Should the Carrier be buffed ?

[Baron2]

Currently, the only time (even in Human vs Human games) a carrier is actually useful is on large maps (and even on the largest maps, it's pefectly possible that the two continents are well inside bomber range). Not only cities can't be sunk, but they can house way more aircraft, air defences, and especially stealth bombers)

So, here is an handful of (not very hard to implement suggestions to improve carriers)

A)The carrier is transformed into a super long range artillery unit, to stimulate a air strike. The carrier also provide a wide area air defence. Carrier strikes are especially mortal against ships.

B)The Carrier can ferry aircraft, but the only aircraft that can make strikes from a carrier deck are either a new fighter type aircraft (called CAG) or an fighter aircraft that took a promotion (say, Naval Air Training). CAGs provide excellent air defence and are deadly against ships.

 

[Baron2]

My idea here is that ''mobile air power'' is not terribly useful in a game when in virtually all maps, you don't need a carrier to get in range of the ennemy.

 

[_Calyx]

I agree that the carrier needs some sort of help - it has been the centerpiece of naval fleets since WWII, but I rarely (if ever) build them in CiV.

I don't think that requiring a promotion to use the carrier is a good idea though - I think that would lead to them being used even less.

Perhaps the range of airplanes in general could be reduced? I don't know if that is a good suggestion either - it might make the problem worse by marginalizing air units.

 

[Baron2]

I agree that the carrier needs some sort of help - it has been the centerpiece of naval fleets since WWII, but I rarely (if ever) build them in CiV.

I don't think that requiring a promotion to use the carrier is a good idea though - I think that would lead to them being used even less.

Perhaps the range of airplanes in general could be reduced? I don't know if that is a good suggestion either - it might make the problem worse by marginalizing air units.

Maybe the carrier could come with a dedicated CAG (Carrier Air Group, if you wonder)

 

[smallfish]

Currently, the only time (even in Human vs Human games) a carrier is actually useful is on large maps (and even on the largest maps, it's pefectly possible that the two continents are well inside bomber range). Not only cities can't be sunk, but they can house way more aircraft, air defences, and especially stealth bombers).

Really? I use carriers most the time on standard continents, and even a couple times on Pangaea. They are great for rushbasing atomics to prevent AI science vics and any ideas thereof, especially in the time when you haven't gotten SBs or ICBMs (or worse, Missile Cruisers/Nuke Subs).

Also, nothing beats having a six carrier group (18 B17s (or some jet fighters if target civ spotted with lots of fighters) in all) supporting your cross-continental mini-DDay.

 

[Ranos]

Currently, the only time (even in Human vs Human games) a carrier is actually useful is on large maps (and even on the largest maps, it's pefectly possible that the two continents are well inside bomber range). Not only cities can't be sunk, but they can house way more aircraft, air defences, and especially stealth bombers)

So, here is an handful of (not very hard to implement suggestions to improve carriers)

A)The carrier is transformed into a super long range artillery unit, to stimulate a air strike. The carrier also provide a wide area air defence. Carrier strikes are especially mortal against ships.

B)The Carrier can ferry aircraft, but the only aircraft that can make strikes from a carrier deck are either a new fighter type aircraft (called CAG) or an fighter aircraft that took a promotion (say, Naval Air Training). CAGs provide excellent air defence and are deadly against ships.

I'm not sure how either of your suggestions is going to help make the carrier more useful.

A) Take a unit which can hold three long range attack units and can be sunk, and turn it into a unit wich can bombard at long range and can be sunk. So instead of being able to attack three times and then move, you can attack only once, and then stay where you are.

B) This would kill the carrier. All of the problems you brought up would still exhist but now there would be no aircraft to use on the carrier because no one would waste a promotion to put a fighter on a carrier.

I think carriers should be able to stack with other naval units so it can actually be protected. Another option is to give all industrial and modern naval units should have a 2 tile ZOC where they fire on any unit moving in range. So carriers would need to be escorted by two or three units to help protect them.

And if you find them useless because you can just bomb from another city, you could try switching how you play. I have used carriers on archipelago on island hopping campaigns. You also aren't guaranteed to have that city or two right on the coast putting your fighters/bombers in range of the other continent. And the one or two cities that would be in range may not be enemy controlled or may not be optimal cities to puppet.

If you don't find them useful, change your play style a bit so you can use them.

 

[elniallo]

Maybe give destroyers an intercept option like fighters have. Allow them to stack with the carrier and then they will intercept one naval attacker each.

 

[Camikaze]

I think the Carrier's weakness comes from the weakness of the AI in the air, and from the weakness of Fighters. If it were more difficult to gain air supremacy, Carriers would become far more important.

