Why cant Stealth Bombers land on Carriers?

[EtherealBeaver]

Like the header suggests, I have been wondering why Stealth Bombers cant land on Carriers. I realise that they are very powerful and as such that might prove a problem when balancing them - but at the same time, this places Carriers in a pretty ackward spot once you have researched Stealth Bombers. Since Heavy Bombers are no longer available since a better tech is out, you can no longer make airplanes which can land on the carriers which you can still make. It seems very odd to me that you cant, at least, still make the Heavy Bombers after researching Stealth.

What, if any, are the reasons for this? Was it just never brought up, or is there a reason I just didnt realise?

 

[mikes61293]

It's a carry over from non-VP civ 5 where they have a huge range. IRL they're huge and too big to land on carriers but they have an operational range of the entire planet. I think that the simplest solution would to just make stealth bombers not make heavy bombers obsolete.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I think that the simplest solution would to just make stealth bombers not make heavy bombers obsolete.

I second this, it would be really good.

 

[Gangrin]

I would argue that it would be better to restrict all bombers to cities only. And also give them a penalty to attacking ships. Because honestly, when i see a carrier full of B-17 (which alone makes me cringe) perform an attack on enemy fleet with same efficiency as if they were land units or cities i want to scream. Heavy bombers were used against ships, mind you, but it required a painstaking practice and difficult maneuvering to do at least something. Specifically-designed torpedo bombers and divebombers fared much, much better. I don't argue that they should be a separate unit, but from my point of view, fighters are better for their representation than bombers - and it provide an additional incentive for building them. Because generally you only build bombers. Now you will have a choice: should i build stronger anti-land and anti-city less-mobile unit or anti-air anti-naval more-mobile unit.

 

[Funak]

I'd personally say just let the stealthbombers land on carriers. There is no good gameplay reason why they shouldn't be able to tbh.

 

[Emperor Ukunaka Kukvlkana]

I'd personally say just let the stealthbombers land on carriers. There is no good gameplay reason why they shouldn't be able to tbh.

because while their have been some rare instances of stealth bombers on carriers and most of those instances on super carriers (of which their are no class differentials in game, all are essentially near 1950s carrier style) that is most definitely not the norm

 

[Emperor Ukunaka Kukvlkana]

granted civ games arent always 100% historic or accurate in every respect but this is the norm, stealth bombers are not assigned to carriers and only use carriers in rare events

 

[JimBobRedneck]

because while their have been some rare instances of stealth bombers on carriers and most of those instances on super carriers (of which their are no class differentials in game, all are essentially near 1950s carrier style) that is most definitely not the norm

As he said though, "no gameplay reason". If you want to talk from a historical/real standpoint, the B-52 shouldn't be allowed on carriers, but it is. For a game like Civ, you want to factor in history as much as possible, but gameplay always comes first. Hence why there's no restriction from researching the internet in the 1700s if you can pump out the necessary science.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

I would honestly just prefer that Heavy Bombers never become obsolete because Stealth Bombers also require different strategic resources, so if you tech at a bad time, you might be screwed the rest of the game from an airplane standard, which makes absolutely no sense to me