Carriers can't carry Stealth Bombers!

[Liborio]

Another tactic- if there is a tiny little island within stealth-bomber range of your opponent, even just a 1-tile guano-farm island, you can plop a settler on it and instantly have a perfect bomber base. A stealth bomber can travel an incredible distance one-way, to go land on your new base. You can even make a couple of these quickie bases, if the distance is too far for one hop. There are usually islands out there to use for this, if you search around. Saipan + Iwo Jima = B29's over Tokyo.

Or simply fill a carrier with fighters/jet fighters (or more, depends on how much enemy AA there is), do a few air sweep missions on enemy AA/air units and then send in the bombers. Whenever i launch a seaborne invasion i always bring a carrier or two with fighters because of this very same reason.

 

[timtofly]

Warships and aircraft are far more practical than nukes because they're not one-use-only weapons.

In my last playthrough, I was England, so I rushed to Navigation, built ~8 Ships of the Line, and used them to dominate the seas and bombard enemy cities. Even if I wasn't planning to capture a city, I'd bombard it for the XP. By the end of the game I had upgraded them to Destroyers and every one of them had Logistics and +1 Range, so I could bombard any city with impunity. I used them to bombard enemy lands units and clear beach heads for seaborne invasions, and support my land units near the coast.

I also had 3 Battleships (4 Range and Logistics), 3 Carriers, 3 Missile Cruisers, 2 Nuclear Subs, 10+ Jet Fighters, 8 Bombers, 2 Stealth Bombers, and ~20 Cruise Missiles to project firepower further inland.

Regarding buying nukes, IMO they shouldn't be purchaseable -- I have a rule that I won't buy nukes because it's unfair.

Is it fair to purchase anything? Seems to me all that does is speed things up?

On higher difficulty levels the AI gets them immediately for free. Would it be fair to purchase them then?

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Is it fair to purchase anything? Seems to me all that does is speed things up?

On higher difficulty levels the AI gets them immediately for free. Would it be fair to purchase them then?

Generally I only purchase buildings, and usually only for new mid-to-late game cities so they'll grow faster. I try to refrain from purchasing units unless I urgently need them -- and if I'm playing well I shouldn't.

For example, in my last playthrough I had money rolling in and I was trying for a Dom Victory on a Large map. I had finished capturing the capitals on a second continent and had to rush my veteran units across the ocean to the third, last, and largest continent. I purchased about a dozen Mech Infantry and Mobile SAMs to garrison the cities I had captured to ensure that my former enemies didn't DoW and try to liberate their capitals.

Nukes don't win games, so purchasing them is not only unfair (IMO) but a waste of money.

It's totally unfair that the AI should be gifted units for free on higher difficulty levels. Firaxis should be embarassed that they can't program the AI well enough to compete with players without blatantly cheating. So whether it's necessary to purchase nukes or units or buildings on higher difficulties is a solution for an unrelated problem.

 

[timtofly]

In my current game the AI did recieve 2 a-bombs and 1 nuclear missile in one turn. I was glad that I could purchase a nuclear missile to take out those units. It was after taking them out, that I realized the city had already been hit, so it took out the city also. I was able to take over their uranium, and never once hit by an enemies nuclear arsenal.

I agree that nukes will not win a game, but taking them out before they hit you is very satisfying. BTW, the way to take over cities is a couple of veteren Stealth bombers and a few modern armor. You can take over a couple of cities per turn this way. It is even easier if a couple of missiles have cleared out their nukes, uranium, and other sundry ground units.

If one plans ahead for the ability to purchase things the "last minute" is no more unfair than the AI, but it does make things interesting. I think that it is unfair for the cheating AI not to have any resistance in a human player who cannot/refuses to toss back the same kind of weapons, especially if the human has the ability to do so.

 

[GlobularFoody]

B2 Stealth Bomber runway length needed for takeoff: 6500 ft.
Average Carrier Runway: 1000 ft.

