Does the AI use Carriers?

I have been playing civilization's for years ever since I try'd civ 2 and I have Never seen the AI build or use a carrier. I build them load them full of bombers/fighters set up a task force (a few battle ships, destroyers, subs, civ 2 & 3 the subs had cruise missiles and transports) and I would leave them in the middle of no where ready for first strikes or as a fast reply to the AI attacking me. has anyone seen the AI use the carrier? does the AI know how to use it?

 

I'm at war with three civs right now and one of them is launching bombing runs from carriers just off my coast. So the answer would be yes.

 

Ive never seen the AI use carriers, no. Now that they cant carry bombers I dont use them myself anymore, either.

 

well i dont know i uselly im infornt in reachers .. so i havent even seen the use tank yet hehehe

 

I've seen the AI build carriers =o.O= ... but they never left port. =^_^=

 

In Civ 3 I saw the AI build carriers. Was really annoying too, since in Civ 3 I defended my coastlines exclusively with aircraft (go go lethal sea bombardment!) - the carrier would sail in range, bomb my cities, and then sail out of bombing range again. Probably one of the smartest things I ever saw the Civ 3 AI do though.

 

I edited my game so that the carriers can carry bombers I also have the mech inf carrying marines like a APC (but just like a transporter in water if its killed so are the units inside)

 

The Incan built a carrier and used it once in one of my game. They landed a dozen of units around a coastal city at first and then bombarded the city with their fighters

 

I had to deal with enemy carriers too in my last game. I was attacking Tokugawa and he surprised me with an (unsucessful) counterattack with transports and carriers. The carriers launched some fighters which destroyed improvements on my home continent, even around my capital.

This was quite annoying since i had my whole army, navy and airforce on his continent and it took a while until I was able to sink his fleet.

Was quite nice to see such elements of surprise though (or was it desperation?).

greetings,

Rince

 

Isabella used a carrier against me one game. It was annoying as hell.

 

In Civ IV AIs do not always use their shortest way to your land. In fact, they'd rather use surprised attacks, i.e attack with transports though they share the border with you. But i dont use carriers either and if i ever build them, thats just to make my navy look better

 

I´ve seen Persia using four carriers defended by two battleships each, and carrying fighters which destroyed Monty´s improvements.

 

Haven't seen a carrier in IV yet, but I did in III. Being X-Navy, I love the sea battles, but the AI doesn't seem to share my enthusiam. Usually, when I go to war with them they send all their ships to port to wait out the war. Not always ...
I did launch an invasion against the Aztec once and found about 40 troop units loaded on transports, along with protection units. Since that port was only two moves from my coast, and he was 'furious' with me, I could guess his intended target. His ships never left port.
The Carriers carry fighter/bombers, which is more realistic. You would have to line up several carriers end to end to land our big bombers. Pick a coastal city, bombard it with battleships to strip away the defenses, follow with fighter/bombers from your carrier to reduce the strength of the defenders, and then take the city. When it is secure, rehome the bombers for interior cities.

 

Got attacked by the AI with Carriers all the time in Civ3, haven't seen it yet in Civ4 although PC limitations mean I tend to go for UN/Cultural/Spacerace victories - on Noble/Standard/Epic it goes waa-ay slo-ow after 1850 if there's a lot of warfare, which obviously hacks me off a tad.

I like no bombers from carriers - ever see a B-17 land or take off from one?

 

Well, well, one would be surprised. Even disregarding the use of US Army B-25 medium bombers off the USS Hornet to strike Japan in April 1942, there is a more impressive example. Lt. James H. Flatley of the US Navy received the Distinguished Flying Cross for successfully operating a C-130 Hercules (a 4 engine turboprop aircraft with a wingspan of 132 ft.) off the flight deck of the USS Forrestal in Oct. of 1963. Flatley made 29 "touch and go" landing/takeoffs, 21 full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs from the carrier's flight deck. Astoundingly, the plane needed only 460 ft. to stop (no arresting hook was used) and 745 ft. for the take-off, even with a full aircraft loadout of 121,000 lbs. gross wt. Nor was this done on a flat calm day; it was accomplished in moderately rough seas 500 miles east of Boston in October in the North Atlantic.

You can see photos and more details at this location:
http://www.scenery.org/c-130.htm

Amazing.

Regarding bombers and fighters on CV's, this is a design choice, presumably for play balance, that I disagree with. Histrorically, although doubtlessly land based aircraft are more capable, the wt. difference carried by sea based "bombers" and land based ones is not enough to justfy segregration. A USN SBD divebomber carried a 1000 lb. bomb, more than a stuka could carry. An A-6 carries more bomb wt. than a WW2 B-17. The Civ series seems a bit prejudiced against Navy's and their strengths in general; historically dominance of the sea has been very frequently linked to major world power status from Spain in the age of discovery to England's Bratainnia to the US's domination after WW2 and its victory in the cold war, just as failure to compete at sea successfully was a hallmark of the would-be power (e.g. France, Japan and the USSR). It will be very interesting to see if in the future India and China continue this trend or if the long history of the importance of seapower in world power status, changes.

I would like to see bombers on CV's, although I would prefer time spent on that to go to increasing the importance and presence of the entire Naval side of the game.

Civ on, all. I need to return to my pending invasion of Montezuma ...

 

yes they do, but they only escort a carrier with 1 battleship and 1 destroyer. just bring 3-4 BBs and it's bottom munching time for the carrier. i bet the japanese wished they could have done this in ww2

 

The AI does use Carriers, it also defends them with Destroyers (Anti Aircraft) and Battleships. I have seen this from Cheiftain upwards.

 

Very true.

Part of the reason (at least IMHO) that the navies get shorted is that most of the maos you can play you don't truly need an Navy for. Obviously on archipeligo maps you need to develope a navy, but even then you can get away with mostly a transport force. Navies are expensive toys and with limited use on Pangea maps, unless one is specifically using a leapfrog strategy and there are plenty of coastal cities to bombard.

And smack Monty upside the head a few for me please.

 

The C-130 is a huge airplane, but not a bomber. It was designed to take off and land in very short spaces. Our large bombers can deliver huge payloads around the globe, and have done so, with proper support. The A-6 is what I call a fighter/bomber. It can carry out multiple missions. Keep in mind, that the Bombers in Civ are land-based and carry a large punch. The fighters loaded on carriers also can deliver bombs. I use them to bomb city defenses when I can't reach the city with a bomber, to attack defenders within a city, and reduce their strength in prepartion for an invasion, to attack units in the field, such as covering resources, or approaching my units for an attack, and for reconnaisance. They light up a huge area, showing troop movements, defenders in a city, resources, guarded or not. I like the balane the way it is.

 

Well untill I get a fighter bomber I will keep the bombers on the carriers as jet fighters don't pack enough puch to be used for bombing runs and are better of being used for air patrols or recon