Suggestion: strengthen the carrier!!

[Dominico]

Use the recon ability of the planes on your carrier. That way you can see enemy ships before they get to you, strike them and keep the carrier out of range, then move the carriers escorts in to finish the ships off, or use the carrier itself.

This is pretty much exactly as its done in real life except normally planes can sink ships...

I think they are fine as they are and very very usefull!!

 

[graves_09]

As most of you have pointed out the carrier itself is a weak unit but even with aircraft in CIV it seems to not be a potent as in the real world. The quote "where are my carriers" does not really apply to CIV once you get a land base. As far as I know we have had 1 or 2 carrier groups in the gulf throughout the iraq war even after we took land bases. My main point was that 3 aircraft is sort of weak. Especially considering that a city with no airport can hold 4 air (land them in a dirt field perhaps).

Secondly, I realize that in the real world and CIV world carriers need to be escorted but a naked carrier w/ aircraft is much stronger than a naked carrier w/o aircraft and that should be reflected. A naked carrier would not allow a destroyer to march right up and go mano-e-mano. They would have a Alpha strike with Harpoons attack and probably sink most incoming attackers. That is why I suggested a first strike with aircraft in the naval warfare game.

Anyway these were just suggestions and since i know zip about modding or programming they will probably remain so.

 

[Lurking Liu]

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.

Woohoohoo! Can't wait until I get home, thanks! =D

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...

Have you tried turning off combat animations also? I don't do the stack attacks, but I would assume that if you turned off the animation then the entire combat should be resolved in a second or so.

The good thing about Stack Attacks, though, is that the computer is forced to do them as well. So if you're making sub-optimal attacks, then they are, too =P

 

[scorth]

Have you tried turning off combat animations also? I don't do the stack attacks, but I would assume that if you turned off the animation then the entire combat should be resolved in a second or so.

The good thing about Stack Attacks, though, is that the computer is forced to do them as well. So if you're making sub-optimal attacks, then they are, too =P

I do so enjoy watching three rifleman fighting a lone horseman.....one at a time... it's actually pretty hilarious. But you're right, I left animations on...mostly to see the animations once through. Now that I've seen them all, I guess that I can get rid of them!

Maybe I'll try Stack Attacks, I'll tell you how it goes!

 

[graves_09]

Use the recon ability of the planes on your carrier. That way you can see enemy ships before they get to you, strike them and keep the carrier out of range, then move the carriers escorts in to finish the ships off, or use the carrier itself.

This is pretty much exactly as its done in real life except normally planes can sink ships...

I think they are fine as they are and very very usefull!!

You have 3 planes, spend two on recon and they have one left for strike giving it -20% damage and then wait until next turn when their fleet slips away. Then you have to recon again... I know you will say to just build more carrier with more planes but, even a WWII carrier would have enough air power to unleash a crippling strike on other naval units. I think planes should be able to sink ships (and destroy units for that matter)

 

[graves_09]

I do so enjoy watching three rifleman fighting a lone horseman.....one at a time... it's actually pretty hilarious. But you're right, I left animations on...mostly to see the animations once through. Now that I've seen them all, I guess that I can get rid of them!

Maybe I'll try Stack Attacks, I'll tell you how it goes!

I hear you pal. My personal favorite was guys with ball and stick (maceman) vs. Navy SEALS! That never got old.

 

[Quagga]

I think carriers should be like scouts, explorers and machine guns: no attack.

Carriers as-is are in one way more powerful than cities: In BTS you can have only 4 planes per city/fort or 8 planes per airport. With carriers, you can jam as many planes in a tile as you like (at 4 planes per carrier, of course).

True, they can't carry bombers. But the main advantage of bombers over fighters is range. Since carriers are mobile, that range limitation is less of a factor. I love how you can move your carrier, then launch your air strike. Very flexible.

And providing carriers with a (necessary) hefty escort of battleships and destroyers is not a waste, since these guys' guns will take down city defenses for you. What's not to like?

 

[UncleJJ]

You have 3 planes, spend two on recon and they have one left for strike giving it -20% damage and then wait until next turn when their fleet slips away. Then you have to recon again... I know you will say to just build more carrier with more planes but, even a WWII carrier would have enough air power to unleash a crippling strike on other naval units. I think planes should be able to sink ships (and destroy units for that matter)

One carrier with 3 fighters will mash a battleship so badly that your destroyer escort or a submarine can kill it easily. If you have several carriers together only one need send a scout, then the rest of the planes can be used as interceptors (and boy do you need them now) and then when you have air superiority you can launch your own airstrikes. You keep wanting one carrier to do the job that three can do, the solution is obvious, build 3 carriers and keep them together most of the time.