 

[Ajuga]

I find carriers with bombers mighty useful, it's a shame they can't carry stealth bombers.
(Also there should be a limit of how many airplanes one can have in a city.)

 

[Callonia]

And Plus, it doesn't help the facts any that the maps in Civ 5 is more smaller than civ 4. >< Why build carriers when you can cross oceans easily enough with airplanes.

 

[TyBoy]

I'd also rather see them rebalance some of the competing options.

Cities holding unlimited aircraft makes no sense in the rest of the game how it is. Stealth bombers are overly strong and stealthy. A lot of their problems are related to the excessive movement/visibility ratio of end game navies in this game too. They would be helped if the visibility range of newer naval units went way up so they could always engage traditional ships first.

They're definitely the capital ships of modern navies, but those navies are mostly used in the half-police context that western armies get used in these days. I wonder if that importance would actually hold up in a conflict between two equal forces. I think they might be obsoleted by missiles and that time gap from the development of aircraft carriers to the development of cruise missiles is a blink of the eye in a civ game.

 

[zyx]

I think I have built only one carrier to get the "built all units achievement".

Maybe a carrier could have 4 seven range attacks per turn - the aircrafts are on the carrier, which might make it easier for the AI to use the airpower instead of transfering the planes from one to another carrier.

And a wider ZOC at sea would be really nice - yesterday a caravell sniped my mech inf (is there a ZOC at sea?), so next turn I locked the caravell in the city by putting my destroyers on all tiles the caravell could come out of the city.

In G+K landtroops and ships will be allowed to share a tile! And some ships will be able to raid/capture cities/barb camps. Maybe because the AI can't move ship/landunits together.

A limitation of aircraft in cities would be nice - and in aircrafts to buy in one turn. Because it is cheesy to buy 99 stealthbomber in one turn and bomb everything next turn.

I'd also like to see a sea-defense building with range 3 to counter ships with rangepromotions, or remove the rangepromotion for naval units. The rangepromotion is unbalanced anyway, because at sea the ships see three tiles, although having 2 sight, and therefore attack cities from a tile out of sight which makes AI cities unable to defend themselves against 4 ranged triremes which is totally weird.

 

[Gucumatz]

Currently I think carriers are TOO powerful. A couple (or even one-two) carriers shuttling nukes from continent to continent = instant win. With the large expanse of the seas its nearly impossibly to track down a carrier and becomes harder if you are playing vs Denmark/England/Commerce.

In multiplayer nukes = end of game, end of story. And oceans are too hard to patrol. And giv ea carrier a ship or two to escot and you can nuke your opponent to kingdom come. Really so little defense to carriers + nukes.

 

[Silverfuturist]

"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.

 

[Deggial]

As I usually don't play with so many nukes (one ore two to prepare the ground are enough for me. Later on, there might come more - but then I have the cities to station them. Everything else is too much MM for me), I can not comment to Cucumatz opinion.

In general, I also think that carriers could be buffed a little bit. In my thinking, their biggest problem is unlimited aircraft stacking in cities. Limit possible aircrafts in cities to 3 or 4, and all of a sudden, additional carriers will be important to achieve air supremacy while invading foreign continents.

This should do the trick. But if you want additional bumps, I would suggest:
- give Carriers a "repair" promotion right from the start. Maybe, only aircrafts could benefit from this ability.
- You could grant aircrafts stationed on carriers a (small) automatic XP gain every turn or maybe better, when they fly intercepting missions.

 

[skyclad]

Why does it feel like I stepped into a Starcraft II forum for a second

I think a big point is to not allow cities to host infinite air-units in the first place.

 

[apocalypse105]

Just limit the airplane stacking in cities

 

[The_Quasar]

Aircraft stacking in cities needs a limit...

Carriers are fine, mostly, except that they are fairly useless on Pangea type and smallish maps... as they should be. On larger continents and islands, they are often indispensable.

Biggest problem is that most maps don't have large enough gaps between continents/islands. If they did, then navies and Carriers, in particular, would be a lot more useful/powerful.

 

[krc]

Currently I think carriers are TOO powerful. A couple (or even one-two) carriers shuttling nukes from continent to continent = instant win. With the large expanse of the seas its nearly impossibly to track down a carrier and becomes harder if you are playing vs Denmark/England/Commerce.

In multiplayer nukes = end of game, end of story. And oceans are too hard to patrol. And give a carrier a ship or two to escort and you can nuke your opponent to kingdom come. Really so little defense to carriers + nukes.

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.

 

[The_Quasar]

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.

Sounds pretty realistic to me!