no bombers on carriers?...what the

[vee4473]

The manual states that bombers cannot be based on aircraft carriers.

Why was this put in?

What the?

Sorry if this has been brought up already

[vee4473]

oops, i thought i was in the general forum, perhaps this can be moved.

[Brutus66]

I think this is as it should be.
I can't see a four-engined heavy bomber or a stealth bomber being recovered on a carrier.
I would thing you could mod them though if it really bugs you...

[Kool-Aid Man]

it is simply more realistic. in the real world this is the largest carrier-based aircraft ever.

http://hsgalleries.com/images/a3brl_1.jpg

[Solver]

It's somewhat realistic. Carries now carry F-16 and similar craft, you don't really see a carrier full of B2 or B52 bombers.

[vee4473]

well, until I see how well fighters do at bombing, this could be a sore spot for me.

If fighters are very ineffective at bombing land targets, then I don't like this.

If you want to talk realism, then they should make fighters be VERY good at destroying land targets.

I kinda get a kick when realism is used as a defense for something that is or is not in the game.

As if everything found in the game is realistic.

If it is for game balancing, thats one reason.

[vee4473]

Thats why I say that seeing the effectiveness of fighters as land bombers is going to be the test for me.

Because, the argument to not make bombers carrier based for the sake of including a little realism and then turning around and doing something very unrealistic like making fighters ineffective at land bombing seems a bit odd to me.

But, I guess things must be done the world of games for balancing purposes.

[ChaotikVisions]

It depends what you mean by effective. In actual bombardment(versus Infantry and lower, all i've fought against so far) they usually take off 21% health(They can only take a unit down to half its strength though). Against cities they do 2% bombardment damage to the defenses(seems low, but with a few fighers you can damage it faster then it can recover). Then finally for terrain bombardment farms/pastures/etc.. are easy to take out, mines are slightly harder, then the cottage/hamlet/village/town improvements are the hardest.

This is just with Fighters. Really if you have air superioty and say 3 carriers with 3 Fighters each, you can devestate an enemies land at a rapid pace. If anything, I think air power might be a bit too powerful in this game. But I haven't seen the more advanced fighters yet or fought an enemy with anti-air capability.

[vee4473]

ok ok, like I said, I haven't used them yet.

Will hold off any further comment until I have. I just saw that in the manual and it rubbed me the wrong way.

Here's an idea for stealth bombers that's sure to get stomped on: How about having a promotion or in some way facilitate mid-air refueling so that at some point in the game they have more range? That's realistic.

(that's not in the game is it?)

Probably would make them too damn powerful though.

[Mao]

I'm not quite sure what bombers these are, so I assume we're still talking about WWII-era bombers. What about the Doolittle raid on Tokyo? That at least proved it was *possible* if a bit risky. If it's possible, shouldn't it be the players decision to do it or not?

[Feldii]

I used both fighters and bombers in my last game, though I never built a carrier. Fighters seemed to be just as effective at bombing terrain as bombers and they were also reasonably effective at damaging units. The main difference was that bombers cause collateral damage while fighters do not.

I can't remember if fighters could damage a city's defenses either. Even if they can't, that isn't a huge difference, because I found bombers to be pretty bad at this anyway. Artillery take off something like 10% of the defenses per round, while bombers seem to take off 5%. Furthermore, bombers put themselves at risk when they attack a city wheras artillery do not.

[Venger]

The problem is that the bomber and fighter are extrapolations - the four engined bomber you see represents all bombers - twin engine, four engine, carrier based, land based. Carriers carried planes designed for dive and level bombing. And especially later - carrier attack planes like the F/A-18 carry far more deliverable ordinance than the old B-17 did.

Bombers should be baseable on a carrier. Or there should be a fighter-bomber unit that is baseable on a carrier.

Venger

[Franklinnoble]

Bombers can go on carriers if you give them the "Broomstick Tailgun" promotion.

[Addled Platypus]

in the first game I played, one of the AI's started to pillage my tiles with one of his fighters, severaly damaged a bombers

They do there job

[Kuciwalker]

What I see as more of an issue (though I don't have the game) is the 50% penalty to bomber attacks on naval units.