Suggestion: strengthen the carrier!!

[graves_09]

I would make carriers much more important. I have found that they are pretty much worthless units. After providing air cover to an initial amphibious assault the air units can be land based to provide better cover and attack. I would increase the limit of planes to at least 4 and maybe 5 or 6. I would also allow orbiting aircraft to intercept incoming ships. Perhaps allow the orbiting carrier aircraft to have an automatic air strike against the attacker before the defending naval unit defends normally. This feature would unavailable to land based aircraft to give carrier basing some advantage. In the real world a carrier air group would not allow any enemy ships anywhere near it without significantly harassing it or sinking hostiles. Another option (and maybe simpler) is to have the strength of the carrier increased +75% with every aircraft based on it. This could simulate the addition strength of a fully loaded carrier. The fully loaded carrier should be stronger than the missile cruiser and especially the battleship (maybe even a +20% against attacking battleships). A carrier in the real world represents one of the most powerful navy units and in CIV they are mostly worthless. I have rarely seen an AI build one. While I know some will say that civ is a game and not suppose to be realistic, anyone with any knowledge of naval warfare knows that the carrier is perhaps the most significant advancement since steel hulls and the game does not do this justice.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the idea of an initial air strike is good..essentially allow aircraft to 'defend' against sea units as well as air units.

That way fully loaded carriers would be very good on the defense (except v. subs)

as a Side note: a way to define naval units more might change them from 1 class into 3, Naval-> Surface, Capital [ Battleships, Carriers, Missile Cruisers], and Subs
Allowing for promotions like +25% v. Capital Ships, +25% v.Subs

[Capital ships alone could get Collateral Damage Bonuses]

Sub units could get a bonus v. Capital Ships

making it Capital > Surface [Destroyer] > Subs

and the other imrovement really needs to be an improvement of the way stealth is handled.

 

[scorth]

I think that modern A/C have multiple ship type escorts for a reason. I mean, even today, an A/C by itself isn't unsinkable. I mean carriers travel with Destroyers, Subs, Cruisers, etc. for increased protection.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that carriers defend better with aircraft onboard! I would say, +75% on the D and increase the general visibility when a plane is tasked on interception (to rep the CAP cover).

Maybe augmenting the carrier with the ability to carry bomber(s) --> most modern aircraft can atleast partially fullfill both roles. 6 or 7 is too many, in my opinion, 3-4, maybe 5 is perfect.

I never leave my carriers undefended, neither do modern navies; neither should you.

 

[snipafist]

I'd simply give fighters +100% against ships, bringing them up to a credible threat in naval warfare. You'd better come packing some carriers with fighters on board to protect yourself against enemy fighters or to attack enemy ships without as much fighter support. Carriers themselves should remain weak. They're not great direct-combat ships at all, and a well-placed torpedo will ruin them quite quickly. There's a reason modern naval combat has become a game of "protect the carriers," after all.

 

[graves_09]

scorth: I also agree that carrier need to be defended in the game and it real life. Perhaps some of my initial suggestions where a bit excessive. But you must admit that carriers become pretty worthless after an initial assault and capture of a city. What is the point of keeping all the aircraft of the carrier when you can move them to land? I also think that the addition of a bomber capacity might be good. Perhaps make the limit 2 bomber and 5 total aircraft (bomber and fighter/jets)

 

[Lurking Liu]

I've been having a grand old time with my Carriers... They don't need buffing. You just have to realize that they don't actually do anything themselves, they're a delivery system for Fighters and Jets. Their promotion schemes should emphasize Navigation, since they're the slowest thing in your fleet.

What I've been doing is building three or four Carriers and loading them up with Fighters/Jets, then stick them in a stack of 5-6 Destroyers, 2 subs, 2 Attack Subs, and 3-4 Battleships. Have 2/3 of your planes fly Intercept, and use the remainder to Recon. Inevitably you'll catch your enemy sending an enormous fleet of Transports and their escort--Just in time for the rest of your ships to Strike them, and be finished off by the rest of your naval stack!

It gets even sexier once you have Missiles. Then those normal Submarines and Battleships become absolute disgustoids in ship-form. Nothing quite like sending 8 Jet Fighters to bring that fleet down to 50%, then bombarding it with Cruise Missiles. By the time that's over, you could finish them off with a stack of Caravels if you felt like it...

 

[scorth]

I guess that like most debates about individual units, it comes down to one word: Stacks.

Guess that until we see changes to the unit development model, we'll have to continue to depend upon stacks of every unit type, vs. similar stacks and endless battles of attrition.....(Damn you stacks, why can't you just be an army?)

Aircraft carriers need protection from Battleships, M/Cruisers, Destroyers and Subs.