 

[graves_09]

quagga: I fully agree, that is exactly how i use them, but my point is you shouldn't have to stack 3 or 4 carriers to have enough space to store all your planes

 

[marioflag]

If the implementation of Carriers would be realistic , they would become really overpowered in game.
In BtS they are actually strenghtened because you can build 3 planes more for every carrier youy have considered that now you can support a limited number of planes.I would like to see Carriers loading at least another 1 or 2 planes and they would be perfect.

 

[Roland Johansen]

A few simple changes would make carriers operate a bit more realistic and efficiently:

1) Fighters in any tile give you extended visibility. This visibility has a range larger than the movement rate of ships.
2) Fighters can completely destroy ships and not only damage them.
3) When an airstrike occurs on a coastal city that contains ships then these ships are primary targets and will receive double normal damage from the bombardment.

This way, you can completely destroy an enemy fleet without carriers with your fleet which does contain carriers without ever coming into movement range of the non-carrier fleet.

Yes, I know about the recon mission. But it just takes too many fighter units to recon everything within an 8-9 square radius of your carrier fleet and still have enough units left to do some serious damage. And using the recon mission every turn is also pretty boring.

 

[marioflag]

A few simple changes would make carriers operate a bit more realistic and efficiently:

1) Fighters in any tile give you extended visibility. This visibility has a range larger than the movement rate of ships.
2) Fighters can completely destroy ships and not only damage them.
3) When an airstrike occurs on a coastal city that contains ships then these ships are primary targets and will receive double normal damage from the bombardment.

This way, you can completely destroy an enemy fleet without carriers with your fleet which does contain carriers without ever coming into movement range of the non-carrier fleet.

Yes, I know about the recon mission. But it just takes too many fighter units to recon everything within an 8-9 square radius of your carrier fleet and still have enough units left to do some serious damage. And using the recon mission every turn is also pretty boring.

This would make fighter OP.A realistic implementation of Air warfare and Carriers would make them just too powerful, because in real life air power rules, carriers rules.In game terms it would be a really unbalanced factor.Fighter already attack other air units, bombard city defense, bombard units.They are already good units.

 

[Rusty Edge]

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.

Interesting. I was thinking about it having medic promotion to simulate all of the plane repairs they can do. I wouldn't mind a little more capacity . I suppose I'd really prefer Fuel oil carriers and Super-carriers, now that we have 2 kinds of destroyers and subs, as well as battleships / missile cruisers.

I think having more specialized airplane promotions available for fighters & jet fighters is the basic answer to represent all of the roles naval aircraft perform, rather than more Kinds of planes .

A torpedo/harpoon promotion that would enable them to sink a ship or sub, even if it took a couple of successful attacks.
A recon promotion for sub detection.
Another for ground attack .
Maybe a "Wild weasel " promotion to simulate an anti- air defense mission.
Maybe a refuel mission to extend the range of other ships on the same carrier?

 

[Jperkinson]

I want to chime in and say it is slightly ridiculous to have a fully loaded carrier defend the same as an empty carrier...

I agree, the carrier BY ITSELF should be weak, however if it is fully loaded, those planes should do something more than just sink into the sea on the carrier deck.

Case and point, a fully loaded carrier got caught out of my stack by mistake. It happened to be within range of an enemy city. They sent out one battleship, sank the carrier, and headed back into port. I would think that, even without surface vessel protection, those planes should have done SOMETHING to help out.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I could have attacked that ship in port with my aircraft. (I would have attacked the defending units before)

 

[Grimz101]

balance > reality

if you give aircraft the ability to sink ships you have no idea how screwed up naval combat would be in Immortal+ games, for the fact navies can disappear in moments from jet fighters

 

[Roland Johansen]

A few simple changes would make carriers operate a bit more realistic and efficiently:
1) Fighters in any tile give you extended visibility. This visibility has a range larger than the movement rate of ships.
2) Fighters can completely destroy ships and not only damage them.
3) When an airstrike occurs on a coastal city that contains ships then these ships are primary targets and will receive double normal damage from the bombardment.

This way, you can completely destroy an enemy fleet without carriers with your fleet which does contain carriers without ever coming into movement range of the non-carrier fleet.

