Supercarriers

[Varus2319]

The carrier unit is a little weak to accurately represent the global force that a real, modern carrier can project. Then again, the carrier unit in the game does not represent the modern carriers at all.

The current unit is based on the old, smaller concept for carriers. They were slow, but capable of projecting a moderate amount of force over a relatively large distance, so they were powerful even at the time. That has changed.

Modern Supercarriers are a far stride from their older counterparts. They are capable of launching missile defenses of their own, their air wings can project more military firepower than most countries, and they are fast. Little known fact: Despite their size, the goliath Nimitz supercarriers are the fastest warships in the US navy. Surprised? You shouldn't be, the two nuclear plants that power the turbines can outpace any diesel engine any day of the week.

I propose that around the time Missile Cruisers become available, a new class of carrier also does. Perhaps the advanced ballistics tech (that unlocks the nuclear missile) would be a good choice. If I had my way, it could carry 2 guided missiles, 5 fighter aircraft, and no bombers. Honestly, carriers shouldn't be able to carry bombers at all anyway, but meh. I don't suppose it's worth changing the old unit retroactively.

Lastly, the thing should be fast, much faster than the current carrier unit. It should be able to keep up with battle ships and cruisers (maybe not destroyers, but I don't really know why they are so dang fast in this game). After all, in modern navies it is the escort ships that have to really sprint to keep up with the carrier.

That's my take. Thoughts?

[civdiss]

I completely agree with you, the game definitely needs a more accurate representation of the modern US carriers. Perhaps they could throw away the awful death giant robot and replace it with the supercarrier, coming much earlier in the tech tree.

In reality having ships like that is a matchwinner in strategic terms, in the game the present carrier doesn't offer much advantage. If they also solve the problem of aircraft getting a minimum of 1hp damage, even when they attack pikemen/archers whatever, then things will start looking much more realistic and better inmho.

From your wikipedia link: As a result of the use of nuclear power, the ships (suppercarriers) are capable of operating for over 20 years without refueling and are predicted to have a service life of over 50 years.

Perhaps they could be relatively cheap to built but they would stay active for a fixed number of turns, a bit like the total war concept.

[MadDjinn]

This is the usual problem for Civ games. They mess up the late modern/future era techs and don't incorporate anything good.

Game play wise, I would suggest they use uranium. So it'd be best that this comes somewhere near Adv. Ballistics. Preferably a 'new' tech, but you know...

Of course, since Jets (even the aluminum ones) aren't effective bombers in game, you should give it a 'ranged attack' that would simulate missiles being fired on top of the carrying capacity increase. Of course it should have high defense, but not AA given that there are cruisers and such to take care of that.

[Furball]

Expanding a little on what MadDjinn said, my first thought was to suggest them requiring uranium as a resource to build. I also had concerns about talk of restricting them from carrying bombers as without bomber they lose more of that ability to project force as their is no real carrier specific aircraft.
In reality carriers have their own fighter types and own bomber types, even if these are only adaptations of their land based counterparts. In the game they are stuck with land based aircraft which are squeezed onto and aircraft carrier due to lack of anything better and suffer accordingly.
Fighters may be better vs shipping but they are poor at land based bombing. Bombers are great at land based bombing but poor against shipping so a mixture of both is required to make the carrier the truly effective force projection and diverse weapons platform it is meant to be.

It should be noted also that while is used to feel silly loading stealth bombers onto aircraft carriers the fact is that once they arrive your carriers effectively take a huge nerf in power within the current rules set as you cannot use the most modern weapon and are instead stuck using outdated weaponry to keep carriers mission capable.
Along those lines i am more concerned about the introduction of a fighter-bomber style unit which is specifically designed for use by carriers and would at least replace the land based bomber in the carriers arsenal.

What compounds this issue is the fact that you cannot station aircraft in friendly cities you do not own so on larger maps i often encounter the issue of fighting a distant enemy and actively decide not to bother with stealth bomber as they cannot be transported via aircraft carriers so i can either keep my old bombers or have shuttle carriers which pick up old bombers which i create instead of stealth bombers, move them to the combat zone and then landfall them to upgrade them to stealth bombers so i can have a modern bomber force in the theatre of combat. Even if i do this this then poses the problem that they are stuck there as they do not have the range to return to my home territories and cannot be transported on carriers.

A fighter-bomber would be weaker at bombing than a traditional bomber and weaker at air-air than a traditional fighter but capable of fulfilling both roles to a effective degree.

[nukenbypass]

Moving aircraft across a huge map is problematical. I too have used carriers solely as rebasing units.pre
(Stealth bombers should be able to rebase across the oceans on a huge earth map.)

Mind you, I can see why you can't land those on a carrier (even a supercarrier shouldn't be able to handle them)
Of course, by the time you can get stealth, you should also have the ability for mid air refueling or whatever.

The min 1pt damage per turn is kinda silly. Pikemen aren't even going to see a stealth bomber, let alone hurt it.
(most likely they'd be cowering in fear over the magic)

[SamBC]

I'd say that the Jet Fighter could be tweaked to be a multirole aircraft, representing a sort of cross-section of modern air force capabilities that are capable of being used from carriers - like the role designated F/A by the US Air Force. Make them able to intercept effectively, and also have good ground-attack capabilities.

In terms of supercarriers, I don't think any such unit should have missile capabilities, as they aren't generally the base for the kind of strategic weapons represented by the nuke or guided missiles. I think it's important for balance that there's limitations on projecting nuclear capability, personally. Much of the power of the carrier role actually comes from the carrier group, and you can almost emulate that effectively by having some other role ships in action with it. However, they do indeed have some attack capability of their own, and some point defence and so forth - but as I understand it, not comparable with even one destroyer.

I'd rather see a couple more future units comparable to the GDR (but with a less silly name, and all that), like a somewhat-futureish naval vessel that is truly multirole, and possibly a future-upgrade for the role of the Gunship. But then, I feel there should be expansion of future anyway, with an option (a core option, mind, not making it a scenario) as to whether it's used. There's so much potential there. I'd just want it handled a bit more sensibly than the GDR. Of course, all of the tech-based victory stuff (UN, spaceship parts) would want pushing back, and maybe the criteria for the Utopia project extended, in order to accommodate a later finish with more tech that you get to use.

[SamBC]

Mind you, I can see why you can't land those on a carrier (even a supercarrier shouldn't be able to handle them)
Of course, by the time you can get stealth, you should also have the ability for mid air refueling or whatever.

There ought to be a tech that, as a simple perk (like the diplo enablers or improvement buffs), significantly increases the rebase range multiplier. It is indeed strange that, if you have a large non-contiguous civ, you can't rebase a bomber or stealth from one part to the other.

[Varus2319]

So the best ideas I've seen so far are these:
Multirole, mod "C" type fighters. I agree with this. Most modern fighter aircraft have certain variations, many of which include a carrier variant that is designed specifically to operate from the naval platform. Perhaps there should be a new unit to fill the fighter/bomber role that is specifically designed to operate from the carrier. I would completely support this, as the current problem of "bombers, but no stealth, but any fighter that can't really bomb..." makes no sense. Carrier wings can project intercepting power, and ground-strike bombing power. In fact, 90% of carrier missions are against ground targets using jets like these. Those things are nasty, capable of devastating ground strikes as well as air-to-air superiority. Why our current carriers aren't equipped with something like them is a mystery to me. For comparison, the Jet Fighter unit appears to be based on the Raptor, which is currently the primary US superiority fighter. It's important to note that you never see a Raptor on a carrier. They can't land there, and they are not designed to take off from there either. Carriers and air bases just aren't the same, and they don't use the same planes.

Bombers should not be allowed on carriers at all. No bomber, no carrier, never. It's nonsense. Heavy Bombers are enormous. No B17 would ever sit aboard an aircraft carrier, the wingspan was 103 feet! For comparison, beam to beam, the biggest carrier deck ever developed is only 252 feet wide. Any bomber trying to land here would smash into anything that happened to be up there. I don't even want to get started on whether the bomber could launch from a carrier (no) or whether they could be arrested by the cables (maybe...). The point is that bombers don't land on carriers, they deploy from bases on extremely long range flights. Civ should reflect this.

