Do you use carriers?

[NickyH]

I rarely find myself in situations when I need carriers, but there has been a couple of times when they've been very useful. That's part of what makes CivIII so fun. There are lots of things that you typically don't use, but then you need to solve a problem, and suddenly you discover that there's a unit that takes care of it.

 

[Exwing17]

I actually think that Carriers are more useful on continents and pangaea than on archipelago! I am in the middle of an invasion of my enemies continent, its me verses all 4 of them. Suffice to say, when you have over 100 tanks on an enemy continent things are going well. But I have a small carrier / bombard fleet of 3 CC, 1 BB, and 8 destroyers that are circling around the coast just supporting my land assualt. Whereas I always feel like bombers on airfields or in recently captured cities are at risk.

So yeah, I do like carriers. And I just watch Flags of our Fathers, and the shots of that HUGE naval fleet moving to Iwo Jima made me want to have a massive navy that stretched as far as the eye could see!

 

[Argetnyx]

i love your inginuity

 

[Exwing17]

Your full of love today Argetnyx! Bored at work like moi?

 

[Turner]

For the record, the rebase range in C3C is 3x the movement rate.

 

[TheOverseer714]

And while we are talking trying to get naval units to be a little more accurate, shouldn't Aegis Cruisers be able to transport cruise missiles? It seems screwed up that troop transports are the only ships that can carry them.

 

[capnvonbaron]

And while we are talking trying to get naval units to be a little more accurate, shouldn't Aegis Cruisers be able to transport cruise missiles? It seems screwed up that troop transports are the only ships that can carry them.

I'm with you! I should think there would be a way to solve that... imo both AEGIS and nuke subs should be able to carry at least 4 - 6 cruise missiles, they'd be able to launch them from sea, and the cruise missiles should have a bombard range closer to that of the fighter aircraft. They'd be way less useless in that case.

All stuff that can probably be changed in editors, I'm sure. Too bad I'm an editor ******

 

[Turner]

And that's why Civ3 comes with an editor, so you can tweak stuff like this.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah, I use carriers. A lot. I find they wonderfully compliment my fleets, though I usually wind up only using said fleets for coastal bombardments. But they provide decent air cover for amphibious assaults, or to attack areas deep into enemy lines, or where I cannot send bombers or do not want to risk rebasing them so close to the enemy, and especially for recon purposes.

I can verify that Bombers can rebase to a Carrier.

TURNER IS BACK YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY!

 

[Argetnyx]

I never thought of it that way.

 

[El Justo]

thanks for the clarification, Turner. and for the nice words from the other gentlemen

i agree, TheOverseer714. in real life, those ships have an awesome over the horizon capability. admittedly, it's been a long time since i played the default game...do the aegis units at least have a bombardment range greater than 1?

another thing i don't like much about the carriers is that they're relatively easy to spam out in coastal cities high in shields. it takes a long time to build one of those hogs especially the modern/post ww2 ones. yes, we can ramp up the costs for them and all that. but it takes many years to build one in real life.

 

[Argetnyx]

just the same with battleships

 

[Exwing17]

Man, you've got to imagine that 1 cruise missile unit is the equivalent of about 10 cruise missiles. I just posted a topic about this, but I think that large naval units are the only thing that actually reflect their numbers. A battleship is a fearsome opponent, and so are carriers, and would have a large escort. But you can fit 20k men on a battleship and it takes up 1 tile, same as a transport; that takes around a platoon of 30-50?!

Its equivalents! A transport is probably the same as a non-combat troop carrying fleet, with massive ships that load into landing craft. In terms of logistics, I think a transport is probably the most numerous of all naval units! Im babbleing...

And my spelling is abysmal today, apologies

 

[CarthageFTW]

thanks for the clarification, Turner. and for the nice words from the other gentlemen

i agree, TheOverseer714. in real life, those ships have an awesome over the horizon capability. admittedly, it's been a long time since i played the default game...do the aegis units at least have a bombardment range greater than 1?

another thing i don't like much about the carriers is that they're relatively easy to spam out in coastal cities high in shields. it takes a long time to build one of those hogs especially the modern/post ww2 ones. yes, we can ramp up the costs for them and all that. but it takes many years to build one in real life.

Thats probabbly why the US only has 12? in the seas atm. I'm pretty sure it's 12. But anyways;

I use Carriers ALOT because I've a heavy Archpegilo (I can never spell that so I always say Arp sorry lol) map player and there are times when I just can't bomb anywhere without them. Also, contray to what many others do, i take full advantage of radar towers and airfields. I build airfields around the boarders of my islands, maxing out aircraft range. I once played a game as the Spanish where my empire spanned 3 large islands in the dead center of the map with the English, French, and Celts on the left on a giant conteniet, the Perisans on a small contenient left of that, the Russians and Germans on my right and the Arabs, Japanese, and Carthagians (mind you i never attacked them ) right of that. the only way my bombers got anywhere was with a fleet of about 40 carriers.

 

[Argetnyx]

even on continents they can be very useful

 

[Snarkhunter]

Thats probabbly why the US only has 12? in the seas atm. I'm pretty sure it's 12. But anyways;

I think it's down to 12 now, but not because it takes so long to build them; rather, each carrier requires a considerable crew of trained personnel to man, not easy to maintain the numbers in an all-vol navy, not easy to get the bucks needed to expand the fleet, especially against competing demands.

The situation is worse, because the carrier without its flight wings & supporting warships is just a big, useless target. I don't recall how large a carrier group is in terms of number of ships, but it's surely at least a dozen destroyers, frigates, cruisers, etc., not to mention logistics train. So if you want to expand the number of carriers on station, you have to also build up the support units as well and find the manpower for them. It's a costly endeavor.

kk

 

[Argetnyx]

i think that it is because the US doesnt need that many carriers

 

[Exwing17]

Great Britain only has 3, and we only have 2 commissioned at anyone time! Ark Royal, Illustrious & Invincible are being phased out and we should have two new bigger carriers; HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales!

And salutes to the man with 40 carriers...love the commitment!

 

[CarthageFTW]

I think it's down to 12 now, but not because it takes so long to build them; rather, each carrier requires a considerable crew of trained personnel to man, not easy to maintain the numbers in an all-vol navy, not easy to get the bucks needed to expand the fleet, especially against competing demands.

The situation is worse, because the carrier without its flight wings & supporting warships is just a big, useless target. I don't recall how large a carrier group is in terms of number of ships, but it's surely at least a dozen destroyers, frigates, cruisers, etc., not to mention logistics train. So if you want to expand the number of carriers on station, you have to also build up the support units as well and find the manpower for them. It's a costly endeavor.

kk

That makes sense. Considering the fact that we're strapped for soilders atm. I blame that mostly on the surge of new recruits after 9/11. When we went to war, there was a large influx of new applicants and I think the US got overzelous with how many soliders we sent to Iraq and other parts of the world, weaking our much needed Navy.

i think that it is because the US doesnt need that many carriers

Not true. Think about it. Where does the US lie? Between Canada and Mexico, both of which wouldn't ever consider attacking us, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. How you think we transport all those bombers, fighters, and helicopters overseas? Not by air from US soil if that's what you're thinking. Also, because of our geographical location, it's helped us to be immune from many attacks, part of the reason 9/11 was so devestating.

And salutes to the man with 40 carriers...love the commitment!

 

[Argetnyx]

Also, because of our geographical location, it's helped us to be immune from many attacks, part of the reason 9/11 was so devestating.

it was a deterrent, but not a definite defense. the Germans made several 'Amerika Bomber' designs. also, the big fear of the Cold War was the Soviets nuking America.