How do fighters intercept?

[cerberusiv]

If it should be obvious I don't get it. I built a fighter, upgraded it to a jet fighter and rebased to a carrier. When I set it to deploy it doesn't move with the carrier, just orbits a tile (Civ V was simple!). So I set it to sleep and it travels with the carrier. Then I was about to carry out an air attack but didn't and now the jet fighter is stranded in mid ocean.

So how should it work?

[Sir Clavius]

I have no idea too, even after 115 hours of gameplay. Because i never had reason to get these fighters :D

[donald23]

They intercept when on a deploy mission. Not when on sleep.

If you want to attack another unit or city, you don't have to deploy, but use air attack instead.

And to me it's kind of common sense to not move your carrier away if a fighter is on a mission...

Interception works on the tile the fighter is deployed and it's range around that. that's 4 tiles if I recall correctly.

[w.f.schepel]

引用自 donald23：

They intercept when on a deploy mission. Not when on sleep.

If you want to attack another unit or city, you don't have to deploy, but use air attack instead.

And to me it's kind of common sense to not move your carrier away if a fighter is on a mission...

Interception works on the tile the fighter is deployed and it's range around that. that's 4 tiles if I recall correctly.

Actually, it doesn't matter at all if you move your carrier. You can rebase over unlimited distance.

[donald23]

引用自 w.f.schepel：

Actually, it doesn't matter at all if you move your carrier. You can rebase over unlimited distance.

Hmm, I generally pay attention to the cities/places that light up.
I think that's a bug then.

[cerberusiv]

This is getting annoying. My jet fighter got left behind again and I had to rebase to a city and back to the carrier to recover it.

More fundamentally it appears that it is not possible to provide air cover based on a carrier. As in the fighters fly off the carrier and intercept any airstrikes within their range from the carrier, moving with the carrier as it moves - just what they could do in previous versions of civ and just what they do in real life. So what is the point of carriers and fighters if they cannot provide air cover?

I have 2 carriers with a jet fighter on each. One jet fighter (the one that keeps getting left behind) apparently can't deploy - the button isn't lit up and does nothing that I can see, presumably because the only cities nearby are captured but not ceded to me. The other can deploy but only to an area based on a city, not based on the carrier or even on an aerodrome district.

Before anyone asks, I'm not using any mods. Also airstrikes work fine.

If this is intentional, rather than something weird at my end, could the _______ (insert derogatory term of your choice here) who coded this kindly change it to work as most people would expect it to work?

[gallag70]

I have never been able to put a carrier based aircraft into the deploy mode. Don't know if that's a feature or a bug.
Also I have experienced a bug that seems to let fighters or bombers get kind of left behind from a carrier. I've always had to rebase them on line and after that put them back on the carrier.

[donald23]

I'm not too familiar with naval battle tactics, but the idea that a carrier is moving full speed to a destination and having planes land and start while moving full speeds seems very difficult.

The way carriers work in Civ 6 is that you move to your destination, there the carrier is your airbase (what a city, airstrip or aerodome is in your home lands) and you either deploy the fighters from there, make air strikes and bomb the hell out of the enemy.

Moving while having a fighter deployed means you need to keep a close eye on the ranger of the fighter, so that it can make it back.

While different then in Civ5, I'm not particularly in favor of one or the other. This, to me, is just as easy to grasp. Also, it allows you to keep your carrier safe in the back, while still providing a defense to other fighters some tiles away. That was not possible in Civ5.

[cerberusiv]

引用自 donald23：

I'm not too familiar with naval battle tactics, but the idea that a carrier is moving full speed to a destination and having planes land and start while moving full speeds seems very difficult.

Good point - but my issue is that my jet fighters either don't deploy from my carrier or don't deploy in a zone based on the carrier's location even when it does not move. I can rebase to a captured city 3 tiles away and deploy from there but if I rebase back to the carrier then no deployment option.

Maybe it's just me but it seems to be overly complicated and broken.

[Candrimon]

引用自 donald23：

The way carriers work in Civ 6 is that you move to your destination, there the carrier is your airbase (what a city, airstrip or aerodome is in your home lands) and you either deploy the fighters from there, make air strikes and bomb the hell out of the enemy.