Also, the rebasing range limit on bombers is pretty stupid. Long range bombers are the longest ranged aircraft in military service. Why in the world is there any limit to their rebase range? Do you think the US has bombers in the middle east? The far east? Europe? Africa? Believe it. Just because an ocean separates mainland US and the rest of the world doesn't mean that all US stealth bombers are stuck in the US. They fly around the world no problems. With mid-flight refueling options (I'm not sure if the stealth can do this?) that range really should just be unlimited. This problem is magnified by the fact that we can choose our map size. On smaller maps, rebasing all the way around the world is no problem. On big ones, well, you get the idea. It's inconsistent and it's unrealistic and it's really putting a major damper on the utility of stealth bombers.

Also, to correct my idea of carriers holding guided missiles, I suppose that should be changed to a ranged attack. They don't carry heavy missiles like ICBM's, so they should not be able to carry nukes. My idea was that carriers don't have guns, they fire missiles in their own defense instead. So I was thinking a couple Guided Missiles would make sense (and no ranged attack, and no nukes). Thoughts on this? I still kinda like the idea of the GM, but only the GM.

Also, the general lack of futuristic (heck, even just modern) weaponry is very sad to see. Personally I love the GDR, but I really do think they should have done a lot more than that. First get contemporary weapons right, then get a little creative on the futuristic stuff. If you want one campy, giant stompy mech in there for fun, that's fine, and it is fun. But just make sure you don't forget about the real stuff first!

[Luciela]

So the best ideas I've seen so far are these:
Multirole, mod "C" type fighters. I agree with this. Most modern fighter aircraft have certain variations, many of which include a carrier variant that is designed specifically to operate from the naval platform. Perhaps there should be a new unit to fill the fighter/bomber role that is specifically designed to operate from the carrier. I would completely support this, as the current problem of "bombers, but no stealth, but any fighter that can't really bomb..." makes no sense. Carrier wings can project intercepting power, and ground-strike bombing power. In fact, 90% of carrier missions are against ground targets using jets like these. Those things are nasty, capable of devastating ground strikes as well as air-to-air superiority. Why our current carriers aren't equipped with something like them is a mystery to me.

Bombers should not be allowed on carriers at all. No bomber, no carrier, never. It's nonsense. Heavy Bombers are enormous. No B17 would ever sit aboard an aircraft carrier, the wingspan was 103 feet! For comparison, beam to beam, the biggest carrier deck ever developed is only 252 feet wide. Any bomber trying to land here would smash into anything that happened to be up there. I don't even want to get started on whether the bomber could launch from a carrier (no) or whether they could be arrested by the cables (maybe...). The point is that bombers don't land on carriers, they deploy from bases on extremely long range flights. Civ should reflect this.

Also, the rebasing range limit on bombers is pretty stupid. Long range bombers are the longest ranged aircraft in military service. Why in the world is there any limit to their rebase range? Do you think the US has bombers in the middle east? The far east? Europe? Africa? Believe it. Just because an ocean separates mainland US and the rest of the world doesn't mean that all US stealth bombers are stuck in the US. They fly around the world no problems. With mid-flight refueling options (I'm not sure if the stealth can do this?) that range really should just be unlimited. This problem is magnified by the fact that we can choose our map size. On smaller maps, rebasing all the way around the world is no problem. On big ones, well, you get the idea. It's inconsistent and it's unrealistic and it's really putting a major damper on the utility of stealth bombers.

Also, to correct my idea of carriers holding guided missiles, I suppose that should be changed to a ranged attack. They don't carry heavy missiles like ICBM's, so they should not be able to carry nukes. My idea was that carriers don't have guns, they fire missiles in their own defense instead. So I was thinking a couple Guided Missiles would make sense (and no ranged attack, and no nukes). Thoughts on this? I still kinda like the idea of the GM, but only the GM.

Also, the general lack of futuristic (heck, even just modern) weaponry is very sad to see. Personally I love the GDR, but I really do think they should have done a lot more than that. First get contemporary weapons right, then get a little creative on the futuristic stuff. If you want one campy, giant stompy mech in there for fun, that's fine, and it is fun. But just make sure you don't forget about the real stuff first!

To answer your question of in-flight refueling, yes, B-2's and many other bombers (essentially all long-range strategic bombers) are capable of in-flight refueling. I had actually proposed an idea for tackling an improved carrier base. My idea featured new promotions on a carrier (like a refitting upgrade increasing load of aircraft, etc.) as well as a new system for how carriers should gain exp (1 or 2 exp per sortie of aircraft). Personally I'd like an idea like the current uranium-based carrier to get implemented, but with some of the mechanics above used for carriers. I'd like mobility, sentry, supply, naval-vs-naval promotions can stay for increased survivability, and after level 5-7 incorporating a refitting promotion to increase craft load by 1.

How would the supercarriers work? If they use 1 uranium it's an excuse to create an effective unit (and rightfully so). Movement could be 7-9, sight I think should be limited (aircraft already provide some sight, and a fleet will still be needed for sight/air support), supercarriers load will be 6?. Strength I'm not sure about. In our world Nimitz class carriers are like glass cannons; one torpedo is enough to sink one (hence why fleet escort is so important). So should their strength be increased? Or kept default? An increase to speed and load is already a large buff.

Also, what about the inclusion of submarine-hunter aircraft? O.o

[jpbar81]

Supercarriers would be really nice. I just googled them to look some up, like the USS Enterprise! Cool stuff...

I also like the idea of them requiring Uranium. It seems a lot of these massive ships use nuclear power.

It would go nicely with the more modern air forces along with missle cruisers and nuclear subs. Then we just need the upgraded destroyers... stealth destroyers.

[Artifex]

Yea, but
The offensive capability of a carrier is mostly just the planes or missiles it has on board. Hard to work that into a game where army units are so condensed.

Carriers are extremely vulnerable to attack, consider the battle of midway (going from memory here but) the deciding factor was pretty much who got spotted first.

Are super-carriers so different? mostly just able to carry more jets/missiles and deploy them faster. Would that add something to Civ?

[Varus2319]

Yea, but
The offensive capability of a carrier is mostly just the planes or missiles it has on board. Hard to work that into a game where army units are so condensed.

Carriers are extremely vulnerable to attack, consider the battle of midway (going from memory here but) the deciding factor was pretty much who got spotted first.

Are super-carriers so different? mostly just able to carry more jets/missiles and deploy them faster. Would that add something to Civ?

Yes. Almost every war that the US and comparable nations have won in the past 25 years has been won from the sea and the air. The majority of combat power comes from airstrikes, and the majority of airstrikes come from supercarriers. The pacific battles of WWII were an entirely different concept, because carrier fighter wings were not nearly as competent as the modern jets are.

The real difference between modern carriers and old ones is the air wing. The size is double or triple what it used to be, and the multirole capabilities of the planes are astounding. Air superiority, troop support, and ground based target strikes are all carried out by the air wing of a supercarrier.

So, for the new concept to work we need carrier-class fighter jets that are capable bombers and fighters, and we need carriers that can actually deploy a reasonable number of them. Carriers should not be auxiliary, optional units that are just fun to mess with. They should provide the bulk of your offensive power when fighting abroad.

[civdiss]

Yea, but
The offensive capability of a carrier is mostly just the planes or missiles it has on board. Hard to work that into a game where army units are so condensed.

Carriers are extremely vulnerable to attack, consider the battle of midway (going from memory here but) the deciding factor was pretty much who got spotted first.

Are super-carriers so different? mostly just able to carry more jets/missiles and deploy them faster. Would that add something to Civ?

Perhaps you want to check the Taiwan crisis in the late 90's..that is a much more relevant example than midway. There was no actual fighting in Taiwan as the Chinese immediately backed off just at the sight of USS Nimitz. The strategic advantage was so great over there that the Chinese didn't ever try anything similar (basically directly threatening Taiwan). That should be reflected in the game if we want to play in at least a semi-realistic setting. Carriers or supercarriers should be a game changer, whoever gets there first should have some kind of superiority. At the moment even on water maps the combination of carriers-aircraft do not seem to worth the bother so much unlike e.g. rocket artillery which is much better ingame. Try to go against a fully equipped carrier with any kind/number of land based artillery and you won't survive for long to tell the story..

[Takao]

While several posters have commented that the supercarriers don't carry bombers, however for a great while they did have the A-6 Intruder, which had a bomb load comparable to the B-29 or British Lancaster.(18,000lbs vs. 20,000lbs). Not to mention the fact that the A-6 was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. As to Varius2319 and his B-17, The B-17 at maximum payload carried less than half the bomb load of an A-6.

