The use of carriers
- Thread starter Morganjs1
- Start date
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
carriars are crap there to weak and can't carry bombers
cf_nz
Prince
Morganjs1 said:
I use carriers a lot, mainly as a mobile way of bombing city defences and defending units before I invade by land.
kristopherb said:
Disagree, carriers should not be able to carry bombers.
Proteus
King
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 714
I use them.
Even though the fighters aren´t really strong they are still useful for some initial airstrikes if you plan to invade a city on another continent (where you have no base for your bombers) as long as the enemy doesn´t have any SAM units.
Aside from invasions I use my carriers to patrol the seas around my continent(s), as IMHO this is the role which they are best suited for.
The 3 fighters on board allow you to overlook a large area therefore minimizing the need for other ships for patrol purposes (subs might still pass undetected, but at least the real danger, i.e. transport filled with invasion troops can be detected in time so that you are able to prevent them from going on shore).
Even though the fighters aren´t really strong they are still useful for some initial airstrikes if you plan to invade a city on another continent (where you have no base for your bombers) as long as the enemy doesn´t have any SAM units.
Aside from invasions I use my carriers to patrol the seas around my continent(s), as IMHO this is the role which they are best suited for.
The 3 fighters on board allow you to overlook a large area therefore minimizing the need for other ships for patrol purposes (subs might still pass undetected, but at least the real danger, i.e. transport filled with invasion troops can be detected in time so that you are able to prevent them from going on shore).
Spartan117
Immortal
Proteus said:
agreed
.....DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
and they give troops landing on another continent protection from bombers and fighters.
How useful Carriers are depends on what is occurring in the game itself...sure, there are going to be games where they are simply a waste, but there will also be games where they are indispensable.
While the fighters are a bit weak, Proteus makes an excellent point about how much information they can bring to you...properly used they can illuminate hugh portions of the Map every turn!
BaneBlade also brings up their second most important use (IMO), destroying resource improvements! If you can locate an opponents resources and lay waste to the improvements, you can keep that opponent nearly crippled! This works best in situations where they have only one source of an important resource.
Try to get a Spy in to see if your opponents cities may be suffering from unhappiness or illness and then work on taking out those resources that add Happiness and Health. Very demoralizing to your opponent!
Will they always hit the mark? Of course not...but it's worth a shot.
BTW: I treat the Fighters as one of my most disposable units. I rarely let them heal unless Peace breaks out, instead I just work them till they get taken out and replace them.
While the fighters are a bit weak, Proteus makes an excellent point about how much information they can bring to you...properly used they can illuminate hugh portions of the Map every turn!
BaneBlade also brings up their second most important use (IMO), destroying resource improvements! If you can locate an opponents resources and lay waste to the improvements, you can keep that opponent nearly crippled! This works best in situations where they have only one source of an important resource.
Try to get a Spy in to see if your opponents cities may be suffering from unhappiness or illness and then work on taking out those resources that add Happiness and Health. Very demoralizing to your opponent!
Will they always hit the mark? Of course not...but it's worth a shot.
BTW: I treat the Fighters as one of my most disposable units. I rarely let them heal unless Peace breaks out, instead I just work them till they get taken out and replace them.
1) They're the only way to get air support for the initial attack on an enemy continent -- so their obviously good in that situation. After you have a city, you can base a whole air force in that one city, which will probably be able to provide air support for your attacking army. So the role of the carrier shifts.
2) I generally use them to keep an eye on how my enemy is attempting to bring reinforcements to the front. A couple fully loaded carriers will provide excellent recon, and can ensure that anything that doesn't have an SAM escort arrives to the front at about 50% health. The recon is also helpful to ensure that the enemy doesn't circle via ocean to your rear, and attack your flank.
A couple of games ago, I went to war against England (on a different continent), and Cyrus joined in on England's side. Initially, I didn't worry to much (Cyrus only had 2 port cities, each of which I had a battleship parked outside of, and he didn't have any direct borders connecting England). Eventually though, Cyrus marched his army through some Open Borders countries and right up to the front.
