Does anyone else believe submarines are to weak? Yes, they can only be attacked when spotted by another sub or a destroyer, but they are only strong enough to take out either carriers or transports. These ships are usually covered by destroyers or battleships. The submarines have bad odds of beating destroyers, and even worse odds of beating battleships (even though the battleships can't see what attacking them.)

I was trying to think of a way to fix submarines. I've come up with two different ideas.

1) Create an upgrade available only to submarines. This upgrade would bring back the Civ3 Conquests ability. If the submarine attacks a stack of units (and goes undetected by an enemy sub or destroyer) it has the option of picking which ship to attack in the stack. Thus it will be able to effectively take out transports or carriers. This upgrade could only be available at 5 experience. So the sub would have to be made at a drydocks, and gain one more experience point to be eligible for this upgrade.

2) If the submarine attacks a ship and it goes unspotted, it should get a +75% sneak attack bonus. Thus when a sub (that hasn't been spotted by an enemy sub or destroyer) attacks a battleship it would have a strength a little more than equal to a battleship. ***Note: I really don't like this idea much because it would make subs that attack carriers and transports almost invincible.***

If any of these idea's overpower submarines, they could just reduce the withdrawal chance from 50% to 30% or so to compensate.

I would love to hear other people's ideas and thoughts on the issue.

The second idea is fine. Players would simply need to have destroyers stacked on top on transports and carriers so subs wouldn't be 'invincible.'

tell that to the German's

Subs are fine, you're just using them wrong. They need to be used in groups and given the flanking promotion.

With Flanking I & II they have an 80% chance to withdraw, thats the real strength. Two or Three subs can take down even a battle ship with only a 1/5 chance of actually losing a sub, per attack.

Subs are fine, you're just using them wrong. They need to be used in groups and given the flanking promotion.

With Flanking I & II they have an 80% chance to withdraw, thats the real strength. Two or Three subs can take down even a battle ship with only a 1/5 chance of actually losing a sub, per attack.

So say for example the AI has 3 battleships guarding 3 transports that are only one turn away from dropping off 12 tanks near one of my cities. I would only need (from your estimate) 3 subs per battleship and I would say about one per transport. About 12 subs should stop the attack then right. Subs are real effective!

I still think subs are underpowered. I think the submarines strength should reflect its stealth capabilities.

12, yes, that's about right.

You'd need 9 Battleships to reliable take down that invasion fleet. TO make it subs, which are a lot cheaper, you'd need an additional 3 units...that doesn't seem unpowered at all.

I agree with Blaarg, but if subs had collateral damage....

To be complety honest, Subs in Civ used be used on transports and carriers only. But they should have the stealth attack feature from CIV3, allowing them to choose a unit to attack, not just attack the strongest defender.

But other than that, Subs are fine the way they are, but I would like more naval units, like a nuclear sub that carries Nukes and moves further, and Super-Carriers that have 4 aircraft instead of 3.

...If only..

12, yes, that's about right.

You'd need 9 Battleships to reliable take down that invasion fleet. TO make it subs, which are a lot cheaper, you'd need an additional 3 units...that doesn't seem unpowered at all.

Again, I would have to disagree. Subs are cheaper, but the amount of subs needed to take down the (3 battleship 3 transport) fleet is more expensive than building battleships. Battleships with collateral damage would cost less. I did three world builder simulations to test your hypothesis.

For each simulation (on emperor level) I gave the enemy two stacks of 3 battleships {1 star upgrade to reflect drydock} and 3 transports {1 star}. Then I made two of my own fleets. One composed of 80% withdrawal {2 withdrawal upgrades} and one composed of battleships {one star and collateral damage for their two upgrades to match the subs 2 upgrades}. Then I calculated costs after the simulation was over: one rule I am adding in is that dead ships have to be replaced to stop future attacks. As reference, Battleships cost 225 hammers, submarines cost 150 hammers. Here are my results:

1) 13 submarines take out the enemy fleet. 3 die in the process. 13 + 3 (that need to be rebuilt in case of future attacks) x 150 hammers = 2400 hammers

6 battleships. no deaths. 6 x 225 = 1350 hammers.
(I luckily won the first 50% battle)

RESULTS: 1050 hammers more expensive for a submarine fleet.

2) 11 submarines. no deaths. 11 x 150 = 1650 hammers.

6 battleships. no deaths. 6 x 225 = 1350
(Again, had some luck..but so did the submarines on this attempt)

RESULTS: 300 hammers more expensive for a submarine fleet.

3) 14 submarines. 3 dead. 14 + 3 x 150 = 2550 hammers.

7 battleships. 1 dead. 7 + 1 x 225 = 1800 hammers.

RESULTS: 750 hammers more expensive for a submarine fleet.


For example: A fleet a 8 battleships with two deaths (8 should be enough to take out the stack) and a fleet of 12 submarines with three deaths (your original estimate for the number of subs) would both cost 2250 hammers. This would be kind of our break even point. Then you would also have the unit maintainence cost of the extra subs. Anyways....

I still feel submarines are a bit underpowered. I would just like their stealth capabilities to be better reflected, more so than their ability to take down a battleship.


I agree with Blaarg, but if subs had collateral damage....

If subs had collateral damage that would be insanely unstoppable!! But again, I would rather have a stealth type of upgrade for subs. I also feel that it would give more depth to late naval battle, because destroyers and submarines would be more useful after the creation of battleships.

Subs are specialized for scouting undetected, pillaging sea-based resources, and ambushing small stacks. I think that's plenty of useful roles.

The 3 Battleships + 3 Transports + 12 Modern Armor example is a pretty large stack (6 ships). It completely makes sense that Battleships are required to efficiently take that stack down.

I think we should be able to have SSBN's in Civ4, maybe in the next expansion pack. I think the idea of SSBN's would be that, while the nuclear launches would have to be off the coast of continents and islands, any nuclear launches from an SSBN shouldn't be interceptable by SDI. I think that would be pretty cool. ^_^

Subs are specialized for scouting undetected, pillaging sea-based resources, and ambushing small stacks. I think that's plenty of useful roles.

The 3 Battleships + 3 Transports + 12 Modern Armor example is a pretty large stack (6 ships). It completely makes sense that Battleships are required to efficiently take that stack down.

Yeah, that makes sense Bardolph. Though if a sea resource is guarded by a battleship, your still going to need about three submarines to be able to take out the ship and pillage the resource.

One more quick idea..maybe submarines could just pillage a resource from underneath a battleship without having to attack it (That is if the submarine goes undetected by another sub or destroyer). This wouldn't be as drastic a change as my two previous ideas, and could still diversify late naval warfare.

If subs had collateral damage that would be insanely unstoppable!!

Agreed, but they would not be more unstopable than a catapult. And, in real life, no ship can face a submarine with a good commander, except another submarine or aircraft ( There is a joke in NATO's fleets, based on true facts, about an exercise, where a portuguese submarine ( a second hand diesel-electric one with more than 30 years ), that had received orders to hostilize a "peacekeeping" fleet containing a American carrier. The portuguese sub commander shut down the engines and used inertia to put itself under one of the ships of the peacekeeping force and followed the fleet until a moment where it fired all of his torpedoes ( bogus ones, of course), wreck havoc and sank a handfull of ships, including the American nuclear carrier. They didn't detect the sub because of the sound of their own engines.... :lol: ) and with a good torpedo shot it can damage more than one ship, if they are travelling in a close pack ( read convoy) , that was my basis to talk about colateral damage for subs.
But, in game terms, a more stealth sub, with a bigger retreat chance, could be better suited for the role.

all your tests proved is hammer for hammer, Battleships are more efficient than subs. That doesn't mean subs are underpowered. They still have the 50% base chance to withdrawl, They are still invisible to all enemy units but destroyers, which makes them harder targets for enemy air, they can move into opposing civ's borders even when you don't have open borders, and they can move under polar ice caps.

When you consider all that, they should cost more than battleships for the same combat potential.

Part of any sea combat problem, stems from the obsession in Civ IV of always giving a defender an advantage, however ludicrous....So Your 1 star battleship is attacking their one star battleship, and despite this combat taking place in the harbour of one of your oldest and most established cities, they get a "terrain bonus", and you will lose 2 out of 3 times.

