1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Carriers, Ridiculous?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Ghpstage, May 26, 2009.

  1. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,716
    Neither does this, but your original point is interesting. Capping stacks on ANY tile, but especially cities, would make the game play quite differently from how it does right now. It would nerf-counter units really hard though.

    Say the defender can have 4 units in his city. Which 4 does he choose? Horse archers are coming! Spears! Axes/swords! Defend with axes!

    But now what do you do against an assembled force of chariots and axes? Uh oh. Your axes are completely sitting ducks to chariots, so you need spears. But, spears are terrible vs axes. Anything less than 2 spears and a couple chariots will overpower the 1st one and you're a goner. But with 2 spears, it wouldn't take many axes to cut through. 4 archers? Might be the best bet after all, but then again 4 archers usually doesn't make any rusher cry, unless they're protective hill archers.

    The AI would be funny to watch in its current form though. I can just picture how one of my massed horse archer charges would look if the AI HAD to keep some of its units outside the city :devil:.
     
  2. Roland Johansen

    Roland Johansen Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    It's pretty hard to reply in a sensible way to a non-argument.

    While it might be funny to think out what would happen to gameplay if such rules were implemented, it wasn't the point I was making. I was just comparing the situation of limited land based airplanes vs unlimited sea-based airplanes to the situation of limited land based ground units vs unlimited sea based land units. The goal of the comparison was to point out the weirdness of the ability to concentrate airpower on sea tiles and not on land tiles to the weirdness of the ability to concentrate ground units on sea tiles but not on land tiles.
     
  3. ORION11380

    ORION11380 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    1. It's NOT wierd that you can stack 10 carriers and it would have 6 times the capacity of a city, because the CITY is not where the planes are kept, it's airports. And some airports are the size of small cities. The New York Metro area has Kennedy, Newark, Laguardia, Newbury, Central Islip, and a few other smaller airports. Kennedy has 7 terminals by itself.

    So in reality, NYC is a city with 5 forts in the BFC. On the other hand, you could stack a dozen Intrepids in the Hudson along the length of Manhattan (2 tiles?), and have double the capacity. Also note that carriers would probably have the same launch rate as an airport.

    2. If you can overwhelm the enemy with 10 fully loaded carriers and escorts, then it's not a fair fight to begin with. If it's a fair fight, your 10 carriers, 4 battleships, 2 cruisers, and 2 destroyers would have to face the equivilent of about 30 battleships. That would destroy your entire fleet in 1 turn, fighters and all.
     
  4. Blaarg

    Blaarg Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    Carriers should be owning all other surface ships, thats reality. Look at WWII, the battleships didn't fight one single battle, because they couldn't get close enough. Carriers were the only capital ships that mattered.

    Now...Carriers vs Land...that does seem to be a bit unfair if the cities are capped at 8 air units each where water tiles have no restriction. I guess they should change the cap to only apply to bombers. Also, carrier planes shouldn't be allowed to launch from harbor.
     
  5. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,902
    Location:
    Misery
    Battleships fought several battles... they just sucked against aircraft.
     
  6. Roland Johansen

    Roland Johansen Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    I'm not saying that it is weird that you can stack 10 carriers on a tile. I'm saying it's weird that you can place more fighters in a sea tile than a land tile.

    If you must use realism arguments: why can't a city have an airport or several airports that combined can match the storage of aircraft carriers. The limitation of land tiles compared to sea tiles is an arbitrary limit. It was likely introduced to limit focussed air power on land, but the carrier was not given a similar limitation.
     
  7. Ghpstage

    Ghpstage Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,944
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    Its not too wierd that you can gain more capacity than an individual city, but it IS wierd that you can have more capacity than every single airbase within range and outnumber them on any given tile. :lol:. This may be offset if the aircrafts range was longer from land bases than carriers though...
     
  8. ORION11380

    ORION11380 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    Well I don't know why you can't build multipuls of the same improvement. I've always thought you should be able to. Why not have 2 libraries? And there's 2 Korean presbytarian churches on every block around here.

    I'm just pointing out that the air forces aren't based in cities, it's outside of the cities, and that carriers are more efficient at carrying WAR planes than airports (I don't think carriers waste room for a cinnabon and duty-free-shops).
     
  9. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    Your argument rests on destroying the arbitrary differences between land and sea. You don't think they should be different in any capacity...but that appears weird to me.
     
  10. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,716
    It's a tough problem...how do you impose caps on naval units that are workable?

    Note that this strategy can easily be countered by matching it. In fact, attacking a similar force would be pretty challenging if it's camping in port waiting for you.

    Then again getting too close to a fleet of battleships can be trouble too.

    How well do destroyers intercept? Massed destros could in theory (not knowing much about their AA abilities) beat out fighters at see on a hammer basis, then just ram into the stack w/o caring.
     
  11. Roland Johansen

    Roland Johansen Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    So you somewhat agree that it should be possible to match the numbers (by building multiple buildings or in another way)?

    By the way, I always considered the centre city tile to be more than the metropolitan area of a city as a tile is a huge area. That's why all kinds of buildings that are often not in the metropolitan area can still be constructed in a city (levee, airport, factory, power plant, harbor, etc.).

    It seems like you're calling the differences (between land and sea) arbitrary in the first sentence while the conclusion in the second sentence seems to be based on the meaningfulness of the difference. So I can't understand the logic of your argument.

    It was just an analogy to show why limitations that are used for one tile and not for another can lead to weird match ups in the game. The analogy doesn't have to be perfect to show this much more basic idea.