Yes, I know about the recon mission. But it just takes too many fighter units to recon everything within an 8-9 square radius of your carrier fleet and still have enough units left to do some serious damage. And using the recon mission every turn is also pretty boring.

This would make fighter OP.A realistic implementation of Air warfare and Carriers would make them just too powerful, because in real life air power rules, carriers rules.In game terms it would be a really unbalanced factor.Fighter already attack other air units, bombard city defense, bombard units.They are already good units.

Destroyers, Stealth destroyers and defending fighters on carriers could defend against the attacking fighters. It's not as if there is no counter. It would just change the balance to protecting the carriers once fighters and carriers are available. That's just right in my opinion. Battleships and destroyers would get the role of protecting the carriers against direct and airborne attacks. They wouldn't be the killers anymore.

 

[marioflag]

Destroyers, Stealth destroyers and defending fighters on carriers could defend against the attacking fighters. It's not as if there is no counter. It would just change the balance to protecting the carriers once fighters and carriers are available. That's just right in my opinion. Battleships and destroyers would get the role of protecting the carriers against direct and airborne attacks. They wouldn't be the killers anymore.

Fighters would remain in any case OP even if has counters like Destroyer or Stealth Destroyer; even with the Warlord implementation they were air force was OP so that they have nerfed aircraft supply in BtS.If you also consider also AI limits i couldn't imagine with your implementation how much naval invasions you could repel with the only use of Aircraft.Carriers in BtS have been in any case really strenghtened because they increase your aircraft supply limits.

 

[GrandWazoo]

One thing I'd like is to have is fighters on Intercept Missions do recon as well automatically. Recons missions are annoying and repetitive to do. I think it's quite normal that part of the Air Superiority mission is scouting the area. Or make the recon mission automated so that it effectively increase your visibility range each turn.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Fighters would remain in any case OP even if has counters like Destroyer or Stealth Destroyer; even with the Warlord implementation they were air force was OP so that they have nerfed aircraft supply in BtS.If you also consider also AI limits i couldn't imagine with your implementation how much naval invasions you could repel with the only use of Aircraft.Carriers in BtS have been in any case really strenghtened because they increase your aircraft supply limits.

Yes, the air force was nerfed in BTS, but the biggest nerf of airplanes is not so well documented. In Warlords, the chance of successfully intercepting and destroying aircraft was practically zero. You could intercept aircraft, but they would usually just be damaged and not destroyed when they were fully healthy when they started their bombing run. But in BTS, aircraft duels are lethal and interception is 100% sure. One of the aircraft will win the combat.

This means that if a fleet with several carriers approaches your coast, then you cannot simply sink it with your land based aircraft since they will be intercepted by the carrier based aircraft. Since cities can only hold a very limited number of aircraft, it is unlikely that they will break through the carrier based air cover, let alone sink the entire invasion fleet. If they were somehow to break through the carrier based aircraft, then the destroyers can still destroy several aircraft. It takes a large number of fighters to completely sink a fleet, even if their attacks are lethal.

What might be true is that the interception chance of destroyers and stealth destroyers should increase a bit once you make bombing runs lethal for ships. That's a matter of testing the effectiveness of the destroyer interception versus the ability of the aircraft to sink said destroyers. The reason to increase this interception chance is mainly to give a civilization that doesn't have the ability to create carriers still have a chance against a civilization that does have this ability. Still, the civilization with fighters and carriers should have a big advantage in fleet duels against a civilization that doesn't have these units. At present that is just not true.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Interesting. I was thinking about it having medic promotion to simulate all of the plane repairs they can do. I wouldn't mind a little more capacity . I suppose I'd really prefer Fuel oil carriers and Super-carriers, now that we have 2 kinds of destroyers and subs, as well as battleships / missile cruisers.

I think having more specialized airplane promotions available for fighters & jet fighters is the basic answer to represent all of the roles naval aircraft perform, rather than more Kinds of planes .

A torpedo/harpoon promotion that would enable them to sink a ship or sub, even if it took a couple of successful attacks.
A recon promotion for sub detection.
Another for ground attack .
Maybe a "Wild weasel " promotion to simulate an anti- air defense mission.
Maybe a refuel mission to extend the range of other ships on the same carrier?

I try and build the Red Cross in a port city, and then all carriers there..with even just a basic drydock, all your carriers are Medic II, which is useful.