Who says the stealth bomber in Civ 5 is a B2? It looks like it, but that's it. I'm for allowing these on carriers, it would cut down on the annoying long flight time if you need to attack at long range with one. But if they do whats needed and put in an option to only show the aircraft attacking the target, and not the entire flight back and forth, I wouldn't really care.

 

[chazzycat]

Who says the stealth bomber in Civ 5 is a B2? It looks like it, but that's it.

I'll say it. I believe B2s are the only operational stealth bombers in existence today.

 

[timtofly]

Who says the stealth bomber in Civ 5 is a B2? It looks like it, but that's it. I'm for allowing these on carriers, it would cut down on the annoying long flight time if you need to attack at long range with one. But if they do whats needed and put in an option to only show the aircraft attacking the target, and not the entire flight back and forth, I wouldn't really care.

A stealth bomber is for long range missions half way around the world. Basing them on a carrier does defeat the purpose of what they are intended to do. All stealth is off, if the enemy can see a naval group sitting off shore. If your air superiority is based off of your naval resources, you are limiting yourself. It is quite doable to use stealth bombers to weaken coastal cities on all the maps I have seen were continents were available. After taking over these cities and establishing a foothold, one can easily move these stealth bombers over and work on interior cities.

I think the problem comes into play when one "just" needs to take out a capital and one tries from another continent, and the capital is in the middle of another continent. Even with stealth on a carrier, that is not a practical situation. About cutting down on flight time, basing them on a carrier would not cut down on flight time. One will still attack the furthest tile available. Is there not an option to turn off animated unit moves?

 

[GlobularFoody]

A stealth bomber is for long range missions half way around the world. Basing them on a carrier does defeat the purpose of what they are intended to do. All stealth is off, if the enemy can see a naval group sitting off shore. If your air superiority is based off of your naval resources, you are limiting yourself. It is quite doable to use stealth bombers to weaken coastal cities on all the maps I have seen were continents were available. After taking over these cities and establishing a foothold, one can easily move these stealth bombers over and work on interior cities.

I think the problem comes into play when one "just" needs to take out a capital and one tries from another continent, and the capital is in the middle of another continent. Even with stealth on a carrier, that is not a practical situation. About cutting down on flight time, basing them on a carrier would not cut down on flight time. One will still attack the furthest tile available. Is there not an option to turn off animated unit moves?

You can move carriers and attack with aircraft in the same turn, no need to have the carrier sit at maximum range.

I think its possible to turn off combat animations but you can only do it when you first start a game and it disables all unit animation, not just for aircraft. Not really a solution if you ask me.

And stealth bombers aren't stealth because they begin their mission from far away or because the bad guys don't know they are there.

Well since the B2 is the only stealth bomber that exists today, and ONLY America has them...why is it available to all Civs? We don't live in the world of Civilization that's why.

 

[TW_Honorius]

Who says the stealth bomber in Civ 5 is a B2? It looks like it, but that's it. I'm for allowing these on carriers, it would cut down on the annoying long flight time if you need to attack at long range with one. But if they do whats needed and put in an option to only show the aircraft attacking the target, and not the entire flight back and forth, I wouldn't really care.

so greek companion cavalry looks like what?
Warriors looks like what?
Artillery looks like what?

All units in the game looks like their name. Sorry you cannot see that.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Who says the stealth bomber in Civ 5 is a B2? It looks like it, but that's it. I'm for allowing these on carriers, it would cut down on the annoying long flight time if you need to attack at long range with one. But if they do whats needed and put in an option to only show the aircraft attacking the target, and not the entire flight back and forth, I wouldn't really care.

The Stealth Bomber from every Civ game has been based on the B2, because the B2 is presently the only operational "stealth" bomber in the world. Supposedly the Chinese are developing either a stealth bomber or fighter, but it's years away from introduction. Since the Chinese don't have aircraft carriers (yet -- also in development), I doubt their new stealth aircraft will be carrier-based. So in either case, stealth bombers can't be based on carriers.

Nor should they be, because Stealth Bombers need to have some limitations, because they have twice the range of the Bomber and Jet Fighter, are invisible to AA and interceptors, and have 80 ranged strength (compared to 60 and 70, respectively). So not allowing SBs to be based on carriers is a perfectly reasonable limitation for game balance.

