RAR:Bomber Won't Load on Carrier

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Built carrier (1st generation, not Super Carrier) in RAR mod. Bombers
("B-17", not long-range bomber) should rebase to carrier, but won't.
Looked in editor, but it's not clear to me which variable allows
aircraft to base on carriers.

Any help?

Steve


--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
20 answers Last reply
More about bomber load carrier
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in
    news:ada0p0doe6pm1dnbjufas6hp59i5ut3hcl@4ax.com:

    > Built carrier (1st generation, not Super Carrier) in RAR mod. Bombers
    > ("B-17", not long-range bomber) should rebase to carrier, but won't.
    > Looked in editor, but it's not clear to me which variable allows
    > aircraft to base on carriers.
    >
    This could be a range issue. How far is the city that has the bomber from
    the carrier ?

    data64
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:05:58 -0500, data64 <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com> wrote in
    >news:ada0p0doe6pm1dnbjufas6hp59i5ut3hcl@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Built carrier (1st generation, not Super Carrier) in RAR mod. Bombers
    >> ("B-17", not long-range bomber) should rebase to carrier, but won't.
    >> Looked in editor, but it's not clear to me which variable allows
    >> aircraft to base on carriers.
    >>
    > This could be a range issue. How far is the city that has the bomber from
    >the carrier ?

    One square.

    Steve
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    What is RAR mod. ??

    E Agerbo


    "Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> skrev i en meddelelse
    news:ada0p0doe6pm1dnbjufas6hp59i5ut3hcl@4ax.com...
    > Built carrier (1st generation, not Super Carrier) in RAR mod. Bombers
    > ("B-17", not long-range bomber) should rebase to carrier, but won't.
    > Looked in editor, but it's not clear to me which variable allows
    > aircraft to base on carriers.
    >
    > Any help?
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >
    > --
    > www.thepaxamsolution.com
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:43:08 +0100, EBA wrote:

    >What is RAR mod. ??

    http://civ3.bernskov.com/
    --
    Best regards,
    Henrik Dissing

    (e-mail: hendis AT post DOT tele DOT dk)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote...

    << Any help? >>

    The Bomber has a Transport Capacity. It's designed to not rebase to
    Carriers, as you can't load transport units into transport units.


    Peter Smith
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:27:44 -0600, "Peter Smith"
    <pmsmith@evilnet.net> wrote:

    >"Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote...
    >
    ><< Any help? >>
    >
    >The Bomber has a Transport Capacity. It's designed to not rebase to
    >Carriers, as you can't load transport units into transport units.

    So if I turn that off I can rebase? Didn't know Transport was what let
    carriers hold planes. I was looking for one of the "special" ratings
    in the side box, something like the Invisible ratting. I can't try to
    fix this now, but will this weekend.

    I only ask because without bombers the carrier is pretty useless
    (fighters aren't worth building it for ), and the Civopedia for
    carrier seems to indicate the designers intended it carry bombers.

    Steve
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:25:23 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:27:44 -0600, "Peter Smith"
    ><pmsmith@evilnet.net> wrote:
    >
    >>"Steve Bartman" <sbartman@visi.com> wrote...
    >>
    >><< Any help? >>
    >>
    >>The Bomber has a Transport Capacity. It's designed to not rebase to
    >>Carriers, as you can't load transport units into transport units.
    >
    >So if I turn that off I can rebase? Didn't know Transport was what let
    >carriers hold planes. I was looking for one of the "special" ratings
    >in the side box, something like the Invisible ratting. I can't try to
    >fix this now, but will this weekend.
    >
    >I only ask because without bombers the carrier is pretty useless
    >(fighters aren't worth building it for ), and the Civopedia for
    >carrier seems to indicate the designers intended it carry bombers.

    RAR and DyP change the rules, but not all of the civilopedia yet.

    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.

    Instead, you have better fighters which go on the carriers, not
    bombers -- as you go up in tech of course, the fighters and bombers
    both get better. 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.

