Naval Warfare and you empire

[Aabraxan]

I agree with Nergal - the RNG hates me with sea battles. I lose Ironclads to Frigates regularly. Although I hate wasting money on navies unless it supports my goal (or for fun), on a water board it seems like you need to. I can't finsh a game by 10AD, so I end up duking it out along the shoreline, expecially in a Monarch game. If I ignore sea production, then someone comes along with a bunch of frigates and bombards the coast - if you are an island Civ with now way to respond, this can be devestating. You can try to use arty to knock them down, but without some support ships, you can't get rid of them. Then I lose two Ironclads to a redlined frigate and I curse the RNG and swear I will quit playing anything other than a pan game.

I don't mind being called a newbie - if I am missing something, please tell me how you get around this - assuming you can't win the game by 10AD. Otherwise I am stuck building a navy like Nimitz. I'm trying to figure that out too, but that's another topic . . .

As a side note, I like navy battles as much as the next guy if that is what I have set out to. Nothing makes me happier than blowing a transport out of the water with a well placed battleship convoy.

Welcome to CFC, Raliuven!

I can't beat the game by 10 AD, either, and I would venture this: If you're coming close to beating it by then, you're ready to move up a level. I'd rather keep using galleons & frigates, and get to destroyers and bombers faster.

 

[EvilConqueror]

Some of my favorite games were my early games where I played on large maps and built huge navies to completely dominate the seas. There's something very satisfying about sinking carriers and battleships with your own battleships.

Now, I can't even remember the last time I built a destroyer, let a lone a sub or carrier.

In some ways, I wish navies were more important in Civ III. Naval warfare adds an interesting dimension to the game.

 

[Raliuven]

Thanks Aabraxan. I've been lurking for a long time and decided I would learn more by discussing then by being an idle watcher. I can't believe the depth of insight all of you have! I am trying to learn and the wealth of information here is incredible.

No, sadly I come now where near 10 AD. I managed to finish GOTM103 before 1000 AD and I thought that was a huge victory - though I see the contest some players have going and they suggested it was possible for a BC victory! Hmmm. Not on my computer.

I am having a lot of luck on some of my current Monarch games and I hope to keep stepping up!

I've actually never pitted a battleship against a battleship before. Usually I am way ahead in the sea race by that time. Though I did once (and only once) move a carrier before its battleship escorts and proptly ran into a submarine - thus losing the carrier, all hands, and all 4 bombers aboard (not to mention the confidence of every Iroquois citizen that was dumb enough to put the headdress on Chief 'He who slaps his own forhead too often'. Yet another chance to throw my computer across the room at my own stupidity. Needless to say, I try to screen my fleets with subs of my own now and NEVER move the carriers first. I have only reached AEGIS cruisers in one game. I was so far ahead it was more for fun. They never did anything.

 

[Aabraxan]

I think you probably will learn more by discussing than just reading. I suspect that I could beat the game by 10 AD, under the right conditions, but I've never done it. There are some outstanding players around here who win incredibly fast. I'm not one of them . . . yet. If you're consistently beating Monarch, & interested in doing so, go ahead and make the leap to Emperor. If you do want to move up, I'm going to suggest that you hit the War Academy for an article called "Monarch to Emperor: The Great Leap."

 

[Hellfiredoom]

Raliuven, if you're comfortable with winning at Monarch, I encourage you to go for it and give Emp a shot! I recently just played, and won, my first demigod game. I wish I had made the move from Emporer sooner rather than waiting and "dreading" the move up in difficulty. My goal was to simply survive as long as I could, figuring seeing the AI operate at the higher level would make my current level seem easier. Halfway through the game I was surprised to realize I stood a good chance of winning.

The article Aabraxan suggests (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/monarch_emperor.php) helped tremendously with my move to Emp. I reread it every few months as a refresher to make sure I'm not getting lax on my gameplay, and did again right before launching my DG game.

Good luck and keep us posted on your progress.

 

[Raliuven]

Thanks for the info and links Hellfiredoom (boy, do you have an abreviation for that?) and Aabraxan. I just read the article. I know I've seen it before, but after playing Monarch it has a whole new meaning. I think I want a few more Monarch wins before I take the plunge, though - like 1 would be nice.

Actually, I am about to win in GOMT104 so that will be #1. Perhaps not a stellar win, but it will be a victory. I hav a commanding Histograph lead - 3400 to my nearest neighbor at 1500 - and they have about 10 more turns to live if they are lucky. I have a few other promising games going too. If I can complete those, then I will take your advice and move up sooner rather than later.

Thanks!

 

[Hellfiredoom]

Thanks for the info and links Hellfiredoom (boy, do you have an abreviation for that?)

The name is a hold-over from my other online gaming exploits. Most simply call me HFD, feel to free to save the keystrokes and do the same.

