no bombers on carriers?...what the

[Solver]

Originally posted by 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.

It essentially means that bombers can damage naval units pretty well, but not completely rape them.

[spy14]

Large Bombers on carriers is daft, but modern carrier aircraft like the F/A-18 can bomb targets with pinpoint accuracy, so this needs to be reflected. Before laser / satellite targeting carrier size aircraft only had a couple of bombs which were released on a guesstimate, not sure how far the game reflects this.

Remember on approach, "Listen to your feelings, Luke..."

[Solver]

Well, in Civ4, I'd say the Jet Fighter represents F/A-18 and such aircraft, whereas the Stealth Bombers represents B-2 and such heavy bombers.

[Shr3dZ]

Originally posted by Feldii
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.

You dont consider being one-square from an enemy city being at risk ?

[Feldii]

You dont consider being one-square from an enemy city being at risk ?

OK, there is some risk . But you don't put your artillery at risk during the attack, at least. Furthermore, you probably have units one tile off the enemy city anyway, as you are trying to take it.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Solver
Well, in Civ4, I'd say the Jet Fighter represents F/A-18 and such aircraft, whereas the Stealth Bombers represents B-2 and such heavy bombers.

Thats what I mean - only the fighter and jet fighter should be based on carriers (also choppers)... but if the fighter represents older WW2 - korea type aircraft, it should have far less attack capability than the jet fighter, which represents current F/A-18's and such (although not before lasers are discovered - my god this is getting confusing! I'm off for a pint!)

[Solver]

There's simply a unit missing to represent modern aircraft properly. Fighters and Bombers represent WW2-era craft.

The Jet Fighter, though, represents something like a F-16 Falcon, or maybe the F-15 Eagle (not Strike Eagle, though). These are aircraft that can do airstrikes but aren't that excellent at it. Now, the F/A-18 Hornet or the future F-35 aren't represented in the game, they're aircraft that are fighters but also equipped for very precise and pretty powerful airstrikes. Instead, Civ4 relies on a unit representing the likes of B-2 for bombing.

If you wanted to be more realistic, I guess you could make a "Strike Fighter" unit representing the Hornets which would have good air strike capabilities, too.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by spy14
Large Bombers on carriers is daft, but modern carrier aircraft like the F/A-18 can bomb targets with pinpoint accuracy, so this needs to be reflected. Before laser / satellite targeting carrier size aircraft only had a couple of bombs which were released on a guesstimate, not sure how far the game reflects this.

Remember on approach, "Listen to your feelings, Luke..."

Here's the really cute thing about this topic. (I 100% totally agree that bombers should not be allowed to launch off Carriers) In WWII, The Americans accually launched Strategic Bombers off an aircraft, but this was a clever ploy as it tricked the Japanese to think the bombers were coming from Alaska.

So it has been done.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Bombers can go on carriers if you give them the "Broomstick Tailgun" promotion.

I wonder who else will get this...

Venger

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Solver
There's simply a unit missing to represent modern aircraft properly. Fighters and Bombers represent WW2-era craft.

The Jet Fighter, though, represents something like a F-16 Falcon, or maybe the F-15 Eagle (not Strike Eagle, though). These are aircraft that can do airstrikes but aren't that excellent at it. Now, the F/A-18 Hornet or the future F-35 aren't represented in the game, they're aircraft that are fighters but also equipped for very precise and pretty powerful airstrikes. Instead, Civ4 relies on a unit representing the likes of B-2 for bombing.

If you wanted to be more realistic, I guess you could make a "Strike Fighter" unit representing the Hornets which would have good air strike capabilities, too.

Not having modern airstrike units in the game is odd.

I'm sure I will be happy with how the game represents bombing.

[LordShiva]

The A6 is a beast of a bomber, and can be based on carriers. And it's not like the bombers that bombed Pearl Harbour flew in from airstrips on Honshu.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Verenti



Here's the really cute thing about this topic. (I 100% totally agree that bombers should not be allowed to launch off Carriers) In WWII, The Americans accually launched Strategic Bombers off an aircraft, but this was a clever ploy as it tricked the Japanese to think the bombers were coming from Alaska.

So it has been done.

Launching them I can see with a powerfull enough catapult. It's getting the buggers safely down again thats your problem, the forces put through fighters landing on carriers are massive, never mind bombers.

[ohmer]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Bombers can go on carriers if you give them the "Broomstick Tailgun" promotion.

Well, this will let them take off from carriers, just not land on them.

Jimmy was a Genious.

[Mace]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree with you. Fighters, or at least the jet fighters, should be at least decent at bombing land-based targets.

In MyMod that I did for Civ3, the fighters were decent at bombing. Wasn't overpowered, either...upped the shield cost of fighters and bombers, etc. etc. I balanced it right.

I like the fact that bombers cannot be based on carriers in Civ4--because that is realistic. Of course, we can't always have the game (or the game balance) be 100% realistic, but we can try. I agree w/you the fighters should be effective land bombarders.

They were not in Civ3.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Mace



I agree w/you the fighters should be effective land bombarders.

They were not in Civ3.

Which I guess is why I had the initial reaction that I did.
I saw "bombers can't be stationed on carriers" in the manual and all I could think of was that I would be stuck with ineffective fighters for long range land bombardment. I like to have effective air support for a potential invasion on another continent.

But, I may have over reacted. Time will tell.