Essays on the proper Use of the Navy

[yavoon]

This topic is getting out of hand-

The game is about having fun. For some, winning always = having fun. For some, pulling off a hard slingshot = fun. For some, having the game emulate the real world is fun.

the game is not perfect. It is not perfectly realistic. No game is. And as such, things that work in the real world may or may not work here.

For those of you telling the OP to be quiet because the strategy isn't the most efficiant - stop. You are assuming that all the OP wants to do is win the best/fastest way = fun. I know this, because one of my parents plays CIV4. She plays warlord difficulty, and has a blast. You wouldn't berate a lady for playing on the 5 cent poker table when she could be risking it all in the pros! Similarly, don't berate a person who plays at the style he wants, at the difficulty he wants, in a SINGLE player game that does not affect you. I'm not comparing the OP to my motherP), I'm telling you to not force your "win best way=fun" idoloitry onto people who won't accept it.

To the OP - This is a strategy forum. Simple as that. Your strategy, however fun it may be, is not the "most efficiant" way to win in the game. Why? Because we have already established that the game does not reflect what should happen. The game is flawed. Navy does have a more important role in the real world. HOWEVER - do not let this stop you from using the strategy. You are a person that does not have fun simply massing units and attack. I'm like you - everyone may think i'm a nub for never playing with barbs, but i beleive the game should be country vs country, not unit vs unit. I have fun playing no barbs, and no amount of speech from anyone else will make me use them unless i want to. Because it's not THEIR way to play(most strategy forums for games are based on winning soley at highest diff w/ highest score), its best not to profess the strat in THEIR turf, if you know what i am saying.

Now, this thread is cluttered with arguement. Can a moderator delete any non-constructive posts and put the topic back on track?

look I dont care how u play civ. if u play on warlord and only use ur toes to manipulate the mouse thats fine. but if we're going to TALK ABOUT STRATEGY, we have talk about it in light of what actually works. thats what strategies are meant to do. if u want to futz around thats fine, but u can't futz around and then claim that ur way of futzing around is superior strategically. u merely have to shutup and admit that ur just futzing around.

 

[Betafor]

look I dont care how u play civ. if u play on warlord and only use ur toes to manipulate the mouse thats fine. but if we're going to TALK ABOUT STRATEGY, we have talk about it in light of what actually works. thats what strategies are meant to do. if u want to futz around thats fine, but u can't futz around and then claim that ur way of futzing around is superior strategically. u merely have to shutup and admit that ur just futzing around.

Ah.. Don't you love hate for no reason? This is why i ususally never try and stop flame wars because always the leader of either side never listens to reason.

I don't think you read my post at all. I explicitly told the OP to not bring what amounts to an "inferior" strategy to a place where people only respect the "superior" ones. Not only are you preaching to the choir, you are becoming a broken record.

He used it. It worked. He thought it was a good strategy, so he went here to tell you. and yes, he defended his point of view. If he was playing around, he would have said so in the first post. But just because someone is wrong doesn't mean they are inherently evil, or warrent hostility!

 

[yavoon]

Ah.. Don't you love hate for no reason? This is why i ususally never try and stop flame wars because always the leader of either side never listens to reason.

I don't think you read my post at all. I explicitly told the OP to not bring what amounts to an "inferior" strategy to a place where people only respect the "superior" ones. Not only are you preaching to the choir, you are becoming a broken record.

He used it. It worked. He thought it was a good strategy, so he went here to tell you. and yes, he defended his point of view. If he was playing around, he would have said so in the first post. But just because someone is wrong doesn't mean they are inherently evil, or warrent hostility!

melodrama. all I'm saying is that if u want to talk about strategy ur going to be held to standards like effectiveness, if u want to talk about what looks cute or what u like to screw around w/ u wont.

there's no need to fall on ur sword or try to say something else thats obvious(like u can play the game anyway u want). and there's certainly no need to make this dramatic.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

This thread reminds me of listening to a group of 14 y/os arguing. They know everything, and anyone differing in opinion is an idiot....LOL

I'd love to have a reason to sustain a good navy, but haven't heard anything new, nor worth making it worthwhile IMO.

Hopefully the egos will simmer down, and people could offer up some additional strategies that would make a large navy actually worth its cost.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

This strat has helped me to see when and where Carriers can be useful, but personally i would never build 3-4 carriers with about 12 fighters along with naval escorts, that's a lot of shields and would take a long to to accumulate that kind of stike force. This would help to slow down a rival civ in the space race by bomabarding all of his tiles but you've probably slowed yourself too by building such a navy.

