Unit Tweaks/ additions

[exhile]

An aircraft carrier could carry 8 fighters in civ1, 8 in civ2, 4 in civ3 and in civ4. Now there must be a reason why the developers have done this. Also, Civ1/Civ2 had the semi-air tile space before the revamp of air unit combat in Civ3/Civ4. An aircraft carrier with a full compliment of 4 fighters should be able to destroy a battleship just as what happened in Pearl Harbor.

A dog-fight of fighter planes in an air tile layer is a combat scene I really want to see. It's a rare chance for an American F-22 vs. a Russian SU-35 to actually engage in combat. And for real odds it would take 2 SU-35s to take down a F-22 in flight. So a fighter plane would be able to remain in the air for 2 turns minimum before refueling/rearming, whatever.

Combat between submarines and air units is relevant in the entire Civilization series and I think it should somehow apply to the air tile layer. How is a submarine suppose to attack an air unit?

 

[rysmiel]

An aircraft carrier could carry 8 fighters in civ1, 8 in civ2, 4 in civ3 and in civ4. Now there must be a reason why the developers have done this.

I don't know, but it could have something to do with also being able to load missiles on carriers, and how very quiet even Montezuma becomes when you have a carrier load of nukes sitting ominously out of range for anything he has to reach you in one turn but capable of hitting several of his biggest cities.

An aircraft carrier with a full compliment of 4 fighters should be able to destroy a battleship just as what happened in Pearl Harbor.

A dog-fight of fighter planes in an air tile layer is a combat scene I really want to see. It's a rare chance for an American F-22 vs. a Russian SU-35 to actually engage in combat. And for real odds it would take 2 SU-35s to take down a F-22 in flight. So a fighter plane would be able to remain in the air for 2 turns minimum before refueling/rearming, whatever.

agreed entirely.

Combat between submarines and air units is relevant in the entire Civilization series and I think it should somehow apply to the air tile layer. How is a submarine suppose to attack an air unit?

Surface, and then use whatever mechanic for attack into the air layer that an anti-aircraft gun on the ground has ?

 

[exhile]

I don't know, but it could have something to do with also being able to load missiles on carriers, and how very quiet even Montezuma becomes when you have a carrier load of nukes sitting ominously out of range for anything he has to reach you in one turn but capable of hitting several of his biggest cities.

I forgot about that in Civ2, ICBMs were loaded on Aircraft Carriers. There was no attack submarine and ballistic submarine at that time. Cruise missiles were loaded in transports.

Surface, and then use whatever mechanic for attack into the air layer that an anti-aircraft gun on the ground has ?

The battle was more of a one-on-one between a submarine and an air unit out in the ocean. I realize that my answer is submarines are used to attack ships and not air units.

 

[Argetnyx]

An aircraft carrier with a full compliment of 4 fighters should be able to destroy a battleship just as what happened in Pearl Harbor.

Only a small percentage of the planes attacking Pearl Harbor were fighters. Most were torpedo-bombers and dive-bombers. There were some flying boats as well, but not in the attack.

So a fighter plane would be able to remain in the air for 2 turns minimum before refueling/rearming, whatever.

I think I just posted something along the lines of that, but more interesting and fun.

Combat between submarines and air units is relevant in the entire Civilization series and I think it should somehow apply to the air tile layer. How is a submarine suppose to attack an air unit?

I think I aalso posted a solution for that as well...

 

[exhile]

Only a small percentage of the planes attacking Pearl Harbor were fighters. Most were torpedo-bombers and dive-bombers. There were some flying boats as well, but not in the attack.

You are missing the point which is a group of fighter planes should be able to destroy a battleship.

 

[Camikaze]

Aircraft should be given a bonus against any ship. They already can sink ships and destroy units, right? It was not the threat of submarines that cancelled the battleship, but the threat of aircraft and missiles.

Destroyers are much more adept at coping with air attacks. They are faster and more manoeuvrable, and are generally equipped with more ship-air than ship-ship weapons. So, like in Civ 4, they get a bonus for intercepting aircraft. But I think that if you were going to make the aircraft attack bonus uniform for all ships, battleships would still hold the same significance that they do now.

And, yes, it was aircraft that stopped the battleship as the central point of a navy, but fast attack submarines (particularly modern stealth submarines) would be a considerable threat to battleships, if they were around today.

The cargo capacity of a carrier (at least in Civ3) is already fine how it is. What should happen is: Just like artillery units on land do, air units on a carrier should be able to take a 'potshot' at any attacking ship. This will make the carrier much more efficient.

Even, say, 4 would be a lot better than the current capacity of 3. And if you are amphibiously attacking a city with, say, 15 defenders, one or two carriers will have virtually no effect (especially considering interception bonuses). But in real life, they would be quite decisively advantageous.

 

[Argetnyx]

Destroyers are much more adept at coping with air attacks. They are faster and more manoeuvrable, and are generally equipped with more ship-air than ship-ship weapons. So, like in Civ 4, they get a bonus for intercepting aircraft. But I think that if you were going to make the aircraft attack bonus uniform for all ships, battleships would still hold the same significance that they do now.

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but in Civ3, each ship has it's own air-defense stat, like flak and mobile SAM. In Civ3, destroyers do have a higher air-defense than battleships.

By 'aircraft attack bonus', do you mean by the plane, or by the ship?

Even, say, 4 would be a lot better than the current capacity of 3. And if you are amphibiously attacking a city with, say, 15 defenders, one or two carriers will have virtually no effect (especially considering interception bonuses). But in real life, they would be quite decisively advantageous.

In Civ3, carriers carry 4 planes, I don't know why they reduced it. In Civ3, all I have to do is load up a carrier, or two, with half bombers and half fighters. The warships that come along are also helpful in bombarding the city defenders and any other units outside of the city.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but in Civ3, each ship has it's own air-defense stat, like flak and mobile SAM. In Civ3, destroyers do have a higher air-defense than battleships.

By 'aircraft attack bonus', do you mean by the plane, or by the ship?

Okay then, it should be kept as destroyers having a far superior ability against air units. As for 'aircraft attack bonus', I mean that any aircraft that are attacking ships will inflict more damage than if they were attacking a land unit.

In Civ3, carriers carry 4 planes, I don't know why they reduced it. In Civ3, all I have to do is load up a carrier, or two, with half bombers and half fighters. The warships that come along are also helpful in bombarding the city defenders and any other units outside of the city.

Yeah, well that wouldn't be too bad. But in Civ 4, you cannot put bombers on carriers, and you can only have three planes on a carrier. Which means that one carrier will at most (assuming no planes are intercepted) only be able to damage three units.

 

[Argetnyx]

Well, that sucks... They should make a new unit: The dive-bomber. It is a light bomber with less punch, but way more accuracy. It will be able to load onto carriers and have a bonus when attacking ships and armor.