So quit complaining and figure out an alterative way to get things done.

 

[GlobularFoody]

The Stealth Bomber from every Civ game has been based on the B2, because the B2 is presently the only operational "stealth" bomber in the world. Supposedly the Chinese are developing either a stealth bomber or fighter, but it's years away from introduction. Since the Chinese don't have aircraft carriers (yet -- also in development), I doubt their new stealth aircraft will be carrier-based. So in either case, stealth bombers can't be based on carriers.

Nor should they be, because Stealth Bombers need to have some limitations, because they have twice the range of the Bomber and Jet Fighter, are invisible to AA and interceptors, and have 80 ranged strength (compared to 60 and 70, respectively). So not allowing SBs to be based on carriers is a perfectly reasonable limitation for game balance.

So quit complaining and figure out an alterative way to get things done.

Are you one of those people that lives to argue or something? Or did you just not read what I posted? I complained about nothing but the annoyingly long time it takes for aircraft to fly to their target and back. Putting stealth bombers on carriers would help that. If you haven't played a late era game against the AI where they have 5-10 planes in every city and you spend a good 5-10 minutes doing nothing but watching those planes fly around, then I suggest actually playing the game.

And why do think you know what chinese aircraft designers are thinking? There's not a single reason a stealth bomber can't take off from a carrier. Not all stealth bombers have to be a huge as the B2, the B2 is big I would guess because of all the fuel it has to carry. A shorter range bomber that launches from a carrier is every bit as stealthy as one that doesnt.

Moderator Action: The first line here really isn't conducive to a civil or productive discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Are you one of those people that lives to argue or something? Or did you just not read what I posted? I complained about nothing but the annoyingly long time it takes for aircraft to fly to their target and back. Putting stealth bombers on carriers would help that. If you haven't played a late era game against the AI where they have 5-10 planes in every city and you spend a good 5-10 minutes doing nothing but watching those planes fly around, then I suggest actually playing the game.

And why do think you know what chinese aircraft designers are thinking? There's not a single reason a stealth bomber can't take off from a carrier. Not all stealth bombers have to be a huge as the B2, the B2 is big I would guess because of all the fuel it has to carry. A shorter range bomber that launches from a carrier is every bit as stealthy as one that doesnt.

Moderator Action: The first line here really isn't conducive to a civil or productive discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Did you not read what you posted?

Who says the stealth bomber in Civ 5 is a B2? It looks like it, but that's it.

Reducing or eliminating the duration of the Stealth Bomber's flight animation is an unrelated issue. And allowing SBs to be based on carriers simply to reduce their flight time is ridiculous.

If you hate long aircraft animations so much, then TURN OFF THE UNIT ANIMATIONS! Problem solved.

I don't pretend to know what the Chinese aircraft designers are thinking -- but I do have access to magical wellsprings of information called "Google" and "Wikipedia". From them I divined a picture and the name of the Chinese stealth jet, as well as experts' best estimates of its characteristics and capabilities. They're as follows:

The prototype Chinese Stealth Jet is called the J-20 (Jian-20, which literally means "Annihilator-20").

Crew: 1
Length: 70 ft (21.26 m)
Wingspan: 42 ft (12.88 m)
Height: 14.6 ft (4.45 m)
Max takeoff weight: 66,000–80,000 lb

The experts compare its design to the F-22 Raptor, which is characterized as an air superiority fighter, with additional capabilities, such as ground attack. So the Chinese stealth jet isn't even a dedicated bomber, which means that the B-2 Spirit is still the only "stealth bomber" in the world, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

You mentioned that not all "stealth bombers" have to be as huge as the B-2. Perhaps, but there are not any "stealth" aircraft -- fighters or bombers, past, present, or near future -- that can be based on carriers.

