bombers to carriers?

[GeoModder]

With three planes, you can either provide aircover for a battlegroup bombing a coastal town (and have one to spare for inland recon then) or do a longrange airstrike. In the latter example your opponent first need to find the carrier before being able to bomb back, and that's why a few destroyers on top of your carrier prove worthwhile.

As on the superpower intentions: I'm sure all of the major Southsea nations want to have seabased deployable airpower. If not for the prestige, then for securing power over the contested maritime area's there. And India certainly thinks it needs an a carrier. Heck, they already have one operating (courtesy of the Royal Navy), and are even constructing a (very) small one.

[LordShiva]

Right. Indian naval doctrine would like us to be policemen of the entire Indian ocean (patrolling from the Persian Gulf to the Straits of Moluccas). And I'm sure China would like at least one carrier to add some teeth to its claims over the entire South China Sea (and the Spratlys).

The question of whether a civ would want a carrier group or two is basically the same as whether it is just a small regional power, or a global power. And johnmcd answered that question already, as far as it relates to Civ.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
The question would be, whether China or India actually feel that they need carriers?

China's next military direction/goal could theoretically be the annexation of Taiwan. Does she need carriers for that, or can lan-based air-assets reach Taiwan?

China regards Taiwan as a renegade province, so to them it wouldn't be annexation, but rather bringing it back into the fold.

Taiwan's northern end is roughly 80 mi/130 km from China. Within range, but Taiwan has a more modern air force. Missile attacks would probably be the most bothersome.

Taiwan also has US support.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Taiwan also has US support.

Chinese government has patience. (of sorts)

[Frank Johnson]

I'd like to see more types of carriers. The carrier that is in the game now might represent WW2 era carriers. A super carrier unit might come later, with nuclear power or something, and hold more jets.

Also when it comes to the US navy, there's also the little amphibious landing carriers. Those are neat little modern units which could be interesting in civ. A transport that can carry a couple of fighters and some marines.

But basicly, helicopters are still on the fritz in civ4 so I dont know if it'd be good enough.

[Urban Ranger]

On second thought, I don't think you can really compare units in the real world and units in the game and start making noises about realism. If you make the carrier too powerful it becomes a killer unit just like the howitzer in Civ 2. Thus, game balancing takes precedence.

[MikeH]

The way I see it the fighter unit doesn't represent literally 1 fighter any more than a cavalry unit represents 2 horses. Each one is a fighter wing or whatever.

3 wings of 8 planes on a carrier or something, seems reasonable.

Although funnily enough, I do consider the sea units to represent one ship each.

[GeoModder]

It doesn't seem that todays' carriers carry that much more fighters then WWII ones. Sure, the ships themself are bigger, but so are the planes they carry.

To give a comparison: the Hornet, an American WWII carrier could hold about 80 planes. Todays' American carriers (Nimitz class) barely hold 10 more then that. Sounds not enough to have a "new" carrier-unit in Civ4 hold more plane-units.

But it would be nice to give carriers the ability to carry one marine-unit as well.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by GeoModder
To give a comparison: the Hornet, an American WWII carrier could hold about 80 planes. Todays' American carriers (Nimitz class) barely hold 10 more then that. Sounds not enough to have a "new" carrier-unit in Civ4 hold more plane-units.
But it would be nice to give carriers the ability to carry one marine-unit as well.

Modern fighter/attack planes (as F/A 18 Hornet for USA, or former USSR equivalent naval version of MiG 29 / SU 27-30) are more accurate in bombing missions - smart bomb, guided air to ground missiles, etc.
They don't seems to be so useful in Civ IV, hence I'm considering it a limited combo (carrier+fighter).
I can live with it if (after a proper discover - e.g. air refuelling) I could double range of planes. Then I could use my ground based air power the way USAF can do it today.

I'm not missing marines on board, but IMO attack helicopters must be able to operate from carriers and pass over sea (at least on coastal tiles - if that limit is needed for game balancing or programming reason).

[Lord Avalon]

Maybe helicopters could fly over water so long as they ended their turn over land or a carrier?

[PrinceBimz]

As some people may already know, I absolutely love Carriers! I have been loving them in CIV2, CtP, SMAC, CIV3 and love them even more now in CIV4. One thing, in CIV4 Fighters are alot more effective at attacking ground and sea targets. Another thing is the range at which a Carrier can attack. I am talking serious range here. For example, move the Carrier its full movement, then launch Fighters, you can just as well add the Carrier's movement to the Fighters range in a way. If I have about 3 Carriers loaded with Fighters, thats all I need to wreak havoc. I am talking regular Fighters too, not even Jets, but if I have Jets, thats even better.