Oh come on.....

Anyways on the topic of subs, they are best used with the flanking bonuses, and as a sort of "maritime artillery", who causes damage whilst still surviving. A half decent "wounding withdrawal attack" on a battleship from a sub, will leave a destroyer to clean up almost untouched.

What if subs could choose their target?

e.g., if a battleship and a transport are in the same tile, a submarine could choose to aim the transport instead of the battleship....

Maybe they should be able to choose their target unless there is an enemy sub or destroyer in the stack, if that is the case, then the enemy decides who defends.

i like the pillaging idea, like a spy so the more ships efending the worse the chance of succes, this is the most realistic use of subs as that is what germany used them for stopping food supplies reaching britain, and a sub could easily destroy an oil rig unless it had a destroyer defending it. this would mean every resource would need a destoyer defending it and a battleship to defend against other battleships and so it is still possible to defend them. also i think there should be an extra tech that allows destroyers to see subs as for quite some time neither destoyers or subs could see other subs.

Sea warfare is quite unrealistic. In real life battle ship has no means to destroy submarine. So submarine should have at least + 100% against battle ships. Destroyers are fast and can evade torbedos. Destroyers also have anti submarine weapons (depth charges and rockets, also helicopters modern time). Battle ship is also too weak compared to destroyer. Game is also missing one important naval unit type: cruiser.

Sea warfare is quite unrealistic. In real life battle ship has no means to destroy submarine. So submarine should have at least + 100% against battle ships. Destroyers are fast and can evade torbedos. Destroyers also have anti submarine weapons (depth charges and rockets, also helicopters modern time). Battle ship is also too weak compared to destroyer. Game is also missing one important naval unit type: cruiser.

I agree. Spearman has +100% againt Mounted Units. All submarines in Civ4 is a Diesel Class.

P.S. Torp*edo

What I would like is if subs possessed an increased strength rating for their first attack only reflecting their ability to strike suddenly and by surprise. For example, a subs base strength rating is 24, but if it has, say a +50% bonus on its first attack only, then that goes up to a 36! Also remember, subs have a base 50% withdrawal chance which helps their survival rate.

I think for balance, it best to have subs have a bonus vs. battleships. Battleships have a bonus vs. Destroyers. Destroyers have a bonus vs. Subs.

But I also think planes should be able to sink ships and a new ship be brought in (Like bring back the AEGIS) that has a bonus vs. aircraft and carriers.

To me, this idea is the best solution I have seen be discussed.

Subs are fine, you're just using them wrong. They need to be used in groups and given the flanking promotion.

With Flanking I & II they have an 80% chance to withdraw, thats the real strength. Two or Three subs can take down even a battle ship with only a 1/5 chance of actually losing a sub, per attack.

Yes remember the 'wolf pack' strategy used by the Germans in WW2? I think it's pretty realistic, one sub in RL is not going to take down a destroyer, they are too fast and too powerful.

imo current submarines are fine... there could be nuclear submarines, stronger and faster than normal

While I agree that being able to choose its target would be more in line with the role of a submarine. If you give it that ability then you would need to give it to fighters as well. Cause they have a birds eye view, as it were, and would naturally take out the transports before engaging the battleships. This idea presents more problems than it solves.

I like the r/p/s relationship that King Flevance brought up. Subs trump BB, BB take DD & DD beat subs. It happens elsewhere in the game, so it's not a new Idea. It's just a concept carried further.

Submarines are useful and fine as they are.



Consider an example where you have a lone enemy battleship.
It is within reach of two of your ships and you want to destroy it.

Would you rather have:
stack A 2 battleships
stack B 1 submarine and 1 battleship

In situation A you have 50% chance of losing a battleship, and a very small chance of losing both.

In situation B you have a somewhat less than 20% chance of losing a submarine and a very small chance of losing both your ships.

In addition stack B is cheaper to build.

Submarines are useful and fine as they are.



Consider an example where you have a lone enemy battleship.
It is within reach of two of your ships and you want to destroy it.

Would you rather have:
stack A 2 battleships
stack B 1 submarine and 1 battleship

In situation A you have 50% chance of losing a battleship, and a very small chance of losing both.

In situation B you have a somewhat less than 20% chance of losing a submarine and a very small chance of losing both your ships.

In addition stack B is cheaper to build.

So, what if that enemy battleship has a transport underneath it. There is a good chance that your sub is not going to do enough damage to the enemy battleship, causing your battleship to have to face their battleship again instead of the transport. Before you destroy the transpo next turn there are 4 tanks next to a infantry guarded city. (To inform you I did a worldbuilder simulation of this and in 6/8 attempts a level 1 sub didn't do enough damage to a level 1 battleship, to cause the all important transport to be defending against your battleship. The sub only died once, but was only effective [in this proposed scenario]25% of the time.)

We have gone over scenarios in this thread already. Subs can be proved effective or ineffective in different situations. Your 2vs1 situation shows a strength of subs, my 2vs2 shows a downfall. Scenarios can't prove much.

I would rather focus on the idea that, while the potential 80% withdrawal DOES make submarines powerful in some regards, I don't feel that Withdrawal upgrades accurately reflect submarines stealth capabilities. Should the sub, unseen by the battleship, be able to pick its target and take out the transport instead?

I think for balance, it best to have subs have a bonus vs. battleships. Battleships have a bonus vs. Destroyers. Destroyers have a bonus vs. Subs.

But I also think planes should be able to sink ships and a new ship be brought in (Like bring back the AEGIS) that has a bonus vs. aircraft and carriers.

To me, this idea is the best solution I have seen be discussed.

Its a good idea, but incorrect in some regards..maybe its just the wording.

1) Battleships don't have a bonus vs Destroyers. They just have a lot more strength. (10 I believe.) They don't exactly have a Bonus like axeman do against other melee units.

2) Destroyers don't have a bonus vs submarines. They can see submarines (which most other units can't), and easily defeat them because they have 6 more base strength. Again no bonus like a spearman vs a horse archer.

So you are correct in the fact that Battleships > Destroyers > Subs, but because of base strength, not bonuses. On the first page I made a suggestion that the subs should have a stealth bonus against Battleships if they attack while not spotted by an enemy sub or destroyer. This would complete the cycle like we see with land units, and would better reflect the a submarine attacking with stealth.

By the way I also think they should add in new naval units, and fighters should be able to sink ships (I just don't know how it would be implemented without making the aircraft way overpowered as they were in civ3 conquests.)

Subs can be proved effective or ineffective in different situations.

That was my intent. Lone raiding AI destroyers or battleships trying to take out your fishing nets are a familiar scenario to me. Weren't submarines traditionally most effective against lone and/or unarmed targets, and isn't that why the allies in WW2 started convoying?


I would rather focus on the idea that, while the potential 80% withdrawal DOES make submarines powerful in some regards, I don't feel that Withdrawal upgrades accurately reflect submarines stealth capabilities. Should the sub, unseen by the battleship, be able to pick its target and take out the transport instead?

Well, maybe. I wouldnt be against it per se, but then make it so that it has only a chance to intercept the selected target.



In real life battle ship has no means to destroy submarine

If battleships had not been made obsolete by air power a modern battleship probably would have had advanced anti-sub capabilities.

Its a good idea, but incorrect in some regards..maybe its just the wording.

1) Battleships don't have a bonus vs Destroyers. They just have a lot more strength. (10 I believe.) They don't exactly have a Bonus like axeman do against other melee units.

2) Destroyers don't have a bonus vs submarines. They can see submarines (which most other units can't), and easily defeat them because they have 6 more base strength. Again no bonus like a spearman vs a horse archer.

So you are correct in the fact that Battleships > Destroyers > Subs, but because of base strength, not bonuses.

Yes I was referring to a new system where bonuses would be applied. Not actually referring to how it is now.

