Carriers are useful for projection of airpower, but they don't seem to be the battleship-killers that they were in real life. A battleship can swallow up three fighters without a belch.
The use of carriers
- Thread starter Morganjs1
- Start date
One of the biggest problems with carriers from my point of view is that they cost a lot and carry too little.
This gives the defender a HUGE bonus. Since for every carrier you have to make they can make 2-3 extra fighters.
I wish that each carrier would carry 8 fighters.
This gives the defender a HUGE bonus. Since for every carrier you have to make they can make 2-3 extra fighters.
I wish that each carrier would carry 8 fighters.
EKikla20906
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 23
With enough Carriers and fighters you can inflict huge amounts of damage. While the Carrier may not be as powerful as you like, it is still ver potent.
Fighting in some of the colonial wars on the other side of the world (with small cities just starting to develope and a rag-tag defence) a Carrier Battlegroup will turn the tide of the conflict in your favor.
Remember the Carriers strength is not in its sheer military power but in its versatility as a mobile platform. Even if it can't destroy everything, use of it as I described early will hurt the enemy a lot more than nothing and a lot quicker than raising and entire new invasion force.
That is true, and I use them a lot.
The problem is that this is in SP where its me vs AI and I tend to overwhelm the AI in terms of production.
However assuming same production, then the defender just gets TOO LARGE a bonus for not having to make carriers. I do wish that carriers could carry more, even if 8 would be too much 5-6would really be appreciated.
Having 1 carrier per 3 fighters is a pain in the ass. Perhaps they could make a modern carrier version.
The problem is that this is in SP where its me vs AI and I tend to overwhelm the AI in terms of production.
However assuming same production, then the defender just gets TOO LARGE a bonus for not having to make carriers. I do wish that carriers could carry more, even if 8 would be too much 5-6would really be appreciated.
Having 1 carrier per 3 fighters is a pain in the ass. Perhaps they could make a modern carrier version.
Rathelon
Prince
I modded my carriers to carry 4 fighters.
EKikla20906
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 23
Forgive my ignorance but how do you do that?
There has been threads on this subject over and over. In addition, numerous examples of carriers use have been stated many of times in these threads including this one. Most newbies fail to realize the use of carriers. I say, a carrier with 3 fighters is the most versatile fighting unit in the whole game, especially if you are playing a map that has large seas and oceans.
It would be nice if the carriers could handle 4 fighters... that was the number in previous versions. I was glad to see that they can't carry bombers anymore, but suprised to see that they could only carry 3 fighters.
Carriers are still a useful unit, even so. Just not the kings of the sea that historical carriers are.
Carriers are still a useful unit, even so. Just not the kings of the sea that historical carriers are.
A torpedo bomber. Yeah, that would be a great idea.
cobains disease
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2006
- Messages
- 34
If you have a large colonial empire or you are an island then a large navy is absolutely necessary. My personnal favorite period of the game is the rennaisance/ Industrial periods because the naval units are simple. by the time you reach the modern era navl warfare has become a 3 dimensional nightmare.
My personal use of carriers are for reconnasence and support for land invasions. My fleets center upon the battleship as my primary navl weapon. Carriers and deystroys are used for support. Your fleet without carriers will be very vulnerable. air planes can prove to be a decisive advantage if used properly. you can see his units before they reach you, and you can weaken him before he reaches firing distance.
Oh, and one thing that is commonly misunderstood is that carriers were more powerful than battleships in real life. Actually for the most part battleships were sunk by carriers when they were stationary and unprepared. anyone/thing could do that. Not only that but by the time the second world war came around most of the worlds battleships were old and outdated and not armed properly enough to deal with fighter planes. carrier warfare simply presented an alternative to the line ahead formation that capital ships had used for centurys. by the time the war was over few nations could afford to build battleships and with europe forming into political alliance there need was no longer necessary.
My personal use of carriers are for reconnasence and support for land invasions. My fleets center upon the battleship as my primary navl weapon. Carriers and deystroys are used for support. Your fleet without carriers will be very vulnerable. air planes can prove to be a decisive advantage if used properly. you can see his units before they reach you, and you can weaken him before he reaches firing distance.
Oh, and one thing that is commonly misunderstood is that carriers were more powerful than battleships in real life. Actually for the most part battleships were sunk by carriers when they were stationary and unprepared. anyone/thing could do that. Not only that but by the time the second world war came around most of the worlds battleships were old and outdated and not armed properly enough to deal with fighter planes. carrier warfare simply presented an alternative to the line ahead formation that capital ships had used for centurys. by the time the war was over few nations could afford to build battleships and with europe forming into political alliance there need was no longer necessary.
