Why bombers can not re-base on carrier now?

[阿里巴巴]

Is that called reality?
I remeber it can in Civ 3

 

[BaneBlade]

The two bombers displayed (B2 and B24?!?) really cant be carrierbased, i feel the need for another unit to make:
1.Naval warfare more rewarding/interesting/realistic
2. Ressource denial in modern war more possible,
i only recently managed to cut my enemy off for ca. 20 rounds from his 3 oilsources (1offshore) and 1 alu-mine, but i needed for this task one preemptive nukestrike(3-5 ICBMs), 4 spys(and lots of money for sabotage) and 4 gunships, 4 Armor/mechinf., one Carriertaskforce.
Considering that i had to fight for a foothold on his continent at the same time, and there are substituepossibilities(SAMInf, Inf, Marines), that was a very high price to pay.
Carrierbased bombers would give another approach for this strategy, and make the oversimplified/underrated naval/air-arms much better!
Edit: Another approach could be expendable Missiles(Tomahawk)

 

[sgrig]

If you look at real life, only fighters/fighter-bombers were ever based on carriers. Bombers are too huge to be able to land on Carriers. So I support the decision that bombers can't be based on carriers.

Possibly the addition of a fighter-bomber unit between fighters and jet fighters could fill the gap.

 

[onedreamer]

actually fighters do have the bombing ability already...

 

[Ubiquitous]

I think the US UU should be a F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet - capable of multi role interception and advanced bombing from carriers. Would be very cool [and this is coming from a Brit!].

Basically Bombers are too big to fit on the current generation of US supercarriers. Especially the B-2.

 

[ahsingjai]

I want fighters to be able to attack other fighters that are stationed at cities and etc. I'm sick of just being intercepted when I try to attack.

 

[Ubiquitous]

I want fighters to be able to attack other fighters that are stationed at cities and etc. I'm sick of just being intercepted when I try to attack.

Agreed - there should be an option to attack enemy planes.

 

[panzooka]

i want a kamikaze plane option

 

[kask]

I want fighters to be able to attack other fighters that are stationed at cities and etc. I'm sick of just being intercepted when I try to attack.

totally agree with this point too ^^

boring knowing that they got anti air and can't beat it

 

[Agraza]

american and russian bomber planes took the the route of developing the range and height that they can reach, flying from land bases, across oceans, to drop their destruction before returning home.

 

[TSteamer]

If you look at real life, only fighters/fighter-bombers were ever based on carriers. Bombers are too huge to be able to land on Carriers. So I support the decision that bombers can't be based on carriers.

Read your history:

On April 18, 1942 then Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle launched a squadron of B-25s off the carrier USS Hornet to bomb Tokyo. The bombing of mainland Japan was a critical and significant move in WWII. The unprecedented and historic use of a bomber on a carrier was not only a massive boost to American and allied morale, but achieved the effect of creating a state of shock in the Japanese command as they tried to determine how it was possible for bombers to have appeared instead of fighters.

Read more at: http://www.doolittletokyoraiders.com/doolittle_raid.htm

 

[The Last Conformist]

The Doolittle Raid was an exceptional operation, involving stripped-down craft that still had to land in China, because landing on a carrier wasn't feasible. The raid had some psychological effect, but all subsequent serious bombing was done by land-based craft.

 

[Tarkhan]

Heheh, I didn't know that was real, lol. I'd thought they made it up in the movie Pearl Harbor.

...ya learn somethin every day

 

[sgrig]

Read your history:

On April 18, 1942 then Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle launched a squadron of B-25s off the carrier USS Hornet to bomb Tokyo. The bombing of mainland Japan was a critical and significant move in WWII. The unprecedented and historic use of a bomber on a carrier was not only a massive boost to American and allied morale, but achieved the effect of creating a state of shock in the Japanese command as they tried to determine how it was possible for bombers to have appeared instead of fighters.

Read more at: http://www.doolittletokyoraiders.com/doolittle_raid.htm

This was an exceptional one-off operation. Aircraft carriers were never designed to carry bombers.

 

[TSteamer]

The Doolittle Raid was an exceptional operation, involving stripped-down craft that still had to land in China, because landing on a carrier wasn't feasible. The raid had some psychological effect, but all subsequent serious bombing was done by land-based craft.

It was indeed exceptional. And even Doolittle himself thought the raid was a failure because all of his bombers were lost in the end. But the raid resulted in a tremendous (not some) boost in American morale. It caused the Japanese to attack Midway two months later than they planned, and with a much much larger task force. The Americans were prepared and the Japanese lost the battle disasterously as American planes sank 4 Japanese carriers. You could say that Doolittle's raid turned the tide as the Japanese loss at Midway is hands down, the turning point in the Pacific.

So if one wants to take the position that its not commonplace enough in history for it to be in the game, granted. But dont ever say bombers werent on carriers nor were they effective in doing so.

-TSteamer (Major USAF and Doolittle fanatic)

PS: And the only "subsequent serious bombing" of Japan in WWII were Hiroshima and Nagasaki...but I dont see anyone saying we should be able to drop nukes from bombers in the game.

 

[mweather]

PS: And the only "subsequent serious bombing" of Japan in WWII were Hiroshima and Nagasaki...but I dont see anyone saying we should be able to drop nukes from bombers in the game.

What about all the firebombs? Surely burning Kobe and Osaka to the ground constitutes "subsequent serious bombing".

 

[TSteamer]

What about all the firebombs? Surely burning Kobe and Osaka to the ground constitutes "subsequent serious bombing".

Absolutely. (I was apparently entrenched in conventional bombing-thinking, so thanks for setting me right!)

So shall we lobby for firebombs? i.e the ability to cause more collateral damage to cities (both buildings and population) in the game?

There was firebombing in both WWII theaters--Dresden in Germany leaps to mind. Plus you could argue that napalm use in Vietnam was a successful use of firebombing (albeit on the tactical vs strategic level).

 

[Palantir30]

PS: And the only "subsequent serious bombing" of Japan in WWII were Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Um, no. We bombed Japan into the dust with conventional bombs for months before we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy.. We deliberately left Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a couple other cities undamaged to test the effects of the two new bomb. We crippled their shippbuilding infrastructure, munitions making and fuel distiributions network. We did these things more thoroughly to Japan than we ever did to Germany, and we spent more time and lives bombing Germany than Japan. It happened faster in the Pac theater and it was mostly after VE day so it got less press/historical coverage. It is not correct to say it didnt happen.

 

[TSteamer]

Um, no. We bombed Japan into the dust with conventional bombs for months before we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy.. We deliberately left Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a couple other cities undamaged to test the effects of the two new bomb. We crippled their shippbuilding infrastructure, munitions making and fuel distiributions network. We did these things more thoroughly to Japan than we ever did to Germany, and we spent more time and lives bombing Germany than Japan. It happened faster in the Pac theater and it was mostly after VE day so it got less press/historical coverage. It is not correct to say it didnt happen.

Not saying it didnt happen. Pardon my off-handed definitions of "subsequent" and "serious". It was a tongue-in-cheek PS-type remark to Conformist is all.

Anyway, I didnt mean to hijack the thread with quibbling over semantics and WWII. I believe the original posters point was, why cant we base bombers off carriers in Civ IV like we could in Civ III?

 

[Pragmatic]

If you look at real life, only fighters/fighter-bombers were ever based on carriers.

And attack (A-6, for instance). But your basic point holds: planes can't be too large if you're expecting them to operate on a carrier.