Do You Actually Use Aircraft Carriers?

[mikehunt]

I've always used them to some degree, going all the way back to Civ1
now that I have conquests and lethal bombardment I plan on using them more with bombers. I also plan on using bombers a lot more than I used to. in my current game I just used a carrier with bombers to decimate the opposing naval forces

 

[Sucha_Soorma]

Carriers are best used as part of a small fleet of ships (Carrier Group), I usually have min 2/3 subs scouting around the area of the group. 2/3 Destroyers scouting for enemy subs, and 2/3 Battleships protecting the Carrier. On the carrier(s) have 3 bombers 1 fighter.

This way its almost impossible to not control the seas, depending on the traffic build a few of these 'groups' and you will have protection of your coast and you can go on the offensive when needed and the bombers should help then as well.

Use the bombers to strike out the enemy ships and move in your ships to take out last hit point or two.

 

[zerksees]

Caution against human player.

Oh yes. The tactics against a human player are much different! In a recent PBEM game I got behind in tech and used an armada of ironclads to keep my friend off my continent. He had destroyers and battleships but they succumbed to the rain of my fleets of ironclads. In the end he lost when I used propaganda to flip one of his cities, where I promptly landed 5 or 6 transports of cavalry to run around and take/raze many of his cities all his cities in the core that were undefended! I had the points lead but was getting desperate for something better than a historgraph win. It was really touch and go until I came up with that approach.

He thought he was safe because I did not have amphibious war. I don't think it will work next time - unlike tactics against the AI which work every time.

 

[Hatework]

Theres one more use for carriers i havent seen posted yet. Its a rare tactic, but one ive used a few times. Mind you, i play primarily continents/archipolagos (sp).

I was in a war with the Ottomans that occupied the northern part of our shared island (byzantines were there too, but id reduced them to a one city empire.) My allies, the Egyptian, were on another continent fighting the romans. Since i was primarily using artillery on my continent, i sent my 2 carrier task forces to aid the Egyptians.

Egypt musta loved me. id scout ahead of their forces, then just blow anything away in their path, n clear out cities of defenders for them. Somehow, them sending galleys full of crusaders to help in my war (early modern era) just didnt seem to return the favor.

Just one example, but ive used carriers to support allies on distant continents on several occasions when i couldnt get into the fray directly.

 

[Aleph-Null]

carriers cost a lot to build. one of my favorite tactics has been to simply build a fleet of transport ships filled with cruise missiles and they seem to do the job rather nicely. carriers become obsolete rather quickly once you conquer a city and rush an airport.

 

[Steve Thompson]

Of course! Everyone should use them, even if it's a game on 1 continent, just because they allow planes to bomb cities and infrastructure long before your troops get reach the area on land.

In fact, I've fought a whole war recently with naval units! The Americans were on this island all by themselves, and rather than literally go across the entire world and land troops in a place where they can't be resupplied except by airports, I sent 2 carriers protected by regular combat ships, and proceeded to bombard them into a favorable peace treaty. And obviously, when I actually launch an amphibious invasion, they provide air cover in out-of-the-way places.

 

[spacedragonblue]

I use them when i have to invade a place far away from my cities. Since usually the AI has his core cities relatively far from the front i like to bomb out all the roads, rails and infastructure deep in enemy territory. You won't kill many units, but the civ itself will suffer in terms of speed, productivity and, therefore, power.

 

[wallytych]

I too would like to agree on the useage of the aircraft carrier battle group.Usualy a squad of 10- 15 units in a battle group is great fun when paired with a task force of destroyers battleships and subs ( with cruise missles on the subs ) Naval warfare if done right can and is alot of fun in agame like this.Its almost not even fair when it works great.Alas I would like my helos to be able to base onto them ,maybe someday.Awac's would be great for sub hunting(then again thats whats Aegis is for right ? Cheers!

 

[Zardnaar]

I build them on island type maps most of the time. I've also used them for punishment war. Typically the AI is to far away/powerful to deal with head on or if your land forces are busy elsewhere. Basically 20+bombers in carriers bomb resources/luxury resources/mines/irrigation/roads/cities (in that order) and try and leave craters everywhere. I've bombed civs so hard they never recover.

