Is the Carrier too weak on defense?

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I look at it this way:

A worker represents about 10,000 people; a settler, maybe twice that.

A galley can move two of those.

I look at it this way...

The number is not important, but the organisation and duration is.

A Worker represents between 100-1,000 people
So 1,000 people might be enough to build a road in 10 years. 200 might repesent the numbers needed to irrigate a flood plain over a 100 year period.

A Settler represents between 1,000 - 2,000
A single unit of population represents the initial numbers who set up the city (1000) + those who joined later drawn to the opportunity of a new life + the natural increase in population expected, over the time period, once an area is settled and cultivated.

...so a galley represents probably 1 ship, but when your time frame is 3 - 4 turns to make a journey (300-400 years) it may not be the same ship or the ship makes A LOT of journeys.

[PrinceBimz]

There is nothing weak about a carrier with a full load of aircraft Checkout my thread here...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76448

[Panag]

Originally posted by PrinceBimz
There is nothing weak about a carrier with a full load of aircraft Checkout my thread here...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=76448

hi ,

intresting thread , but in the real world a carrier has an airwing that tends to be bigger then most airforces have on the mainland , .....

have a nice day

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

intresting thread , but in the real world a carrier has an airwing that tends to be bigger then most airforces have on the mainland , .....

have a nice day

Not true. A typical modern US carrier carries approx. 75-85 aircraft of which only 65-70 are capable of air to air or air to ground missions. Further, a carrier aircraft tends to be heavier than an aircraft that operates from land, which means in a comparable aircraft the carrier aircraft carries a lighter payload and has less range than those operating from land.

[Tattila the Hun]

I quess it's not moddable, to make carriers defence dependable on the amount of aircraft it carries. Heck, with Hornets flying interception for bombng runs, and F-14 (Fleet Defenders?) with their air-to-surface missiles, no battleship or Badger wing would even get close!

[Daz]

Hmm. I dont see why alter the D of the Carrier. It's just like someone said. The more planes its carrying the safer it is. If you have lets say 3 bombers and 1 jet plane you can do some recon and bomb anything that comes close down to one hitpoint. I dont think a battleship can attack a carrier on one hitpoint and survive. This has only one flaw: submarines, hence my sugesstion on a flying, sub-spotting unit.

One Q: If a AEGIS or Sub spots a submarine, can I bomb it with planes or can it be done by the AEGIS/SUb only?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber



Not true. A typical modern US carrier carries approx. 75-85 aircraft of which only 65-70 are capable of air to air or air to ground missions. Further, a carrier aircraft tends to be heavier than an aircraft that operates from land, which means in a comparable aircraft the carrier aircraft carries a lighter payload and has less range than those operating from land.

hi ,

cough , some countries cant even put 50 combat jets in the air , ....... , and you just cant compare an F-15 or F-18 with superior weapons against a land based no night no pylons for heavy weapons F-16 export local build version , .......

there fore a carrier wing superseeds most airforces of a country , and if numbers is a problem , you just bring in a second one , or a third one , or like the war in iraq today , you bring in five , .....

when looking at weapons systems on the carrier itself , well most frigates in the world have nothing that comes close to it , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Daz
Hmm. I dont see why alter the D of the Carrier. It's just like someone said. The more planes its carrying the safer it is. If you have lets say 3 bombers and 1 jet plane you can do some recon and bomb anything that comes close down to one hitpoint. I dont think a battleship can attack a carrier on one hitpoint and survive. This has only one flaw: submarines, hence my sugesstion on a flying, sub-spotting unit.

One Q: If a AEGIS or Sub spots a submarine, can I bomb it with planes or can it be done by the AEGIS/SUb only?

hi ,

yes you can bomb the sub after an other sub or aegis has spotted it , .....

have a nice day

[metalhead]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The units can represent an abstract grouping, in which the 'lead ship'/predominant technolgy is... a carrier, or an Aegis Cruiser or... so on and so forth.

The Battleship is a case in point... it has a high defence... but that doesn't match common Battleship experience: the predominant form of intership combat is Guided missile, and not gunnery. Any ship with multiple SM-1-ER or SM-2-ER batteries would outperform this ship from a defensive viewpoint. Even a destroyer.

Since formations use interrelated defense... (ASW and AAW) no ship can be... defensively... 'an island'.

Multiple 'forms' of attack mean that no defensive value makes sense, unless its considered to be part of a mini-BG.

This may be the case in the past 20 years, but the fact is, the Battleship, as represented in Civ3, is the early 20th century behemoth, whose only firepower was large artillery guns. To represent a ship with more modern technology, more ship types need to be added which correspond to more modern warships that use guided missile and other similar technologies. Of course, ship-to-ship combat is a largely obsolete concept nowadays - ships are engaged almost exclusively by air, and occasionally submarine.

[PresidentMike]

I've incorporated cruise missiles into naval warfare, both by extending their range and by allowing nuclear submarines and surface ships to carry them. This gives my fleet the ability to bombard targets that are deep inland and also engage enemy warships over greater distances.

Now if only I could get my cruise missiles to perform precision strikes....

And speaking of navies, I'd like to see an amphibious assault ship capable of deploying troops inland with helicopters, or landing them right on the beach. This would allow you to do what the Marines did in Afghanistan: establish a strong base deep in hostile territory. It might have limited usefulness, given the way wars are fought in Civ3, but it would still be cool.

[Tattila the Hun]

Maybe a transport with paradrop ability of 1-2 squares? Similar to paratrooper in that sense, but carrying troops, and then activating them after "landing"...

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Th0mas

A Worker represents between 100-1,000 people

A Settler represents between 1,000 - 2,000

how come my galley is full when I put 2 worker units on board? I unload the workers and find that I can also get 2 settler units on board...

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace


how come my galley is full when I put 2 worker units on board? I unload the workers and find that I can also get 2 settler units on board...

Good point.

Which was why I had the numbers for the Settler and Worker units overlap

(either that or the galleys have an extra-flexible hull )

[Daz]

Wrong: the workers have their tools with them!



Hmmm, not so untrue when I think about it.....

[TacticalGrace]

Panang,

In the default civ3 rules the carrier is meant to represent the WWII style carriers. Remember that at the battle of Midway 3 Japanese carriers were set ablaze by just 3 squadrons of SBD-3 "Dauntless" dive bombers within minutes of engagement.

In WWII what was very difficult indeed was (a) finding the carriers (b) getting through the screen of fighters.

but once this had been accomplished (which in Midway was mostly luck) the carriers were decisively defeated.

of course the default civ3 rules do not allow lethal bombardment...

also at midway bombardment by B-52s was a total failure. This is something else not modelled in civ: sometimes fighters are better at bombarding.