If Battleship and Destroyer aren't obsoleted by MissileCruiser and StealthDestroyer?

Which is why it's so easy to crush them, they don't have any support! =D

You're right. You *can* unstack your units and spread them out. However, in my personal experience, that leads to their stacks whomping on your lone unit, then you have to spend the next few turns concentrating your forces against the invading stack.

That's why I keep them all in one centrally located area, and run Recon with my Carriers and land-based planes. If I see incoming attackers, I move towards them. After the rest of the planes hit them down to 50% strength, the Missile Cruisers bombard the crap out of them on the next turn and follow up by attacking directly.

40 Strength versus 2.0? Niiiice =D
 
You're right. You *can* unstack your units and spread them out. However, in my personal experience, that leads to their stacks whomping on your lone unit, then you have to spend the next few turns concentrating your forces against the invading stack.

That's why I keep them all in one centrally located area, and run Recon with my Carriers and land-based planes. If I see incoming attackers, I move towards them. After the rest of the planes hit them down to 50% strength, the Missile Cruisers bombard the crap out of them on the next turn and follow up by attacking directly.

40 Strength versus 2.0? Niiiice =D

Probably you give them too much naval freedom ;). I actually found that having the fleet divided in ships in advanced positions and others in rearward position but interrelated between them so that you can act with all fleet in the area is a lot more efficient for defense/attack.

Another thing about Missile Cruisers is that supplying adequately them with missiles is really hard.On aggressive AI you need at least a fleet of 80-100 units to control sea if you have 30 Missile Cruisers supplying them with even 60 missiles is so hard because really costly and turns consuming.
 
Eh, can't comment there. My computer has a hard enough time playing the game as is without turning Aggressive AI on and quadrupling the number of units to track... But, yes, I do try to give the AI the initiative when it comes to naval warfare. Navies are a sideshow, with land armies being the main event, so maintaining about 15 ships (plus Jets, plus Missiles, not counting Transports because--let's face it--those aren't really combat ships anyway) is ideal. More than that and you have to start cutting the fat from someplace like land armies and defensive garrisons.

So if I can get the AI to start sending a dozen ships my way every few turns, then sink those in short order, I figure I'm doing well enough--Their effort is tied up in building more ships, not more land units =)
 
I think the point that is being missed here is that in reality battleships and destroyers in the old sense were made obsolete by missile and aircraft technology. The units in Civ IV, especially the aircraft carrier, are way too underpowered in this respect.

The issue shouldn't be that you would want to keep building battleships and old style destroyers. Instead the game should be balanced in such a way that you wouldn't want to any more because those units are too weak against a modern navy.

I think this is what the developers have got wrong.
 
I hardly even try for missle cruisers and Stealth Destroyers, I build up my large fleet of battleships and dont bother upgrading, then I build missle cruisers when theres no longer alternatives. I like that I can send missles out and attack my enemy, but I dont like the fact that 4 missiles only make dent, I like 4 tacts, and instead of hitting one city, I hit 4 cities and damage their troops enough so my troops can roll over them collecting experience plus it makes the nukes last longer by only using one on a city, unless i have toons of unused tacts sitting by waiting, then I start shipping them out and nuke everything. I turn off global warming, and the fact that I use nukes like crazy keeps the others at bay. or atleast they hate me for using the nuke and rarely attack, some of them seem to build up troops and get ready to invade my borders when i start nuking my enemy, and then I see the troops fade back to their cities when 20 turns go by and Im still nuking. Actually had to nuke some of my own territory to kill off a stack. that was killing off towns and farms, since they destroyed it already whats the harm lol

in my opinion i think destroyers and battleships should stay, or Missle cruiser and Stealth destroyers get bigger improvements, and we need a new privateer lol
 
Missile cruisers are enough better that I don't mind replacing battleships. Besides, in the real world that is what happened -- no more battleships built.

The speed is nice, the missiles are an OK option but a hassle to manage production on (40 shields? You need a small city to make them without massive wasted overflows). Nukes OTOH rock, and from a strict military power standpoint blow away the wimpy guided missiles. Want to destroy the enemy fleet? Just tac-nuke them to death.

But subs can carry those just as well, while the missile cruisers defend (and kill off the enemy ships).

Still, it would be cool if the missile cruisers had some other advantages. Or if the guided missiles had a bit more oomph, then at least it would pay to always load and reload them. As it is, they are basically faster battleships in most cases how I use them, because the resources to build and deliver the missiles could be more effectively spent on something else. Like bombers or jet fighters for your carriers, which are reusable.


The stealth destroyer thing is messed up, I think. They should detect subs and defend, just like regular destroyers, but with the invisibility and higher air defense bonuses.
 
Top Bottom