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
Thing is, most games should be won by then.
EKikla20906
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 23
Your right. Only noobs can't realize the importance of Carriers.
The Stratagy I outlined previously is either a effective or the proper use of Carriers. I would be greatly intersted in another stratagy designed by someone who knows the full capabilities of a Carrier. Another offensive stratagy would be great and not some fleet protection or recon stratagy, such men who use Carriers as recon are Strategicaly incompetent.
apopholeus813
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 70
I think the people calling for increased carrier power have never experienced the joy of owning the sea and using aerial power to drop your rivals back to the stone age. Using carrier battlegroups I've completely destroyed more than a few ai's chances of ever winning without ever landing a ground force.
EKikla20906
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 23
You think calling for more power is bad? I started another thread on this subject and the two people who replied completly ignored or disregarded what I had to say and simplified to Naval question to such a degree that you would be suprised if an infant could not pull of such an operation. For example:
In my discourse I asked for peoples input in other good Naval stratagies. The man literaly said this:
"Well if be proper you mean most efficient then you just load up a lot of troops on transports and have them wait off the enemies coast."
Anyone see the stupidity in this? Just because the AI is idiotic doesn't mean the play muct follow siut.
I really don't think there's any need to be so rude. Neither I (nor most of the other posters, I assume) are saying that carriers aren't very powerful -- against ground targets. I only said that carriers don't do very well against battleships at sea. If you have carriers & fighters versus an equivalent points cost of battleships meet at sea, the carriers will lose. Sounds like you're the one ignoring what others are saying.EKikla20906 said:
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
EKikla20906 said:
People tend to play within the limits of the rules of the game. In this case, ships aren't as cost effective on many other types of strategies. Out of curiosity, what level are you playing that you can keep 2 fleets of 6 fully loaded CVs? Thats gotta be costing minimally 30-40 gold per fleet per turn. I know thats not money I usually can afford for a fleet that can basically only pillage and sink the few AI ships. Since planes cannot attack ship, flying CAP seems a waste of computer resources.
EKikla20906
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 23
I wasn't critisising what you were saying I was agreeing with apopholeus813
was saying. Only an idiot would send a Carrier hull to hull against a Battleship. THe Carriers weapons are in its airplanes and not in its meager air-defences.
Monarch. Its not hard to make money in Civ IV. And if I do start to loose money then I just bumb reserach down a notch and I'm gaining 30 per turn.
Its like, I got to have my carriers 
I like to know I have at least 2 or 3 of them in case some overseas minor (or major) civ gives me problems. Park off the coast, recon and knock out their access to vital resources, goodbye roads, mines, farms, and whatever else. Well no more oil for them now. 
All of this, and I never had to even step foot on their land. All of the while, I am sitting on my land across the ocean, without much land army at all, my science cranked up and funds rolling in. Guess by this time, my oil flowing in, I may just go ahead and land a small ground force, take some turf. All I have to worry about now is what that enemy had before the battle and any new oil less units it may build. Last important thing, make sure a trade embargo has been signed with others so no overseas oil can be had. I like doing this, its fun
I like to know I have at least 2 or 3 of them in case some overseas minor (or major) civ gives me problems. Park off the coast, recon and knock out their access to vital resources, goodbye roads, mines, farms, and whatever else. Well no more oil for them now. All of this, and I never had to even step foot on their land. All of the while, I am sitting on my land across the ocean, without much land army at all, my science cranked up and funds rolling in. Guess by this time, my oil flowing in, I may just go ahead and land a small ground force, take some turf. All I have to worry about now is what that enemy had before the battle and any new oil less units it may build. Last important thing, make sure a trade embargo has been signed with others so no overseas oil can be had. I like doing this, its fun Rathelon
Prince
EKikla20906 said:
In the Civ4UnitInfos.xml file use CNTL + F and search for 'carrier'. In the carrier entry, look for the following lines near the bottom.
<SpecialCargo>SPECIALUNIT_FIGHTER</SpecialCargo>
<DomainCargo>DOMAIN_AIR</DomainCargo>
<iCargo>3</iCargo>
and change it to:
<SpecialCargo>SPECIALUNIT_FIGHTER</SpecialCargo>
<DomainCargo>DOMAIN_AIR</DomainCargo>
<iCargo>4</iCargo>
Save the edited file into your CustomAssets/XML/Units folder so you dont overwrite the default file. That's all you do.
Similar threads
