Aircraft carriers vs battleships

[Sphinx]

Completely surround it with ships on all 6 sides?

Even if you surround it, battleships have ranged combat and can shoot the middle ship

 

[Sarda]

I thought you can't shoot over enemy units. If you could then its hopeless, there'd be no defending a Carrier.

 

[adam_grif]

Eh.. I don't think its king, the nuclear submarine is far superior for the fact it carries armaggeddon in a launcher tube, not to mention without destroyers it can't even be seen to be attacked.

I believe you are referring to Ballistic Missile Submarines ("Boomers"), which carry an arsenal of nuclear weapons. "Nuclear Submarines" are just nuclear powered submarines, most of which are just attack submarines that can stay submerged without refueling for a long time.

The Boomer is by no means the king of naval warfare, because they are not used in naval warfare. Nuclear missile subs don't get tasked with attacking ships, they get tasked with hitting targets on the land. Striking a carrier fleet with one would actually be quite difficult since the missiles aren't designed to do that, and would likely get intercepted (said fleets are like roving missile defense systems, because they are already designed to protect the carrier from incoming missile strikes).

Aircraft carriers have aircraft specifically taksed with anti-submarine duty (in addition to a destroyer escort), so regular attack submarines aren't going to do well.

The reasons the carrier is the centre of any modern fleet is because they are so versatile. A Nimtz super-carrier can take upwards of 70 aircraft on it, some for air superiority, some for bombing targets, some for attacking enemy ships, some for hunting submarines...

 

[Mercade]

For me, in Civ4 the carrier wasn't as useful as a battleship because of the "melee" combat style of naval warfare. Carriers were just too expensive and the jet fighters weren't potent enough to cause real damage. Three or four jets couldn't do major damage to a single battleship. In Civ5 you can have bombers on board, so that might change things a little. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

 

[Sarda]

I believe you are referring to Ballistic Missile Submarines ("Boomers"), which carry an arsenal of nuclear weapons. "Nuclear Submarines" are just nuclear powered submarines, most of which are just attack submarines that can stay submerged without refueling for a long time.

The Boomer is by no means the king of naval warfare, because they are not used in naval warfare. Nuclear missile subs don't get tasked with attacking ships, they get tasked with hitting targets on the land. Striking a carrier fleet with one would actually be quite difficult since the missiles aren't designed to do that, and would likely get intercepted (said fleets are like roving missile defense systems, because they are already designed to protect the carrier from incoming missile strikes).

Aircraft carriers have aircraft specifically taksed with anti-submarine duty (in addition to a destroyer escort), so regular attack submarines aren't going to do well.

The reasons the carrier is the centre of any modern fleet is because they are so versatile. A Nimtz super-carrier can take upwards of 70 aircraft on it, some for air superiority, some for bombing targets, some for attacking enemy ships, some for hunting submarines...

In real life, China proved we cant stop our Carriers from being destroyed by Submarines, I think it was just last year they purposely surfaced one of their subs near our carrier in the middle of a training exercise and we didn't detect a single thing.

In Civ5, The nuclear sub, provided it had a nuclear missile on board would wipe out the carrier and all its escorts instantly. The new nukes have a garanteed massive killzone, and I don't recall seeing any SDI projects.

 

[adam_grif]

The Carrier can mount nuclear bombers, which have 10 range instead of 8 for the Submarine's missile, so it's going to give just as good as it gets. It can also carry regular fighters/bombers, making it a more versatile solution, and more useful overall.

It's not really sufficient to say "a nuclear missile carried on a sub will kill a whole fleet therefore it is better", because while it's true that it will be able to do that, there are a number of reasons why you wouldn't want to just employ nuclear weapons willy nilly. Political fallout (pun intended), escalation of conflict into nuclear exchange in the case of a naval surface battle, but if we consider Submarine vs Ground Forces compared to Aircraft Carrier vs Ground Forces, the carrier is more useful because it can be highly useful without going off the deep end with nuclear weapons. The carrier is more useful than the nuclear submarine ("better") because it is useful in a wider variety of circumstances. You don't always want to spank a baby with an axe, yes?

 

[Schuesseled]

If you put 3 fighters/bombers with targetting III in an aircraft carrier you can say goodbye to battleships.

 

[Carver]

In real life, China proved we cant stop our Carriers from being destroyed by Submarines, I think it was just last year they purposely surfaced one of their subs near our carrier in the middle of a training exercise and we didn't detect a single thing.