 

[shl7070]

I see that everybody are thinking that the AI can't invade well and it's NOT true. Only yesterday they had landed 12 units in one turn, in the next overwhelmed my island colony that was too corrupted to build units by itself but was located strategically to serve as ship repair factory. The AI (Japan) was bold enough to try invade my core but lost as I had rails there and destroyed his 8 units in one turn. The sea battles were pitched until I got destroyers, he had loads of frigates that swallawed groups of ironclads, and, my supply routes weren't safe until most frigates were destroyed. (They had great advantage as they knew the location of all my ships in the game). That performance by the AI was on Regent!! arch map.

 

[Hellfiredoom]

The worst I've ever experienced was seeing 4 escorted galleons (by 2-3 frigates each of course ) drop off 4-6 riflemen/cavalry mixed for about a dozen turns or so. They only did that because my capital was about 4 tiles inland, with 2 Wonders (GL and KT), and undefended since I was a Republic. I was sorry when their "onslaught" ended because that was some of the best leader fishing I've ever had (and why I remember it so fondly).

I typically only see a single unit dropped here and there most games, but that's because I typically play Pangaea maps, and as long as the AI has a land route they favor that over sea drops. My guess is if you're playing Arch maps then the AI has no choice but to invade.

 

[Raliuven]

I have seen two rather ambitious landings by the AI recently. On a Warlord game, France became a runaway Civ and landed 2 armies on my island - both with 3 knights apiece. Unfortunately for France, I had installed railroads and we were in the age of cavalry. I dispatched both armies with 2 wounded and 1 dead cavalry. But I was still impressed. Landing two armies at once?

The second was when the mongols dropped about 10 Keshik on my island in one stack. My main armies were away on another island, but my left over MDI military police and a handful of knights were enough to send them swimming. They landed right after I had my backbone of railroads down.

However, I agree with the general sentiment. When it comes to islands how can you ignore a navy? You need to secure your logisitcs. If the AI swoops on your transports and you don't have enough escorts to beat them off, there goes a ship full of troops. Unless you just plan on getting the troops to the destination and then don't care if the ships are sunk - but that seems even more inefficient then building a real navy.

I may not care about the AI's attempts at invading, but I do care about ensuring the success of my own invasions!

 

[Snarkhunter]

On a Warlord game, France became a runaway Civ and landed 2 armies on my island - both with 3 knights apiece.

You actually saw an AI with armies that had more than 1 unit in them? Unreal!

kk

 

[timerover51]

The biggest problem that I see with the naval aspect of the game is that the ships values are so very weird, and badly undervalue the more modern units, along with the severe limitation on the number of hit points possible for a unit. A WW2 battleship is so vastly more powerful that a galley or a galleon as to be essentially invulnerable to taking any damage from then. An ironclad is barely more capable than a galleon or man-of-war. That is the single greatest thing that bugs me about the game. The very poor unit combat value ratings.

 

[Raliuven]

I don't mind the combat values for the land units so much. I understand that a tank could lose to a spearman. I've never seen it. I can't recall the last time a tank lost to a rifleman for that matter.

But I'm with your regarding water units, naval units bug me. An Ironclad is vulnerable to just about everything - I think twice about attacking caravels! When you arrive at destroyers (12/8/5), finally you have something with which you feel relatively secure using as an attacking unit against anything prior to it - even ironclads if you have a full healed unit. Anything past destroyers seems pointless. You can create 4 destroyers for the cost of 3 battleships (18/12/5). A destroyer's attack value equals a battleship's defense rating.

I think that is why I have such a hard time with naval control. There is no clearly dominate offensive or defensive units to rely on. What's worse is that there is no maneuvering - there are no terrain modifiers, right? Maybe a small defense bonus (another reason an Ironclad vs. Ironclad battle is pointless)? Arguable the best defense is an aircraft carrier full of bombers, but that is one expensive defensive unit and, if caught in the open, only has a defense value of an 8. That's no good for a combined cost of 580 shields - as much as some wonders!

And my final gripe (for tonight) is the absence of fleets. Why can't you have naval great leader? Why can't you have naval armies (fleets)?

Okay, I'm done.

 

[timerover51]

I don't mind the combat values for the land units so much. I understand that a tank could lose to a spearman. I've never seen it. I can't recall the last time a tank lost to a rifleman for that matter.

But I'm with your regarding water units, naval units bug me. An Ironclad is vulnerable to just about everything - I think twice about attacking caravels! When you arrive at destroyers (12/8/5), finally you have something with which you feel relatively secure using as an attacking unit against anything prior to it - even ironclads if you have a full healed unit. Anything past destroyers seems pointless. You can create 4 destroyers for the cost of 3 battleships (18/12/5). A destroyer's attack value equals a battleship's defense rating.

I think that is why I have such a hard time with naval control. There is no clearly dominate offensive or defensive units to rely on. What's worse is that there is no maneuvering - there are no terrain modifiers, right? Maybe a small defense bonus (another reason an Ironclad vs. Ironclad battle is pointless)? Arguable the best defense is an aircraft carrier full of bombers, but that is one expensive defensive unit and, if caught in the open, only has a defense value of an 8. That's no good for a combined cost of 580 shields - as much as some wonders!