What might have happened, is that his army might have attacked, full strength, against my wounded army that had just taken a 2nd English city. That would probably have wiped out my invasion force, and after Cyrus' army rested, it might have been able to retake London, and succeed in kicking me back off the continent.
But my forward deployed carriers alerted me to Cyrus' advance a couple of turns before he arrived, and was able to do some harassment to damage some of his troops. So what DID happen was his army attacked my full strength army on a forested hill (instead of taking a 2nd English city, I paused and positioned my army for a better battlefield). Cyrus lost almost everything he had, while most of my army survived and was able to do an organized retreat to London, where they healed and then recommenced the march across England. The carriers were key in ensuring that my invasion was just slowed for a few turns by Cyrus' army, rather than wiped off the continent.
All that being said, Carriers are still not nearly as important in the game as they are IRL. I think they're more important than in CivI or CivII, but they're still not comparable to real life.
2) I generally use them to keep an eye on how my enemy is attempting to bring reinforcements to the front. A couple fully loaded carriers will provide excellent recon, and can ensure that anything that doesn't have an SAM escort arrives to the front at about 50% health. The recon is also helpful to ensure that the enemy doesn't circle via ocean to your rear, and attack your flank.
A couple of games ago, I went to war against England (on a different continent), and Cyrus joined in on England's side. Initially, I didn't worry to much (Cyrus only had 2 port cities, each of which I had a battleship parked outside of, and he didn't have any direct borders connecting England). Eventually though, Cyrus marched his army through some Open Borders countries and right up to the front.
What might have happened, is that his army might have attacked, full strength, against my wounded army that had just taken a 2nd English city. That would probably have wiped out my invasion force, and after Cyrus' army rested, it might have been able to retake London, and succeed in kicking me back off the continent.
But my forward deployed carriers alerted me to Cyrus' advance a couple of turns before he arrived, and was able to do some harassment to damage some of his troops. So what DID happen was his army attacked my full strength army on a forested hill (instead of taking a 2nd English city, I paused and positioned my army for a better battlefield). Cyrus lost almost everything he had, while most of my army survived and was able to do an organized retreat to London, where they healed and then recommenced the march across England. The carriers were key in ensuring that my invasion was just slowed for a few turns by Cyrus' army, rather than wiped off the continent.
All that being said, Carriers are still not nearly as important in the game as they are IRL. I think they're more important than in CivI or CivII, but they're still not comparable to real life.
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
doolittle didnt return to the carrier tho.
Bigfoot
Emperor
I like to use carriers in coordination with marines, destroyers and battleships when invading an enemy continent. Not over-powering, but they do make a difference. As already pointed out, they provide valuable intel on enemy forces. Typically I use marines supported by naval and air units to raise a couiple of cities on the invasion turn, and then land my main force at several defendable points in the newly opened territory. Rarely do I try to hold the first city, as the AI hits back with too much force (I have seen counter-attacks of 100+ units). The carrier-based air support helps until I can capture and hold an enemy city.
s.c.dude said:
Despite the 'F' designation, F117 isn't a fighter...
But I know where you're heading with your suggestion, I think maybe giving the current bombers a greater range (the B2's more so) would do the trick. Real bombers can fly thousands of miles bomb a city and return (admittedly with the help of air-to-air refuelling).
Edit: A possibility could be a tech that enable Airborne Tankers thereby extending the range of bombers...
Rathelon
Prince
I think a lot of people still think of fighters as primarily an offensive unit, which isnt necessarily their true role. Fighters work best as interceptors - put them up flying a cap, and they will greatly reduce the number of fighters and bombers that make it through your air defense to attack your land troops. Just make sure to put them back up in the sky once they have intercepted an enemy aircraft (because they will be sleeping the next turn).
If you are fighting a modern opponent, you absolutely need this defense or your armies will just get harassed every turn by enemy bombers and you may not be able to sustain your attack with a heavily damaged stack. Not to mention, you're also then vulnerable to counterattack by enemy land forces.
Over time, your enemy will lose many aircraft to your interceptors and you will slowly gain air superiority. This will allows you to start using your fighters for other purposes such as recon or attacking enemy land units. It's usually not worth the time to attack cities or resource tiles with fighters, since bombers are much more effective at those tasks.