    What is your reason to defend the fact that in this game you can place many more planes on a water tile than a land tile? It's not that it is a required asset of aircraft carriers to make them viable in this game. The aircraft carrier is almost required to protect a fleet against a modern strong opposing civilisation or you're going to lose that fleet to airpower. There's also no magic property of water in real life that makes it change the fabric of space so that it can hold more planes.
     
  12. Ghpstage

    Ghpstage Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,944
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    30% intercept chance. Similar to normal combat the top 'defender' in this case best intercept chance(?), is the only one that gets a chance to intercept. (You probably knew this anyway ;))
    The damage they do isn't fantastic, I WBd a test run where I threw 24 fighters at 24 destroyers, 7 got intercepted, not a single fighter died...
    While it was only a small sample size it wasn't encouraging, espeically as they can't have intercept promos.

    Its a major problem. If you have a hard cap on anything, you risk making it worthless. Perhaps a soft cap similar to :health: would be best? Maybe having increased maintenance costs for stacks as they get larger? Applied to land and cities could make using multiple battle groups much more attractive, while leaving omgwtf SoDs a viable strategy, just less cost efficient. :D
    Units would need different maintenance costs too there to make it work though.
    And ground AA lethality would need a big boost, currently its pathetic. I guess its that way due to the low aircraft numbers they're likely to see from land based airforces.

    Very true, unless you count some kind of submersible storage! :lol: :crazyeye:
     
  13. 6K Man

    6K Man Bureaucrat

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,280
    Location:
    in a Gadda Da Vida
    I can only refute what you write, of course.

    If your Fighters are in range of a city, a Cruiser or Sub in the city can come out and get in range to launch.

    And not sink them. Attack a bunch of massed Destroyers with Fighters, and you'll lose a lot more Fighters in the long run than the AI will lose Destroyers. Even if they are reduced to 15 STR, enough of them will wipe out your Carriers, which are 16 STR at best. And your 20 Fighters (it is 20 this time, right? :rolleyes: ) won't even reduce 6 Destroyers to 15 STR.
     
  14. UncleJJ

    UncleJJ Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,226
    Location:
    London
    The reason stacking large numbers of aircraft on carriers makes sense while airfields do have a limited capacity is because the carriers move and rotate in and out of range of their targets when at war. I am almost certain this is how the US carriers were operated in 2003, they took turns to provide aircover and airstrikes, with come aircrews being rested while others were operational.

    Even if there was some arbitrary stacking limit like 3 carriers and 9 fighters per tile, the player wanting more concentrated airpower would simply field the carriers on adjacent tiles or rotate them into and out of range dynamically. All such a rule would do is add micromanagement to little real effect.

    All the stacking problems are a minor issue for "realism" anyway when we consider that this is a turn based game, with one side moving all its forces for 2 years and thousands of miles and then staying stationary while the other civs move. How realistic is that? Then there is the issue of supplying forces with food, fuel and ammunition or rather completely ignoring this the most important issue in modern warfare. Really, just get over it and enjoy playing. ;) It is a highly simplified stategy game, with many game mechanisms that bear little relation to the real world.
     
  15. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,902
    Location:
    Misery
    I think it's fine as is... after all, that many carriers does represent a large amount of hammers.
     
  16. Roland Johansen

    Roland Johansen Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    My point is not really concerned with realism. My point is that BTS introduced an arbitrary limitation to the air power concentration on land and didn't provide a similar limitation to air power on sea. Thus the limitation doesn't really work. You can still get unlimited amounts of aircraft to attack most land tiles (those within range of the coastal areas which is most of the tiles on non-pangea maps). So the game rule to limit the airplanes in a city just makes it a bit tougher for the defender to get its air power where the attacker is as the defender also needs to get aircraft carriers in range of where the attacker happens to attack. In the end, the game rule doesn't work and just causes problems for the defender. Also, the AI doesn't understand the concentration of air power by aircraft carriers.

    I guess, the game designers found that airpower was too strong pre-BTS, but the nerfing didn't really work due to carrier concentrations which still allow unlimited airpower close to the shore. The only effect is that the AI cannot concentrate its air power like the human player can.

    I usually don't include realism arguments in my posts because 'it's just a game' and realism in the end needs is less important than fun. However, when others write some weird logic how more planes can fit in a water tile in reality than a land tile, then that of course needs to be countered. Note that in reality, you have airborne refueling which means that airplanes can get anywhere on the planet with some logistics meaning airpower can get perfect concentration anywhere. So leave realism arguments out of this discussion.
     
  17. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    Building Carriers is not a free lunch like the inherent ability to hold at least 4 units in a city is. Factor in all the hammers required to build a Carrier fleet and then think about what adding square limits to aircraft would do for the incentives to build Carriers.
     
  18. Ammar

    Ammar King

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    629
    Carriers are relatively cheap ships to build in Civ 4. So the additional cost is not that large. Still, I agree that it's not really an issue. A human player has reasonable options to defend against carriers (build his own or build lots of forts).

    And AI sucks enough at modern combat that you really don't need to exploit. As a matter of fact I'm not convinced that a coastal invasion followed by transferring bombers isn't as good when comparing effectivity and effort.
     
  19. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,013
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    This may be the best point in this thread yet. What's the point of limiting me to 3 carriers per water tile when it just means I'll attack from three adjacent water tiles instead of one?
     
  20. sfnhltb

    sfnhltb Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    71
    One possible solution to this would be to make it so that forts could be built in addition to any normal improvement - then a city couldn't be outnumbered in the air so easily as you can base at various military bases inland. As the defender doesn't have to pay for carriers or to defend them from subs and other naval units, this would mean in an even battle the defender should hold the air advantage as long as they roughly know where the attack might be coming from.

    Of course the problem would be getting the AI to use this ability if it was added, it might well just end up being even more advantage human players have over the AI.
     

Share This Page