On the first page I made a suggestion that the subs should have a stealth bonus against Battleships if they attack while not spotted by an enemy sub or destroyer. This would complete the cycle like we see with land units, and would better reflect the a submarine attacking with stealth.
Not a bad idea and it would make it so that you would want the destroyers, and subs escorting Battleships. But, this effect of paper-rock-scissors is negated simply by a unit being present. Such as having horse archers being defeated by a catapult simply because a spearman has him in its line of sight. If a destroyer radios a battleship that a sub is in it's 6 o'clock all the battleship can do is go "oh crap" but if the anti-sub units don't stop the sub themselves, the battleship may as well not even know they are there.
So in the variant I describe, you would still have to bring along destroyers and subs. When that sub tries to attack, the destroyer will intercept, effectively doing its job.

By the way I also think they should add in new naval units, and fighters should be able to sink ships (I just don't know how it would be implemented without making the aircraft way overpowered as they were in civ3 conquests.)

Aircraft is overpowered in real life. And it would do the game good to reflect that aircraft did to warfare the same thing gunpowder did. Actually, more. If you bring in the AEGIS and give it a bonus vs. intercept and vs. aircraft, there shouldn't be a problem with air vs. navy. Just make sure to bring some AEGISs along.
However, these will be brought in most likely with something like robotics or composites. So they will be showing up around the time of Stealth aircraft. So your only defense against the early aircraft are carriers with fighters on them. Which would make carriers actually have a role to play other than ones we make up so we can build the cool looking things. ;)

Just like land based comabd, the naval combat should also be rock/paper/scisors type imho.

Battleship should beat destroyer.
Destroyer should beat submarine.
Submarine should beat battleship.
Then you also need a stack killer of somesort, battleship sort of does it, but it is too expensive, the only other alternative is bombers.

IRL this is ofcourse much more different, battleships are pretty much relics of WWII and are uselless in modern naval combat. Submarines are absolutelly deadly if they manage to avoid detection, even against anti-submurine ships. Cruisers is whats missing from the game.

But I would be really happy if submarines could pick which unit from the stack to attack, that way you could blow the trasports up even inside a stack. And then give destroyers a chance to intercept a submarine.

Sea warfare is quite unrealistic. In real life battle ship has no means to destroy submarine. So submarine should have at least + 100% against battle ships. Destroyers are fast and can evade torbedos. Destroyers also have anti submarine weapons (depth charges and rockets, also helicopters modern time). Battle ship is also too weak compared to destroyer. Game is also missing one important naval unit type: cruiser.

Thank you some one else wants CRUSIERS WHHO HOO

C

Perhaps in relation to "reality" they are too weak, but for play balance of Civ as a GAME they are just fine. Every unit should have some weakness (and/or limited period dominance -- which as not an option for the final tech units). Rock, scissors, paper. Never forget that that's what the combat part of the game needs to be, at heart.

Perhaps in relation to "reality" they are too weak, but for play balance of Civ as a GAME they are just fine. Every unit should have some weakness (and/or limited period dominance -- which as not an option for the final tech units). Rock, scissors, paper. Never forget that that's what the combat part of the game needs to be, at heart.

Thats just stating whats already been said. Naval combat now is not rock, paper, scissors like land combat is. Battleships beat Destroyers and Submarines. Destroyers beat submarines. And submarines lose (or retreat) to both.

A submarine is left out of the "rock, paper, scissors" game because it can only do minor damage, then hopefully run away from the battleship. We are talking about how to better implement naval battles, maybe with a fix to submarines.
Maybe by a sneak attack battleship bonus, an upgrade to stealth attack a certain ship in a stack, an introduction of nuclear submarines, etc..

By your statement, the current naval system (submarines mostly) is fine in Civ4 because it is a game that has to have a "rock paper scissor" balance. I don't believe it currently does, and by fixing submarines it could be more balanced.

there then needs to be more naval promotions and more naval units so that its worth giving submarines combat I, and say Bonus to Kapital ships.
Cruisers
Nuclear Submarine
AEGIS Cruiser
Super Carrier

Submarines should be boosted with an extra first strike to represent a steath submarine firing torpedos without anyone knowing first.

submarines need to be higher valued in your calculations because of their stealth -- they are protected from planes unlike all other ships. While no, subs are not true rock-paper-scissors, a sub can often soften up a battleship & then withdraw, so that another ship can finish it off -- or a wolfpack can finish one off on it's own.

So in hindsight I guess I was actually mistaken to use rock-scissors-paper, it's not literally that. The battelship is the supreme naval unit hands down, one on one. But there still is a "paper" to crush" the rock in concept of combined-unit attacks, particularly one sub + another unit (maybe another sub). A sub can't beat a battleship singlehandedly, no, but the high withdrawal odds make up for that.

Part of any sea combat problem, stems from the obsession in Civ IV of always giving a defender an advantage, however ludicrous....So Your 1 star battleship is attacking their one star battleship, and despite this combat taking place in the harbour of one of your oldest and most established cities, they get a "terrain bonus", and you will lose 2 out of 3 times.

Oh come on.....

Yes, but the attacker always has the advantage of choosing whether or not to engage, and how much force to commit. When it comes down to it, the advantage of "it's my turn" almost always trumps the defensive bonus.

We're playing a turn-based game, folks. Realistically, people don't "take turns" in battle. That single fact is going to color everything else.

Another fact about subs is that they can attack, withdraw, and move away all in the same turn, so even if the victim survives, there's a reasonable chance that the defender won't be able to counterattack effectively, even if they have destroyers.

I don't think subs need any more withdrawal bonuses added on. With 5 XP, a sub can start with Flanking II and 80% withdrawal right out the gate. What more do you want?

1) Create an upgrade available only to submarines. This upgrade would bring back the Civ3 Conquests ability. If the submarine attacks a stack of units (and goes undetected by an enemy sub or destroyer) it has the option of picking which ship to attack in the stack. Thus it will be able to effectively take out transports or carriers. This upgrade could only be available at 5 experience. So the sub would have to be made at a drydocks, and gain one more experience point to be eligible for this upgrade.



I think this would be a cool promotion for some land-units as well.

Does anyone else believe submarines are to weak? Yes, they can only be attacked when spotted by another sub or a destroyer, but they are only strong enough to take out either carriers or transports. These ships are usually covered by destroyers or battleships. That sounds like it's exactly the way it should be... WWII-era subs were for attacking transports and the odd carrier... destroyers ate them for breakfast, and battleship had armor designed to withstand torpedo attacks. Hopefully BTS will bring back a "modern" sub that could be more effective against combat surface ships.

little off topic, but how about unique naval units?

German U-boots
American carriers
English frigates
Spanish galleons
etc.

These units could have some kind of bonus and these nationalities could also keep their unique land unit. It's not that big factor anyway.

there then needs to be more naval promotions and more naval units so that its worth giving submarines combat I, and say Bonus to Kapital ships.
Cruisers
Nuclear Submarine
AEGIS Cruiser
Super Carrier

As you know, the above listed would be modern units. WWI units would be destroyer, battleship, submarine, cruiser and dreadnaught. WWII units, the same except no dreadnaughts but carriers appear in extensive use and should be critical to a anyone who wishes to dominate the sea. "Pocket carriers" are also another possibility for WWII units. The same as carriers except they hold less units, but are cheaper. Carriers should hold six units and pocket carriers four, or maybe just three.

I also like the concept of small attack PT boats (a WWII unit) used for picketing, patrol and such. They were equipped with torpeoes and light caliber cannons and AA guns.

Submarines should be boosted with an extra first strike to represent a steath submarine firing torpedos without anyone knowing first.

I suggested something similar, except I said that their first strike should have a bonus - say an additional +50% to there strength rating or somesuch.

----------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: ZB2, I love you sig, and yes, intelligent people (and there appears to be fewer nowadays) do not listen to rap or other such horse manure... So congrats!, you are among the enlightned. As good ol' Buddy Holly once said "Rave On!"

So, in CIV IV Subs can't carry ICBMs? Whereas in CIVII they could. Sheesh!

Naval combat now is not rock, paper, scissors like land combat is. Battleships beat Destroyers and Submarines. Destroyers beat submarines. And submarines lose (or retreat) to both.

A submarine is left out of the "rock, paper, scissors" game because it can only do minor damage, then hopefully run away from the battleship.
Actually, modern naval units do have a rock/scissors/paper relationship, of sorts. It's just a bit more complicated than "pure" r/s/p.