    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:34:05 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    > RAR and DyP change the rules, but not all of the civilopedia yet.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > Instead, you have better fighters which go on the carriers, not
    >bombers -- as you go up in tech of course, the fighters and bombers
    >both get better. 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.

    I recall using some late DYP bombers to attack cities on the next
    continent. They also had troop transports which could go long
    distances.

    You are definitely right about the civilopedia. Many are left over
    from DYP or the epic game. I usually build one unit and see if it
    works as expected before building more. For instance the tanks I was
    using said they could attack multiple times in one turn. Other units
    cannot move through jungle or be loaded onto mountains.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:42:22 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:


    >You are definitely right about the civilopedia. Many are left over
    >from DYP or the epic game. I usually build one unit and see if it
    >works as expected before building more. For instance the tanks I was
    >using said they could attack multiple times in one turn. Other units
    >cannot move through jungle or be loaded onto mountains.

    Yeah, I believe the main battle tank in RAR says it has multiple
    attacks, but it doesn't. They added a fourth level to tank evolution
    in RAR (WWI, Churchill, main battle (a Patton more or less), and final
    for the Brits I'm playing now.)

    Steve
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    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.

    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.

    > 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.

    -- 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.

    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.

    Steve
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:47:16 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:42:22 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You are definitely right about the civilopedia. Many are left over
    >>from DYP or the epic game. I usually build one unit and see if it
    >>works as expected before building more. For instance the tanks I was
    >>using said they could attack multiple times in one turn. Other units
    >>cannot move through jungle or be loaded onto mountains.
    >
    >Yeah, I believe the main battle tank in RAR says it has multiple
    >attacks, but it doesn't. They added a fourth level to tank evolution
    >in RAR (WWI, Churchill, main battle (a Patton more or less), and final
    >for the Brits I'm playing now.)
    >
    >Steve

    I played as Japan who had a KhaGo as their tank unit. I am not sure
    if that was their Main Battle equivalent or an earlier unit.

    RAR did seem to twist the balance of unit power from DYP. In DYP the
    Bedouin Raider where better than tanks since they could go through any
    terrain. I think the Japan special unit was the Bushi or Samurai.
    Whatever it was I cleaned house with it.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
    news:k3oap0pbfnf374ab0cmna66s175rqsol7u@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:47:16 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:42:22 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>You are definitely right about the civilopedia. Many are left over
    > >>from DYP or the epic game. I usually build one unit and see if it
    > >>works as expected before building more. For instance the tanks I was
    > >>using said they could attack multiple times in one turn. Other units
    > >>cannot move through jungle or be loaded onto mountains.
    > >
    > >Yeah, I believe the main battle tank in RAR says it has multiple
    > >attacks, but it doesn't. They added a fourth level to tank evolution
    > >in RAR (WWI, Churchill, main battle (a Patton more or less), and final
    > >for the Brits I'm playing now.)
    > >
    > >Steve
    >
    > I played as Japan who had a KhaGo as their tank unit. I am not sure
    > if that was their Main Battle equivalent or an earlier unit.
    >
    > RAR did seem to twist the balance of unit power from DYP. In DYP the
    > Bedouin Raider where better than tanks since they could go through any
    > terrain. I think the Japan special unit was the Bushi or Samurai.
    > Whatever it was I cleaned house with it.

    Carriers? Bombers?
    Just finished playing my first RAR game on chieftain level. And after 56
    hours and a histographic win my most advanced land unit was Cavalry. Admiral
    of the Fleet for sea unit. For the air I had just researched the ballon
    tech, but hadn't built any...
    How are you guys getting far enough to have bombers and carriers? Are you
    continuing to play after the scoring is done? Or is there some trick I
    don't know about.....
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 04:38:20 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    >
    >"P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
    >news:k3oap0pbfnf374ab0cmna66s175rqsol7u@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:47:16 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
    >> wrote:
    >> I played as Japan who had a KhaGo as their tank unit. I am not sure
    >> if that was their Main Battle equivalent or an earlier unit.
    >>
    >> RAR did seem to twist the balance of unit power from DYP. In DYP the
    >> Bedouin Raider where better than tanks since they could go through any
    >> terrain. I think the Japan special unit was the Bushi or Samurai.
    >> Whatever it was I cleaned house with it.
    >
    >Carriers? Bombers?
    >Just finished playing my first RAR game on chieftain level. And after 56
    >hours and a histographic win my most advanced land unit was Cavalry. Admiral
    >of the Fleet for sea unit. For the air I had just researched the ballon
    >tech, but hadn't built any...
    >How are you guys getting far enough to have bombers and carriers? Are you
    >continuing to play after the scoring is done? Or is there some trick I
    >don't know about.....

