Carriers useless?
- Thread starter Zannhart
- Start date
Tell me how useless that carrier is when that city you just took over reverts back to the old ruler the next turn, right after moving your 20+ planes into it. 
It has happened to me before and instead of 'cheating' and reloading the game I started to include the use of Carriers into my strategy.
It has happened to me before and instead of 'cheating' and reloading the game I started to include the use of Carriers into my strategy.DaEezT
Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat
Same goes for ground units BTW. You can airlift as many units as your want to one city in one round. I used that strategy to invade a continent: captured city, razed it, build my own, ruseh airport and shipped troops the next round.
costanza
witty and informative
I've had a little success with carriers. I use them as part of a battle group in my navy to keep enemy ships from reaching my shores. I use the bombers on the carrier to damage the ships on their way in so my battleships and destroyers can kill them easily.
Also, I've been playing with a strategy where instead of launching a foreign assault with ground troops; I've used ships and planes to just blow away their roads to resources and other improvements. The carriers help to get those bombers close enough to reach the interior of continents.
Also, I've been playing with a strategy where instead of launching a foreign assault with ground troops; I've used ships and planes to just blow away their roads to resources and other improvements. The carriers help to get those bombers close enough to reach the interior of continents.
Carriers are certainly much more useful than in CIV2. One reason is that since killing one unit in a stack doesn't harm the rest, they are much safer if you use a battleship as an escort. The other reason is that the ranges of bombers is less in CIV3 than in CIV2. They also allow air power to be used in a sneak attack.
So bombers can fly all around the world to 're-base'. Here's a crazy idée, why not fly halfway around the world bomb and then fly back in one turn. 
Or are the bombers dismantled and flown by transport planes, and if so, why not use them as bombers...
I'm confused
Or are the bombers dismantled and flown by transport planes, and if so, why not use them as bombers...
I'm confused
Le Petit Prince
Communist Comrade
WWWOOOOOOOOIUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH i can post for the first time in a week!!!
Zannart was saying that in one year( one turn) a ship can travel anywhere on the earth...take us ship that went to pakistan it took them a month...i finf that not very real that ship can only travel like 5-6 space..it should be like 20-25...and plane should have the same range but move two time per turn...
Zannart was saying that in one year( one turn) a ship can travel anywhere on the earth...take us ship that went to pakistan it took them a month...i finf that not very real that ship can only travel like 5-6 space..it should be like 20-25...and plane should have the same range but move two time per turn...
I certainly agree that modern naval units should be able to move pretty mcuh anywhere on the map they want in a turn since that equals a year. They can still only attack once anyway. The only problem is that this is actually true of all modern combat units to some degree. Though this is mimicked by railroads, when you move into enemy territory, it does not actually take a year to advance further. I think this is one case where realism must give way to gameplay. I think adding 3 or 4 movement points to modern naval units would be a good comprimise.
Yah, Navel movement was way to unreal. So I upped all the the modern navel movements by 2x and increased the movement rate of navel units from the middle range by half again as much. It makes them much more playable. It was driving me insane when I had to send a battleship to the southern edge of my land mass and generations of my people were born and died in the time it took to get there. I guess the must have have a fair number of non conventianal facilities on those ships, seeing how they have to breed the next crew that is going to be taking over on its 200 year jaunt to the bottom of the map.
In CIV3 the unit icons represent large groups of men, machines, aircraft and all thier supporting components.
Assume that the battleship icon is actually taskforce of 2 or 3 battleships, several destoyers and a cluster of assorted transpots and tankers. These sevice vessels must rotate back to home base to replenish. The slow movement rates could be seen as representing the difficulties of setting up the logistics of the task force represented by a single battleship icon.
This concept goes a long way in explaining how an ironclad can be so damaging to a battleship unit. In RL an ironclad, even a group, sinking a battleship would be a fluke. But what if the ironclads got loose among the transports and tankers. Without transports for food and tankers for fuel the battleships would be much weaker. In RL the battleships would be forced to retreat due to lack of support.
