Should the Carrier be buffed ?

[IonTichy]

"In multiplayer nukes = end of game, end of story"

Join the League or the NQ (no quitters) group and watch how this statement is refuted among strong players.

this.
When I play a multiplayer game(usually over 2-3 nightlong sessions with friends), there is really no point in building nukes. The exception would be if we include AI, then one can wipe them clean if they survived. But PvP pretty much never.
And if you build some and intend to use them: get ready for some hardcore diplomatics with your dear friends. It is funny how quick there is a global alliance against you if you drop the first nuke on a ready-to-go army

my point being: multiplayer nukes = continuation of game, very different story

but back to topic:
I for one have never built a carrier. Not once.
For 2 reasons: if I am playing peacemonger, their radius is still freakishly large enough to defend myself in case of a war. If playing warmonger, newly puppeted cities are your carriers You can buy/build more planes instead, IMHO a better investion.

I play on continent large, usually Immortal and Standard speed. I'd consider myself a decent player, still trying to improve..

 

[duxup]

Air units have such crazy range that yeah it ruins the aircraft carrier. I sometimes wish they'd overhaul air combat in some way to make it more tangible / manageable.

 

[Gucumatz]

this.
When I play a multiplayer game(usually over 2-3 nightlong sessions with friends), there is really no point in building nukes. The exception would be if we include AI, then one can wipe them clean if they survived. But PvP pretty much never.
And if you build some and intend to use them: get ready for some hardcore diplomatics with your dear friends. It is funny how quick there is a global alliance against you if you drop the first nuke on a ready-to-go army

my point being: multiplayer nukes = continuation of game, very different story

but back to topic:
I for one have never built a carrier. Not once.
For 2 reasons: if I am playing peacemonger, their radius is still freakishly large enough to defend myself in case of a war. If playing warmonger, newly puppeted cities are your carriers You can buy/build more planes instead, IMHO a better investion.

I play on continent large, usually Immortal and Standard speed. I'd consider myself a decent player, still trying to improve..

Yea I need to go ahead and join NQ one of these days. I tend to play with friends or strangers though. Normally certain continents are entirely controlled or invasions have been done prior. So in most of my games there are 1-3 other powers left in the late game and it doesn't take much to launch a rapid attack (a few nukes and a rapid naval invasion).

 

[CivWarGamer]

To be honest, aircraft carriers are overrated in the real world. A few million dollar cruise missiles would sink a 4 billion dollar carrier with ease. A carrier is perfect against rogue nations, but against a china or russia it wouldn't last long. Much how the WW2 battleship went obsolete, so too the carrier in due time. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

 

[krc]

Sounds pretty realistic to me!

I think so, too.... I prefer building subs to carriers, simply because it is so much fun watching the enemy carriers take their planes down along with them.

 

[IcyFrozen]

I think the obvious solution is to cut back the operational distance of air units. To be fair they are a bit exagerated with a primative fighter being able to cross a continent. I'd half all the distances of flying units, except maybe the stealth bomber since they are, by design, extreme long range bombers. alternatively they could just add an upgraded Carrier to represent more modern 'sea fortress' style carriers, maybe capable of carrying additional aircraft and basing Stealth Bombers.

 

[Gucumatz]

I think the obvious solution is to cut back the operational distance of air units. To be fair they are a bit exagerated with a primative fighter being able to cross a continent. I'd half all the distances of flying units, except maybe the stealth bomber since they are, by design, extreme long range bombers. alternatively they could just add an upgraded Carrier to represent more modern 'sea fortress' style carriers, maybe capable of carrying additional aircraft and basing Stealth Bombers.

This I have to agree with. Cut back on the range of aerial units extensively and then allow forts to store aircraft.

 

[Bergerperson]

Originally Posted by krc
Submarines are cheap. Submarines can often sink a carrier (along with three aircraft or nukes) with one shot. That's a lot of hammers scattered on the ocean floor. And two destroyers are probably not enough to keep a pack of submarines from finding your carrier.

Well, not really true. You have 2 destroyers with the logistics promotion, that’s 4 submarines gone. And even if you were playing multiplayer or on deity, you really think the AI or players you’re playing against is going to send 4 submarines for 1 carrier? Even if the carrier had 3 atomic bombs, the damage the atomic bomb does is pretty minimal in comparison to what others can do. I’d be more worried protecting my shores from nuclear submarines with 2 nuclear missiles or a missile cruiser with 3 nukes.