As to fighter vs. bomber at attacking land targets. Well, the fighter & fighter/bomber are better at accuracy, whereas the bomber carries a lot more bombs, so there effectiveness is probably about the same. The more accurate fighter will kill it's target using less bombs, but if there are multiple targets in a congested area, then the bomber is the better bet.

Another misconception mentioned in this thread is that the supercarriers carry more aircraft than their World War II ancestors, however, the reality is the opposite. US supercarriers carry slightly less aircraft, and several of those are mission specific, such as the E-2 Hawkeye(early warning), the C-2 Provider(cargo), the SH-60 Seahawk helicopter(ASW), and the EA-6B Prowler/Ea-18G Growler(electronics warfare). The offensive punch is provided by 4 squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets(roughly 48 aircraft). Whereas a World War II Essex class carrier usually carried at least 90, but more often over 100 aircraft - all combat capable fighters, torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The difference is in the several "force multipliers" associated with modern aircraft and weaponry over their WW2 brethren.


Although as has been said many time before Civilization is neither a war game nor is it a historical game.

[Varus2319]

While several posters have commented that the supercarriers don't carry bombers, however for a great while they did have the A-6 Intruder, which had a bomb load comparable to the B-29 or British Lancaster.(18,000lbs vs. 20,000lbs). Not to mention the fact that the A-6 was capable of carrying a nuclear payload. As to Varius2319 and his B-17, The B-17 at maximum payload carried less than half the bomb load of an A-6.

As to fighter vs. bomber at attacking land targets. Well, the fighter & fighter/bomber are better at accuracy, whereas the bomber carries a lot more bombs, so there effectiveness is probably about the same. The more accurate fighter will kill it's target using less bombs, but if there are multiple targets in a congested area, then the bomber is the better bet.

Another misconception mentioned in this thread is that the supercarriers carry more aircraft than their World War II ancestors, however, the reality is the opposite. US supercarriers carry slightly less aircraft, and several of those are mission specific, such as the E-2 Hawkeye(early warning), the C-2 Provider(cargo), the SH-60 Seahawk helicopter(ASW), and the EA-6B Prowler/Ea-18G Growler(electronics warfare). The offensive punch is provided by 4 squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets(roughly 48 aircraft). Whereas a World War II Essex class carrier usually carried at least 90, but more often over 100 aircraft - all combat capable fighters, torpedo bombers and dive bombers. The difference is in the several "force multipliers" associated with modern aircraft and weaponry over their WW2 brethren.


Although as has been said many time before Civilization is neither a war game nor is it a historical game.

Just for the record, the A-6 had a maximum wingspan of 54 feet, and many carrier variants had wings that folded up. Fully loaded, they weighed in at just over 60,000 lbs. The B-29, on the other hand, had a maximum wingspan of 142 feet and weighed in, loaded, at over 120,000 lbs.

I'm not saying that carriers don't have bomber capabilities, they do. I've even stated that 90% of modern sorties from carriers are ground target bombing missions. However, carrier variant bombers are not heavy bomber aircraft. The idea of landing a B-29 on any carrier class is preposterous, A-6 or no.

So the idea that carriers should have their own special variety of aircraft still stands, and the idea that bombers should not be able to land on carriers also still stands.

Lastly, again just for the record, a Nimitz class carrier can support up to 130 Hornets or 90 assorted aircraft in its wing. A Midway class carrier could support 130 WWII era fighters. That's comparable. But, if you loaded the Midway with Hornets, it could only accommodate a maximum of 55, and they would have a very low launch rate. (Midways could carry more than Essex class, btw, so I even used a favorable number for your point).

So the idea that Nimitz class carriers can handle more aircraft also still stands, because you need to compare apples to apples. Thus, the Civ 5 unit that can carry 3 fighters or 3 jets is silly. If you want 3 jets, we need a new, modern carrier unit. And those 3 jets need to be way more effective than they currently are.

[Varus2319]

Also, just to clear up a possible misconception, all I'm doing is using some common sense and then looking up the actual numbers on Wikipedia. It's not like I'm an expert on carriers or military aircraft. But it's not hard to have a sense that bombers are too big to land on ships, and that modern jets are larger and more capable than WWII era fighters.

All I did was look up the numbers, and it wasn't that hard. More should do the same. I try to link the articles when I can.

[Benfea]

The carrier unit is a little weak to accurately represent the global force that a real, modern carrier can project. Then again, the carrier unit in the game does not represent the modern carriers at all.

The current unit is based on the old, smaller concept for carriers. They were slow, but capable of projecting a moderate amount of force over a relatively large distance, so they were powerful even at the time. That has changed.

Modern Supercarriers are a far stride from their older counterparts. They are capable of launching missile defenses of their own, their air wings can project more military firepower than most countries, and they are fast. Little known fact: Despite their size, the goliath Nimitz supercarriers are the fastest warships in the US navy. Surprised? You shouldn't be, the two nuclear plants that power the turbines can outpace any diesel engine any day of the week.

I propose that around the time Missile Cruisers become available, a new class of carrier also does. Perhaps the advanced ballistics tech (that unlocks the nuclear missile) would be a good choice. If I had my way, it could carry 2 guided missiles, 5 fighter aircraft, and no bombers. Honestly, carriers shouldn't be able to carry bombers at all anyway, but meh. I don't suppose it's worth changing the old unit retroactively.

Lastly, the thing should be fast, much faster than the current carrier unit. It should be able to keep up with battle ships and cruisers (maybe not destroyers, but I don't really know why they are so dang fast in this game). After all, in modern navies it is the escort ships that have to really sprint to keep up with the carrier.

That's my take. Thoughts?

Modern carriers also require an entire fleet just to keep them operational. I'm not so sure I would want an accurate representation of modern carriers.

[Varus2319]

Modern carriers also require an entire fleet just to keep them operational. I'm not so sure I would want an accurate representation of modern carriers.

No more than the current carrier unit does. It's completely defenseless on its own.

[Benfea]

No more than the current carrier unit does. It's completely defenseless on its own.

The fleet that travels with a modern carrier isn't just there for defense.

[Varus2319]

The fleet that travels with a modern carrier isn't just there for defense.

As far as I can tell, they just carry ammo and jet fuel. I might be wrong though. I don't really think that matters, since most of the units in civ 5 would require some nature of logistical support of one type or another. The logistics portion of the game is just an abstraction, and I don't mind if we keep it that way.

No reason to need support ships for carriers but not any support units for artillery, or tanks, or infantry (food, housing, etc).

Edit: I'm not saying you're wrong. You're absolutely right. I'm just saying that support isn't exclusive to carriers, and I don't see that there would be any need to make them different.

Edit2: I'm not saying the fleet only carries ammo and jet fuel. I'm saying that's all they do other than defense, which is still their primary role. Sorry for the ambiguity there.

[Takao]

Just for the record, the A-6 had a maximum wingspan of 54 feet, and many carrier variants had wings that folded up. Fully loaded, they weighed in at just over 60,000 lbs. The B-29, on the other hand, had a maximum wingspan of 142 feet and weighed in, loaded, at over 120,000 lbs.

I'm not saying that carriers don't have bomber capabilities, they do. I've even stated that 90% of modern sorties from carriers are ground target bombing missions. However, carrier variant bombers are not heavy bomber aircraft. The idea of landing a B-29 on any carrier class is preposterous, A-6 or no.

So the idea that carriers should have their own special variety of aircraft still stands, and the idea that bombers should not be able to land on carriers also still stands.

I not arguing the point that an intermediate unit is needed. The Civ series has always been woefully deficient when it comes to military unit selection, although some mods have served to alleviate this in the past.

What I am saying that landing a bomber unit on a carrier is a perfectly acceptable compromise within the limits of Civ.

Lastly, again just for the record, a Nimitz class carrier can support up to 130 Hornets or 90 assorted aircraft in its wing. A Midway class carrier could support 130 WWII era fighters. That's comparable. But, if you loaded the Midway with Hornets, it could only accommodate a maximum of 55, and they would have a very low launch rate. (Midways could carry more than Essex class, btw, so I even used a favorable number for your point).

So the idea that Nimitz class carriers can handle more aircraft also still stands, because you need to compare apples to apples. Thus, the Civ 5 unit that can carry 3 fighters or 3 jets is silly. If you want 3 jets, we need a new, modern carrier unit. And those 3 jets need to be way more effective than they currently are.

and

Also, just to clear up a possible misconception, all I'm doing is using some common sense and then looking up the actual numbers on Wikipedia. It's not like I'm an expert on carriers or military aircraft. But it's not hard to have a sense that bombers are too big to land on ships, and that modern jets are larger and more capable than WWII era fighters.