What we have is strength vs mobility vs stealth

The fact that submarines are invisible is something that is easily forgotten when discussing the "balance" of these units, and invisibility counts for a LOT.

A lone submarine "beats" a lone battleship because the submarine can swim around and pillage sea resources, and the battleship can't do squat about it.

Also, a pack of submarines have the ability to choose where they attack. Obviously, a large stack of battleships is a poor choice of target, but if that stack ever splits up, the subs can pick them off one by one, and again, the battleships can't do anything about it. If those battleships never split up, then the subs can split up, and pillage a coastline to hell and back, and the battleships would be helpless to prevent it.

Submarines can also blockade enemy ports, and drop off spies. Again, battleships are quite helpless against this, as the submarines will move away any time a battleship threatens to "stumble" upon them.

And if the "battleship" team foolishly decides to guard resources with lone battleships (or even destroyers), a small stack of flanker subs can swim in, send the guards to the ocean floor, and swim on.

It should also be noted that destroyers are also vulnerable to the "move in, attack, move away" tactic of submarines (even more vulnerable than battleships). The destroyer has a chance of finding the subs on the next turn (if it survives), but even destroyers can move in the wrong direction and still miss the subs.

The destroyer's advantage, other than the detection ability, is its superior movement. They can move 8 spaces, whereas submarines and battleships can only move 6. This means that destroyers are hunters. The are good at scouting terrain and rooting out submarines. They can pursue both submarines and battleships, but they are only effective in combat vs submarines.

Battleships have neither stealth nor superior mobility, but they do have superior strength. The battleships' advantage is that it represents the most strength per hammer invested of any modern sea vessel. As long as you have one tile worth of goods to protect, be it a transport stack or oil platform, you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to protect it (against submarines and destroyers). However, if you have anything else that needs protection, you're just going to have to sacrifice it, because the moment your battleship stack splits up, it WILL be vulnerable to packs of enemy subs and destroyers.
If a destroyer radios a battleship that a sub is in it's 6 o'clock all the battleship can do is go "oh crap"
Not true. If a destroyer spots a sub, you can kill that sub with a battleship or any other unit. You just have to do it in the same turn.

Then you also need a stack killer of somesort, battleship sort of does it, but it is too expensive, the only other alternative is bombers.
The battleship does collateral damage, so there's your man. Look again at the costs. Battleships are not as expensive as you think.

So say for example the AI has 3 battleships guarding 3 transports that are only one turn away from dropping off 12 tanks near one of my cities. I would only need (from your estimate) 3 subs per battleship and I would say about one per transport. About 12 subs should stop the attack then right. Subs are real effective!

I still think subs are underpowered. I think the submarines strength should reflect its stealth capabilities.

Yeah, like 3 bships and 3 transports are cheap...

12 subs can be built very cheaply and should be used after your planes have bombed the bships. Then it is clearup.

Against humans the main problem with a surface fleet is detection, subs can't be seen by air and as I've said in the later era and destroyer that puts out to see may kill one sub, but will be killed by the next sub especially if in range of planes.

Subs own and if you add a great general to them as well for the withdrawal bonus to a max of 80% I think :mischief:


Online I use subs mainly for taking out enemy fleets at the far reach of my bomber range and kept in coastal cities to sally forth and clear up bombed up enemy ships approaching my shores.

Actually, modern naval units do have a rock/scissors/paper relationship, of sorts. It's just a bit more complicated than "pure" r/s/p.

What we have is strength vs mobility vs stealth

The fact that submarines are invisible is something that is easily forgotten when discussing the "balance" of these units, and invisibility counts for a LOT.

But this is not a true PRS system. Strength is the hard counter, while stealth and mobility are soft counters. Stealth is easily countered by 1 unit being present. Mobility is easily countered by having you ships spread out in an area rather than all on 1 tile. If you position 2 battleships and 1 destroyer 3 unit stacks about 6 tiles apart, you do not need submarines. Simply because every battleship stack can see any submarine. They can also already be in position to attack any destroyer that comes along. All the destroyer has to do is be present. To really sweeten the deal, throw in a carrier to do recon in 3 different directions.

Invisibility is easily revealed.

Not a bad idea and it would make it so that you would want the destroyers, and subs escorting Battleships. But, this effect of paper-rock-scissors is negated simply by a unit being present. Such as having horse archers being defeated by a catapult simply because a spearman has him in its line of sight. If a destroyer radios a battleship that a sub is in it's 6 o'clock all the battleship can do is go "oh crap" but if the anti-sub units don't stop the sub themselves, the battleship may as well not even know they are there.
(Quoted for full response) I am speaking realistically in that reply. ;)

Not true. If a destroyer spots a sub, you can kill that sub with a battleship or any other unit. You just have to do it in the same turn.
This is my complaint. Battleships are not suited to fight subs in RL. I know the whole RL debate thing is a weak arguement and I feel the same way. But I feel in the game, your primary concern should be battleships and then a small mixture of destroyers. Every now and again I will make carriers for recon and subs just to be annoying. But the last two are really more like 'hobbies' in naval warfare than neccesities for me.

For a long time I never really made navy units other than transports and a carrier here and there to scout ahead. ANd every now and then when I had time a battleship for escorting purposes. I still feel it is more appropriate to spend upkeep on units that are actually useful for taking cities. All navies can do is bombard and I would rather have artillery myself rather than battleships or destroyers. The AI's ships aren't doing them any good when I am taking their cities. They are just costing them money.
However, recently I have had a couple games where I made a navy just because it made the game feel different. I had some frigates I upgraded to destroyers in my last game and made a couple extra. Then when I got battleships I made a good amount of them. I made a couple flanking subs and 1 died off rather fast, so the other one pretty much just became a nuisance. My battleship/detroyer stacks were the ones that were getting metals of honor. They were pretty much taking out almost anything they came across. Especially, when I added a carrier for every 2 stacks I had to do the 'hunting' for me. The 24 str of the subs with battleship movement felt very 'not worth the time' when I could have a battleship in 5-6 more turns.

But this is not a true PRS system. Strength is the hard counter, while stealth and mobility are soft counters. Stealth is easily countered by 1 unit being present. Mobility is easily countered by having you ships spread out in an area rather than all on 1 tile. If you position 2 battleships and 1 destroyer 3 unit stacks about 6 tiles apart, you do not need submarines. Simply because every battleship stack can see any submarine. They can also already be in position to attack any destroyer that comes along. All the destroyer has to do is be present. To really sweeten the deal, throw in a carrier to do recon in 3 different directions.

Invisibility is easily revealed.

Not really. Your 2 BS/1 destroyer stacks only reveal the subs if the sub ends its turn within the destroyer's line of sight. Destroyers do NOT counter subs during the subs' turn.

The configuration you describe is actually a wolfpack's dream. The subs converge on one stack, destroy it, and move away. It gets even worse if the subs can use friendly battleships or destroyers for cover.

I also wouldn't call this a counter to mobility. If I have a single large stack of destroyers, I would make mincemeat out of your 3-ships-per-stack "defensive net."

Also, carriers cannot reveal subs. Neither can fighters.
I feel in the game, your primary concern should be battleships and then a small mixture of destroyers. Every now and again I will make carriers for recon and subs just to be annoying. But the last two are really more like 'hobbies' in naval warfare than neccesities for me.
It all comes down to the purpose of your navy. If your objective is only to launch an amphibious assault or two, then sometimes transports are all you need, especially if you have a tech advantage in the water. Your next priority would be battleship and destroyer escorts for your transports. Again, under most circumstances, this would be enough.

Submarines have a very different role in the game. Their primary role is as a pillager. You use subs to inflict economic damage against your foes, and to land spies on foreign soil. Their combat abilities are great if you have superior numbers and are fighting individual units or very small stacks.

Against small and disorganized navies, submarines can really do serious damage. Battles between large, organized navies are mostly about battleships, destroyers, and fighters, with submarines playing mostly a supporting role. I don't particularly have a problem with this.