Carrier based fighters can fulfill the same role as land based fighters, but they have the advantage of a mobile base which allows you to set up right offshore of enemy territory (near where you will be conducting combat operations). Carrier fighters are also great for defense of your own coastal areas, by flying recon and attacking incoming naval units (which they do better than bombers).
If you are fighting a modern opponent, you absolutely need this defense or your armies will just get harassed every turn by enemy bombers and you may not be able to sustain your attack with a heavily damaged stack. Not to mention, you're also then vulnerable to counterattack by enemy land forces.
Over time, your enemy will lose many aircraft to your interceptors and you will slowly gain air superiority. This will allows you to start using your fighters for other purposes such as recon or attacking enemy land units. It's usually not worth the time to attack cities or resource tiles with fighters, since bombers are much more effective at those tasks.
Carrier based fighters can fulfill the same role as land based fighters, but they have the advantage of a mobile base which allows you to set up right offshore of enemy territory (near where you will be conducting combat operations). Carrier fighters are also great for defense of your own coastal areas, by flying recon and attacking incoming naval units (which they do better than bombers).
Dearmad
Dead weight
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2001
- Messages
- 1,527
I use carriers as defensive units for my fleet- the fighters keep the bad bombers away from my BB's.
It's a combined arms thing.
I did mod carriers to carry 4 fighters, however. Now that the AI uses them, they are scary to see at sea coming at you if you have no air yourself. Will chew up your navy quick even with destroyers...
At most, however, 2 carriers is all I've ever needed.
It's a combined arms thing.
I did mod carriers to carry 4 fighters, however. Now that the AI uses them, they are scary to see at sea coming at you if you have no air yourself. Will chew up your navy quick even with destroyers...
At most, however, 2 carriers is all I've ever needed.
EKikla20906
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 23
Hello All, I'm a new member here (first post) so yeah....
Anyhow back to the matter at hand.
I don't mean to sound sour or anything but your lack of enthusiasm towards the character just shows a lack of true understanding of its offensive units. In the right hands the Carrier is one of the most potent offensive units in the whole game.
Both my parents are Naval officers, so I tend to construct my navy as todays Modern US Navy does. I creat Carrier Battlegroups, with 2-3 Carriers and Destroyer & Battleship support. Typicaly I would have 4-5 of these Battlegroups (up to 15 Carriers with full fighter compliment) just patroling the seas abroad and protecting my overseas assets. Note I usualy play on Tarea (don't know how its spelled) so both my nation and those of the AI's usualy have overseas colonies.
Now Diplomacy can be a little tricky and particularly during the Modern era (I disable Most victories so the main way of winning is through Connquest) a lot of wars tend to break out. This is where the Carrier shines, in overseas offensive operations before the full might of my Nations military can be brought to bear (depending on its current struggles that can be many many turns).We all know the wars where nothing happens, some quack declares war on you and you don't want to go out of your way to attack him, not anymore with the Carriers. If deployed effectivly I can have between 1-2 (4-6 Carriers) Battlegroups in position (anywhere in the world) in 2-5 turns and mounting offensive strikes on Enemy infrastructer in as many turns.
I don't know about you, but undeployed military ground forces are a waste of money. I always have my Armies on the border or in some other significant loacation to respond to a crisis effectivly. Which is why any anphibeous operation I mount is... shall we say?... an accessory. Meaning that I do not have 16 infantry and 8 tanks on transports just waiting to hit a target in 5 turns. The Mobalisation of such recourses, if I can spare them, can take up to 15-20 turns. The Use of carriers in the meantime or indefinatly can and will bring the war to the enemies backyard while your own recourses, aside from those of the Battlegroup, are in no danger of loss.
The Fighter is not as effective as the bomber, it should not be, but that does not mean the fighter can not wreak havoc on the Enemies territory. If I have six carriers (2 full-sized Battlegroups) stationed off the enemies coast I can deploy 18 fighters, no matter what view you have, that is a lot of firepower. They can destroy farms, Towns, mines, and deprive the enemy of valuable natural recourses and luxeries. They can whittle down enemy Armies, they can destroy enemy defenses, and when the Marines land they can provide valuable information on the whereabouts of the enemy - and then kill them.