All I did was look up the numbers, and it wasn't that hard. More should do the same. I try to link the articles when I can.

Yes, it's painfully obvious you just looked up information on Wiki.

I would kindly add that it isn't just about looking up information, but understanding the information you found.

For instance, yes, the maximum density of a supercarrier is about 130 F/A-18s. What this means is that you are putting aircraft filling all the available space in the flight deck and hanger - Think of putting 10 people in an old VW Beetle or 8 or 9 people in a telephone booth. Now what happens when you want to launch or land some planes, the answer is you can't because there is no room.

Now, the USS Midway, at the end of World War II could carry 130 planes and still conduct flight operations, whereas if the USS Nimitz carried 130 planes she can't.

You forgetting that as the size of the carrier grew, so did the size of aircraft carried, thus the number of aircraft a carrier or supercarrier could operate remained, essentially, the same. That being said, the maximum number of air units should be increased to 5 air units(fighter or bomber), I think that would be a reasonable number for both a WW2 carrier and a modern carrier.

[Varus2319]

For instance, yes, the maximum density of a supercarrier is about 130 F/A-18s. What this means is that you are putting aircraft filling all the available space in the flight deck and hanger - Think of putting 10 people in an old VW Beetle or 8 or 9 people in a telephone booth. Now what happens when you want to launch or land some planes, the answer is you can't because there is no room.

Now, the USS Midway, at the end of World War II could carry 130 planes and still conduct flight operations, whereas if the USS Nimitz carried 130 planes she can't.

Where do you get this? You didn't seem very fond of the idea of checking the stats on the wiki pages, so may I assume that you have some better authority? I'd like to read it if you do.

But since the wiki is all I have, it does say that Nimitz carriers can handle up to 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters (modern craft) and that Midway carriers could handle up to 55 (in the 80s). Essex class were even smaller. Modern ships, put flatly, carry more. The capacity of the large carriers is higher than that of the older, smaller ships. There's nothing more to it than that.

I'm willing to believe that this information is wrong, but not until I see some evidence of it.

Lastly, the wiki page states that, while the Midway class could carry up to 130 in theory, it was not practical to carry more than 100. Nimitz carriers are perfectly operational with 90, so that's not really much of a difference even if we are willing to compare old fighters to new jets.

Edit:

What I am saying that landing a bomber unit on a carrier is a perfectly acceptable compromise within the limits of Civ.

Ah, yes, I was afraid that someone would eventually say this. While I know that just letting the bomber "unit" land on carriers is a good way to fill in for the lack of carrier based fighter/bomber planes, the whole point of this thread is to suggest a better alternative to the current compromise.

So yes, while civ 5 is fun and works as-is, this is a thread about adding some depth and complexity that would make the game more fun, and more believable. So there is a base presupposition in this thread that the status quo is not sufficient. If it was, I wouldn't have posted at all. I understand your point, though.

One little hitch, though, is why not the stealth bomber then? Seems like a double standard. If the "bomber" is a substitute for "bombing capability" generally, then there's no reason to prevent the stealth bomber from landing on carriers too, to represent "modern bombing capability."

Just saying.

[Takao]

The fleet that travels with a modern carrier isn't just there for defense.

Essentially, yes, it is.

The submarine or two that accompanies a carrier are often far ahead of the group "sniffing" for any contacts in the carriers intended path. The Aegis cruisers and destroyers are there to provide an the carrier with an long distance AA capability that the carriers short range defenses cannot hope to equal. Not to mention that the carriers limited self-defense capability could be easily overwhelmed by many incoming cruise missiles, especially if their are inbound from several point of the compass. Wrapping up the battle group are the few ships along to provide logistical support.

Now, while the VLS aboard the submarines, and the Aegis cruisers & destroyers can carry the Tomahawk cruise missile, and these ships all have eight Harpoon missile launchers, for anti-surface capability. The number one priority of the vessels is the protection of the carrier.

This is very similar to the early US carrier groups of WW2, with the exception of the submarines. The cruisers and destroyers were the for AA defense & close range anti-surface work, and the attendant oiler was their to keep the ships fueled. The other supply ships were unnecessary, since, the oiler did not have an unlimited supply of fuel, the group would have to return to port eventually. A nuclear carrier, not needing fuel, can remain at sea only as long as her supplies hold out. The common tactic was to "ditch" the oiler someplace safe and out of the way, then rejoin her several days later for fuel. This allowed the Carrier group to operate unhindered by the slower oiler. This didn't change much later in the war when the US began using multiple carriers in a group, and I don't think it has changed with modern carriers.

[eraevous]

What about a tech or promotion that increases carrier capacity?

[Takao]

Where do you get this? You didn't seem very fond of the idea of checking the stats on the wiki pages, so may I assume that you have some better authority? I'd like to read it if you do.

Trust, but verify
No, I am very fond of checking the stats of Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I always double or triple check what ever Wikipedia has to say, because you don't know if the person who wrote or edited the entry was a MENSA candidate or a total moron.

But since the wiki is all I have, it does say that Nimitz carriers can handle up to 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters (modern craft) and that Midway carriers could handle up to 55 (in the 80s).

Wiki is not all you have, there is this website called Google.com. But nevertheless, if Wiki is truly "all you have", then I would suggest you peruse through the "References" section of your wiki subject, and check to confirm that the information cited is correct.

For instance your maximum of "130 aircraft" is cited, specifically Citation #26 ""Navy Aircraft Carriers: Cost Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-powered Carriers". It is a .pdf available online. If you had bothered to peruse it you would have found that the "maximum density" of the USS Nimitz is, IIRC, 130 Hornets, although it later gives that of the USS Carl Vinson(CVN-70) as 127. Further, "Maximum Density" is using up all available flight deck and hangar deck space for aircraft, so that the aircraft are not touching and space is left for ship's boats and other equipment.

The you have the conflicting information in the Wiki articles. For instance in the Midway class article the "aircraft carried" is listed as "Up to 45-55", yet when you go to the article on the ship itself, it is listed as 65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_...rcraft_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Midway_(CV-41)
Just to check these facts several books I have give 75 as the maximum number of jet aircraft she could operate.

Lastly, the wiki page states that, while the Midway class could carry up to 130 in theory, it was not practical to carry more than 100. Nimitz carriers are perfectly operational with 90, so that's not really much of a difference even if we are willing to compare fighters to jets.

It was not practical, because those aircraft would have to be stored on the flight deck, where they were not protected from the environment. Except this is exactly what the US Navy did during the latter stages of WW2, to get the most planes into action.

[Takao]

What about a tech or promotion that increases carrier capacity?

That would be unnecessary if carrier capacity was increased to something a little more equitable. Also, it would be a mostly "wasted" tech, since it would apply only to one unit. Also, IIRC, carriers can't attack, so the likelihood of promotions is remote at best. In the Civ IV and Civ V games that I played, I don't recall ever having promoted a carrier more than once.

[Varus2319]

Trust, but verify
No, I am very fond of checking the stats of Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I always double or triple check what ever Wikipedia has to say, because you don't know if the person who wrote or edited the entry was a MENSA candidate or a total moron.


Wiki is not all you have, there is this website called Google.com. But nevertheless, if Wiki is truly "all you have", then I would suggest you peruse through the "References" section of your wiki subject, and check to confirm that the information cited is correct.

For instance your maximum of "130 aircraft" is cited, specifically Citation #26 ""Navy Aircraft Carriers: Cost Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-powered Carriers". It is a .pdf available online. If you had bothered to peruse it you would have found that the "maximum density" of the USS Nimitz is, IIRC, 130 Hornets, although it later gives that of the USS Carl Vinson(CVN-70) as 127. Further, "Maximum Density" is using up all available flight deck and hangar deck space for aircraft, so that the aircraft are not touching and space is left for ship's boats and other equipment.

The you have the conflicting information in the Wiki articles. For instance in the Midway class article the "aircraft carried" is listed as "Up to 45-55", yet when you go to the article on the ship itself, it is listed as 65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_...rcraft_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Midway_(CV-41)
Just to check these facts several books I have give 75 as the maximum number of jet aircraft she could operate.

It was not practical, because those aircraft would have to be stored on the flight deck, where they were not protected from the environment. Except this is exactly what the US Navy did during the latter stages of WW2, to get the most planes into action.