This system actually mirrors RL pretty well. In WWII, submarines had a devastating impact economically, but not so much militarily.

As you know, the above listed would be modern units. WWI units would be destroyer, battleship, submarine, cruiser and dreadnaught. WWII units, the same except no dreadnaughts but carriers appear in extensive use and should be critical to a anyone who wishes to dominate the sea. "Pocket carriers" are also another possibility for WWII units. The same as carriers except they hold less units, but are cheaper. Carriers should hold six units and pocket carriers four, or maybe just three.

I also like the concept of small attack PT boats (a WWII unit) used for picketing, patrol and such. They were equipped with torpeoes and light caliber cannons and AA guns.



I suggested something similar, except I said that their first strike should have a bonus - say an additional +50% to there strength rating or somesuch.

----------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: ZB2, I love you sig, and yes, intelligent people (and there appears to be fewer nowadays) do not listen to rap or other such horse manure... So congrats!, you are among the enlightned. As good ol' Buddy Holly once said "Rave On!"



Battleships in WW1 were dreadnoughts. I use transports as pt boats occiasionly especially if i have alot spare with 30% withdrawal

there then needs to be more naval promotions and more naval units so that its worth giving submarines combat I, and say Bonus to Kapital ships.
Cruisers
Nuclear Submarine
AEGIS Cruiser
Super Carrier

Submarines should be boosted with an extra first strike to represent a steath submarine firing torpedos without anyone knowing first.

I am thinking those units may be in BtS.

I think subs should not even fight like regular units. A sub should get a certain percent chance to sink a ship in a stack at random when it attacks. If it hits, the ship is sank without any chance to return fire. If it misses, it will get attacked and if it survives it should have a percent chance to withdraw. If it fails to withdraw, it should get attacked again and this process repeats untils the subs withdraws or is sank. This said, battleships should not be able to attack subs since they do not have weapons to attack a submerged sub. Submarines mostly fight submerged.

Also, subs rarely sink a warship of any type. Normally it would damage them or finish off an already damaged warship. Transports are their primary targets and what subs were mainly used for in both atlantic and pacific. So it kind of works like that in CIV4 anyway, they are good at damaging a battleship or finishing one off but not always sinking it.

I wouldnt go as far as to knock the submarines roll though, with modern satilite technology, its easy to spot fleet movements and in particular aircraft carriers which post 1940 have become the naval war machine. submarines cannot be as easily detected by satilietes, and some military analysts believe we could see future submarines that are hybrids of aircraft carriers. Subs now still possess that great stealth ability which keeps them in wide service and in the game too :)

Stealth attack to choose the target you want to attack - from Civ3. Firaxksi, please :|

13 submarines take out the enemy fleet. 3 die in the process. 13 + 3 (that need to be rebuilt in case of future attacks) x 150 hammers = 2400 hammers

6 battleships. no deaths. 6 x 225 = 1350 hammers.
(I luckily won the first 50% battle)

RESULTS: 1050 hammers more expensive for a submarine fleet.Invalid comparison. If you want to add the 3 replacement subs as "cost" to counter future attacks then logically you must now also add the cost of that future fleet that the enemy must now completely replace:

16 Subs = 2400 hammers
12 Battleships = 2700 hammers.

Subs win.

Alternatively it's 3x150 vs 6x225 as a straight Losses vs Losses comparison. Either way you do this the subs come out ahead both in the battle and in the production to win that battle.

Actually, modern naval units do have a rock/scissors/paper relationship, of sorts. It's just a bit more complicated than "pure" r/s/p.

What we have is strength vs mobility vs stealth

The fact that submarines are invisible is something that is easily forgotten when discussing the "balance" of these units, and invisibility counts for a LOT.

This is true. I just don't think it counts for a lot (well enough to be equally significant to land battle rock/paper/scissors).

A lone submarine "beats" a lone battleship because the submarine can swim around and pillage sea resources, and the battleship can't do squat about it.

Not if the battleship is on-top of the resource. They the sub can't destroy it. Maybe this could be the subs ability, pillage from underneath a battleship that doesn't see it? It would sort of represent WWII subs being effective against supply ships but not warships.

Also, a pack of submarines have the ability to choose where they attack. Obviously, a large stack of battleships is a poor choice of target, but if that stack ever splits up, the subs can pick them off one by one, and again, the battleships can't do anything about it. If those battleships never split up, then the subs can split up, and pillage a coastline to hell and back, and the battleships would be helpless to prevent it. (again, not if there are destroyers or battleships on the resources)

This is completely true, the ability to pick to attack or not is the subs best strength. Obviously there isn't going to be a naval stack of 10+ subs or 7+ battleships. My earlier example of a stack of guardian battleships was just an example to prove battleships are more effective fighters for the cost in hammers.

Submarines can also blockade enemy ports, and drop off spies. Again, battleships are quite helpless against this, as the submarines will move away any time a battleship threatens to "stumble" upon them.

Subs can drop off spies which is helpful, but aren't the best at blocking ports. They can silently sit off the coast waiting for a ship to leave a city, but can't defend against even workboats. Naval units (that don't see the subs) are free to pass through the blockade and can find cover from other units outside the blockade. But you are correct, that they can blockade if given the opportunity to attack.

And if the "battleship" team foolishly decides to guard resources with lone battleships (or even destroyers), a small stack of flanker subs can swim in, send the guards to the ocean floor, and swim on.

You are right in the fact that a small stack of subs can take out a lone battleship with minimal losses. I just want to point out that if that stack is guarded by 2 battleships, that small stack of subs is now going to have to be pretty large.

It should also be noted that destroyers are also vulnerable to the "move in, attack, move away" tactic of submarines (even more vulnerable than battleships). The destroyer has a chance of finding the subs on the next turn (if it survives), but even destroyers can move in the wrong direction and still miss the subs.

The destroyer's advantage, other than the detection ability, is its superior movement. They can move 8 spaces, whereas submarines and battleships can only move 6. This means that destroyers are hunters. The are good at scouting terrain and rooting out submarines. They can pursue both submarines and battleships, but they are only effective in combat vs submarines.

I would also agree with you ideas of destroyers, except I feel that they are less vulnerable to the "move in, move out" strategy of subs. Though they may not find the sub, their superior movement allows them to retreat from the area much faster than a battleship.

Battleships have neither stealth nor superior mobility, but they do have superior strength. The battleships' advantage is that it represents the most strength per hammer invested of any modern sea vessel. As long as you have one tile worth of goods to protect, be it a transport stack or oil platform, you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to protect it (against submarines and destroyers). However, if you have anything else that needs protection, you're just going to have to sacrifice it, because the moment your battleship stack splits up, it WILL be vulnerable to packs of enemy subs and destroyers. Again, you make a good point, but I want to say that any unit is vulnerable to a pack of enemy units. A pack of galleys could take out a trireme. Being vulnerable to stacks of units is a weakness of every unit, not just battleships.


Invalid comparison. If you want to add the 3 replacement subs as "cost" to counter future attacks then logically you must now also add the cost of that future fleet that the enemy must now completely replace:

Why would you ever add the cost for the enemy to replace their fleet?? In both situations..the 13 subs (with 3 future replacements) and the 6 battleships, both destroyed 6 enemy units (3 which were transports, 3 were battleships) The cost of the enemies losses is not pertinent to this situation because it is equal for both situations.

16 Subs = 2400 hammers
If you are adding in the cost of enemy units (for some useless reason) it would be the 13 subs + 3 replacements + 3 enemy destroyers + 3 enemy transports) = doesn't matter cause its still more than ...

12 Battleships = 2700 hammers.
....6 battleships + 0 battleship replacements + 3 enemy battleships + 3 enemy transports = less than a fleet of pure subs.

Subs win.

Again, not in this one unique situation.

Alternatively it's 3x150 vs 6x225 as a straight Losses vs Losses comparison. Either way you do this the subs come out ahead both in the battle and in the production to win that battle.

Factoring the enemy costs into this equation [Even if you had done it right] doesn't make sense. "Invalid comparison."




Sorry for this incredibly long post. Bardolph you have some great points. Vizzini you don't.

