Why can't helicopter's land on carriers?

[Jeff Yu]

Helicopters should be able to load on carriers. They can in real life, and carriers do carry helicopters. Plus, the helicopter is useless enough already. It's main use is to airdrop troops into enemy territory. Unless you're close to enemy territory, or you've already captured a base, they can't get close enough. If they could load onto carriers, then a carrier could move close enough to coastal bases to allow helicopters to drop off troops behind enemy lines and maybe do a bit of pillaging (or something) before your main invasion.

For that matter, why can't AEGIS cruisers carry cruise missiles? Again, then can do this in real life. Right now cruise missiles can only be used on land, when in real life, they are dropped by bombers and launched by missile cruisers. That way, AEGIS cruisers will be more useful, instead of being expensive submarine detectors. Would also make cruise missiles more useful too. They are useful now, but they they cost is a bit high a for something that works only on land and gets destroyed when you use it.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I agree on both counts.

I have not found a way to allow helicopters to land on carriers yet (anyone else know how?), but I have edited the rules to allow my AEGIS cruisers to carry cruise missiles. Simply toggle the "tactical missile" tag on the cruise missile, and toggle the "carry tactical missile" on the aegis cruiser.

 

[etj4Eagle]

At the same time, carriers can't carry bombers either. Heavy bombers are too big to land on a carrier or to be launched via the catapult. Not to mention they would likely very quickly deplete a carriers supply of bombs.

 

[The Art of War]

Maybe if you designated the Helicopter as a Tactical Missile, and then said that the carrier could carry tacticals, that would let Carriers carry the helos. I'll go try this!

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I agree on both counts.

I have not found a way to allow helicopters to land on carriers yet (anyone else know how?), but I have edited the rules to allow my AEGIS cruisers to carry cruise missiles. Simply toggle the "tactical missile" tag on the cruise missile, and toggle the "carry tactical missile" on the aegis cruiser.

In my editor those options are grayed-out and can't be toggled on.

 

[J-S]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I have not found a way to allow helicopters to land on carriers yet (anyone else know how?), but I have edited the rules to allow my AEGIS cruisers to carry cruise missiles. Simply toggle the "tactical missile" tag on the cruise missile, and toggle the "carry tactical missile" on the aegis cruiser.

But dosen't this make the Cruise Missile have the same effect as the Nuke?

Unit "sizes" should vary. I mean, a Marine occupies the same space in a transport than the Modern Armor

 

[Zouave]

One of the minor failings with Civ II was the lack of difference between heavy bombers, and the much smaller dive and torpedo bombers that flew off carriers. I had hoped Civ III would address that, but nope. Civ III just made naval warfare even more simplistic.

 

[Nemo]

Two things: first off, carriers can launch heavy bombers, as was done in WWII on several occassions.
Secondly, the cruise missile toggle does not work (already tried it ). However, you CAN put helicopters on a carrier, IF the helicopter is not a transport itself. I have found that ANY unit which has "Trans. capacity" >0 cannot be loaded onto a carrier.
I am still hoping there is a way to hack the program some how to by-pass this option. If anyone finds a way to do this PLEASE post

the AEGIS and Helicopter things are my biggest annoyances in this game still. Although, the AEGIS cruise missile thing was easier to fix

WIthout being able to load helos on a carrier, I don't even find a reason to research it, it has so little benifits.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Nemo
Two things: first off, carriers can launch heavy bombers, as was done in WWII on several occassions.

WWII bombers and carriers are much different than those of today. WWII carriers had a runway that ran the length of the deck and did not rely on catapults for launching. Todays carriers can not launch or recover any plane without mechanical assistance. Catapults are required to give planes sufficient acceleration to acheive lift when they leave the deck, and catch wires are used for stopping airplanes that are landing.

Coldwar era heavy bombers were not designed for carrier operations. They instead were designed for long range flight, allowing them to hit their targets by launching for US land airfields. I doubt a catapult could get a substantially heavier bomber airborne (not to mention that bombers don't have afterburners which are used for catapult launching). Also the avionics on these craft are not the more heavy duty stuff required for carrier operations.

However, in fixing this they would also have to substantially increase the operational range of a bomber, so that it doesn't need a carrier to get close to its target. Either that or add airbases.

 

[Nemo]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle

Coldwar era heavy bombers were not designed for carrier operations.

True, but coldwar era bombers where mostly jet engined bombers, in which case they are not even present in civ3, since civ3 bombers are prop planes. The propeller driven bombers are WWII era bombers (and some were modified for the early years of the cold war, but were scrapped after jet propoltion proved itself). Also, IIRC, our present carriers have a catapult in order to balance the lose of runway. Therefore, taking off on a long carrier w/o a catapult, or a short carrier with a catapult, would be the same. There were prop planes that used the catapult on shorter decks, but I don't know if it was used for prop bombers, but theoretically it would be possible.

However, in fixing this they would also have to substantially increase the operational range of a bomber, so that it doesn't need a carrier to get close to its target. Either that or add airbases.

I agree completely, all jet bombers (well in civ3 this includes only the stealth bombers) should have a 1/2 world bombing radius. The 8 square bombing limit is total crap we should at least be able to adjust this in the editor. Didn't our stealth bomber take off from MO to attack Afghanistan? And it was reported that they only stopped on the way back to rest the pilots, but the bomber itself would have been able to complete the run.