Friend... I certainly respect everything you're saying. Let me tell you something, while it's fantastic that you have the patience and time to read a 196 page congressional report on the cost effectiveness of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, I really just don't.

Sometimes I care enough about this game to read something like that for a single forum post, but not usually. I am very happy you did, and I thank you for the information, but I just can't get away with that sort of thing on a regular basis. I have final exams in four days! I post on this forum in a few minutes or less with ideas that would make the game fun. I don't expect to turn civ 5 into a war simulator, just a concept or two to make things more fun.

I'm not taking it that seriously.

Did you happen to notice if they mentioned that the Nimitz can't launch any aircraft while carrying that maximum of 130? How do they get the planes onto and off of the ship? I suspect that it can still function, even with that full compliment.

But really all this bickering about the specific stats and capacities is just pancakes. All I'm saying with this thread is that the current carrier unit in the game is based on old ships. It would be nice if, like the missile cruiser, there was a later-tech, modernized version of the carrier with increased capability. Define that however you like or for whatever reasons you like, that's what I'm asking for. Even if the capability really comes from the air wing, the carrier itself is updated and far more capable of handling the new planes. Trust me, no matter how you slice it, if the Nimitz were to take on the Midway, Nimitz would always win. A midway or essex carrier could never handle the powerful air wings of a modern nuclear supercarrier. In that regard, we need the updated ships in order to handle the updated planes in order to deliver the increased firepower.

That's my only point. I would like a better, more powerful carrier unit to appear later in the game. It's that simple. I will concede to you the honor having the most intricate understanding of the technicalities of the ships themselves.

[Takao]

Friend... I certainly respect everything you're saying. Let me tell you something, while it's fantastic that you have the patience and time to read a 196 page congressional report on the cost effectiveness of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, I really just don't.

Search feature...searched for "130" got something around 7 hits, took 2 seconds. Repeated for "maximum density" with the similar results, time reading the pertinent information, probably 5 min.-7 min.

Sometimes I care enough about this game to read something like that for a single forum post, but not usually. I am very happy you did, and I thank you for the information, but I just can't get away with that sort of thing on a regular basis. I have final exams in four days! I post on this forum in a few minutes or less with ideas that would make the game fun. I don't expect to turn civ 5 into a war simulator, just a concept or two to make things more fun.

I spend most of my time on history forums, and if I have information to provide, I want it to be accurate, and not just some BS. This is probably where my distaste for Wiki comes from, too many take it for gospel, without doing any real fact checking. It serves it's purpose as a starting point for research, but that is about it.

Did you happen to notice if they mentioned that the Nimitz can't launch any aircraft while carrying that maximum of 130? How do they get the planes onto and off of the ship? I suspect that it can still function, even with that full compliment.

It was to see the maximum number of aircraft a conventionally powered carrier could hold vs how many a nuclear carrier could hold, they came out even at 130.

If they really wanted to put all those aircraft on a carrier, they would hoist them aboard by crane. The same way they did in WW2, when all carriers returning to their respective war zones were used as aircraft transports to bring in as many extra aircraft as possible.

But really all this bickering about the specific stats and capacities is just pancakes. All I'm saying with this thread is that the current carrier unit in the game is based on old ships. It would be nice if, like the missile cruiser, there was a later-tech, modernized version of the carrier with increased capability. Define that however you like or for whatever reasons you like, that's what I'm asking for. Even if the capability really comes from the air wing, the carrier itself is updated and far more capable of handling the new planes. Trust me, no matter how you slice it, if the Nimitz were to take on the Midway, Nimitz would always win. A midway or essex carrier could never handle the powerful air wings of a modern nuclear supercarrier. In that regard, we need the updated ships in order to handle the updated planes in order to deliver the increased firepower.

That's my only point. I would like a better, more powerful carrier unit to appear later in the game. It's that simple. I will concede to you the honor having the most intricate understanding of the technicalities of the ships themselves.

Except that Civ has always been about generalities and not specifics.

Look at it this way, in Civ V, how would you quantify an angled deck, steam catapults, nuclear propulsion, better radar, etc. To start off, an angled deck really can't be quantified in Civ V, the game mechanics just are not there. Second, steam catapults would be a "promotion" to needed for a carrier to launch the larger heavier jet fighters(without that you stuck using normal fighters), except in Civ carriers can do that for FREE! Nuclear power would be a "promotion" of +1 movement(you don't have to slow down to refuel). Better radar is a +1 spotting "promotion".

As I said earlier, as the size of the carrier has grown, so has the size of the aircraft. For instance, the USS Yorktown(CV-10) went into the Battle of the Philippine Sea(1944) carrying some 103 aircraft, where as the USS Theodore Roosevelt(CVN-71) went into Gulf War I(1991) with 75 aircraft.

So a supercarrier, could be considered a normal carrier with "Naval Tradition".

Also, supercarriers remain the minority of the world's aircraft carriers. While the US has several, Russia has one, and China is refurbishing one and building one or two more. The more common type of carrier would be the "normal" one.

Perhaps, it would be better to make the "supercarrier" an American UU.

[Takao]

If you really interested in adding carriers, why stay with just a "super", using US designations.
CVE(escort carrier) - 2 fighters.
CVL(light carrier) - 3 fighters.
CV/CVA - 4 fighters.
CVB/"modern" CV - large carrier - 5 aircraft(either fighters or bombers) with +1 spotting.
CVN - nuclear carrier - 5 aircraft(either fighters or bombers) with +1 spotting & +1 movement.

Wouldn't mind seeing an amphibious assault carrier, but working around the helicopter coastal limitations, and the redone land unit movement over water would probably be a bear.

Then you would need to expand the aircraft selection...

[Takao]

One little hitch, though, is why not the stealth bomber then? Seems like a double standard. If the "bomber" is a substitute for "bombing capability" generally, then there's no reason to prevent the stealth bomber from landing on carriers too, to represent "modern bombing capability."

Just saying.

The "Stealth Bomber" is just the equivalent of a "modern" bomber like the B-52, B-1B, or, of course, the actual stealth bomber.

While later US carrier bombers, such as the prop-powered A-1 Skyraider could carry the equivalent bomb tonnage of the WW2 B-17, and the jet-powered A-6 intruder had the roughly equivalent capacity of the WW2 B-29 or British Lancaster. There is, and likely never will be, a carrier bomber capable of lugging the tens of thousands of pounds of bombs that the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are capable of carrying. Well, not without some new technologies anyway.

So, no, I don't see it as a double standard.

[Varus2319]

Search feature...searched for "130" got something around 7 hits, took 2 seconds. Repeated for "maximum density" with the similar results, time reading the pertinent information, probably 5 min.-7 min.

Fair enough. I still don't really care that much though, as I will explain below.

I spend most of my time on history forums...

This isn't a history forum, it's a discussion board for a video game. It's about as far from history lessons as you can get.

Look at it this way, in Civ V, how would you quantify an angled deck, steam catapults, nuclear propulsion, better radar, etc. To start off, an angled deck really can't be quantified in Civ V, the game mechanics just are not there. Second, steam catapults would be a "promotion" to needed for a carrier to launch the larger heavier jet fighters(without that you stuck using normal fighters), except in Civ carriers can do that for FREE! Nuclear power would be a "promotion" of +1 movement(you don't have to slow down to refuel). Better radar is a +1 spotting "promotion".

Civ units don't really ever focus on the actual technology that makes the unit stronger. Why are pikes stronger than spearmen, exactly? Well it comes down to the quality and balance of their weapon, and the formation they use. But just like we don't actually represent any of those specifics in the game, we don't need to actually represent the radar, computer screens, or angled deck of a supercarrier. The generality is what matters, the "this unit is better than that one."

That's why we don't research tech like "top sails," "semi-automatic loading," or "cartridge fire." We just get Frigates, Infantry, or Rifleman along the way, the rest is abstract. Suggesting that we should include something as minute as the steam catapults themselves is not really consistent with anything civ has done. The fact that the superiority of the new carriers is based on upgrading the overall technology of the ship is no basis for arguing against including them as a unit. No more than arguing that the exact sail and hull configuration that allows us to upgrade Caravels to Frigates should.

Also, supercarriers remain the minority of the world's aircraft carriers. While the US has several, Russia has one, and China is refurbishing one and building one or two more. The more common type of carrier would be the "normal" one.

The fact that supercarriers are a minority of anything doesn't really matter. Missile cruisers aren't operated by very many nations, and last time I checked there aren't very many that use B2 Spirits or Giant Death Robots either. That doesn't stop them from being available in the game.