EDIT: Bardolph I know get your point about blockading. They can be invisible to enemy aircraft if there is not a sub or destroyer in the area. A blockade of destroyer/battleships/whatever..is vulnerable to aircraft.

.A pack of galleys could take out a trireme. Being vulnerable to stacks of units is a weakness of every unit, not just battleships

Totally off post, but I actually just got a trireme (with huge care and a little luck), to a 4 star promotion (many, many naval wars, 20 xp).....so next turn I attack an undefended Galley with something like 98.6 % odds......and lose.....

The game has been deleted with much profanity about the cheating $%££&& RNG (yes I know it doesn't really, but that was the last straw in that game, I wasn't having a good time at all).....

This is true. I just don't think it counts for a lot (well enough to be equally significant to land battle rock/paper/scissors).

Stealth counts for a lot more in multi-player than in single-player. The AI is generally terrible enough that it doesn't matter if they can see you or not, they still won't adequately defend. So, battleships are generally better.


Not if the battleship is on-top of the resource. Then the sub can't destroy it.

But a small pack of subs can destroy the battleship, then pillage the resource. If you have 5 sea-borne resources, each guarded by a single battleship, and I have 8 mobile submarines, guess who has the advantage? The problem with guarding resources with battleships is you can only guard so many tiles. Realistically, that's one tile, since guarding any more than one tile will split up your stack, and make you vulnerable.

So, you get to keep a single oil resource, while the wolf packs go out and pillage every other fish, crab, clam, and whale boat you own. And god forbid you should have any transports that need guarding. If you do, then say goodbye to your oil!

This is completely true, the ability to pick to attack or not is the subs best strength. Obviously there isn't going to be a naval stack of 10+ subs or 7+ battleships. My earlier example of a stack of guardian battleships was just an example to prove battleships are more effective fighters for the cost in hammers.I don't dispute this at all. However, a stack of battleships is not nearly as flexible as the same hammer cost in subs.

Of course, if you don't need flexibility, then battleships are a better way to go.
Subs can drop off spies which is helpful, but aren't the best at blocking ports.
True, but I was speaking mainly about an economic blockade instead of a military one. By blockading a city, you cut off trade routes. Yes, battleships and destroyers are better than this, but a sub blockade has the advantage of being invisible. The enemy is losing money (and possibly resources), and doesn't necessarily know why.
Again, you make a good point, but I want to say that any unit is vulnerable to a pack of enemy units. A pack of galleys could take out a trireme. Being vulnerable to stacks of units is a weakness of every unit, not just battleships.
Exactly. The advantage of the sub pack is that you don't know it's there until after you're already dead. And, like I said before, destroyers are actually more vulnerable to being picked off in this manner than battleships, because destroyers have less strength. However, the destroyer has a better chance of gaining the initiative (subs can't withdraw when they're the defender).

Not really. Your 2 BS/1 destroyer stacks only reveal the subs if the sub ends its turn within the destroyer's line of sight. Destroyers do NOT counter subs during the subs' turn.

Which is what I am suggesting and makes sense. A pike still counters cavalry on the cavalries turn.

I also wouldn't call this a counter to mobility. If I have a single large stack of destroyers, I would make mincemeat out of your 3-ships-per-stack "defensive net."

Also, carriers cannot reveal subs. Neither can fighters.
The tactic of power in numbers is not a valid arguement though. Actually, it goes against the point on this issue. Saying "Well, you can't counter my mobility because I have 10 to your 3." Just doesn't hold up.

As for the carrier and fighters comment, I mean to watch out for other destroyers and battleships mostly. As these are the only units that pose a REAL threat to your current setup.

The 3 stack defense I was describing already has subs under control. The carriers help you gain control of the area vs. other battleships as well as other destroyers. Also, realize that it isn't hard to throw more than 3 ships on a tile. But I would built 1 destroyer for every 2 battleships.

It all comes down to the purpose of your navy. If your objective is only to launch an amphibious assault or two, then sometimes transports are all you need, especially if you have a tech advantage in the water. Your next priority would be battleship and destroyer escorts for your transports. Again, under most circumstances, this would be enough.
I find carriers more useful if all you want is an amphibious assault. As they can scout ahead for ships and help you see more terrain around you. Subs will be invisible, but I have never had a problem with them. Plus, it would be wise not to declare war until you are over there anyways.Then with a carrier escort, you can aid in the attack of the city and once taken you have fighters already on the new island based in the city. However, I won't say that battleships and destroyers are a bad idea as this is just additional protection.

Submarines have a very different role in the game. Their primary role is as a pillager. You use subs to inflict economic damage against your foes, and to land spies on foreign soil. Their combat abilities are great if you have superior numbers and are fighting individual units or very small stacks.
The first part I can agree with but a battleship/destroyer stack will hold up better, inflict more damage, as well as pillage just as good. Maybe better with destroyer movement.
The bolded part can be said about any unit in the game. Cavalry pwns spears, so long as:

"you have superior numbers and are fighting individual units or very small stacks."


This system actually mirrors RL pretty well. In WWII, submarines had a devastating impact economically, but not so much militarily.
The problem is, this never chages. Unlike IRL. You get 1 kind of sub in the game and that is it. But once again I will claim the RL is a weak arguement when discussing a game.

Personally, I am not too worried about the system as I plan to change it. But I do like to discuss other people's methods of playstyle.

Not if the battleship is on-top of the resource. Then the sub can't destroy it.
But a small pack of subs can destroy the battleship, then pillage the resource. If you have 5 sea-borne resources, each guarded by a single battleship, and I have 8 mobile submarines, guess who has the advantage? The problem with guarding resources with battleships is you can only guard so many tiles. Realistically, that's one tile, since guarding any more than one tile will split up your stack, and make you vulnerable.

Again you are bringing powers of numbers to the table. Which, be that as it may, add in a destroyer and suddenly the battleships have the edge again as then those battleships can pre-emptive strike your subs.

Which is what I am suggesting and makes sense. A pike still counters cavalry on the cavalries turn.But naval combat isn't land combat. Ships cannot capture territory and cannot attack or defend cities. It is not necessary to balance naval combat in the same way that land combat is balanced, because naval units serve an entirely different purpose than land units. Naval units exist almost exclusively to support land-based operations. So, to "balance" naval units against each other you have to ask yourself how much of an influence each unit has on the land battle.

Because naval units are always secondary to land units, large-scale naval combat is fairly rare to begin with. And when it does happen, it's even rarer that it's so evenly matched that unit-countering would even be a factor. The primary question you have to ask is, "can I afford a navy?" Then, the next question is, "how much of one?"

Those two questions alone are usually enough to settle any naval dispute.
The tactic of power in numbers is not a valid argument though. Actually, it goes against the point on this issue. Saying "Well, you can't counter my mobility because I have 10 to your 3." Just doesn't hold up.I was addressing your specific argument that mobility can be countered by splitting up your stacks to make a defensive net. My point is that you can't split up defensive stacks, because to do so would make them vulnerable to more maneuverable units. Even if I had 5 destroyers to your 5 battleships, you could only defeat my stack if I allow you to, by not moving out of range. If the destroyers choose to avoid combat, there is nothing the battleships can do about it.

You have to see the bigger picture here. It's not just about "my STR vs your STR." While that comparison does apply to land combat (where movement is much more restricted), naval combat is much more about maneuverability and choosing your objectives. On a pure hammer-per-hammer basis, battleships will win every fight, but if you can't get them to the battle, then what good are they?

So let's look at modern naval combat, as it evolves in an actual game:

You start with transports and destroyers, as these are the only naval units that can "grandfather in" through unit promotions. The balance between these units is simple:

-Transports are the more useful unit, because, well, they're transports.

-Destroyers beat transports, hands down. Additionally, destroyers can aid land battles by bombarding city defenses and pillaging resources. However, since destroyers can't carry units, having too many of them is a waste.

-Battleships are the natural counter to destroyers. You can use battleships to escort your own transports, or to sink enemy transport fleets. Battleships also inflict collateral damage, so they really are quite powerful. Once you build enough battleships, you will rule the seas militarily. While destroyers can use their superior mobility to avoid confrontation with battleships, it is the battleships that define the "landscape" of the seas, so to speak.

