Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (
More info?)
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:56:11 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:34:05 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
><jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I haven't tried RAR yet, but in DyP the bombers never could be on
>>carriers. For that matter, in the real world that is true too -- no
>>carrier handles big bombers.
>
>I've never built carriers; always something more pressing. My current
>RAR is going well and I tried one to see if it was worth it.
Carriers are unfortunately not hugely useful unless you cannot get a
land base in range. If you can get even one little city in place, it
can handle your air operations (of course, you must defend it, and
that can make a carrier worthwhile again).
>You're right that first-gen carriers didn't operate big bombers
>(Doolittle notwithstanding), but they had dive bombers and torpedo
>bombers that had order-of-magnitude more attack value than fighters.
>There are no equivalents in RAR, so I figured the "B-17" was just a
>graphics saving in the scenario and they intended, as the Civ-p said,
>they be able of carrier-basing. With just prop fighters the investment
>in carriers isn't worth it, given their vulnerability. Better to leave
>the fighters ashore for city defense.
I do think that carrier bombardment planes would make sense, though
in general, they are more or less just "fighter-bombers," a lighter
kind of bomber than the big land-based ones of their era.
I don't know why they aren't in there. We could ask to get them
added.
>> Instead, you have better fighters which go on the carriers, not
>>bombers
>
>Now, with the F-18 variants, you do, but the Intruder was a pure
>bomber right into the 1990s. Carried a bomb-load greater than a B-17.
The RAR fighters aren't bad at bombardment once you get to the jet
era. Not as good as the strategic bombers, but still worth using.
> -- as you go up in tech of course, the fighters and bombers
>>both get better.
>
>I'm looking for a way to attack southern Africa from the UK, before I
>have supersonic tech and can build RAR B-1s and get inter-continental
>bombing. Fighters and land-based B-17s don't make it with my current
>bases.
True, and that is when carriers should be useful.
> But always, the land based bombers are the heaviest
>>attackers. Also, the advanced flight and later fighters *are* rather
>>decent in bombardment, unlike regular Civ3 where they aren't much good
>>at all.
>
>Agree. I'll play with the editor some more. As good as DYP/RAR is I
>still like to tweak.
>
>Given your status as Civ-god I'm surprised you haven't tried them.
>They are order-of-mag better than the Firaxis game. Well-balanced,
>lots of historical tech "jumps" filled in very thoughtfully, better
>government list with overt trade-offs, etc.
I've played DyP quite a bit, but though I've downloaded RAR I
haven't yet had time to play a game.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>