13-05-2002 16:25									#1
	What do you think about carriers? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Personally I think that carriers are not so powerful anymore, which I regret. It used to be so much fun sending out carriers with a lot of bombers, fighters and some helicopters.

First of all bombers and fighters can no longer destroy other units, so it is much more difficult to conquer.

Secondly a carrier can only hold 4 "flying artillery". So to have some impact you need more carriers. It makes a carrier less useful. And also a bit unrealistic. A city can hold much more planes, so why can a carrier hold only 4?

I'm wondering what your opinion is, so let me know.

	13-05-2002 16:43									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Greetings campmajor!

I think that carriers should be allowed to carry 5 units, no more and no less. I'm glad they did away with infinite capacity on carriers but that is unrealistic. OTOH holding only 4 units is a little unrealistic too. After all modern day carriers pack a lot of aircraft and helicopters into their bellies!

	13-05-2002 16:47									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'm fine with carriers as they are. It would not hurt if they could hold more bombers/fighters, but that's not necessary. Just build more carriers. Btw: one "bomber" on the map is not equivalent to one plane, and one carrier is not equivalent to one ship. Both represent larger units, like air wings or fleets, so you can't compare this like in your example.

	13-05-2002 16:55									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Btw: one "bomber" on the map is not equivalent to one plane, and one carrier is not equivalent to one ship. Both represent larger units, like air wings or fleets, so you can't compare this like in your example.

Just curious, is this stated in the manual or is this the official opinion on Poly is?

I'm not trying to be offensive so please forgive me. What I mean is in games like "The Operational Art of War" I know what one unit represents in terms of actual numbers. To me this is vague in the civ series. I guess I take things at face value, but unconsciously try to imagine bigger numbers.

	13-05-2002 17:23									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Haupt. Dietrich:

I'm not sure if it's in the manual or not (who reads manuals? ), but it's common knowledge. It's logical. Look at the map. If we set it equal the earth's surface, a tile on Marla's map is approximately 100x100 miles. Nobody would suppose, that a single infantryman there is the only defender of that big area. It surely is a division or (considering the area) even rather an army corps. Just like one pop point represents not one person

What concerns TOAW, well, it plays on realistic map and has a historical background. It's easier to form true regiments and divisions if you have the appropriate historical information. Btw: I dropped TOAW in disgust. It's a great game, but these morons never localized their patches and the new scenarios were incompatible to the unpatched version. I'm boycotting Talonsoft now.

	13-05-2002 17:36									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Being that Civ loves to be vague in such realistic areas... nothing is ever said. However, I usually consider each "unit" to be a division of around 3,000 men, which seems realistic. I'm not sure about how many planes each unit should represent, but it's always a possibility that each ship... is actually one ship. After all, most countries didn't have more than 12 battleships usually, and you can easily build that number and more in this game.

	13-05-2002 17:47									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Trip: With ships, you are probably right indeed. But with planes it must be different. I have, in average, about 20 bombers in a game, while an average real country may have hundreds or even thousands of them (sorry, have actually no access to links or true numbers).

	13-05-2002 19:09									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

I realize that one unit represents a lot of units, but one bomber-unit in civ inflicts a certain amount of damage. If you look at it that way, I think there should be more bombers/fighters on a carrier. Especially if you consider that one turn is at least one year....

	13-05-2002 19:26									#9
	Suffering from ads?

Bah, I ignore the whole turn system... like it takes a bunch of warriors 50 years to get from one tile to the next? My point exactly...

I would say that each bomber unit represents perhaps 20 or 25 actual aircraft... that allows each Aircraft Carrier 80 to 100 planes, which is about accurate.

With the 25 figure, 20 Bombers is about 500 planes... which was about the average air force as well, if not a little larger. Superpowers like Germany during WWII had 2000 planes, but, I'm sure you can see, that's quite an exception. Warmongers could probably get at least 40 Bombers out when they're really going at it. Besides, that's not even accounting for Fighters yet... 40 fighters and 40 bombers, you have a massive air power like Germany.

	13-05-2002 20:26									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

4 units by carrier is small, but I just avoided the problem by creating the Supercarrier (with Nuclear Power) that can bring 6 units. It's that easy

	13-05-2002 21:10									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

its pritty simple, 1 'unit' counts as one group, wether its squad, platoon, squadron, regiment.

	13-05-2002 22:17									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

hi ,

a good tip ; carriers should hold 10-12 units , they should cost more , there defense should be higher and that vulcan gun should be used as airdefense aswell , ......

and of course carriers should hold some helicopters , .....
there should be more types of helicopters , .....to spot subs or so , ....

have a nice day

	14-05-2002 00:42									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

i do think they should cost more, major civs should have maby 5 carriers, and a meduim should have about two.

	14-05-2002 00:43									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yes, Carriers should also be able to spot subs.
If you want more aircraft capacity in your carrier force either:
1) Editor, or
2) Build more carriers (my preference)

More carriers means less disaster if one gets sunk, even though you 'get' to move more units. OTH, who has ever had a carrier sunk?