This would be find if it worked, but even if you don't move the carrier, you can't deploy from it, and if you move your carrier through a tile that has another ship, the planes that were on it get stuck.

[SIlverblade-T-E]

in RL, carriers who do NOT use a catapult launch would HAVE to head into the wind and steam at maximum power, around 30+ knots, which is hell of a fast for such a massive vessel
this was so the aircraft would have extra wind speed coming under its wings at lift off, to give more lift

actualy the old biplane type of aircraft had the least need of speed at take off and could take off form stationary and even very short decks

as aircraft got bigger and their bomb/equipment loads more massive, and when launches might be from stationary carriers, they absolutely needed catapults to hurl the aircraft off fast enough to provide lift
I do not know though if for maximum weight at take off, if the carrier still had to speed whenusing a catapult? (I'm not a navy nerd lol)

then many years later, they started putting ski jumps on the end of carriers
from what I've heard, the ski jumps aren't as good as a catapult, but are much much safer/no worries in terms of say, breaking down or bomb damage
which could be catastrophic with some types of catpault that could if hit by a bomb, release scalding steam, or catch fire etc (and some proposed types of catapult could actually explode if bombed! they were thinking of using a controlled fuel explosion, an "FAE", to give super powerful/fast catapults...but hellishly dangerous)
and catapults are from what navy types say, are very prone to problems and need a lot of maintenance, actually the older steam powered ones were more reliable

the Douglas Skyraider, arguably one of the best ground attack aircraft ever made, was often used from carriers, came into service end of WW2
it could carry the same weight of bombs as a freakin LANCASTER heavy bomber, 10,000lbs, but that requires a huge amount of lift to get off the ship into the air



all of this is of course, reality, not the game, but I hope it's of interest :)

[thelebk]

As of the current vanilla patch, you CANNOT deploy a fighter from a carrier. You can only airstrike with a fighter from a carrier. This makes fighters on carriers worthless as bombers are better in every way for airstrikes. The only possible reason to put fighters on a carrier at present is if you have not invented bombers, or you have to use the carrier as an ocean "bridge" in order to rebase a fighter to another continent outside of your land based rebase range. Fighters and bombers also get left behind on carriers and sit out in the middle of the ocean somehow without sinking. Neither of these effects are realistic for the modern age, or fun. This type of poor coding and lack of attention to detail did not occur when Sid Meier was coding. For a AAA title we should get better product. I'd buy Rise in Fall if it would fix this issue, but I bet it wont.

[SamBC]

引用自 thelebk：

As of the current vanilla patch, you CANNOT deploy a fighter from a carrier. You can only airstrike with a fighter from a carrier. This makes fighters on carriers worthless as bombers are better in every way for airstrikes. The only possible reason to put fighters on a carrier at present is if you have not invented bombers, or you have to use the carrier as an ocean "bridge" in order to rebase a fighter to another continent outside of your land based rebase range. Fighters and bombers also get left behind on carriers and sit out in the middle of the ocean somehow without sinking. Neither of these effects are realistic for the modern age, or fun. This type of poor coding and lack of attention to detail did not occur when Sid Meier was coding. For a AAA title we should get better product. I'd buy Rise in Fall if it would fix this issue, but I bet it wont.

From what's been published in interviews, Sid didn't do a significant amount of coding for a Civ game since the first.

His recent projects are things like Sid Meier's Ace Patrol and Sid Meier's Starships. Both fun little games.

[thelebk]

@Sambc concur and I played those other titles, but he did exercise significant development oversight in the next few CIV products which tended to play "out of the box" better.

[Enigmatic]

引用自 Candrimon：

引用自 donald23：

The way carriers work in Civ 6 is that you move to your destination, there the carrier is your airbase (what a city, airstrip or aerodome is in your home lands) and you either deploy the fighters from there, make air strikes and bomb the hell out of the enemy.

This would be find if it worked, but even if you don't move the carrier, you can't deploy from it, and if you move your carrier through a tile that has another ship, the planes that were on it get stuck.

If you have cities or an airstrip on the other side/ contenent you could just deploy over the ocean and rebase there. I did that on a large sized map.

[thelebk]

@enigmatic Yup if the other continent is only 3-4 hexes outside of your rebase range that would work.