Can air units destroy naval units now?

[hardcore_gamer]

One of the things that really annoyed me in Civ 4 is that air units could not destroy naval units but could only weaken them. This was realistic enough when attacking ground units, but made no sense at all during naval battles where you had a fleet existing of almost half a dozen aircraft carries and some other ships fighting against an enemy with no real air power to speak of.

The aircraft carrier has always been the most valuable vessel in a fleet since its invention not counting world war 1, and I hated it how poorly this was represented/handled in Civ 4. So basically what I am asking is whether or not air units are actually useful against naval units for once and can inflict direct damage to them and eventually destroy them?

I really hope so, since it would mean that players would actually have good reasons to build aircraft carriers. Yes, I know that large amount if aircraft could still weaken enemy ships in civ 4 to a point that they could no longer fight well, but even then you still needed large amounts of other ships to finish them off and it made very little sense.

Discuss!

 

[marioflag]

One of the things that really annoyed me in Civ 4 is that air units could not destroy naval units but could only weaken them. This was realistic enough when attacking ground units, but made no sense at all during naval battles where you had a fleet existing of almost half a dozen aircraft carries and some other ships fighting against an enemy with no real air power to speak of.

The aircraft carrier has always been the most valuable vessel in a fleet since its invention not counting world war 1, and I hated it how poorly this was represented/handled in Civ 4. So basically what I am asking is whether or not air units are actually useful against naval units for once and can inflict direct damage to them and eventually destroy them?

I really hope so, since it would mean that players would actually have good reasons to build aircraft carriers. Yes, I know that large amount if aircraft could still weaken enemy ships in civ 4 to a point that they could no longer fight well, but even then you still needed large amounts of other ships to finish them off and it made very little sense.

Discuss!

I agree that it made Aircraft Carriers weak but at least in Civ4 it was needed because navies weren't as useful as they should have been.

In civ5 i'm sure aircraft are able to destroy navies for 2 reasons:
a) increased offensive capability of navies
b)limited resources. If building 1 airplane consume 1 oil which could have been used to build another ship, that's enough reason to make its use really strategic otherwise planes would be weak.

 

[Dbob]

Considering you could sink ships with aircraft in C3C I don't understand the reasoning behind taking that away in Civ 4. It greatly restricted the effectiveness of a carrier based navy.

Glad to see that it is making a return in Civ 5

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I agree that it made Aircraft Carriers weak but at least in Civ4 it was needed because navies weren't as useful as they should have been.

In civ5 i'm sure aircraft are able to destroy navies for 2 reasons:
a) increased offensive capability of navies
b)limited resources. If building 1 airplane consume 1 oil which could have been used to build another ship, that's enough reason to make its use really strategic otherwise planes would be weak.

Are you sure about this? It makes little sense to me that a single airplane should consume just as much fuel as a whole battleship. Perhaps battleships consume more fuel then planes?

Considering you could sink ships with aircraft in C3C I don't understand the reasoning behind taking that away in Civ 4. It greatly restricted the effectiveness of a carrier based navy.

Glad to see that it is making a return in Civ 5

Do you know it for a fact that the feature is returning?

 

[IdleEnergy]

Are you sure about this? It makes little sense to me that a single airplane should consume just as much fuel as a whole battleship. Perhaps battleships consume more fuel then planes?

Do you know it for a fact that the feature is returning?

Why would you assume that it's a single airplane? Why not an entire squadron or air wing? And yes, it is resource limited.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Why would you assume that it's a single airplane? Why not an entire squadron or air wing? And yes, it is resource limited.

It doesn't matter gameplay wise. Why waste that valuable little resource point on a small puny airplane unit when I can build a whole aircraft carrier for that same resource point?

 

[marioflag]

It doesn't matter gameplay wise. Why waste that valuable little resource point on a small puny airplane unit when I can build a whole aircraft carrier for that same resource point?

Because Aircraft Carriers by themselves are useless without Aircrafts.
Battleships, Destroyers, Bombers and Fighters all have different roles.
Depending also on the situation a Bomber can be more useful than a single battleship.