 

[graves_09]

Lurking Liu: while you have developed and good strategy you are still making my point for me: the carriers (with aircraft of course) themselves are not a significant threat but should be. The soviets and rest of the world did not fear our carriers for their recon ability, the feared them for their STRIKE ability. A carrier air wing could seriously cripple any fleet or strike land targets.

 

[UncleJJ]

I've been having a grand old time with my Carriers... They don't need buffing. You just have to realize that they don't actually do anything themselves, they're a delivery system for Fighters and Jets. Their promotion schemes should emphasize Navigation, since they're the slowest thing in your fleet.

Absolutely correct. The current carriers are just right. They are cheap and you just need to put two or three in a stack to get the effect people like the OP is asking for. If they were made as good as he wants the price would just double or triple anyway so we'd be back where we started. Carriers need navigation to speed them up and they don't want combat so they appear as the strongest ship in the stack.

What I've been doing is building three or four Carriers and loading them up with Fighters/Jets, then stick them in a stack of 5-6 Destroyers, 2 subs, 2 Attack Subs, and 3-4 Battleships. Have 2/3 of your planes fly Intercept, and use the remainder to Recon. Inevitably you'll catch your enemy sending an enormous fleet of Transports and their escort--Just in time for the rest of your ships to Strike them, and be finished off by the rest of your naval stack!

I've been using similar mixed stacks of support ships with the carriers to support my naval invasions. You need 3 carriers to deal with one city with an airport and 8 fighters. I had a great naval-air battle in my recent game. Several of my fighters and jets were lost and almost all the rest were damaged after two rounds of air strikes and interceptions. I had to fly out the damaged ones and fly in replacement aircraft. It was great action very much better than in Warlords ever produced.

It gets even sexier once you have Missiles. Then those normal Submarines and Battleships become absolute disgustoids in ship-form. Nothing quite like sending 8 Jet Fighters to bring that fleet down to 50%, then bombarding it with Cruise Missiles. By the time that's over, you could finish them off with a stack of Caravels if you felt like it...

Missiles give submarines their rightful place in modern naval battles. I had to use several submarine loads (about 7 missiles) to save my destoyers from the enemy destroyers. It's great you can actually sink ships with missiles.

 

[snipafist]

Lurking Liu: while you have developed and good strategy you are still making my point for me: the carriers (with aircraft of course) themselves are not a significant threat but should be. The soviets and rest of the world did not fear our carriers for their recon ability, the feared them for their STRIKE ability. A carrier air wing could seriously cripple any fleet or strike land targets.

While I do agree (see above) that carriers should be better (through an improvement in fighter attacks against ships, I argue) I think your reasoning is foolish. Carriers are powerful, but they're not powerful on their own at all. Artillery is extremely powerful on a battlefield, but without infantry and other units to keep it protected, it is worthless and will drop quickly against enemy assaults. The same is true of aircraft carriers.

 

[Lurking Liu]

The only reason they feared our Carriers was that they were well-defended by other fleet ships. A Carrier by itself is a sitting duck with a silly design.

In my use of the unit, I'm doing exactly what you say--My Carrier's air wing is seriously crippling any fleet it sees, is it not? I could strike land targets just as easily, but I choose not to because using the fleet to prevent an amphibious attack means I can focus my ENTIRE army on the enemy mainland instead of having to leave behind a reserve.



As for stacks, Scorth, I don't really see the big deal. If you want armies, then turn on Stack Attack in the options menu. It's the same thing. Personally? I don't want armies, so I leave it unchecked. Horses for courses.

 

[Lurking Liu]

Absolutely correct. The current carriers are just right. They are cheap and you just need to put two or three in a stack to get the effect people like the OP is asking for. If they were made as good as he wants the price would just double or triple anyway so we'd be back where we started. Carriers need navigation to speed them up and they don't want combat so they appear as the strongest ship in the stack.

I've been using similar mixed stacks of support ships with the carriers to support my naval invasions. You need 3 carriers to deal with one city with an airport and 8 fighters. I had a great naval-air battle in my recent game. Several of my fighters and jets were lost and almost all the rest were damaged after two rounds of air strikes and interceptions. I had to fly out the damaged ones and fly in replacement aircraft. It was great action very much better than in Warlords ever produced.

Missiles give submarines their rightful place in modern naval battles. I had to use several submarine loads (about 7 missiles) to save my destoyers from the enemy destroyers. It's great you can actually sink ships with missiles.

Can they sink ships, too? Awesome... I must not have managed to do that yet because of the sheer size of their invasion fleet. Always seem to knock them down to about 2 or 3 strength. But, yeah, exactly correct.