The J-20's wingspan is ~45 ft like the F-22, F-117, F/A-18, F-14, but neither the F-22 Raptor nor the F-117 Nighthawk's wings fold or sweep, which is why they can't fit on the elevators and therefore inside the hangars of American super-carriers, which is why they aren't carrier-based. The J-20 is also 10 feet longer than the F-22, F/A-18 Super Hornet, and F-14 Tomcat.

Admittedly, it's too early to know if the J-20 will have folding wings or if the new Chinese aircraft carriers can accomodate larger aircraft.

Regardless, all of the units in Civ5 are based on and modelled after historical or real world sources (the obvious exception being the "Giant Death Robot"). The Civ5 Stealth Bomber is obviously based on the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which is why it's not allowed to be based on aircraft carriers. This is both realistic, and fair for game balance.

 

[GlobularFoody]

Did you not read what you posted?



Reducing or eliminating the duration of the Stealth Bomber's flight animation is an unrelated issue. And allowing SBs to be based on carriers simply to reduce their flight time is ridiculous.

If you hate long aircraft animations so much, then TURN OFF THE UNIT ANIMATIONS! Problem solved.

I don't pretend to know what the Chinese aircraft designers are thinking -- but I do have access to magical wellsprings of information called "Google" and "Wikipedia". From them I divined a picture and the name of the Chinese stealth jet, as well as experts' best estimates of its characteristics and capabilities. They're as follows:

The prototype Chinese Stealth Jet is called the J-20 (Jian-20, which literally means "Annihilator-20").

Crew: 1
Length: 70 ft (21.26 m)
Wingspan: 42 ft (12.88 m)
Height: 14.6 ft (4.45 m)
Max takeoff weight: 66,000–80,000 lb

The experts compare its design to the F-22 Raptor, which is characterized as an air superiority fighter, with additional capabilities, such as ground attack. So the Chinese stealth jet isn't even a dedicated bomber, which means that the B-2 Spirit is still the only "stealth bomber" in the world, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

You mentioned that not all "stealth bombers" have to be as huge as the B-2. Perhaps, but there are not any "stealth" aircraft -- fighters or bombers, past, present, or near future -- that can be based on carriers.

The J-20's wingspan is ~45 ft like the F-22, F-117, F/A-18, F-14, but neither the F-22 Raptor nor the F-117 Nighthawk's wings fold or sweep, which is why they can't fit on the elevators and therefore inside the hangars of American super-carriers, which is why they aren't carrier-based. The J-20 is also 10 feet longer than the F-22, F/A-18 Super Hornet, and F-14 Tomcat.

Admittedly, it's too early to know if the J-20 will have folding wings or if the new Chinese aircraft carriers can accomodate larger aircraft.

Regardless, all of the units in Civ5 are based on and modelled after historical or real world sources (the obvious exception being the "Giant Death Robot"). The Civ5 Stealth Bomber is obviously based on the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which is why it's not allowed to be based on aircraft carriers. This is both realistic, and fair for game balance.

Obviously, you DIDN'T read anything but the first sentence of my first reply. I couldn't care less about putting stealth bombers on carrier, EXCEPT for reducing flight time! If you had read anything, you would know that I do not want to turn off unit animations for the ENTIRE GAME, just to avoid the excessive aircraft flight time.

Also, that fighter is not the same as a bomber. There are already stealth jets in existence now, the US has had stealth fighters for a long time. Just because the Civ 5 stealth bomber LOOKS like a B2, that doesn't mean it IS a B2. The US is the ONLY country that has the B2 in reality, so why is it available to ALL civs in the game? You and the others keep trying to pull real world logic into something yet you ignore things like that. The plane could be anything, they just made that the graphics because it is so recognizable. Just like the modern armor unit LOOKS like an Abrahms tank but it that's not what is has to be...

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Obviously, you DIDN'T read anything but the first sentence of my first reply. I couldn't care less about putting stealth bombers on carrier, EXCEPT for reducing flight time! If you had read anything, you would know that I do not want to turn off unit animations for the ENTIRE GAME, just to avoid the excessive aircraft flight time.

If all you care about is reducing the duration of aircraft flight animations then STOP POSTING HERE because it is OFF-TOPIC and therefore IRRELEVANT!