JB

	14-05-2002 00:46									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jaybe Yes, Carriers should also be able to spot subs. If you want more aircraft capacity in your carrier force either: 1) Editor, or 2) Build more carriers (my preference) More carriers means less disaster if one gets sunk, even though you 'get' to move more units. OTH, who has ever had a carrier sunk? JB

hi ,

carriers can not see subs , there for they should have some escort units , ...
the AI can sometimes nuke carriers or use's cruise missille's , .....

have a nice day

	14-05-2002 00:49									#16
	Remove this text

JB, I've had carriers sunk too many times . I even think I protect them more than many players on these boards. Generally, each carrier will have as escort 2 battleships, one destroyer, and an AEGIS cruiser (or sub if no robotics yet). Every so often, an AI stack of 6 or 7 battleships will catch me unawares, and then, it's bye-bye carrier and all that's loaded on it.

	14-05-2002 02:54									#17
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Haupt. Dietrich: I'm not sure if it's in the manual or not (who reads manuals? ), but it's common knowledge. It's logical. Look at the map. If we set it equal the earth's surface, a tile on Marla's map is approximately 100x100 miles. Nobody would suppose, that a single infantryman there is the only defender of that big area. It surely is a division or (considering the area) even rather an army corps. Just like one pop point represents not one person What concerns TOAW, well, it plays on realistic map and has a historical background. It's easier to form true regiments and divisions if you have the appropriate historical information. Btw: I dropped TOAW in disgust. It's a great game, but these morons never localized their patches and the new scenarios were incompatible to the unpatched version. I'm boycotting Talonsoft now.

Yes you're right. I didn't think of Civ3 in those terms.

TOAW is very frustrating because PBEM games are not compatible with each other with the various versions out there. TOAW II Elite, TOAW ACOW, etc. etc. I am disappointed in Talonsoft for not making all versions, all localities compatible with each other! Unfortunately I don't think Talonsoft is the same company it was 3 years ago. That's too bad.

	14-05-2002 03:01									#18
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Catt JB, I've had carriers sunk too many times . I even think I protect them more than many players on these boards. Generally, each carrier will have as escort 2 battleships, one destroyer, and an AEGIS cruiser (or sub if no robotics yet). Every so often, an AI stack of 6 or 7 battleships will catch me unawares, and then, it's bye-bye carrier and all that's loaded on it.

Oh MY! Where were your pickets?
Surface engagement against carriers is what the Japanese attempted at Midway (after they lost all their carriers). When heavy surface units approach, the carriers withdraw!!

	14-05-2002 03:51									#19
	Support Apolyton

5 or 6 air units would be good. As would be banishing Bombers from the flight deck. Of course, that would mean that they would need to add a Fighter-Bomber. I'm talking about the standard rules of course, we can all mod to our hearts' content.

	14-05-2002 04:38									#20
	Got spare money?

Is it really necassary for Aircraft Carriers to hold more than 6 planes? Are ships really that hard to produce late in the game? I could see a case being made for 5 or 6 planes, but no more than that. I think things are fine the way they are. 4 Bombers can wreak plenty of havoc if you give them enough time.

	14-05-2002 05:26									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I set carriers to 8, and then realized that they were fairly useless.

Now with 1.21f, I set my F-15s to have leathal bombardment. (also a bit of fooling around with Bombers, Stealth bombers, and Stealth Fighters, giving them all leathal bombardment, but changing them enough to differentiate) I now have _great_ air battles, with air superiority being _utterly_ nessisacry for warfare in the late game, and carriers rule the sea. When they get near to shore *grin*

Let me put it like this: I enlisted the aid of a few powers near my opposition when I went to war. I sent my F-15s to destroy the enemies millitary (they _were_ the #2 power). Then my allies were able to just waltz in and take over their cities. It reminded me a bit of the recent Afganistan campain...

	14-05-2002 06:26									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

I tend to view carriers in terms of what they should be in the game and that leads me to believe their carrying capacity should be increased to fulfill their mission.

Each carrier should be the centerpiece of its own strike force that projects power to a remote area of the map without having to build cities at that location.

The aircraft assigned to the carrier should cover missions that can be increased or decreased depending on the role that the carrier has been assigned. IN general the number of aircraft for each mission will rarely be less than 1 because the survival of the carrier and its escort group depends on some minimum level of support for each mission.

This means that the carrier need to carry at least:
1 - aircraft to provide aircover or protection in any given turn.
1 - aircraft to complete recon for potential incoming attackers as well as to locate targets.
1 - aircraft that can complete ASW missions.
1 - aircraft that can project air superiority type missions to a target area
2 (at least two) effective bombing mission aircraft that can target and destroy potential targets.

In CIV3 the typical threat to carriers is from land based aircraft and from battleship groups sent out by the AI. With the current defensive strengths of 10 to 16 for the typical targets each of the WWII bombers only yields an average of 1 hit per turn on a unit or city of the industrial or modern era. It takes 3 or 4 bombers to successfully defend against an AI battleship attack. Fighters have no effect when used in the bombardment roles against almost any target so they cannot be viewed as multipurpose in that way.