By the way, that naval air battle sounds awesome. I hope to see that in my game soon (Washington's Fighters were shot down by my Intercept-mode Jets and Destroyers, so I've got total air dominance. Churchill, on the other hand, is staring at me with his RAF... Maybe my Space Ship will reach Alpha Centauri before he gets angry, though.)

 

[graves_09]

The only reason they feared our Carriers was that they were well-defended by other fleet ships. A Carrier by itself is a sitting duck with a silly design.

I suppose you are going to argue as well that it is the battleship the won the pacific theater in WWII. The strike ability of the carrier aircraft is what makes it powerful. The escorts are protection of the carrier not offensive missions.

 

[graves_09]

Absolutely correct. The current carriers are just right. They are cheap and you just need to put two or three in a stack to get the effect people like the OP is asking for. If they were made as good as he wants the price would just double or triple anyway so we'd be back where we started. Carriers need navigation to speed them up and they don't want combat so they appear as the strongest ship in the stack.

Maybe that needs to be fixed as well. They should not be cheap ($2+ billion and many years to build) and should be stronger. I agree the the ship itself is weak in real life and CIV but with aircraft it is extremely strong and the game does not reflect that.

 

[Lurking Liu]

I suppose you are going to argue as well that it is the battleship the won the pacific theater in WWII. The strike ability of the carrier aircraft is what makes it powerful. The escorts are protection of the carrier not offensive missions.

But without that escort, they're toast.

Early in the war, anti-aircraft capabilities at sea were pretty much non-existent and consisted of hoping you got lucky. Tracking the target was difficult at best, and even with good aim the shell may have burst prematurely or not at all. It wasn't until the tracking process was automated with the *coughcoughmumbleIforget* that accuracy became more than a dream, and not until the Proximity Fuze that planes started to be shot down on a regular basis. The Imperial Navy never acquired either technology, as far as I know, which allowed American fighters--probably British fighters, too, but I'll admit that I don't know enough about their role in the PTO--to do as much damage as they did.

For a better idea of how fighters would operate, look at the Imperial Japanese side of things, where their fighter pilots went up against the cutting edge technology of the day at a severely reduced effectiveness. Now, maybe that should be represented by a higher Intercept rate, but if planes got through the flak and fighters, they weren't able to take all day when targetting the ship, thus reducing their effectiveness.

 

[petey]

Carriers rule the sea not because of anything about the carrier itself, but because of what it can carry. The ability to project air power without the need for an airbase is what makes them so effective. They are basically just floating runways, though. The point of the escort fleet is to protect the runway so that it can project its air power where needed.

It's the same thing in Civ. Carriers exist to carry planes, not to do anything on their own. They're basically just floating runways and the escort is needed to protect those runways so that the air power can be used without the need for a city to base them in.

 

[Tennyson]

I would just create a SuperCarrier unit that comes at the same time as Jet Fighters (Rocketry?) that requires Uranium. Let it hold 8 planes and get first strike.

Planes automatically engaging ships would be nice, too. I would also like to see blockading ships automatically engage units you are at war with if they get close (or at least wake up, Sentry style).

 

[UncleJJ]

By the way, that naval air battle sounds awesome. I hope to see that in my game soon (Washington's Fighters were shot down by my Intercept-mode Jets and Destroyers, so I've got total air dominance. Churchill, on the other hand, is staring at me with his RAF... Maybe my Space Ship will reach Alpha Centauri before he gets angry, though.)

Well the battle was even more intense than I remember . I lost several jets and fighters and shot down a load of airships as well as fighters. I lost some bombers.

Anyway why bother to describe it all in inadequate detail? Here is the savegame just before the main action. Have some fun playing it through yourself. Just press the return button and see what happens.

 

[sansloi37]

I served six years aboard an aircraft carrier (USS Enterprise) and many of you have posted good points, but it comes down to this: carriers are just specialized transports. They carry NO offensive weaponry (with the notable exception of the Soviet Kiev-class) and their defenses are entirely anti-aircraft (i.e. CIWS and SAM). To make them more "realistic" they should have a "Super Carrier" unit (with Uranium) that transports ~6 fighters (real world super carriers have 6+ squadrons) and is as fast as a Destroyer. Also, Fighters (and especially Jets) should be able to destroy Naval targets. The idea of an automatic air-strike vs. attackers is great for simulating the importance of air-power in Naval engagements.

 

[scorth]

As for stacks, Scorth, I don't really see the big deal. If you want armies, then turn on Stack Attack in the options menu. It's the same thing. Personally? I don't want armies, so I leave it unchecked. Horses for courses.

I think that my main source of frustration is the time that it takes to attack 20 v. 20 stacks, especially when you already know that your combo beats their combo. But you're right, I don't turn on Stack Attack, I guess that the micro-manager (micro-general) in me demands that I make the choices. I'm at odds with myself, mostly...