1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The use of carriers

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Morganjs1, Aug 4, 2006.

  1. Dida

    Dida YHWH

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,425
    If you can manage to build 10 fully load carrier taskforces and still win the game, you obviously have not played on hard enough difficulty level.
    I don't blame the AI for not building carriers, they know carriers are crap and not worth the production.
     
  2. Omsion

    Omsion Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    Do a search on "Sirian Doctrine" on these forums, and pay attention to how it's used against "superior" AI opponents that otherwise would have an overwhelming land force.
     
  3. Dida

    Dida YHWH

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,425
    Under ideal situation, I think naval power in general should be beefed up like this:

    1) Naval unit should blockade coastal cities easily, if you have a hostile unit in your city radius, no watertiles can be work on, access to all water resource from that city will be cut and all water-based trade route will be cut.
    2) Transports should hold 6 or more units, carriers should also hold 6 or more fighters, buildings lots of transports and carriers is annoying
    3) Bomber/fighter should be allowed to destroy roads, so we can cut off enemy reinforcement routes
    4) There should be a topedo bomber unit, that can attack only naval targets, including subs. Should have some chance of sinking ships.
    5) All ships should have some anti-air capability, expect subs and transports
    6) There should be tactical nukes, cheaper than ICBM, but can be launched from subs, or combine with a bomber.
    7) There should be cruise missles, which can be loaded unto and launched from ships. Cruise missles should have a chance of killing both land and sea units.
    8) Naval unit should be able to bombard both city infrastructures and units.
    9) Better resource destribution, meaning, if you don't control the whole world, you won't have all the resources, therefore, making a navy and proper diplomacy more important.
     
  4. Proteus

    Proteus King

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    714
    I mostly agree, although I think that 9. at least partially already is implemented.

    I often have games (both in Warlords and Vanilla) where, even though I controlled a whole continent there was a strategic resource missing on this continent (for example coal in my last game) so that I had to invade another nation overseas to get it (resource settings where on standard, of course, not on balanced).

    I also don´t know if you should allow fighters to destroy (rail-)roads.
    Bombers of course, but fighters, well, they can strafe and drop small bombs, but I don´t think they pack enough punch to destroy a (rail-)road network beyond repair.
     
  5. yavoon

    yavoon King

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    720
    how is that better resource distribution. that would suck balls if something important was only found in one place(and no oil isnt only found in the middle east).
     
  6. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,919
    Location:
    Nehwon
    I think it's realistic that bombers can't take out roads, but I wish that bridges were separate improvement, so that they could be blown up by bombers or by defending troops to slow the enemy.
     
  7. Emp. Killyouall

    Emp. Killyouall EVIL Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    On my computer
    @Dida: No, I was playing on noble AND I built it after I won.
     

Share This Page