To paraphrase what I've just said: the correct usage of Carriers is en masse with enough Carriers in position in enough areas to bring hurt to the enemy in a short amount of time.
Anyhow back to the matter at hand.
I don't mean to sound sour or anything but your lack of enthusiasm towards the character just shows a lack of true understanding of its offensive units. In the right hands the Carrier is one of the most potent offensive units in the whole game.
Both my parents are Naval officers, so I tend to construct my navy as todays Modern US Navy does. I creat Carrier Battlegroups, with 2-3 Carriers and Destroyer & Battleship support. Typicaly I would have 4-5 of these Battlegroups (up to 15 Carriers with full fighter compliment) just patroling the seas abroad and protecting my overseas assets. Note I usualy play on Tarea (don't know how its spelled) so both my nation and those of the AI's usualy have overseas colonies.
Now Diplomacy can be a little tricky and particularly during the Modern era (I disable Most victories so the main way of winning is through Connquest) a lot of wars tend to break out. This is where the Carrier shines, in overseas offensive operations before the full might of my Nations military can be brought to bear (depending on its current struggles that can be many many turns).We all know the wars where nothing happens, some quack declares war on you and you don't want to go out of your way to attack him, not anymore with the Carriers. If deployed effectivly I can have between 1-2 (4-6 Carriers) Battlegroups in position (anywhere in the world) in 2-5 turns and mounting offensive strikes on Enemy infrastructer in as many turns.
I don't know about you, but undeployed military ground forces are a waste of money. I always have my Armies on the border or in some other significant loacation to respond to a crisis effectivly. Which is why any anphibeous operation I mount is... shall we say?... an accessory. Meaning that I do not have 16 infantry and 8 tanks on transports just waiting to hit a target in 5 turns. The Mobalisation of such recourses, if I can spare them, can take up to 15-20 turns. The Use of carriers in the meantime or indefinatly can and will bring the war to the enemies backyard while your own recourses, aside from those of the Battlegroup, are in no danger of loss.
The Fighter is not as effective as the bomber, it should not be, but that does not mean the fighter can not wreak havoc on the Enemies territory. If I have six carriers (2 full-sized Battlegroups) stationed off the enemies coast I can deploy 18 fighters, no matter what view you have, that is a lot of firepower. They can destroy farms, Towns, mines, and deprive the enemy of valuable natural recourses and luxeries. They can whittle down enemy Armies, they can destroy enemy defenses, and when the Marines land they can provide valuable information on the whereabouts of the enemy - and then kill them.
To paraphrase what I've just said: the correct usage of Carriers is en masse with enough Carriers in position in enough areas to bring hurt to the enemy in a short amount of time.
apopholeus813
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 70
In the modern era a task force of loaded carriers, destroyers and subs rules anything it comes across, so maybe thinking carriers are useless is a product of playing on pangea maps. I know in my continent games carriers are laways important. The fighters they carry are the difference in sacrificing unit after unit to take an initial city on a distaant continent and easily capturing a port, airlifting defensive units, severing resources and roads and leading to victory so... on pangea carriers and navies are useless and just an annoyance that you have to protect that fish resource, but on continent or archipelago maps if you dont rule the seas you will have trouble winning and carrier launched fighters bombing enemy ships makes mopping them up very easy. And one sidenote
In civ battleships are expensive, slow and easy to destroy. In real life...same thing. Rest of world dumped battleships in 40's, 50's . US only had Iowas for artillery support in wars. But the point is I've noticed battleships are a waste to produce in Civ- destroyers are much better, and with carrier support rule.
In civ battleships are expensive, slow and easy to destroy. In real life...same thing. Rest of world dumped battleships in 40's, 50's . US only had Iowas for artillery support in wars. But the point is I've noticed battleships are a waste to produce in Civ- destroyers are much better, and with carrier support rule.