In Civ5, The nuclear sub, provided it had a nuclear missile on board would wipe out the carrier and all its escorts instantly. The new nukes have a garanteed massive killzone, and I don't recall seeing any SDI projects.

That incident didn't prove anything; it was peacetime; wartime is very different, more of our assets (destroyers, attack subs, anti-submarine helos) would have been on patrol and may have destroyed the Chinese sub before it got close to our carrier.

And of course the incident will be blown-up by the Pentagon in its constant quest for more funding.

 

[Thorburne]

Ahh... but since the carrier has a move of 5 whereas the BB has a move of 4, the carrier can launch one plane to keep an eye on you, move the carrier back a few spots, send the other planes to attack your BBs and wittle your BBs away should you decide to press the attack.

Not to mention that you are pitting two BBs against 1 carrier. Hardly a balanced, 1 on 1 scenario. Throw in a Carrier Support Group (a couple DDs and an SS), and you can kiss your precious BBs goodbye!

 

[Tennyson]

Carriers are like siege units. You don't deploy them without protection.

If the screen stays in close proximity of the carrier, a submarine would have to move around to find an open hex next to the carrier. And the submarine has to keep more than one hex away from the screen to move freely, else the zone of control will stop it in it's tracks.

If Battleships move to intercept, the screen can move forward and use the zone of control effect to delay them while the carrier stays out of range and pounds them with fighters turn after turn.

So that leads me to believe that the right way to kill a carrier is to run battleships toward it, forcing the escorts to intercept, and run a submarine in from an unexpected direction.

The beauty is, once you have a good screening force built, you can run multiple carriers behind it.

 

[Schuesseled]

Okay, lets have a mock battle.

I have 4 battleships outside of your range/sight (fair start as its the same cost). I'll even take an extra advantage and move first. I am now in your sight, you attack me and sink one of my BBs and damage another one (again, I'm being generous and saying that 2 hits is all it takes to sink a BB). I move forward again and am now in range of you. 2 full strengths BB and a half life one attack your carrier. You are dead.

Result? I've lost 1 BB (500 hammers), You've lost 1 carrier and 3 planes (~2000 Hammers). You will lose this war of attrition very quickly.

You are of course assuming that i don't have escorts, and that for some reason i can only attack with 3 of my 4 units listed. But let's ignore that and show you how a battle of one carrier vs 4 battleships should go.

Mock battle:

My 1 carrier is 8 tiles away from your battleships, you can't see it., luckily i have an embarked unit nearby or a land unit that has spotted your fleet.

Assuming 2 fighters can take down a battleship,(as you did) they are of course anti-naval specialists.

My 2 fighters destroy one battleship, another one is severly injured.

Your move.

You don't know where i attacked from so you send each remaining battleship out in a different direction, you find me but unfortunately only one is in position to strike, your injured battleship pops a shot at my carrier injuring me slightly, as your damage is reduced by your health.

My turn, my carrier shoots, carriers can probably shoot to you know, destroying your injured battleship. My fighters start off with air recon i believe, so i know where your ships are one is 5 tiles away another is 6. I lanuch two fighters at the close one destroying it, and my last fighter pummels some health off your last battleship.

Your turn, you sail towards the location of my carrier knowing where it is from the previous turn, you launch your attack, even with your reduced damage my carrier is taking a beating it only has 1 health left, but now its my turn.

4 shots your dead. Time for my carrier to heal.

 

[migkillertwo]

IIRC, air units get a penalty when attacking navel units as part of the game balance, although that may have applied to bombers only. Maybe somebody can correct me if I'm mistaken.

its only bombers that get a penalty vs. naval units. It would make perfect sense considering what bombers actually do.

 

[Schuesseled]

You're right, production wise it should be 4 BBs against a carrier. If you have jet fighters more like 6 BBs against each carrier.

Being able to move faster is an advantage but most of the time you'll be fighting close to the shore as you'll be trying to support land troops. I have never had a true blue water battle in any civ game. In that case I just have to split my BBs into two groups and attack from both sides so you can't flee.


As for having a protective screen, useless, as I can just bomb over it. Unless you plan to have a screen of destroyers 3 tiles away from your carriers, in which case you'll need an inordinate number of them to have a proper screen. And remember, they cost production, and for every 3 destroyers you bring, I can have 2 more BBs and some spare change (and oil).