The "Stealth Bomber" is just the equivalent of a "modern" bomber like the B-52, B-1B, or, of course, the actual stealth bomber.

While later US carrier bombers, such as the prop-powered A-1 Skyraider could carry the equivalent bomb tonnage of the WW2 B-17, and the jet-powered A-6 intruder had the roughly equivalent capacity of the WW2 B-29 or British Lancaster. There is, and likely never will be, a carrier bomber capable of lugging the tens of thousands of pounds of bombs that the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are capable of carrying. Well, not without some new technologies anyway.

So, no, I don't see it as a double standard.

Modern carrier based bombing missions are more effective than older carrier based bombing missions. If bombers landing on carriers is an abstract for old carrier bombing missions, why wouldn't stealth landing on carriers be the abstract for modern carrier bombing missions? Note: this was your argument in the first place. You stated that bombers landing on carriers was just a placeholder for any carrier based bombing capability. Fine, but if that's so, then the increase in carrier based bombing capability is represented by what?

Again, this is just technical details and number dropping. The point isn't to be specific, the point is to be general. New is better than old, so where is the representation of that in game? I'm doing caveman stuff here, really.

If you really interested in adding carriers, why stay with just a "super", using US designations.
CVE(escort carrier) - 2 fighters.
CVL(light carrier) - 3 fighters.
CV/CVA - 4 fighters.
CVB/"modern" CV - large carrier - 5 aircraft(either fighters or bombers) with +1 spotting.
CVN - nuclear carrier - 5 aircraft(either fighters or bombers) with +1 spotting & +1 movement.

This last extreme argument also has serious problems for the same reasons that some others do. Civ never does this. Are there unlimited varieties of musket troops to represent the variation over history from early hand cannoneers to late Prussian infantry? How about units for each variety of cannon from the earliest bombards to the very latest smoothbore guns? That wouldn't be very practical at all, considering we still use "canons" in their strictest sense aboard aircraft and ships all the time. Where exactly would you draw the line between cannons and artillery? Rifling?

The point is that units in civilization don't represent each improvement of technology. They are more of snapshots of an entire generation of concepts. There are lots of lines to draw, but units in civilization only pick the very brightest ones.

I think the line between light carriers and supercarriers is bright enough to justify. You don't seem to, but you could, of course, just say that instead of arguing quite so pointedly about the small stuff. If you just don't think a new carrier is warrented I don't think you are wrong, per se, even though I disagree with you. I just wish you would put it in game terms such as "we could handle this with promotions" or "all we really need are better airplanes" or even "the game is fine as it is, here's why" etc.

...and if I have information to provide, I want it to be accurate, and not just some BS. This is probably where my distaste for Wiki comes from, too many take it for gospel, without doing any real fact checking. It serves it's purpose as a starting point for research, but that is about it.

Nothing I said was just "some BS." Everything I said was based on something, and most of it is actually true. The bulk of your distaste for my posting is based on technicalities and specifics that really don't affect the argument because they aren't actually the premises that I'm basing my claims on. I'm not trying to start a thread to educate people on the finer points of aircraft carrier technology here, I'm suggesting a unit for a toy that we both play with. You should probably lighten up on the "fact checking" and "research" that you do. I'm not saying research or information is bad, but in this case you've attacked errors in my facts that really aren't even relevant.

By that, I mean you never really did establish anything. My request is for an updated, modern carrier unit that can project more power than the old ones. Why shouldn't we do that, again? I never did spot where you suggest otherwise. Whether or not the Nimitz can operate with 90 or 130 planes makes little difference to my request. Whether or not the Midway can carry 65 hornets or 45 doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, the Nimitz is more powerful than the Midway backwards and forwards. It's faster, it's stronger, and it can deliver more firepower per unit time. That is the only real premise that my argument is based on, what else do I need to say?

The "Stealth Bomber" is just the equivalent of a "modern" bomber like the B-52, B-1B, or, of course, the actual stealth bomber.

You see why it's funny that you say this, right? I'm making the exact same argument but I'm replacing "bomber" with "carrier." We just need a modern carrier. You can represent it however you like.

You need to frame your argument in terms of game mechanics and not in terms of history books. Just because I don't have all the numbers about the ships straight doesn't mean I'm wrong about adding a new unit.

If a game developer suggested adding a new unit between musketmen and infantry, called "riflemen" and described them in detail, whether or not he got the average range of the first rifled barrels correct wouldn't really affect his proposal. The history of the unit isn't nearly as important as its value to the game.

Similarly, the real impetus behind my support of a new carrier unit is the noticeable weakness of late game navies. They can't project nearly as much power as a good land based set of artillery units, and I don't agree that this status quo should remain.

Late navies should be far more capable and powerful than they currently are. The biggest opportunity for improvement lies with the carriers, since they happen to be, in fact, the bulk of power projection in actual modern navies. Thus, I suggest we start there.

I think that about covers it. Are we beginning to understand each other a little better?

[Takao]

This isn't a history forum, it's a discussion board for a video game. It's about as far from history lessons as you can get.

Yet you went to a "historical" source(Wikipedia) for you information. If this is truly "as far from history lessons as you can get", then why did you bother with Wikipedia at all?

Civ units don't really ever focus on the actual technology that makes the unit stronger. Why are pikes stronger than spearmen, exactly? Well it comes down to the quality and balance of their weapon, and the formation they use. But just like we don't actually represent any of those specifics in the game, we don't need to actually represent the radar, computer screens, or angled deck of a supercarrier. The generality is what matters, the "this unit is better than that one."

Correct, in Civ generality is what matters, and generally speaking a modern carrier is not that much better than a WW2 carrier. Now, when you compare an M-16 to a British "Brown Bess", or an F-22 Raptor to a Sopwith Camel, the improvements are much more quantifiable in game terms.

The fact that supercarriers are a minority of anything doesn't really matter. Missile cruisers aren't operated by very many nations, and last time I checked there aren't very many that use B2 Spirits or Giant Death Robots either. That doesn't stop them from being available in the game.

As you say "the point is to be general." Missile cruisers are an amalgam of all the modern missile carrying warships afloat today, the games does not have guided missile destroyers or guided missile frigates which make up the majority today's of ocean-going warships. The same goes for the "Stealth Bomber" unit, which really should have been labeled a "Modern Bomber", it is an amalgam of all the heavy bombers that have been used.

Don't get me started on the GDR...it would have been better had the devs left this as an "easter egg" instead of deciding to include it as a regular unit in the game.

Modern carrier based bombing missions are more effective than older carrier based bombing missions. If bombers landing on carriers is an abstract for old carrier bombing missions, why wouldn't stealth landing on carriers be the abstract for modern carrier bombing missions? Note: this was your argument in the first place. You stated that bombers landing on carriers was just a placeholder for any carrier based bombing capability. Fine, but if that's so, then the increase in carrier based bombing capability is represented by what?

You either have not read what I have posted or you have not understood what I have said. If I have not made myself clear, then I apologize. But let's set the record straight.

Bombers landing on carriers is not an abstract for old carrier bombers, but it is an abstract for MODERN carrier bombers, hence my comparison of old WW2 bombers to the more modern carrier bombers There is no equivalent to the old torpedo bombers and dive bombers in Civ, never has been.

While this is as you say, not a historical forum, but a gaming one, it is beneficial to this discussion to point out this historical note: The US Navy has recently relearned a historical lesson it originally learned back in WW2. That fighter-bombers are more capable than dedicated attack aircraft. This is evidenced by the dropping of the A-6 Intruder for their carrier inventory and replacing it with the "Super Hornet" fighter-bomber.

This last extreme argument also has serious problems for the same reasons that some others do. Civ never does this. Are there unlimited varieties of musket troops to represent the variation over history from early hand cannoneers to late Prussian infantry? How about units for each variety of cannon from the earliest bombards to the very latest smoothbore guns? That wouldn't be very practical at all, considering we still use "canons" in their strictest sense aboard aircraft and ships all the time. Where exactly would you draw the line between cannons and artillery? Rifling?

If it was up to me, I would not have done combat the way Civ has and I would have included a more diverse unit selection throughout the eras.

Cannons are artillery. Having the upgrade to a cannon be called artillery, is like having a fighter upgrade to a "warplane" or "combat aircraft". It's nonsensical.
Had it been my game, the next major improvement was in terms of mobility, I would not have made "Artillery", but used "Self Propelled Artillery" instead(same terms as the "Rocket Artillery", but with a range of 2). I might have given the SPA a range of 3, then made rocket artillery a range of 4(but that would be open to debate).