I guess it just comes down to what victory is being pursued and what difficulty the game is on.

 

[ecp]

melodrama. all I'm saying is that if u want to talk about strategy ur going to be held to standards like effectiveness, if u want to talk about what looks cute or what u like to screw around w/ u wont.

there's no need to fall on ur sword or try to say something else thats obvious(like u can play the game anyway u want). and there's certainly no need to make this dramatic.

I don't think he was being melodramatic.

And you didn't really read his post at all.

 

[yavoon]

I don't think he was being melodramatic.

And you didn't really read his post at all.

I assure u it is and I assure u that I did.

 

[Betafor]

- I'm right
- No i'm right
- NO I'm right
- NO, I AM RIGHT
- no you're not
- Yes i am
- NO you're not
- YES! I am.
- NUH-UH
- YEAH HUH
- NUH UH!!!!
- YEAH HUH!!!!

need i say more?

 

[yavoon]

- I'm right
- No i'm right
- NO I'm right
- NO, I AM RIGHT
- no you're not
- Yes i am
- NO you're not
- YES! I am.
- NUH-UH
- YEAH HUH
- NUH UH!!!!
- YEAH HUH!!!!

need i say more?

tell me what u think is worse, arguing points and explaining things. which I have done, and to a lesser extent the excitable original poster did. or jumping into a thread on ur high horse decrying painfully obvious things(like ppl can play how they want), proceeding to fall on ur sword then taunting the other posters in an attempt to gain the moral high ground.

I'm curious is all.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

Perhaps this thread wouldn't have caused so much of an argument if it wasn't implying that not using your navy in any other way than how EKilda has written is obviously not the proper way.

 

[ravon.mith]

i thought this thread was about naval strategy? either way, perhaps CivIV as a game under values naval power, yes all the arguments of moving units and destroying improvements are valid, but superior naval force is not the only way to do it. It is plausible still to use ground forces or purely air force ... as was pointed out, to capture a city and move all your air force there in the next turn. Coastal bombardment of cities defense aint all that great, sure u can do but it's value falls the longer you wage war, seriuosly how many cities are you just gonna keep bombarding for no reason?? Perhaps having a few more naval perks would have increased the navies value. As example, in Total War it is possible for you to cut of naval trade routes of the enemies coastal city using your navy. This would have been interesting in Civ IV.

The AI in itself doesnt value naval power. I have yet to see a powerful navy of the AI. sure it pillages ur improvements, but is there anything else? whats the point of overpowering the AI navy yet you are unable to gain a significant advantage? I'm not saying that naval power is worthless but just sayin it is underpowered in CivIV. Historically many countries relied on their naval superiority to expand their empires, yet you can do as much with merely a transport and an escort here. Just my two cents... no hard feelings

 

[EKikla20906]

I love this! I use big words like "Carrier Battlegroups" and "Offensive Operations" and now my Stratagy is "Cute" and "Showy" but not efficient or effective. You couldn't have been more wrong, had you taken time to understand my stratagy or just the importance of Sea Domination in the situation I described you would realise that my Stratagy is both Effective and Efficient.

Right now I'm playing on Diety on a Scenario I biult using the Savo Mod. 3 against 7, All techs discoverd, on Continents.

Now my allies (2) are gatherd on one Massive continent in section of the map the Northwest. There is a buffer of dozens of little islands to the South before it breaks off into open ocean. The Western coast also has land mass almost like the Barrier Islands on the Jersy coast. Its long and realtivly narrow. Both the Arcipelego and that Barrier continent are largely unihabited, though they are home to many important Natural recoursed.

In the course of the couple hundred turns I have been waring, these landmasses, particularly the Barrier land, have witnessed battles of brutality rarely seen in the game. They are not large, with thick jungles and swamps movement is very slow, so just 3-4 marines can be considerd a large force. The war on the Sea is equaly brutal, as enemy freighters (Sevo unit that carriers 10 units) supported by destroyers and criusers continualy reinforce the Barrier land from the South, South East, and East.

My Nation is strugling to maximise production of Aircraft, Ships, and small amounts of land forces, and my Navy is the most important branch of my Military not out of my own fetishnes but out of Nessesity.