- Enter submarines. Submarines allow an inferior force to compete with the battleship juggernaut, but not through direct confrontation. Submarines allow you to harass your enemy, despite their force concentration. Because submarines are invisible, your enemy does not know how many submarines they face, where they are, or what they intend to strike next. In fact, submarines are most powerful when your enemy has no knowledge that they exist at all, because the advantage that they give is surprise. With correct planning, an inferior naval power can gain an edge by destroying key resources and using overwhelming force against a weak point at just the right time. Stealth is extremely important here.

However, how do you balance the "surprise" factor? How many STR points is that worth exactly? You have to be extremely careful if you want to beef up submarines, because once they achieve a certain power threshold, there will be no reason to build destroyers or battleships, and the "balance" will be ruined.

Also consider the fact that submarines are undervalued in single-player play, since the AI can't respond well to tactical threats even when they see it coming, so the advantage of stealth doesn't mean much. But against an intelligent, thinking enemy, submarines are quite formidable.

But naval combat isn't land combat. Ships cannot capture territory and cannot attack or defend cities. It is not necessary to balance naval combat in the same way that land combat is balanced, because naval units serve an entirely different purpose than land units. Naval units exist almost exclusively to support land-based operations. So, to "balance" naval units against each other you have to ask yourself how much of an influence each unit has on the land battle.

Well Destroyer and battleships have the same influence on land battles. (Bombardment)
Transports are the crucial ones like you describe later.
Carriers have are mixture between transport and bombardment.

Then there are subs. That have nothing to do with land combat.

Yet you say subs are the extremely crucial and I disagree. Because they have nothing to do with land combat. They can pillage sure. But a destroyer fleet works better as the can pillage more in one turn. Who cares if the enemy can see the pillage coming before hand. If you bring a navy of destroyer and battleships you can effectively pillage a shoreline just fine, then bombard cities on top of it.

Because naval units are always secondary to land units, large-scale naval combat is fairly rare to begin with. And when it does happen, it's even rarer that it's so evenly matched that unit-countering would even be a factor. The primary question you have to ask is, "can I afford a navy?" Then, the next question is, "how much of one?"

I agree. But adding in a PRS system makes less = more. If navy is going to sit stagnant beside land combat then less should be more. As you say, navy combat is rare and I agree. So why put all the power soley into "power in numbers"? And when I say numbers, I mean 8+ units on a tile. Naval logistics do not even come into play currently.

Those two questions alone are usually enough to settle any naval dispute.
I was addressing your specific argument that mobility can be countered by splitting up your stacks to make a defensive net. My point is that you can't split up defensive stacks, because to do so would make them vulnerable to more maneuverable units. Even if I had 5 destroyers to your 5 battleships, you could only defeat my stack if I allow you to, by not moving out of range. If the destroyers choose to avoid combat, there is nothing the battleships can do about it.

Actually I was basing my arguement off my last game. Where I made 2 subs all game long and sunk quite a few enemy ones. I sunk even more destroyers and they came by stacks as soon as Hyuana had discovered combustion. They couldn't get far because they had to move next to me to pillage then could only move a couple squares away. Where I had anywhere between 6-10 ships able to intercept + 3 planes.
I don't chill on my resources, all the time. Some of my stacks are better sitting a tile or two off for visibility. a sub would no more then show up and be destroyed.If any ship entered my visibility (4-5 tiles off from my coast) I had 6-10 ships ready to attack. Even more as time went on. Also, the carriers did recon sweeps to see where those destroyers went if they dissappered. And the hunting was over.


You have to see the bigger picture here. It's not just about "my STR vs your STR." While that comparison does apply to land combat (where movement is much more restricted), naval combat is much more about maneuverability and choosing your objectives. On a pure hammer-per-hammer basis, battleships will win every fight, but if you can't get them to the battle, then what good are they?
Mobility is the same on land. By the time these later navy battles go on you can move forces through friendly territory at 10 spaces per turn. Land units are MORE mobile than navies in friendly/nuetral territory. You may be more restricted in enemy territory but you are also more powerful on land than you are in water at this time.
If your objective is to guard your coast, a defensive net is very powerful and not even a pack of flanker subs can hold up so long as you make sure you have 2-1 ratio of battleship-destroyers.

So let's look at modern naval combat, as it evolves in an actual game:

You start with transports and destroyers, as these are the only naval units that can "grandfather in" through unit promotions. The balance between these units is simple:

-Transports are the more useful unit, because, well, they're transports.

-Destroyers beat transports, hands down. Additionally, destroyers can aid land battles by bombarding city defenses and pillaging resources. However, since destroyers can't carry units, having too many of them is a waste.

-Battleships are the natural counter to destroyers. You can use battleships to escort your own transports, or to sink enemy transport fleets. Battleships also inflict collateral damage, so they really are quite powerful. Once you build enough battleships, you will rule the seas militarily. While destroyers can use their superior mobility to avoid confrontation with battleships, it is the battleships that define the "landscape" of the seas, so to speak.

- Enter submarines. Submarines allow an inferior force to compete with the battleship juggernaut, but not through direct confrontation. Submarines allow you to harass your enemy, despite their force concentration. Because submarines are invisible, your enemy does not know how many submarines they face, where they are, or what they intend to strike next. In fact, submarines are most powerful when your enemy has no knowledge that they exist at all, because the advantage that they give is surprise. With correct planning, an inferior naval power can gain an edge by destroying key resources and using overwhelming force against a weak point at just the right time. Stealth is extremely important here.

However, how do you balance the "surprise" factor? How many STR points is that worth exactly? You have to be extremely careful if you want to beef up submarines, because once they achieve a certain power threshold, there will be no reason to build destroyers or battleships, and the "balance" will be ruined.[/QUOTE]
Not if they only gain a STR benefit toward battleships. This is reflecting that Battleships are not made to battle against submarine warfare. They are long range artillery cannons that float. It would not make destroyers worthless at all because detroyers would gain an additional advantage against submarines which they are built to combat. But a destroyer is no match for the firepower on board of the battleships. As well as some of the weapons on the destroyer wouldn't be effective vs. a large warship at long range.

Carriers have are mixture between transport and bombardment.I didn't mention carriers, but I definitely feel that carriers perform very specialized roles. #1 is recon. #2 is air support for land or sea battles. #3 is tile sabotage (land or sea). In combat, carriers are vulnerable like transports and must be guarded.
Mobility is the same on land. By the time these later navy battles go on you can move forces through friendly territory at 10 spaces per turn. Land units are MORE mobile than navies in friendly/nuetral territory. You may be more restricted in enemy territory but you are also more powerful on land than you are in water at this time.
When I said that land combat is more restricted than naval combat, I was assuming (A) that most combat takes place in hostile territory (true for most single player games), and (B) that the cost of losing a city is great enough that defenders must often "make a stand" even when maneuvering would be more advantageous.

Also (as a side note) it's very rare for "neutral territory" to yield 10 spaces of movement per turn. Railroads do not grow like forests. If you're talking about conquered territory around resisting cities, then OK.
If your objective is to guard your coast, a defensive net is very powerful and not even a pack of flanker subs can hold up so long as you make sure you have 2-1 ratio of battleship-destroyers.I generally don't make "guarding my coast" a priority, since it can be prohibitively expensive to do so. Your defensive net is only effective if your recon is good enough to give you at least 2 turns of preparatory maneuvering once you spot the incoming force. Or, of course, when you are so dominant that 1/2 of your force is strong enough to defeat any incoming navy anyway.

Yet you say subs are the extremely crucial and I disagree. Because they have nothing to do with land combat. They can pillage sure. But a destroyer fleet works better as the can pillage more in one turn. Who cares if the enemy can see the pillage coming before hand. If you bring a navy of destroyer and battleships you can effectively pillage a shoreline just fine, then bombard cities on top of it.
I don't believe that subs are crucial in all games. Many games won't even see battleships, because the dominant naval power can rule the seas with destroyers alone.

But I feel that we're arguing completely at cross purposes here. You're right. Destroyers and battleships can pillage just as easily as subs if there is little to no resistance. If you're the dominant power, you don't need subs. Likewise, when you're the dominant power on land, you don't need spies. Just go win your game, and get on with it.