I think the line between light carriers and supercarriers is bright enough to justify. You don't seem to, but you could, of course, just say that instead of arguing quite so pointedly about the small stuff. If you just don't think a new carrier is warrented I don't think you are wrong, per se, even though I disagree with you. I just wish you would put it in game terms such as "we could handle this with promotions" or "all we really need are better airplanes" or even "the game is fine as it is, here's why" etc.

Except, your not trying to justify the line between a light carrier and a nuclear carrier, your trying to justify the line between an aircraft carrier(CV) and a "supercarrier"(CVB/CVN). That "line" is a lot dimmer, than the one between a light carrier(CVL) and a "supercarrier"(CVB/CVN).

As for

I just wish you would put it in game terms such as "we could handle this with promotions"

I did with

Look at it this way, in Civ V, how would you quantify an angled deck, steam catapults, nuclear propulsion, better radar, etc. To start off, an angled deck really can't be quantified in Civ V, the game mechanics just are not there. Second, steam catapults would be a "promotion" to needed for a carrier to launch the larger heavier jet fighters(without that you stuck using normal fighters), except in Civ carriers can do that for FREE! Nuclear power would be a "promotion" of +1 movement(you don't have to slow down to refuel). Better radar is a +1 spotting "promotion".

But this was not to you liking! I quantified some "supercarrier" benefits to "promotions" and you responded with a diatribe about how Civ does not research Tech!

Then you continue with

"all we really need are better airplanes"

I though I implied that by comparing a an old WW2 bomber to a more modern carrier attack aircraft. One is in the game, but the other is not. The WW2 bomber is an equitable proxy for an A-6 Intruder, but the Intruder, is much better in terms of offense and defense. But, there is nothing to compare with the Intruder's replacement, The F/A-18 "Super Hornet".

[Takao]

I have been thinking more about the "promotions" line, especially since the aircraft carriers get some useless promotions.

You could probably add these, call them what4ever you will:
Angled Deck 1: +1 to aircraft carried.
Angled Deck 2: additional +1 to aircraft carried, stacks with AD1.

Radar: +1 spotting.
Advanced Radar: additional +1 Spotting, stacks with Radar.

Armored Deck 1: improves carrier hit points by a given number.
Armored Deck 2: additional carrier hitpoints, AD1 required.

Advanced Propulsion: +1 to movement.
Nuclear Propulsion: +2 to movement, AP1 - not required.

[civdiss]

Correct, in Civ generality is what matters, and generally speaking a modern carrier is not that much better than a WW2 carrier.

I thought that this thread was not a comparison between the old carriers and supercarriers but the realisation that carriers (all generations of them) are not very well represented in the game. In reality a fleet with carriers will crash any other land/sea based enemy without the same capabilities..is this represented in the game?

Do you get any kind of superiority by building carriers in the game? I've tried to use them in various settings (with bombers/fighters/jets) and I think that at the moment they are underpowered. In real terms no-one can even dream of challenging the US militarily because there is a very strong deterrent, and if think that this is nuclear weapons you are fooled. I would like to see something like that in the game. For me this is not about how many planes we can load onto the carriers but the fact that as the game is designed now you aren't getting a massive advantage from carriers due the fact airplanes are not very well implemented in the game. You may add any number of promotions to carriers and still not solve the underlying problem. The carrier at the end of the day depends on what it carries to achieve its objectives, so without a vast improvement there you are not changing much.

[Varus2319]

Yet you went to a "historical" source(Wikipedia) for you information. If this is truly "as far from history lessons as you can get", then why did you bother with Wikipedia at all?

Well, keep in mind why I did it. I didn't link to wiki in order to teach people a history lesson, I did it so that people could visualize what I was talking about. Some people don't know what a supercarrier is, or nuclear propulsion, or they just don't think about how carriers have changed over the years. I figured that by linking to the wiki articles, the fact that modern carriers are much stronger than older carriers would become self evident.

Correct, in Civ generality is what matters, and generally speaking a modern carrier is not that much better than a WW2 carrier. Now, when you compare an M-16 to a British "Brown Bess", or an F-22 Raptor to a Sopwith Camel, the improvements are much more quantifiable in game terms.

Now, are you really saying this? You really don't think modern carriers are stronger, faster, better all the way around than their older friends? You can't really be arguing that an Essex class aircraft carrier can project the same amount of force as a Nimitz? That can't be your argument because it's completely senseless. For one thing, we have the new carriers. We wouldn't unless it made sense for us to build them. For another, even if the ship is only upgraded so that it can handle the new generation of jets, that's enough by itself. The ship has been upgraded, and it doesn't matter why. The force that it can project is a reflection of the ability to launch a newer, more powerful air wing, but that's still something the Nimitz can do that the Essex never could.

That alone is sufficient to justify a new unit in the game. If you loaded the Nimitz and the Midway with the same planes, the Nimitz would have a major advantage because it would have more planes, better launching systems, and better support. If you loaded them with their own contemporary planes, the Nimitz would have a huge advantage. Do you dispute this?

As you say "the point is to be general." Missile cruisers are an amalgam of all the modern missile carrying warships afloat today, the games does not have guided missile destroyers or guided missile frigates which make up the majority today's of ocean-going warships. The same goes for the "Stealth Bomber" unit, which really should have been labeled a "Modern Bomber", it is an amalgam of all the heavy bombers that have been used.

Forrestral, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, Nimitz, Ford. All these are different classes of supercarriers that I wouldn't mind amalgamating into a single unit. I just use the words "Carrier" and "Supercarrier" so that we have something to call the units and tell them apart.

Don't get me started on the GDR...it would have been better had the devs left this as an "easter egg" instead of deciding to include it as a regular unit in the game.

Aww. I like the GDRs. I wish they would build a little more on the future techs, in fact.

You either have not read what I have posted or you have not understood what I have said. If I have not made myself clear, then I apologize. But let's set the record straight.

Bombers landing on carriers is not an abstract for old carrier bombers, but it is an abstract for MODERN carrier bombers, hence my comparison of old WW2 bombers to the more modern carrier bombers There is no equivalent to the old torpedo bombers and dive bombers in Civ, never has been.

Fair enough. I took you for saying that the old bombing missions were represented by the bomber/carrier duo. But I will say this, now: Parking the "bomber" unit on a carrier is a lame substitute for an FA-18 Super Hornet ground strike, if that's what you are claiming. Lame indeed. We need something way better than that, even if it is just the Stealth landing there instead. Ideally, I suppose, we would have a modern carrier based plane just for the role.

Also, just for the record, since you perceive that there is currently no representation of WWII era carrier based bombing and torpedoing, would you endorse the idea that there should be?

If it was up to me, I would not have done combat the way Civ has and I would have included a more diverse unit selection throughout the eras.

Cannons are artillery. Having the upgrade to a cannon be called artillery, is like having a fighter upgrade to a "warplane" or "combat aircraft". It's nonsensical.
Had it been my game, the next major improvement was in terms of mobility, I would not have made "Artillery", but used "Self Propelled Artillery" instead(same terms as the "Rocket Artillery", but with a range of 2). I might have given the SPA a range of 3, then made rocket artillery a range of 4(but that would be open to debate).

Eh, I guess so. Somewhere there's a line between Napoleonic artillery guns and WWII era howitzer guns. There's an incredible performance difference, and I think Civ was right to make that distinction. What exactly makes the difference? I dunno. Probably the quality of the powder, the seal, and the barrel. Who knows.

That's not the point, though. Again, the point is that the WWII era weapons were better in some way, and quantifiably so. Enough that they justify having a new unit.

Except, your not trying to justify the line between a light carrier and a nuclear carrier...

Yes I am.

... your trying to justify the line between an aircraft carrier(CV) and a "supercarrier"(CVB/CVN). That "line" is a lot dimmer, than the one between a light carrier(CVL) and a "supercarrier"(CVB/CVN).

Actually, I'm not. I didn't even know that there were Kitty Hawk and Forrestral class carriers that came before the Nimitz. It doesn't matter, either. If you want the new unit to be called Nuclear Carriers, that's fine. I still think we need a new unit. I was comparing Nimitz to Essex/Midway. That's the only thing I had in mind the whole time I've been saying that modern carriers are far superior to their older counterparts.