I can anchor off the coast of a continent or island, launch multiple air sorties and within 5 turns, I can have nearly all improvements of a large city destroyed. Bringing that city to its knees with air power alone. Not to mention softening up all the units and garrisons that maybe nearby. Also, knocking down city defenses can be fun and needs to be done. Oh and don't forget about recon missions. Last thing, air superiority too. Lots of things for a Carrier to do. All of this, and if they don't have Fighters of their own, I won't lose or even risk a single unit.

People, Carriers are the most versatile unit in the game. In CIV4 they are more so, one reason is because the limited range a Battleship or Destroyer can support a landing inland. Carrier Fighters can attack cities far inland and damage units, unlike a surface warship. All you need is some water and an enemy to attack, the rest is history. Ideally you would want a Transport or two with at least some Infantry to take over your cities after your Fighters rape them. Combined arms is usually the best way to go. Long live Carrier power!

So drop me a line if anyone is interested in attending CIV4 Carrier school. Your first several lessons would be "Carrier navigation", to teach you how to move the vessel to stay out of harm's way. Next would be "roles of carrier based aircraft". Third would be "recon, a carrier's best friend". Fourth would be "the soldier's guardian angels" and covers ground support roles. Last would be "air superiority, sea and ground attack"

P.S. I would not be surprised if someone really PMs me.

[Barchan]

The trick with bombers flying off carriers isn't so much the takeoff, but the landing. There just isn't enough room to recover a medium bomber or larger. Even the B-25's used in the Doolittle raid could just barely take off, and the whole thing was planned from the start as a one-way trip. I've heard of a C-130 being launched from a modern carrier as a feasibility test, but it proved impractical for sustained operations.

In reality, carriers are simply not effective as heavy bombing platforms. They simply cannot lauch heavy enough aircraft, or enough smaller aircraft, to mount a serious bombing campaign. True, they are more formidable these days than ever before, but that's largely due to improvements in precision munitions, not the aircraft themselves.

I agree Civ IV carriers could hold a few more fighters, but all in all, they do what they're intended to do. A carrier's primary mission is CAP, or figher self-defense. Any other power projection is pure gravy after the CAP mission is accomplished. Just ask the Japanese about Midway and the folly of allocating too many aircraft to strike missions and not enough to CAP.

Anyway, I think they're about right in Civ. I always thought it a bit silly that CivIII let Stealth Bombers (takeoff weight=336,000 pounds) operate from a carrier deck. For all its reputation as a "lead sled" the F-14 Tomcat only weighed in at 72,000 pounds by comparison (of course, a fully-loaded B-17 weighed about 65,000 pounds, so there you have it). There are a lot of solid-surface runways the B-2 can't land on because it mushes into asphalt and crumbles concrete; It'd probably go right through a carrier's flight deck!

[PrinceBimz]

Originally posted by Barchan
The trick with bombers flying off carriers isn't so much the takeoff, but the landing. There just isn't enough room to recover a medium bomber or larger. Even the B-25's used in the Doolittle raid could just barely take off, and the whole thing was planned from the start as a one-way trip. I've heard of a C-130 being launched from a modern carrier as a feasibility test, but it proved impractical for sustained operations.

In reality, carriers are simply not effective as heavy bombing platforms. They simply cannot lauch heavy enough aircraft, or enough smaller aircraft, to mount a serious bombing campaign. True, they are more formidable these days than ever before, but that's largely due to improvements in precision munitions, not the aircraft themselves.

I agree Civ IV carriers could hold a few more fighters, but all in all, they do what they're intended to do. A carrier's primary mission is CAP, or figher self-defense. Any other power projection is pure gravy after the CAP mission is accomplished. Just ask the Japanese about Midway and the folly of allocating too many aircraft to strike missions and not enough to CAP.

Anyway, I think they're about right in Civ. I always thought it a bit silly that CivIII let Stealth Bombers (takeoff weight=336,000 pounds) operate from a carrier deck. For all its reputation as a "lead sled" the F-14 Tomcat only weighed in at 72,000 pounds by comparison (of course, a fully-loaded B-17 weighed about 65,000 pounds, so there you have it). There are a lot of solid-surface runways the B-2 can't land on because it mushes into asphalt and crumbles concrete; It'd probably go right through a carrier's flight deck!

Yep, I agree completely. It is silly for a heavy bomber to be able to launch and land from the deck of any Carrier. Many people bring up the Dolittle Raid, but that was not practical and furthermore, they could not land back on the Carrier.

[Last Conformist]

I feel CivIV carriers are about right. In C3C, a couple carriers filled with bombers (plus one with fighters for CAP) would easily devaste an AI and allow you to seize its coastal cities essentially uncontestedly.