Ground units. Some people seem to think that tank units are made up of only tanks. Even a modern RL armored division has unarmored or lightly armored vehicles. Trucks and hummers, cooks and quartermasters all are necessary to keep the division running. Spearmen among the cooks could do real damage.
Assume that the battleship icon is actually taskforce of 2 or 3 battleships, several destoyers and a cluster of assorted transpots and tankers. These sevice vessels must rotate back to home base to replenish. The slow movement rates could be seen as representing the difficulties of setting up the logistics of the task force represented by a single battleship icon.
This concept goes a long way in explaining how an ironclad can be so damaging to a battleship unit. In RL an ironclad, even a group, sinking a battleship would be a fluke. But what if the ironclads got loose among the transports and tankers. Without transports for food and tankers for fuel the battleships would be much weaker. In RL the battleships would be forced to retreat due to lack of support.
Ground units. Some people seem to think that tank units are made up of only tanks. Even a modern RL armored division has unarmored or lightly armored vehicles. Trucks and hummers, cooks and quartermasters all are necessary to keep the division running. Spearmen among the cooks could do real damage.
Carriers are incredibly usefull! Especially in late warfare. For granted, they pale in comparison to real carriers, they server a great purpose.
Improvement destruction may be the biggest use for carriers. When I got into a war with China, they were a continent away, and they wouldnt sign peace, so I bombed the crap out of all of their "luxury" squares, thus sending their empire into a state of Anarchy. While I lost a few bombers in the process, I did have some to spare, but it hurt they alot.
A good strategy for carriers is to scatter them throughout the world, just in case. You dont have to put bombers on them, but they do serve as mobile air fields for the occasionally needed bombing.
ironfang
Improvement destruction may be the biggest use for carriers. When I got into a war with China, they were a continent away, and they wouldnt sign peace, so I bombed the crap out of all of their "luxury" squares, thus sending their empire into a state of Anarchy. While I lost a few bombers in the process, I did have some to spare, but it hurt they alot.
A good strategy for carriers is to scatter them throughout the world, just in case. You dont have to put bombers on them, but they do serve as mobile air fields for the occasionally needed bombing.
ironfang
Yep, that's what they're best for, IMHO. Taking out a powerful civ's resources that would be difficult to reach by land. I was at war with the Chinese and when hostilities started my bombers took out access to their 3 oil fields that were grouped together near the coast. Then they couldn't make tanks and half a dozen other units. Sweet.
e
ROFL! Oh no, the spearmen wiped out all our cooks! Now the whole division is going to starve!
I just figured tanks aren't particularly designed to take out spearmen. Maybe the spearman was hiding behind a tree, and when the tank drove past he jammed his spear into the tread mechanism and disabled it or something.
Did they really train infantry to stick grenades in the treads when the tanks drove over their foxholes, or is that just something out of an old war movie?
Polonius
Warlord
I too love the notion of spearmen among the cooks! But there are many cases in real warfare of the little guy just getting lucky or doing the right thing at exactly the right time. E.g. The most successful and famous air ace of World War I - the Red Baron - was reputedly killed by a lucky shot from a rifleman in the trenches below.
Sometimes the little guy does take out the big guy - just not too often. Usually Goliath just stomps David.
Sometimes the little guy does take out the big guy - just not too often. Usually Goliath just stomps David.
From what Ive read of the Red Baron, he was not killed by some one from the trenches. He was on the tail of an Allied plane. And another Allied plane came up to help his buddy. The guy only fired a few shots and shot down the Baron. He was pretty new on the front, not really an experienced pilot and didnt even know who hed shot down until after the battle.
Carriers are really useful when used to cripple the enemy rather than a full invasion. I typically use them to disconnect resources and enemy capitals. Disconnected capital means no trade for that civ. 
Very powerful!
It doesn't give u immediate results but so far from what I've seen you don't win wars quickly either like it used to be in civ2. So weakening the enemy civ is more helpful than hurting units.
Very powerful!It doesn't give u immediate results but so far from what I've seen you don't win wars quickly either like it used to be in civ2. So weakening the enemy civ is more helpful than hurting units.
Similar threads