In any case, I have thought another scheme for trying to get the helicopter to land on a carrier. It can land on the carrier if you add the "army" tag to it. This has 2 draw backs, however: 1) only the city with 'military acadamy' could build it, so you would have to balance out army/helo shield costs or something. 2) if it has teh land attribute it can load foot soldiers but not land on the carrier, but if it has the air attribute, it can land on the carrier, but not carrier foot soldiers. Therefore, if anyone know how to break down the .bic file to force both 'air' and 'land' attributes for a vehicle, then this could be accomplished. I'll have to go through the binaries later, but I think this could be possible based on other postings I have seen on the .bic file. Gramphos might know how to alter the .bic to accomplish this double type option.

 

[Jeff Yu]

True, but coldwar era bombers where mostly jet engined bombers, in which case they are not even present in civ3, since civ3 bombers are prop planes. The propeller driven bombers are WWII era bombers (and some were modified for the early years of the cold war, but were scrapped after jet propoltion proved itself). Also, IIRC, our present carriers have a catapult in order to balance the lose of runway. Therefore, taking off on a long carrier w/o a catapult, or a short carrier with a catapult, would be the same. There were prop planes that used the catapult on shorter decks, but I don't know if it was used for prop bombers, but theoretically it would be possible.

I don't think so. While it might be theoretically possible, that doesn't mean the plane can be used off of a carrier. All the planes that operate off a carrier are designed to do so. While other planes like Air Force planes might be able to land on a carrier, that doesn't mean they can operate from a carrier. Carrier planes are designed to operate on and off a carrier repeatedly. Other planes aren't Landing on an aircraft carrier puts enormous stress on the landing gear, and other parts of the planes from having to land on the carrier and take off from catapult.

 

[Nemo]

Well, there was always the famous "Doolittle Raid" but, then again, they never had to return to the carrier to land . . . so, i dont really know where I am going with that one Just that anything can be modified to take off of a carrier. (I mean they had to paint broomsticks black and put them in the gun mounts so the could unload the actual guns to lighten the run for more fuel, since they were detected early, just to make the runway)

Personally I liked Civ2 style air vehicles better. As you could double their distance at teh sake of having to ditch the craft. I really wish they would have kept that system

 

[benjdm]

Two things: first off, carriers can launch heavy bombers, as was done in WWII on several occassions.

I have to disagree with this. I know the Doolittle raid was launched from the USS Hornet as a flight of B-25 MEDIUM bombers. But that group of 16 (I think it was 16) bombers used up the carriers' whole capacity. Another carrier came along with fighters and other craft. In more recent history, the F-111 was supposed to be a carrier capable aircraft but they could not make it light enough.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Apollo
In my editor those options are grayed-out and can't be toggled on.

You want to be changing the settings in the areas I have circled in yellow on the attached screenshot. This has worked for me in the past, though it may have been before the 1.17f patch.

 

[MrBiggBoy]

I've also edited my game to make AEGIS cruiser more viable. My cruisers can carry 2 missiles (tac nukes or cruise) and have increased defense. This makes them very interesting units. With more power than subs, you can use them as all purpose units. I've also increased sub attack to 14 to allow subs to have the chance to kill battleships. In WW2, subs would routinely destroy battleships since their massive guns could not hit underwater targets. Civ3 does not replicate this. In fact, subs get killed by FRIGATES. Think, a CANNONBALL vs. an EXPLOSIVE TORPEDO. Maybe Firaxis could make a patch so that only AEGIS and destroyers can retaliate vs subs. This would make the game much more fun. Enjoy!!

PS I also allowed Artillery, Radar Artillery, Battleships, and AEGIS to kill units in bombardment.

PSS I am using 1.21f, you know.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by MrBiggBoy
In fact, subs get killed by FRIGATES. Think, a CANNONBALL vs. an EXPLOSIVE TORPEDO. Maybe Firaxis could make a patch so that only AEGIS and destroyers can retaliate vs subs. This would make the game much more fun.


i agree with you.

 

[Zouave]

Subs get killed by frigates?? Yikes. Naval warfare is dumber than I thought.

What does the frigate do when the sub submerges?? Drop cannonballs on them?!

That's just another reason to take helicopters, submarines, and privateers. . . and Edit them into more useful units, as I have done.

In reality, subs and privateers were designed to attack enemy merchant shipping - not enemy warships. But we could put dozens of subs in the ocean on a trade route and it would have no effect. Therefore, I consider them useless and only good to be Edited into something else.

 

[warpstorm]

To make a better Aegis (not an acronym) Cruiser, make it so that it can unload (this will allow the missile transport AI - so that the AI can use them too), can transport foot and tactical missile only (bear with me I tried this), transport capacity of 2, naval missile transport.

Change cruise missile to be foot and tactical missile, add load, increase range to 8.

This will give you an Aegis cruiser that can carry 2 cruise missiles (only), that the computer knows how to use.

The sub can carry either kind of missile.

 

[Quentin]

I think you can make helicopters land on carriers simply by giving them the ability to "load"(now they can only unload). I THINK.