    I never made it to carriers/bombers in RAR either but I did get tanks.
    One difference is we where not playing at chieftain. At the higher
    levels the AI gets a tech advantage so they can research faster. They
    still seem to get tied down at some point and start using inferior
    governments which halts their research. I was able to keep moving
    along beyond any of the AI. I had the most powerful civ in the game
    break a ROP and wipe out all my units advancing toward an enemy. That
    not only slowed me down but I needed help to take them down.

    There isn't much secret really. Play at a higher level and do plenty
    of tech trading with the AI. Try to get one of the wonders that work
    like the Great Library and you can cut research to nothing and let the
    AI pull you along. Use the extra cash to build up your civ. Than
    when their research slows to a halt because of a poor government start
    researching.

    I guess you will have to tell us what happened. I am guessing that
    you are just too good for you level. I remember a DYP game I played
    where the Scandavians wiped out everyone on my continent until they
    got to my neighbors and myself. I never had something like that
    happen in regular Civ3.
  14. 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/>
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:36:09 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:


    >I played as Japan who had a KhaGo as their tank unit. I am not sure
    >if that was their Main Battle equivalent or an earlier unit.

    I don't know Japanese armor at all, but I think maybe not. RAR has a
    WWI, WWII (Churchill for England, only RAR I've played so far in tech
    tree), a 1950s-1960s as "main battle tank" (English is essentially an
    M-60), and a modern, terminal model that's an Abrams, T-80, etc. It's
    possible Japan, not being a big tank building nation, doesn't have the
    M-60 step variant?

    The by-civ unit variations in RAR are one thing that makes it so
    interesting.

    Steve
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 04:38:20 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


    >Carriers? Bombers?
    >Just finished playing my first RAR game on chieftain level. And after 56
    >hours and a histographic win my most advanced land unit was Cavalry. Admiral
    >of the Fleet for sea unit. For the air I had just researched the ballon
    >tech, but hadn't built any...
    >How are you guys getting far enough to have bombers and carriers? Are you
    >continuing to play after the scoring is done? Or is there some trick I
    >don't know about.....

    I'm playing on Regent since I watch TV at the same time. <g>

    As others say, trade, trade, trade. Ask for multiple techs on each
    trade--don't accept the first offer. Be the first to find new civs and
    trade them dry, then sell, sell, sell. I play as non-violent a style
    as possible. I build lots of research and infrastructure. I rarely
    play militaristic civs. Just my style. There are lots of ways to win.

    Steve
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:15:00 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:


    > 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).

    True. I was USN though, and I want more naval stuff in Civ4! <g> It's
    always been the most glaring weak point of the games and the AI. So
    many great strategies open up with water mobility, choke point
    control, anti-commerce, etc.

    > 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.

    True. Hope the designers (Isak?) are still reading here.

    In the meantime someone suggested playing with the transport variable
    in the editor for the heavy bomber unit. I may have time later today.

    >>> 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.

    True. I haven't tried to load fighters on the RAR carrier; I've been
    getting by with flak units. Hope the fighters load at all.

    >> -- as you go up in tech of course, the fighters and bombers
    >>>both get better.

    And they get recon, and big help if you have BBs and cruisers
    available in the TF.

    >>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.