 

[Thorburne]

Because Aircraft Carriers by themselves are useless without Aircrafts.
Battleships, Destroyers, Bombers and Fighters all have different roles.
Depending also on the situation a Bomber can be more useful than a single battleship.

That is the point! Before WWII, the Battleship was the center of the fleet. When Japan used their aircraft carriers to destoy the US battleships, the US came to a new realization and the aircraft carrier replaced the Battleship as the center. They have there (shipboard) defenses, but their primary defense is their support fleet (destroyers, cruisers, subs). Well, that and the aircraft!

 

[marioflag]

That is the point! Before WWII, the Battleship was the center of the fleet. When Japan used their aircraft carriers to destoy the US battleships, the US came to a new realization and the aircraft carrier replaced the Battleship as the center. They have there (shipboard) defenses, but their primary defense is their support fleet (destroyers, cruisers, subs). Well, that and the aircraft!

Yes that's right. Nevertheless in a game like Civilization the real strength of an Aircraft Carrier in modern warfare can be never represented because this unit would be too much overpowered; and let's be honest naval warfare pre-WWII was more funny than modern naval warfare . So i hope they keep the balance between naval units like it was in civ4 which was unrealistic but at least more interesting.

Edit:Except for Carriers which were weak in Civ4 and now will get some deserved love

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Because Aircraft Carriers by themselves are useless without Aircrafts.
Battleships, Destroyers, Bombers and Fighters all have different roles.
Depending also on the situation a Bomber can be more useful than a single battleship.

That is the point! Before WWII, the Battleship was the center of the fleet. When Japan used their aircraft carriers to destoy the US battleships, the US came to a new realization and the aircraft carrier replaced the Battleship as the center. They have there (shipboard) defenses, but their primary defense is their support fleet (destroyers, cruisers, subs). Well, that and the aircraft!

But you guys are missing my point. Even assuming that aircraft will serve some important tactical role, it still would not change the fact that if a plane costs as much as a ship then I could buy 2 battleships instead of a single aircraft carrier with 1 plane which just doesn't sound like a very good investment. The problem isn't that planes are useless, its the possibility that the cost of making them means that its better to just build a load of other kinds of more powerful units instead of wasting points on smaller ones.

Also, where do tanks and mechanized infantry come into this? They need oil as well right? How would it make sense for me to be able to maintain just as many battleships as tank units with the same amount of fuel?

Just because I can maintain over 40 tanks, that does not mean I should be able to maintain over 40 battleships.

 

[Thorburne]

But you guys are missing my point. Even assuming that aircraft will serve some important tactical role, it still would not change the fact that if a plane costs as much as a ship then I could buy 2 battleships instead of a single aircraft carrier with 1 plane which just doesn't sound like a very good investment. The problem isn't that planes are useless, its the possibility that the cost of making them means that its better to just build a load of other kinds of more powerful units instead of wasting points on smaller ones.

Also, where do tanks and mechanized infantry come into this? They need oil as well right? How would it make sense for me to be able to maintain just as many battleships as tank units with the same amount of fuel?

Just because I can maintain over 40 tanks, that does not mean I should be able to maintain over 40 battleships.

Well, I'll admit, the "fuel" for the units will probably be one of the first things I look into adjusting once the game is out. However, the reason for investing in Aircraft Carriers and Aircraft over Battleships is range of operation. I am pretty certain that you can have more than one aircraft on an aircraft carrier (otherwise, what would be the point). And the range of a carrier far outweighs the might of the Battleship. There aren't many sea battles these days in the way that we think of them. Battleships are all but extinct! Oh, and I am pretty certain that aircraft CAN sink ships in CIV V, so that would make battleships less likely to be able to survive against a carrier fleet.

 

[Stefanskantine]

Maybe battleships require 2 oil. I think I remember reading somewhere from someone who played at a convention that it looked like the either Nukes or the GDR required multiple uranium to build one. If true then it indicates they are not averse to balancing by having some units use more than one resource.