Specialist units are only useful if their specialty is in demand. Subs specialize in stealth, and stealth is the underdog's weapon. Stealth allows you to come from behind, and snatch victory from an otherwise hopeless situation. If I'm facing a navy of 12 battleships and an enemy with equal or greater production capacity, I honestly can't hope to outproduce that power in capital ships alone. However, I can build a handful of subs and become a serious thorn in their side.

I need to reiterate a major point in my argument. Subs are undervalued in the single player game because the AI generally sucks. You don't need stealth when the AI can't effectively respond to visible threats in broad daylight. So, in that sense, you can beef up subs to make them more powerful in single player, but you will end up creating monsters in multiplayer.
I agree. But adding in a PRS system makes less = more. If navy is going to sit stagnant beside land combat then less should be more. As you say, navy combat is rare and I agree. So why put all the power soley into "power in numbers"? And when I say numbers, I mean 8+ units on a tile. Naval logistics do not even come into play currently.
But even with paper/rock/scissors, naval combat will still be decided by "power in numbers," mainly because a civ's primary concern should always be the land war, with naval power being a secondary concern.

I do agree that naval combat does not currently have a paper/rock/scissors system. However, i don't believe that such a system would really improve much.

I didn't mention carriers, but I definitely feel that carriers perform very specialized roles. #1 is recon. #2 is air support for land or sea battles. #3 is tile sabotage (land or sea). In combat, carriers are vulnerable like transports and must be guarded.
Yeah I like making carriers. I do feel they are very underpowered but they just look cool as heck. And if you can find a use for them, they can be fun.

When I said that land combat is more restricted than naval combat, I was assuming (A) that most combat takes place in hostile territory (true for most single player games), and (B) that the cost of losing a city is great enough that defenders must often "make a stand" even when maneuvering would be more advantageous.
I agree with you on this.

Also (as a side note) it's very rare for "neutral territory" to yield 10 spaces of movement per turn. Railroads do not grow like forests. If you're talking about conquered territory around resisting cities, then OK.
Yeah I was referring to an extended war going on in hostile territory. Once a city has been capture, neutral territory opens up around it.I usually burn as I go typically, but even when I don't I get about 3 tile radiuses around cities (except by capitols). Early advances go very quick, but the closer you get to the "cultural powerhouse cities" the harder it gets to advance. Unless you take them out first.

I generally don't make "guarding my coast" a priority, since it can be prohibitively expensive to do so. Your defensive net is only effective if your recon is good enough to give you at least 2 turns of preparatory maneuvering once you spot the incoming force. Or, of course, when you are so dominant that 1/2 of your force is strong enough to defeat any incoming navy anyway.
Yeah, this comes down to playstyles. I didn't plan on a domination victory in my last game so I wasn't planning on invading anyone. Thus, the defensive plan. I was friends with Japan who was top of the scoreboard, India who was 2nd, and Mansa who was 3rd. And Egypt who was 4th. Then there was me. :p Then Huayna and Germany who both hated me something fierce even though I hadn't went to war with them. I had like a -15-20 with both of them off of other stuff. Then later Mansa got all pissy cuz I wouldn't stop trading with Egypt.
I was actually surprised I got a diplomatic victory off of that one. But my point is though after all that that I stayed defensive due to the fact I was on another continent. I only invaded the continent when everyone that was friends with me ganked the crap out of Germany out of nowhere. Japan declared, then India. Then Hatty jumped in and invited me. So I showed up. He was almost wiped out and Izzy asked me to declare on Cyrus since he had been bugging the lassy all game. So I had to go to her rescue and almost got to wipe Persia out before the results came in with my victory.
But my ships stayed on my own shores to keep an eye on any slick moves. I was actually waiting for Mansa to declare on me and suddenly dump off some transports. Or try that tactic at least.

I don't believe that subs are crucial in all games. Many games won't even see battleships, because the dominant naval power can rule the seas with destroyers alone.
I can agree with that but I would also add that battleships are crucial for all games if they are possible to build.

I need to reiterate a major point in my argument. Subs are undervalued in the single player game because the AI generally sucks. You don't need stealth when the AI can't effectively respond to visible threats in broad daylight. So, in that sense, you can beef up subs to make them more powerful in single player, but you will end up creating monsters in multiplayer.
I don't want to nitpick your methods too much. You have a way you like and same as me. You do have me going to use more subs in my next game to see if I can figure out a method to use them with that I like. However, do you use the new Better AI mod? Japan had a navy I was sort of scared of. They also had a defensive net they used guarding their territory.

Also, subs would only gain an advatage vs. battleships in the method I described. I would say give them a +100% bonus vs. Battleships. So they would be a 48 vs. battleships but still only a 24 vs. detroyers. But destroyers would also get +50% vs. subs. So they would be a 45 vs. 24 on subs. This doesn't make them monsters. It makes them vulnerable. Additionally making battleships vulnerable. In this system all ships must be guarded against their weakness. I still simply don't see how giving advantages vs. other ships makes them overpowered at all - even in multiplayer. Especially, in regards to subs.

But even with paper/rock/scissors, naval combat will still be decided by "power in numbers," mainly because a civ's primary concern should always be the land war, with naval power being a secondary concern.
Actually in the a PRS system as I describe above, a single destroyer could easily defeat 2 subs on the same turn. Maybe 3. It is unlikely that a sub would ever take out 2 battleships but it is a possibility due to the RNG.

I can agree with that but I would also add that battleships are crucial for all games if they are possible to build.I generally only build battleships if I'm expecting war in the water. Usually, transports + upgraded destroyers is all I need. Battleships are nice and all, but if I'm not facing any resistance, I don't need them.
You do have me going to use more subs in my next game to see if I can figure out a method to use them with that I like. However, do you use the new Better AI mod? Japan had a navy I was sort of scared of. They also had a defensive net they used guarding their territory.Yes, I use BetterAI. If you're facing an obviously stronger navy, subs can be useful and fun. However, if you're the dominant force, I'd say subs are a waste of hammers.
Also, subs would only gain an advatage vs. battleships in the method I described. I would say give them a +100% bonus vs. Battleships. So they would be a 48 vs. battleships but still only a 24 vs. detroyers. But destroyers would also get +50% vs. subs. So they would be a 45 vs. 24 on subs. This doesn't make them monsters. It makes them vulnerable. Additionally making battleships vulnerable. In this system all ships must be guarded against their weakness. I still simply don't see how giving advantages vs. other ships makes them overpowered at all - even in multiplayer. Especially, in regards to subs.
You have a point. This mechanic probably won't "break" game balance. I tend to believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't believe the current system is broken. It's true, submarines have a very specialized role and are only useful in certain situations. I don't have a problem with that. If you want to see more subs in your game, then the RPS system you propose will accomplish that goal.

Subs have purpose even if you are dominating the sea.

Your carrier task force can't be pillaging in every position. And you can't spilt it, because it will become weak against enemy air and sea attacks. Keep main surface force in position where it can intercept enemy surface groups and build some submarines to pillage in other areas.

Also submarines are good as a part of surface ship force. If enemy has built strong ship and you don't get good odds against it with surface ships, you can then use submarine for softening it first. Though usually softening is done with your fighter aircrafts.

I changed my game so that submarines get Drill1 for free. Minor change, but I think subs are fine now.

Last game I have level 10 submarine. It could take down undamaged battleships - until one battleship destreoyed it. That was a sad moment...

Your carrier task force can't be pillaging in every position. And you can't spilt it, because it will become weak against enemy air and sea attacks. Keep main surface force in position where it can intercept enemy surface groups and build some submarines to pillage in other areas.
You have a good point. Submarines have more freedom to split off from the main stack.
I changed my game so that submarines get Drill1 for free. Minor change, but I think subs are fine now.
Not a bad change. Makes sense.

Build your subs in your West Point City with Drydock and Pentagone (total of 10 XP). You can give them Drill I and Flanking I and II. I think they rock then. I usually build then 5 of those. I even get the chance to give them Drill II after a few battles.