The best naval task force will almost certainly be lots of BBs with 1-2 destroyers to see subs. Maybe a few subs of your own if your opponent is neglecting his destroyers. Carriers will probably be relegated to the task of providing support to land units. They are simply not worth there cost in sea battles.

FYI destroyers can also intercept air units.

You still haven't commented on my scenario above.

 

[migkillertwo]

You're right, production wise it should be 4 BBs against a carrier. If you have jet fighters more like 6 BBs against each carrier.

Being able to move faster is an advantage but most of the time you'll be fighting close to the shore as you'll be trying to support land troops. I have never had a true blue water battle in any civ game. In that case I just have to split my BBs into two groups and attack from both sides so you can't flee.


As for having a protective screen, useless, as I can just bomb over it. Unless you plan to have a screen of destroyers 3 tiles away from your carriers, in which case you'll need an inordinate number of them to have a proper screen. And remember, they cost production, and for every 3 destroyers you bring, I can have 2 more BBs and some spare change (and oil).


The best naval task force will almost certainly be lots of BBs with 1-2 destroyers to see subs. Maybe a few subs of your own if your opponent is neglecting his destroyers. Carriers will probably be relegated to the task of providing support to land units. They are simply not worth there cost in sea battles.

Destroyers and subs don't cost oil.

I'm thinking that a carrier escorted by destroyers and submarines would be the best naval force.

 

[Schuesseled]

Having carriers as long-range support for either ground or naval battles is gonna be really fun.

 

[migkillertwo]

Having carriers as long-range support for either ground or naval battles is gonna be really fun.

oh hell yeah. The range is probably the real advantage of the aircraft carrier over destroyers or battleships. If I'm launching amphibious assaults I'll definitely use destroyers and battleships as fire support, but once the war really picks up speed I'll have to use my few airplanes.

 

[Terrance888]

Battleships also need escourts. To hide from Submarines.

Submarines -> Battleships and Carriers (until they get those missiles)
Battleships -> Carriers at Close Range
Carriers -> Battleships at a distance
Both -> Destroyers and Cruisers, even in small groups
Destroyers and Cruisers -> Submarines with dept charges and torpedos.

 

[Schuesseled]

You give yourself a major advantage in giving yourself sight of my BBs from the turn go, and placing yourself at exactly the right range from the start.

Well i would obviously move into range, if i was say 10 or 12 hexes away. And there is a good reason for me to be able to see your units at the start of the battle, we are having a mock battle if i couldn't see you i would drift straight past and then there would be no battle.

But anyway, in such a situation spreading BBs out to hope to catch you is a stupid thing to do. I would move my BBs into my territory/out of the sight of your units so you can't see me. If I'm in my territory, I can see a lot more tiles so I can narrow down where your carrier is easily.

If you were to retreat backwards rather than moving towards my carrier, you'd lose all your units and i wouldn't lose any hp. As i can attack you with at least two of fighters on every turn, 1 being used to recon and find your ships

But even ignoring me, taking your scenario where the BB players plays badly, you have a start advantage; you are very very close to the battle being only a draw. If two fighters can kill a BB (which I doubt, probably closer to 3), then 2 BB should kill a carrier. So in the best circumstances imaginable, you are incredibly close to just having a draw.

Without a doubt, 2 Battleships could kill a carrier, but not if they are injured, damage is reduced.

In circumstances which favour the BBs, or in neutral circumstances, the BBs give you a bit more bang for your buck, but way more armour for your buck.

Obviously if my carrier were to foolishly run straight into range of the Battleships then it'd be game over. But why would i do that, i have an advantage at long range, and i can perform an air recon if im not sure where you are. My carrier would always stay out of range, where possible. If i am 8 hexes away from your lead battleship you litterally can't attack me, but i can attack you, and i can move faster and hence keep you away from me. Carrier is always better than battleships unless you foolishly let them get too close.

My answers are in red.

 

[12agnar0k]

No battleship can stand up to a carrier who attacks them, 3 jetfigter or B-17 attacks will easily kill a battleship. Also, the Jetfighters recon 6 hexes in all distance from there base at the begging of each turn, so it will be hard for a battleship to come upon you unannounced.
But that said, if the battleship gets in close enough, it can probably 1-hit kill the aircraft carrier, the aircraft carrier is very powerful in attack, but in defence its worthless. Support it or it will fall.

 

[Terrance888]

BTW AFAIK, Modern missle baring, cruise firing, radar spewing "Battleships" are mostly designated Cruisers or Destroyers IIRC.