massive and awe-inspiring, and can carry far more. The difference between WW2 carriers and supercarriers is nearly as large as that between triremes and caravels (well, maybe not... but it's still pretty large), and having them represented by the same unit doesn't really make sense.
SickCycle
Prince
You know in reality the Russian Federation has completely obsoleted our carrier force, they have developed a missile dubbed the "Sizzler" and the American forces have absolutely no counter to it, Russia has even sold some to China.
The missile flies at extreme low altitude and very fast speeds, it's simple but effective, because of it's speed and proximity to the ground/sea our ships cannot detect it until it's about to slam into its hull.
Carriers shouldn't be all that powerful, if your looking for a realistic view point, they are already obsolete, they just keep a lid on that little jewel of information.
Think of how expensive an aircraft carrier is, with one little missile the russians can take it out from a safe distance.
It may actually take more then one I dunno how powerful they are and carriers are supposedly very hard to sink, but the fact remains the U.S. navy has absolutely zero counter measure to the Sizzler, it's a sitting duck.
Aircraft carriers are just floating airstripes.
The missile flies at extreme low altitude and very fast speeds, it's simple but effective, because of it's speed and proximity to the ground/sea our ships cannot detect it until it's about to slam into its hull.
Carriers shouldn't be all that powerful, if your looking for a realistic view point, they are already obsolete, they just keep a lid on that little jewel of information.
Think of how expensive an aircraft carrier is, with one little missile the russians can take it out from a safe distance.
It may actually take more then one I dunno how powerful they are and carriers are supposedly very hard to sink, but the fact remains the U.S. navy has absolutely zero counter measure to the Sizzler, it's a sitting duck.
Aircraft carriers are just floating airstripes.
The fact it they shouldn't.
Since WW2, seas are ruled by aircraft carriers. Planes are used to destroy enemy's battleships once they are at range. So the only battle a battleship will see is a bomb falling from the sky
.In well-planned naval strategy, a battleship will never be close enough to use its firepower. So, many military leaders say they will disappear. Costly and useless.
But in Civ, with the lack of naval interception by carrier warplanes, battleships and destroyers can directly attack carriers.
Well, maybe carriers are or may become obsolete in a few years, but for WW2 and more than 60 years, they have ruled the sea and their existence made battleships obsolete.
It isn't what we see Civ.
SickCycle
Prince
Whats a carrier without Destroyers, Battleships, Submarines to protect it?
Just an Airstrip
Carriers never dominated the seas, they dominated the skies. It's a support craft used to launch air strikes into unfriendly territory where there is no land base to launch from, it has no way of fighting in the ocean, it's just a slab concrete that floats.
Just an Airstrip
Carriers never dominated the seas, they dominated the skies. It's a support craft used to launch air strikes into unfriendly territory where there is no land base to launch from, it has no way of fighting in the ocean, it's just a slab concrete that floats.
marioflag
History Addict
Whats a carrier without Destroyers, Battleships, Submarines to protect it?
Just an Airstrip
Carriers never dominated the seas, they dominated the skies. It's a support craft used to launch air strikes into unfriendly territory where there is no land base to launch from, it has no way of fighting in the ocean, it's just a slab concrete that floats.
Every weapon has a countermeasure, it's not only something related to Carriers, and it's why you have Carriers operating in task forces.
Also there is another thing which is unconfutable, Carriers are the most important weapon for the power projection, and it's also one of the main reason why even Russian or Chinese fleet at the moment can even remotely match American fleet in force projection or operational use.
Whats a carrier without Destroyers, Battleships, Submarines to protect it?
Just an Airstrip
Carriers never dominated the seas, they dominated the skies. It's a support craft used to launch air strikes into unfriendly territory where there is no land base to launch from, it has no way of fighting in the ocean, it's just a slab concrete that floats.
Well.... aircraft carriers need protection from submarines, so escort by destroyers are essentiel.