 

[man o' war]

i've never really used them, mianly because i haven't felt a need to. After reading this thread however, i'm going to try and use them anyway (just so i'm better at them when I actually do need them) on my current modern age pangea map.

 

[gunkulator]

On most random maps, carriers are not needed. In some scenarios, however, like C3C's WWII in the Pacific they are vital. Assuming tech parity, you leave your carriers just outside of bomber range. Every turn, you duck into range, bomb, and then duck out. The AI will be unable to strike back.

 

[man o' war]

Thats my point - they aren't often needed, but i tmay be worth using them anyway, just so you are equipped with all the tactics you need when a carrier battle is needed.

 

[Zelda's Man]

I rarely ever use them because they are too easy to sink with other battleships/destroyers/ironclads etc. Just bombard the escorts with a few ironclads (or even artillery if they are near the land) to redline them and then attack the aircraft carrier with a destroyer or battleship and there goes a ship and four planes.

On lower levels though, they are a lot of fun, but rarely necessary. I generally move my planes from conquered city to city.

 

[shortguy]

I love aircraft carriers. They restrict your range somewhat, but there's no worry of the city your bombers are based in flipping (I'll assume you value them enough to defend it properly).

 

[Steve Thompson]

"Every turn, you duck into range, bomb, and then duck out. The AI will be unable to strike back." - That's what I love about Carriers! The AI has NO WAY of retaliating, because my escort ships are always adequate to fend off his naval units. Bomb, then leave, return, bomb again, leave, and so on...

However, the thing I don't like about them is that they are expensive. I prefer to build a bunch of tanks or Panzers than 3 or more carriers, 2 is usually enough.

 

[Nicci]

carriers can be usefull. if u got a few carriers together and u try and invade another coninent, but worry about being driven out, the bomber can provide that extra hit.
besides that, carriers can be vital in ruling the ocean. with a few battleships and a carrier u can wipe out pretty much everything u come across.
and some mentioned it before: destroying vital resources of the enemy that u wouldn't be able to reach otherwise.

 

[man o' war]

besides that, carriers can be vital in ruling the ocean. with a few battleships and a carrier u can wipe out pretty much everything u come across.

Not being rude? but is ocean ruling really that important? even on continental maps, I find ships to be really quite limited in their usefulnes, apart from floating missile bases. Most transporting by the time i get carriers is done by air for me - when at peace, I make a note of establishing an airbase on an "enemy" continent. That turn, I fly in 8-10 defensive units (depending on the number of airporst I own) and fly out the settler. You can then pretty much ignore this airbase - even if it slips into enemy terretory, the airbase is still yours aslong as you keep those defensive units on it. If war is declared, assuming you have 8-10 airports, you can quickly rush in re-enforcements, and fly out wounded if need be. Re-enforcements of around 10 units per turn is going to be difficult for the enemy to deal with. Once you have a good pile of units, you can begin to slowly advance to the nearest city, taking your entire stack. For a couple of turns, reenforcements will be unnavailable as they will probobly take the airbase, but you can then rush an airport in the conquered city.

so... after that explanation which ended up being considerably longer that I origionally intended it to be - ruling the ocean isn't really that important, as long as you have a couple of bombers on your continent to deal with enemy ships damaging your improved tiles.

 

[Nicci]

first, i play civ3. no airbases.
not sure what u meant by "not being rude . . . "
ruling the ocean can be important. the trouble with civ is that enemy ships bomb all they can see. not very nice. besides that, they allways try and get some troops on shore next to ur less defended cities. all very inconvenient if u are at war with a few other countries and u need all the troops u can get at the other end of ur 'empire'.
furthermore . . . if ur cities are located on different islands/continents it can be very important (travel throught the air wasn't really possible in the dark ages) that ur ships get to that other island intact.
so, to be short, yes it can be important to rule te ocean. vital? most of the time not. a good thing? yes.

 

[man o' war]

you misunderstand - I accept that it is useful to rule the ocean, but by the time you have carriers, air travel is possible (otherwise there wouldn't be much point in a carrier - chariot carrier??)

 

[Nicci]

you misunderstand - I accept that it is useful to rule the ocean, but by the time you have carriers, air travel is possible (otherwise there wouldn't be much point in a carrier - chariot carrier??)

ah, u have a point.