 

[Dbob]

I just assumed that since indirect fire ground units and naval forces can destroy units that indirect fire air units would be able to as well.

But you know what happens when you assume?

 

[Palance]

The beauty of aircraft is their versatility. If you don't need them on the carrier for naval support you can rebase them anywhere your front lines happen to be. That would make their equal resource cost with a battleship substantiated.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

The beauty of aircraft is their versatility. If you don't need them on the carrier for naval support you can rebase them anywhere your front lines happen to be. That would make their equal resource cost with a battleship substantiated.

I think this is really subjective, not to mention that not all maps have ocean spaces. One thing that I REALLY want to know before making any harsh claims is how much oil a single oil resource gives and how easily oil can be gained/found on the map. If oil is so valuable that each oil resource only gives you a handful of oil points that you need to carefully invest then that would obviously be a much bigger deal then if you can just build a ton of units with a single oil resource.

 

[parabellum9x19]

I am pretty certain that you can have more than one aircraft on an aircraft carrier (otherwise, what would be the point).

i read it was 3 aircraft on a carrier (including bombers...which is unrealistic for the large bombers depicted in the game, but who cares?)

 

[hardcore_gamer]

i read it was 3 aircraft on a carrier (including bombers...which is unrealistic for the large bombers depicted in the game, but who cares?)

I care, I was annoyed by how I literally had to leave my entire bomber fleet at home when invading nations overseas until I had taken some enemy cities thus giving my bombers bases to attack from in Civ 4.

 

[Duque d'Caxias]

But you guys are missing my point. Even assuming that aircraft will serve some important tactical role, it still would not change the fact that if a plane costs as much as a ship then I could buy 2 battleships instead of a single aircraft carrier with 1 plane which just doesn't sound like a very good investment. The problem isn't that planes are useless, its the possibility that the cost of making them means that its better to just build a load of other kinds of more powerful units instead of wasting points on smaller ones.

Also, where do tanks and mechanized infantry come into this? They need oil as well right? How would it make sense for me to be able to maintain just as many battleships as tank units with the same amount of fuel?

Just because I can maintain over 40 tanks, that does not mean I should be able to maintain over 40 battleships.

People, I really believe that one Battleship unit represents only one Battleship while one Tank unit represents dozens of tanks. Just as one Fighter unit represents an entire squadron and one Mech Infantry unit represents maybe hundreds or thousands soldiers. So yes, it makes sense that one Fighter or Tank consume the same fuel as a Battleship. So you wouldn't maintain 40 tanks, actually they would represent lets say 4.000 tanks (wow!).

 

[parabellum9x19]

I care, I was annoyed by how I literally had to leave my entire bomber fleet at home when invading nations overseas until I had taken some enemy cities thus giving my bombers bases to attack from in Civ 4.

i meant "who cares if its unrealistic?" i agree its an improvement.

 

[Thorburne]

i read it was 3 aircraft on a carrier (including bombers...which is unrealistic for the large bombers depicted in the game, but who cares?)

Yeah, that would probably be the second thing that I would tweak... increase aircraft capacity of Carriers. I would also like to look into Nuclear Carriers with an even greater capacity. The Nuke Carriers are in part for a scenario I would like to make.

Off Top: I just noticed your name is in my sig!

People, I really believe that one Battleship unit represents only one Battleship while one Tank unit represents dozens of tanks. Just as one Fighter unit represents an entire squadron and one Mech Infantry unit represents maybe hundreds or thousands soldiers. So yes, it makes sense that one Fighter or Tank consume the same fuel as a Battleship. So you wouldn't maintain 40 tanks, actually they would represent lets say 4.000 tanks (wow!).

I do agree with you there. I felt the same way with every previous version of Civ. I looked at the ships as 1:1, Tanks (and such) as 1:5-10, cavalry as 1:30, and foot as 1:50-100 (well, those are approximations, anyway).