    I only play huge Earth, so the standard geo-political issues arise in
    every game for me. I'm hiding out in the UK with very few, but
    awesomely-producing cities, and I need a way to eat at AI
    infrastructure without hordes of ground troops. The Ethiopians have
    all of Africa, most of Asia, and Europe up to Eastern Germany and are
    racing for a culture victory. The Iroquois have N. America; I have 80%
    of South, which is providing me a monetary base while I try to clean
    up the massive pollution left by the former Inca rulers.

    > I've played DyP quite a bit, but though I've downloaded RAR I
    >haven't yet had time to play a game.

    I re-read your post and you did say that. I was in a hurry and missed.

    RAR is superior to DYP in that the invisible units are gone, but
    mostly because it has the continental rally feature. With hundreds of
    units and dozens of stacks it's very useful.

    Steve
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:05:02 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
    wrote:

    >I don't know Japanese armor at all, but I think maybe not. RAR has a
    >WWI, WWII (Churchill for England, only RAR I've played so far in tech
    >tree), a 1950s-1960s as "main battle tank" (English is essentially an
    >M-60), and a modern, terminal model that's an Abrams, T-80, etc. It's
    >possible Japan, not being a big tank building nation, doesn't have the
    >M-60 step variant?
    >
    >The by-civ unit variations in RAR are one thing that makes it so
    >interesting.
    >
    >Steve

    I lost my hard drive while playing that game so I can't go back and
    check. I do recall getting the Main Battle and not having it be able
    to attack multiple times in one turn. I think maybe what happened is
    I didn't make anymore of them. I was going up against units which
    did not require a more powerful tank so I built more of the cheaper
    models. I recall being disappointed in the Main Battle because I
    wanted to use it to take multiple weak units in one turn

    The Japanese Main Battle is the Type 90.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
    news:5s5bp09ak3f6uvdaihr2kn76ik1bslltsi@4ax.com...
    > I guess you will have to tell us what happened. I am guessing that
    > you are just too good for you level. I remember a DYP game I played
    > where the Scandavians wiped out everyone on my continent until they
    > got to my neighbors and myself. I never had something like that
    > happen in regular Civ3.
    >
    >
    It was my first attempt at RAR. I had heard it was pretty hard. So I
    wanted to start at the bottom and work my way up. As far as what happened
    in the game. I traded tech on occassion, but I was the tech leader early
    on. I was the only civ that had a navy of any size. That may be in part to
    my eight or nine privateers cruising the coastlines. I wipped out all the
    civs on my continent and was preparing to start on the next one when I ran
    out of time. I had 68% population and 44% world area. Next closest civ was
    the Iroquois (sp?) at 11% each.
    Of course I was playing on a huge map, which may be a factor in overal game
    speed and tech research.

    As far as the standard game goes. Cheiftain is a little too easy for me. I
    can win on Warlord, but not all the time....
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:17:00 -0600, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:15:00 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    ><jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 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).
    >
    >True. I was USN though, and I want more naval stuff in Civ4! <g> It's
    >always been the most glaring weak point of the games and the AI. So
    >many great strategies open up with water mobility, choke point
    >control, anti-commerce, etc.

    True enough. I've used carriers, but only sparingly.

    The right maps enhance their usefulness though. The Pacific
    conquest scenario gives fair value for carriers -- though even there,
    holding island and mainland bases can minimize their value. Not
    entirely, though -- it is still useful to attack the enemy from
    carrier based air units, rather than risk your air force on a
    vulnerable island.

    With limited range, I do find the carriers good for raiding. You
    can hammer a lot of resources and road nets with air bombardment.

    >> 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.
    >
    >True. Hope the designers (Isak?) are still reading here.
    >
    >In the meantime someone suggested playing with the transport variable
    >in the editor for the heavy bomber unit. I may have time later today.

    Right, change the transport thing and they become transportable.
    Not sure if that would make things unbalanced, but I doubt it.
    Carriers aren't that hot as it is, so even if it goes a little too
    far, it is still likely to be good.

    No idea if the AI can use them though.


    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games