As for I did with But this was not to you liking! I quantified some "supercarrier" benefits to "promotions" and you responded with a diatribe about how Civ does not research Tech!

Then you continue with I though I implied that by comparing a an old WW2 bomber to a more modern carrier attack aircraft. One is in the game, but the other is not. The WW2 bomber is an equitable proxy for an A-6 Intruder, but the Intruder, is much better in terms of offense and defense. But, there is nothing to compare with the Intruder's replacement, The F/A-18 "Super Hornet".

I guess. Your post made it look like it was nonsensical to try and include any of those upgrades, or that it was impossible. The way it was presented made me think you were arguing against the concept of a new unit because the things that make them superior are hard to represent with game mechanics. That seemed like a loop to me, since the new unit is the game mechanic that represents the upgrades.

I have been thinking more about the "promotions" line, especially since the aircraft carriers get some useless promotions.

You could probably add these, call them what4ever you will:
Angled Deck 1: +1 to aircraft carried.
Angled Deck 2: additional +1 to aircraft carried, stacks with AD1.

Radar: +1 spotting.
Advanced Radar: additional +1 Spotting, stacks with Radar.

Armored Deck 1: improves carrier hit points by a given number.
Armored Deck 2: additional carrier hitpoints, AD1 required.

Advanced Propulsion: +1 to movement.
Nuclear Propulsion: +2 to movement, AP1 - not required.

I like these ideas. I would only point out that, true to civ style, they wouldn't actually identify which improvements lead to the promotion. Instead of "Angled Deck 1" it would just be "Capacity 1."

I'm not saying I like it that way, but it's true.

...And I still think a new unit would be better.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

I think I agree with Takao's general perspective on this. Supercarriers, while better, are not groundbreaking in anything, or a completely new breed of carriers. The difference between carriers and supercarriers isn't like the one between frigates and destroyers or destroyers and battleships, but more like the difference between Dreadnought-class and Iowa-class battleships.

[Varus2319]

I think I agree with Takao's general perspective on this. Supercarriers, while better, are not groundbreaking in anything, or a completely new breed of carriers. The difference between carriers and supercarriers isn't like the one between frigates and destroyers or destroyers and battleships, but more like the difference between Dreadnought-class and Iowa-class battleships.

Subs and Nuclear Subs? Swordsman and Longswordsman? Bombers and Stealth Bombers?

There are some places where the gaps are huge, like you pointed out. Others not so much.

And to be quite truthful, one thing that Takao has made clear to me is that drawing the line at "Supercarrier" is probably not a very good one. The line between a forrestral and a midway is ... marginal. I appreciate that, I understand what you are saying there.

The line really should be at "Nuclear Carrier" just like the "Nuclear Submarine." Nuclear carriers have an enormous amount of energy available to them, which makes them faster and capable of operating much more powerful computers, operational systems, and any number of other things. Even the catapults benefit from the reactors, as they can launch much heavier planes.

So what I will say is this: I have drawn the line in the wrong place. I still think there's a line.

[Jacsó Benjámin]

Subs and Nuclear Subs? Swordsman and Longswordsman? Bombers and Stealth Bombers?

There are some places where the gaps are huge, like you pointed out. Others not so much.

And to be quite truthful, one thing that Takao has made clear to me is that drawing the line at "Supercarrier" is probably not a very good one. The line between a forrestral and a midway is ... marginal. I appreciate that, I understand what you are saying there.

The line really should be at "Nuclear Carrier" just like the "Nuclear Submarine." Nuclear carriers have an enormous amount of energy available to them, which makes them faster and capable of operating much more powerful computers, operational systems, and any number of other things. Even the catapults benefit from the reactors, as they can launch much heavier planes.

So what I will say is this: I have drawn the line in the wrong place. I still think there's a line.

The big difference between subs and nuclear subs is that one carries nuclear weapons, which it can aim at the other sub as well as cities, while the other doesn't; this is a difference far greater than the difference between carriers and nuclear carriers because it means one is a unit strictly for naval combat, while the dangers of the other extend quite beyond the sea. Swordsman are classical-era infantry, and longswords medieval; the big differences between the two include the quality of the weapon, and the organization of the units--kind of like the difference between rifles and infantry. Stealth bombers and bombers is probably the best counter argument you mentioned, especially as this is quite parallel to nuclear-powered and the classical carriers, and I really can't think of any major differences--the same thing goes for fighters and jets. Based on these two examples, maybe nuclear carriers really are a reasonable addition!

[Takao]

Well, first off, the big difference between diesel and nucs(submarines) is not nuclear weapons. Diesels were/are capable of firing nuclear torpedoes, the first nuclear cruise missiles were carried by diesels, and the first soviet ballistic missile submarines were diesels(Golf class). The big difference between the diesels and nucs is there submerged speed and endurance. A diesel boat(pre-WW2 & most WW2 subs) were limited to a maximum of 8-10 knots underwater & that was only for a short period of time, the late WW2 "Elektroboots", specifically the German Type XXI, raised this to 17 knots for about an hour, then her batteries would be drained. In comparison, the first nuclear submarine, USS Nautilus could maintain a speed of around 23 knots for as long as her nuclear fuel lasted. With the advent of nuclear submarines, came a major upheaval in Anti-Submarine Warfare, since the tactics & weapons that had long been used were now useless against them.

A similar change was the switch from shortsword to the longsword. The longsword's greater reach meant that the tightly packed formations that had been used with the shortsword were no longer viable. Also, the advent of the "two-hander" and "hand and a half" longswords meant that the swordsmen were now better equipped to defend themselves against cavalry attack.

Finally, the bombers and stealth bombers argument. If we compared a B-17 to a B-2; the B-2 can haul over six times the weight of bombs, has a cruise speed roughly 2.5 times as fast, it can fly higher, and travel a much greater distance without refueling. The B-2's "Stealth" technology rendered it virtually invisible to radars of the time, leading to a major change in air and anti-air warfare.

The "supercarrier" while a powerful warship, did not bring about any major change in carrier warfare. Not to mention the fact, that most of the carrier's power is derived from it's air group, and not the carrier itself, and this is what Varus2319 does not see/understand. It's not about the carrier, it's about the planes.

[Varus2319]

blah blah blah... In comparison, the first nuclear submarine, USS Nautilus could maintain a speed of around 23 knots for as long as her nuclear fuel lasted. With the advent of nuclear submarines, came a major upheaval in Anti-Submarine Warfare, since the tactics & weapons that had long been used were now useless against them.

A similar change was the switch from shortsword to the longsword. The longsword's greater reach meant that the tightly packed formations that had been used with the shortsword were no longer viable. Also, the advent of the "two-hander" and "hand and a half" longswords meant that the swordsmen were now better equipped to defend themselves against cavalry attack.

Finally, the bombers and stealth bombers argument. If we compared a B-17 to a B-2; the B-2 can haul over six times the weight of bombs, has a cruise speed roughly 2.5 times as fast, it can fly higher, and travel a much greater distance without refueling. The B-2's "Stealth" technology rendered it virtually invisible to radars of the time, leading to a major change in air and anti-air warfare.

The "supercarrier" while a powerful warship, did not bring about any major change in carrier warfare. Not to mention the fact, that most of the carrier's power is derived from it's air group, and not the carrier itself, and this is what Varus2319 does not see/understand. It's not about the carrier, it's about the planes.

Now, take a careful look here:

For another, even if the ship is only upgraded so that it can handle the new generation of jets, that's enough by itself. The ship has been upgraded, and it doesn't matter why. The force that it can project is a reflection of the ability to launch a newer, more powerful air wing, but that's still something the Nimitz can do that the Essex never could.

It's not very nice to claim that I don't understand something that I've so clearly stated.

It's also funny that you point out all the technical details about the submarines, which again, don't really matter. But then you conclude that the nuclear propulsion is what justifies the new unit, which is exactly what I have stated:

And to be quite truthful, one thing that Takao has made clear to me is that drawing the line at "Supercarrier" is probably not a very good one. The line between a forrestral and a midway is ... marginal. I appreciate that, I understand what you are saying there.

The line really should be at "Nuclear Carrier" just like the "Nuclear Submarine." Nuclear carriers have an enormous amount of energy available to them, which makes them faster and capable of operating much more powerful computers, operational systems, and any number of other things. Even the catapults benefit from the reactors, as they can launch much heavier planes.

So what I will say is this: I have drawn the line in the wrong place. I still think there's a line.

This makes me wonder if you even read the majority of what I'm posting.