The Battle for the Barrier Land is much like the Battle for Guadacanal. The reason why it is important is because the forces of the enemy have continualy landed and created a city, then bring in Stealth Bombers that strike at some of my nations most valuable recourses, namely Aluminium which I have access to 2 sourses (one close to the coast the other in the Archipelego) both of wich are continualy under attack and disabled.

For the most part I have been able to secure the Easter sea, preventing reinforcements from that direction, yet bases enemy bases in the Archipelgo continualy reiforce the Barrier land. Control of these waters are crucial yet its an impressivly formidable task, as my economy which has not been around all to long struggles to keep up with Demand for ships, aircraft, and Carriers.

Currently I have 4 active Carriers, one of which has just been biult and is being deployed, and 3 more coming. Each Carrier btw has a capacity of 5 aircraft and are equiped with the F-15 eagle. 3 of these Carriers are parked off the coast of the inhabited continet directly East. Out of the 15 Aircraft one scouts the area for any Freighters, the rest are on ready to attack any freighters, if none appear then they attack Enemy infastructer in land. From information gatherd by my spies I have succsefuly deprived that enemy of its only 2 sources of coal, stuting its growth because it can not biuld railroads. The fourth Carrier is moving towards the Archipelego to reinforce operations there.

My battle is still as ferocious as it has ever been, and it is far from over, but it is readily apparent the power of the Carrier, or atleast in the Sevo Mod, whose game dynamics are not unlike Vannila Civ's.

The Use of Carriers in locating, harrasing, and destroying enemy rienforcments and infrastructer and placing firepower where it is most needed; the use of Submarines going where surface ships dare not, and delivering spies on valuable informaton gathering missions; the use of the Aegis Criuser in protecting my shores from Air attacks; the use of the humble destroyer in hunting enemy subs and bombarding enemy fortifications; and the use of the Freighter and the Marine are crucial to the succsess in a game like this. They are indespensible, without them nothing gets done. Without these weapons the enemy reinforces its possesions, they raid your nation from land unreachable by your ground forces. They deprive you of recourses and kill your land-locked armies. They control the game.

In almost every map in CIV IV this saying applies: He who rules the Ocean rules the World.

and to a lesser extend the excitable original poster did.

Hardly accurate.

 

[darkman-perth-a]

I agree with you OP. Naval Warefare us under representated by most games players, as they tend not understand the tactis involved.

People claim that it is too expensive to keep a large navy. It is just as expensive to keep a large army also.

I'm going to cite an example here - not to start a sub thread off - but look at how the US invaded Iraq.

The bombed them into submission, then sent in the ground troops. How many ground troops do you think the US would have needed if it didn't achieve arial and naval superiority?

[edit: spelling]

 

[cobains disease]

A large navy would be even more usefull if surface ships could attack land units.

 

[EKikla20906]

Thats why Carriers are usefull.

 

[darkman-perth-a]

A large navy would be even more usefull if surface ships could attack land units.

But wouldn't that make a large navy too powerful?

 

[Betafor]

But wouldn't that make a large navy too powerful?

No, because all the defender would have to do is not put the units on the coast. He could sit 1 square away on a road, ready to attk, kill, and go back to ready mode in 1 turn for any unit invasion

 

[ArmoredCavalry]

I once used a navy to cut down my biggest enemy's 3 largest and consequenty most productive cities down to about half thier size by blockading the sea tiles ajacent to the city(this was done without any air support whatsoever). This made my job of defending against a major enemy assult and launching my SS a whole lot easier. Perhaps you could use a similar approch on offence by restricting the ability to make defenders.

 

[voek]

It's fairly easy to beat an enemy navy, since the AI won't attack concentrated. The very few games I actualy have to invade a heavily fortified continent/Island in the modern ages I will use a Navy. It's also viable to pillage his land with carriers/fighters to slow him down, but spies also work nice if you have the money. But nukes are most of the time more effective...

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Using a mod to justify how your strategy works, is pointless at best. IF all those other units existing in vanilla/warlords, maybe things would be different. But they don't. Also, sounds like most of use have never encountered any sizeable AI naval forces. So now we've moved onto the apples vs oranges arena....LOL

I don't think anyone has said that carriers don't have a use, we are just saying that its a limited use. Another point, I don't want to pillage the improvements of a city I'm about to take. I want those improvemtns there so that the AI will send in suicidal units that I can easily pick off