And my final gripe (for tonight) is the absence of fleets. Why can't you have naval great leader? Why can't you have naval armies (fleets)?

Okay, I'm done.

You might want to take a look at what I did in a naval mod that I worked up.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322522

 

[molesworth]

You actually saw an AI with armies that had more than 1 unit in them? Unreal!

kk

Yes, that is quite something. Does this disprove the general assumption that the AI does not know how to use armies? I thought it was widely believed in the Civ community (based on what I have read in other threads) that the AI never uses great leaders to build armies. But for the AI to have two armies in the game suggests that it must have done in this case (unless army produced from War Academy wonder which IIRC requires a victorious army to build in anyway).

Would be interesting to know which version of the game this occured in or if it was a mod.

Sorry this is going off topic of thread but would be interesting to know what is the latest concensus of opinion on AI ability with regards to great leader and army use.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I've seen armies filled in vanilla and ptw. Never in conquests.

 

[Raliuven]

Okay, for all of the embarassing details . . .

It was in GOTM102, the first GOTM I tried. I was so disgusted by my performance that I reloaded the game just to try to beat it. As it turns out, I was so frustrated I didn't even finish. Since I had reloaded, I couldn't submit it either. Very embarassing. At least I can say that what I have learned here allowed me to have a respectable showing in GOTM103 and I survived GOTM104 - fishing for a shield, perhaps, but I won!

So, if you look at GOTM102, that is all the settings. PTW, America, Warlord. I had a real problem getting off the starting island I was seriously hampered by all of the unproductive lands nearby. I finally killed everyone on my continent in something like 2016AD.

Pause.

Okay, stop laughing now, there's more. France became a runaway Civ and dominated the other continent early on. Then Joan sent me a few (hundred) ironclads as a birthday present and removed all of those unneed terrain modifications on my coast. Lucikly she was only interested in destroying the improvment around totally corrupt cities in the south, so she never struck my productive lands (if you want to call them productive). Several MPP got me into war with France so often that I might has well have been AW with her. But we still love each other. What relationship doesn't have problems?

At one point, while fighing one of my endless wars with a country I couldn't reach - but that could easily reach me - France rolled up with 2 ironclads protecting 2 transports. I tried to deny her a landing place but that failed. She dropped both armies on my contient near my undefending FP. I had never seen an AI army before, and now there were two. I had subscribed to the prevelant belief that the AI did not make armies. I guess that Joan had all the wonders she needed and figured a few armies would make a nice gift to the Americans. I could have used the Statue of Liberty, but what can you do?

After a bathroom break and a change of shorts, I had a plan of attack.

Luckily I wasn't impossibly far behind that I needed to rely on spears. I had rails and I sent my cavalry to attack. To my surprise, I lost 1 cavalry and was left with one redlined unit and one unit with 2/4 left. 3 cavalry to destroy 2 armies? Thank god the AI is afraid of flags!!

If you are interested, I probably have the save where they landed - or are close to landing. I reloaded that game so many times that honest Abe resigned the presidency and Andrew Johnson is my leader. I'm at work and, as I don't play at work, , I don't have the save here. But if there is interest I will try to figure out how to post it. Just don't beat on my performance. I am much better now. Honestly. Constructive, non-blistering criticism would be welcome. Remember, I did win at GOTM103 and 104.

 

[CKS]

For those who didn't play the game, in GOTM 102, we were trapped on a small island with no resources - including food - until map making. Raliuven's performance was not horrid. The game was rather depressing at first.

 

[Lanzelot]

Yes, despite being only Warlord, GOTM102 was one of the hardest in a long time. A real challenge. There was no fresh water on the starting island, and all the land was plains and hills and 2-3 grasslands. So that means only one food per tile and all towns except 2-3 stopped growing at size 3...

But I think Overseer's observation is right: in Vanilla/PTW the AI does use Armies, while in C3C it doesn't. The reason is: in Vanilla/PTW an Army doesn't add an extra movement point. So if you add a 2-movement horseman to the Army, it remains at 2-movement and the AI keeps adding other 2-movement units until it is full. In C3C the Army becomes 3-movement when you add the first horseman, and then the AI gets confused, because it is looking for other 3-movement units to add into the Army, but there aren't any... By the time cavalry comes around, the size-1 horseman Army was already killed in battle...

In scenarios like Rise of Rome, where the AI starts with Armies, you will either see Armies with one Ancient Cavalry in them, or if the AI is "lucky" and happens to first fill a 1-movement unit into the Army, you will see one which as a Legion (1-movement) and an Ancient Cavalry. After that the AI stops, because it can't find a 3-movement unit...

This is clearly a bug in C3C. (Perhaps some piece of code that was carried over from PTW and didn't get adjusted to the new properties of C3C-Armies.)

In any case, in GOTM 71 (Deity) I've seen the Ottomans using full-sized Sipahi-Armies... I was quite glad at that time that they were using them against another AI and not against me...

 

[molesworth]

Has anyone tried using the editor to adjust the movement rates of armies in C3C to see if the AI will then use them? Or is the addition of an extra movement point hardcoded?