Also, that fighter is not the same as a bomber. There are already stealth jets in existence now, the US has had stealth fighters for a long time. Just because the Civ 5 stealth bomber LOOKS like a B2, that doesn't mean it IS a B2. The US is the ONLY country that has the B2 in reality, so why is it available to ALL civs in the game? You and the others keep trying to pull real world logic into something yet you ignore things like that. The plane could be anything, they just made that the graphics because it is so recognizable. Just like the modern armor unit LOOKS like an Abrahms tank but it that's not what is has to be...

Nothing that you wrote matters.

The B-2 Spirit is the only dedicated stealth bomber that has ever existed in the world. That's why the Civ5 Stealth Bomber is based on the B-2, and it has the same characteristics and limitations -- i.e. it's too large to be carrier-based. It's only logical that the Civ5 Stealth Bomber is designed after B-2. Arguing the contrary just demonstrates how irrational you are.

There hasn't been a carrier-based "bomber" since World War II, which is why the Civ5 Bomber can be based on carriers. Since then, there have been three basic categories of carried-based combat aircraft: fighter, multi-role, and support -- no bombers. In fact, only the Air Force has dedicated BOMBER aircraft, such as the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. The Air Force doesn't operate from aircraft carriers, so their bombers can be as large as they need to be.

If in 10-20 years carrier-based stealth bombers are introduced, then Civ 8, 9, 10, or 11 could include them. But as long as there only exists one type of stealth bomber in the world, and said stealth bomber is too large to be based on carriers, then the Civ5 Stealth Bomber should not be carrier-based. And as I've explained, not allowing the Civ5 Stealth Bomber to be carrier-based is perfect for game balance.

Hence, the Civ5 Stealth Bomber should not be carrier-based.

You've lost this argument, GlobularFoody. So whine about the excrutiatingly long aircraft flight animations somewhere else.

Moderator Action: More civility is required. In particular, the last line isn't very conducive to civil/productive discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[chazzycat]

excrutiatingly long aircraft flight animations

finally, something everyone can agree on

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

finally, something everyone can agree on

Actually, I italicized "excrutiating" to convey a sarcastic tone of voice. I was obviously exaggerating to belittle GlobularFoody's off-topic complaints about the duration of the aircraft flight animations.

It's absurd to complain so vehemently about them, then turn around and defiantly say "I do not want to turn off unit animations for the ENTIRE GAME!" And he's so pissy that he's accused me of not reading his posts because he knows he's already lost this debate about why Stealth Bombers should not be carrier-based. (Admittedly, I've been ignoring his off-topic rantings because they're irrelevent to the topic of this thread.)

Perhaps the aircraft flight animations could be shorter, or skippable (like I suggested in another thread previously), but this is not the thread to discuss that issue.

GlobularFoody "justification" for changing the Civ5 Stealth Bomber to be carrier-based is that he thinks the flight animation is too long. He doesn't give a damn about realism or game balance. He just doesn't want to have to endure the time it takes the Stealth Bomber to fly to its target and return. He's being totally selfish and unreasonable.

Moderator Action: And this post is worse.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[chazzycat]

I agree with you, his argument is dumb. The animations are way too long, but that is by no means a reason to start changing the game mechanics. I was just trying to lighten the mood in here a bit. Sorry if my attempt at humor was misinterpreted.

 

[TW_Honorius]

The US is the ONLY country that has the B2 in reality, so why is it available to ALL civs in the game?

game balance. kinda unfair if they made the stealth bomber a UU for America. America is only a couple hundred years old, half of the units in the game never belonged to America in reality.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: The tone of this thread needs a major improvement, particularly from Soryn Arkayn.

Less ALL CAPS and as a start please.

 

[wcbarney]

B2 Stealth Bomber runway length needed for takeoff: 6500 ft.
Average Carrier Runway: 1000 ft.

Well, yeah; but it takes my F-18 about 6000 ft to clear a runway also -- which is why we're catapulted off the bow at great force.