Fighters also only have a 50% chance of intercepting an incoming bomber attack. You need two fighters to have a 75% chance of intercepting a bomber attack.

You can stack a carrier full of fighters together with a couple of carriers full of bombers to gain the balance that needs to be in one package.

I think the modders will fix the discrency in the standard offering by making a unit available that is called something like the "Nuclear Carrier" or the "Super Carrier) and this unit will have greater movement range coupled with an increased carrying capacity of 6 to 8 units.

When someone finally wakes up in the control booth and fixes helicopters to allow them to fulfill functional missions, the capacity of a carrier will have to be set up to at least 8 units in order to hold two helicopters and their passengers at 2 per, plus some minimal air cover.

The WWII bomber based from the carriers is just a game design expedient so I view this as a visio graphic substitute for a real carrier based bombardment capable unit.

	14-05-2002 06:57									#23
	Tired of ads?

5 or 6 units for a WWII era carrier would still lead to using multiple carriers to 'project power', just as in WW2. For that matter, 4 units is OK for that era.

The Super Carrier would need 10 or 12 to make it a viable platform for conducting missions as the only flat top in a group. Even then, you would typically combine 2 or 3 into a super group for large missions. Just like today.

I can see the point about the Bomber being the one-off air bombardment vehicle. I can accept it. It would just be better for flavour in my eyes if the distinction were made between tactical attack and strategic/area bombardment aircraft.

	14-05-2002 07:26									#24
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It would be nice to have more planes on carriers but its OK at four. I just send out more than one carrier group.

One Carrier
Two Battleships
Two or three bombers
One or two fighters.

And some subs hanging around the combat zone if at all possible. This allows me to spot incoming battleships in time to bomb them.

	14-05-2002 09:36									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

re original query.

4 is too little and infinite is too many.

Depending on my mood at the start of the game I like 20-25 units per carrier. I usually have at least 5 fighters per carrier. I never send out a carrier without 5-8 escorts.

First games had only 4, but had so many carriers it took way to long to move the pieces. I like a bit faster game. Even with the enhanced load capacity it is silly to have more than 4-5 carriers. Three may be the optional number. Last game I had 5 and they
were often wasted.

By the time you have a loaded carrier:
5 fighters
10 stealth bombers
10 bombers

It still takes a long time, if not impossible, to win with just navy air. And that is the way it should be. Especially with the AI using artillery vs the carrier group.

You might think 20 bombers are available for bombard missions. But I use 3-5 fighters for AS, and about 8 planes of whatever type for surveillance. First is defend vs BS and carrier group attacks, then attach ground stations. Thus that leaves only about 10 left for ground action. So I get 3-4 hits per turn. Not enough to wipe out the AI, but is enough to add support to ground forces.



My big gripe about carriers is the planes range is only 8 tiles. I want a range of 10-12 so my ships can move 6-8 tiles with
an AEGIS and one other ship. Doesn't make sense to me to have ships being able to move further than air craft. With the reduced bombard factors, {ok, actually increased defense factors}, they are in their proper role: a great addition, but can't really do anything without ground troops.

	14-05-2002 10:04									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmmm. I've changed my mind a bit about air ranges. I think it is an absolute must for ships to be able to get out of the range of stationary airbases with a single turns movement. Fleets need to be able to disengage. Especailly with lethal bombardment.

With ships moving all terrain as roads, that is accomplished and things are 'balanced' by giving BB 3 or 4 movement and Blitz.

	14-05-2002 10:33									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Fighters also only have a 50% chance of intercepting an incoming bomber attack. You need two fighters to have a 75% chance of intercepting a bomber attack.

My understanding (from the context of the Editor), is that 'chance of intercept' is based on the bombing mission (static, at 1), not on how many units are available to intercept it.

Can anyone come up with supporting evidence that it is per intercepting unit??

JB

	14-05-2002 20:02									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

hi ,

so whe need a bigger range on the airunits , including on the cruise- and tactical nuke missile , ...

have a nice day

Last edited by panag on 14-05-2002 at 20:31

	14-05-2002 20:06									#29
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by planetfall Depending on my mood at the start of the game I like 20-25 units per carrier. I usually have at least 5 fighters per carrier. I never send out a carrier without 5-8 escorts.

Whoa, there, don't you think 25 is a bit too many? After all, each carrier can hold only about 80 - 100 planes on average, and it's doubtful that each "airplane" unit contains less than 10 planes. Maybe this is just my view on it, but the way I see it 25 airplanes on 1 carrier is far too powerful.

	14-05-2002 20:15									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

To be honest, I get by without any kind of navy for most of the game (I usually play continents), just a couple of scout vessels on mapping/first contact missions. Later in the game, I'll build a stack of transports with a couple of destroyer escorts and go on to the next continent (Lebensraum!). Once I get my beachhead established, It's usually quicker just to build an airport and airlift all the tanks, MechI, and artillery that I need to finish carving out my space on that island. After that, a couple loads of workers ends the functionality of my navy. Maybe I should go back to playing archipel games.