But since they are virtually no close combat between ships anymore, at least, where an aircraft carrier is in the fighting force, battleships are no more required. However, US marine see a new role for battleships as missile launchers.
So aircraft carriers rule the sea.... by the air
EDIT : I've just read Wikipedia about battleships.... no more are in service.
"With the decommissioning of the last Iowas, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide."
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
^ which would be the replacement of the Battleship by the Missile Cruiser
In any case at least
Carrier aircraft automatically defending
And
some promotions to allow Lethal Sea combat with fighters+bombers
would make the carrier good, [a supercarrier that required uranium, Advanced Flight, and Industrialism and allowed 5 planes would be good as well..perhaps with autohealing of planes on it.]
In any case at least
Carrier aircraft automatically defending
And
some promotions to allow Lethal Sea combat with fighters+bombers
would make the carrier good, [a supercarrier that required uranium, Advanced Flight, and Industrialism and allowed 5 planes would be good as well..perhaps with autohealing of planes on it.]
sansloi37
Chieftain
While the 3M-54 Klub ("sizzler") is a potent threat, I would hardly say that US carriers have no protection from it; AEGIS/CIWS for point-defense and the fact that with a range of only 130 miles (~220 km) the launch platform has to get relatively close to the battle-group to launch...not as easy as it may sound.
Oh, and for the record, most of our (U.S.) carriers deploy with a minimum of 2-3 Destroyers/Frigates, a couple of Missile Cruisers, and at least one Attack Sub, all of whom are there primarily to defend the carrier.
Just my 2 cents.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Battleships haven't fought other ships since WWII.
Battleships were used in Korea and Lebanon for shore bombardment. There was an accident with the 16" Guns in the 1980's that called the aged ammu nition they were employing into question. A battleship was also used during Dessert Storm for bombardment, but by then the NJ was doing it with Tomahawk cruise missiles ( because they were able to give the Iowa class battleships a modern refit for the cost of building a modern frigate. ) After that, they were refitting Spruance class destroyers with Tomahawks , so they could offer the same power with 1/3 the crew, saving big money.
Aramil799
Chieftain
I think this is the central point- carriers should be the most important naval unit in the modern age, but instead they're arguably the least important (when compared to destroyers/stealth destroyers, which can find subs and blockade, and missile cruisers, which can carry missiles and have high brute strength). The sad relegation of air power in civ naval battles to an auxiliary function means that modern civ naval battles are a lot like WW1-era real life battles- tons of ships slugging it out at close range. Aircraft, sometimes carrier-based, undoubtedly play a part, but due to the small capacity of carriers and the inability of fighters to deal lethal damage, they're not the primary damage-dealer, as they should be.
Undoubtedly, the carrier unit in itself should not have high strength; 16 for the carrier and perhaps 18-20 for a supercarrier would suffice. But a supercarrier's speed should be around 8, and it should gain recon bonuses and first strikes based on the number of aircraft aboard. That's the way it works in real life; and my maxim is, unless it presents a very serious game balance problem or unnecessarily complicates the game, civ should be fairly realistic. Since this change would just adjust the balances, not destroy them, and it's hardly very complicated, no one seems to have anything to lose in including it.
Undoubtedly, the carrier unit in itself should not have high strength; 16 for the carrier and perhaps 18-20 for a supercarrier would suffice. But a supercarrier's speed should be around 8, and it should gain recon bonuses and first strikes based on the number of aircraft aboard. That's the way it works in real life; and my maxim is, unless it presents a very serious game balance problem or unnecessarily complicates the game, civ should be fairly realistic. Since this change would just adjust the balances, not destroy them, and it's hardly very complicated, no one seems to have anything to lose in including it.
bloodhawk
Anything but Chieftain
The question is, should the Civ 4 version of the aircraft carrier be represented by a supercarrier. As far as I know, the US is the only nation that has such large aircraft carriers. I agree naval aviation (and aircraft on general) could use improvement, but wouldn't it be better to make America's unique unit the supercarrier instead of making it a standard unit?
