Essays on the proper Use of the Navy

[DarthBeer]

This thread reminds me of a saying, something about arguing on the internet and the olympics
Anyhoo, I agree with the OP to a point. Whenever I go for a space-race or diplo victory, a strong navy with full carrier compliments can be a help when my army is big enough, and I need something to harass an enemy from overseas, but dont want to necessarily invade them. This is helpful when I want to strengthen diplo ties with another civ and they want me to join their war. All that said though, I usually only will build modern naval units if my army is way too big (as it usually is if I get to the modern age), and there are no spaceship parts to build. It depends alot on the situation.
Personally, I find that I get ancy when i'm nearing victory in the modern age and dont build navies anyways, out of pure laziness, I just want to finish and get on to my next game

 

[MacDeepBlue]

I have always thought that the navy was way too weak (and really even the airforce) in civ. In civ 3 I moded it so that they were much more powerfull, but I have not gotten into mods yet in Civ 4. In the real world, navies and airforces are way more important than they are in civ. I wish I could mod it so ships could not sneak past my line of sight--or my ships. It is annoying when I actually have coastal defense and they land stuff on me any ways because they went right through it.

Anyway, I do like a few carriers to harass my enemy. In one case my 'enemy' was my wife in a hotseat game. I used tons of bombers to hurt hurt her. I did find though that it was better to place those in civ's cities next to her's that I had open borders with as it was less expensive that way. Then the troops that I had to make sure she could not capture my bombers were the base for the ground invasion. Carriers were good to have around the edges though as they could hit places the bombers could not.

 

[Jawsofwar]

From my experience navy is nice to have because it speeds up the transportation of your armys. When I can and have the ships necessary I will put groups of my army in transport ships and sail along the coast of an enemy I am attacking. I can get to my city I intend to destroy quicker rather than have an army move a square a turn and hope they don't send catapaults at my army and by the time my army is by the city ready to attack there power might be much lower than I would like. In warlords I have noticed that the ai actually uses catapaults now! Sure you might have more ground units if you dont build a navy but you might have less casulties in the process.

As it is I would like Firaxis to patch the navy up to make them more "usefull" especially earlier in time. Boats should be allowed to close trade routes to coastal cities. Maybe this could work my having a warship parked near the coast and the longer it is able to stay there the more Maintenance cost rises for that particular city. A catapault type of boat would be cool for ancient times where you can attack the city like you would with the catapault except you can't totally kill a unit. If the city has a catapault defending it they get a bonus like +50percent against the "cataboat". So the catapault could be a counter for a city with no navy at all. Fireships would be cool too. They would kill the best defender in someones navy stack and do collaterall damage to all units, but of course they could only be used once and if they are attacked just about any type of ship can kill them. Firships could be usefull for ruining someones stack of transport boat doom.

Another idea is to have valuable resources in the middle of the ocean far from land. Kind of like the colony in civ3 I think. You can send in a work boat and harvest that resource and it would show your boat fishing or hunting whale for oil etc. A possibility to make pirateers would be cool also as to other people they would sport the barbarian flag but you would have a limited time frame in which you could control it. After so many turns the pirate ship will go rogue and start attacking your stuff also. Could be interested for a scenario at least.

 

[Pantastic]

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

You need the army to protect against land attacks and to conquer territory, a navy alone won't conquer another civ or protect you from someone on your own continent.

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

Hmm, so you're recommending transporting ground troops over, then obtaining air superiority with aircraft and fighting on land, with the only real role of the navy as a platform for some aircraft and to protect the supply lines, which aren't represented in civ? Sounds like you're advocating the 'build some transports and a couple of escorts' tactics.

 

[Phrederick]

The problem with building a large navy is that it is relatively weak compared to air power. If I fight in the modern age, I always build a large air force, for many reasons: defense against enemy bombing, destroying cultural defence of cities before capturing them, causing collateral damage to cities and large stacks, and finally, for naval defense. By placing a handful of destroyers and a couple battleships at areas where I expect to see enemy naval units, in conjunction with fighters, I can effectively defend against a much larger hammer investment in a significant navy. When attempting a cross-continental invasion, I either use bombers if they can reach, or add artillery to the stack for the collateral damage.

The naval units are simply too weak to be effective. Even against a stack with 1-2 carriers, 20-25 bombers (which I WILL have, because of how powerful they are against EVERYTHING), will get through the intercepting fighters and destroyers and cause enough collateral damage to win. With air support, I can win all naval fights with about a 5-4 advantage in numbers, where I aim for a 3-1 advantage in stone through rennaisance land battles, and a 2-1 or 3-2 advantage in industrial or modern battles.

Offensively, what can a navy do that cannot be replicated? My air force can handle bombardment, since I will be using it for collateral damage and for inland cities anyway. If I am mounting a significant intercontinental battle with ZERO initial beachheads or neutral civs from whom I can base an initial air force, then perhaps I would use a small navy: 2-3 carriers w/ 6-9 total fighters, 2 battleships, 3-4 destroyers. That force will be able to completely bombard the cultural defense, and provide some collateral damage, which should be enough for my overwhelming land force to capture a city. After I have a beachhead, I can fly in my air force, and stick with my land force from there on.

 

[Alistic]

I agree that the naval aspect is too weak in civ. More naval units would be nice. Actually more units in general would be nice.

The whole "its a race to cav's" game gets boering. Just like basically civ3 was a race to knights. Thats not strategy.

 

[cobains disease]

I agree that the naval aspect is too weak in civ. More naval units would be nice. Actually more units in general would be nice.

I totally agree with you!!! In real life, about a century ago Naval power was actually more important than land power. I think that naval units should be able to attack land units. Also since Battleships mounted some of the biggest guns in history they should also be able to "range attack land or sea units a square away although Im not sure if this can be done. Also I think the following should be added to the game:

Ship of the line

Pre drednaught (runs on coal)

Battlecruiser

cruiser

nuclear submarine

and battleships should be able to fight air planes.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

To me the problems with the navy could be fixed with a couple of small changes (for the next game / expansion pack )

1. Have the ability to block trade. By positioning your ships immediately outside of a city you should cut that city off from all sea trade. It should also remove any harbour bonuses to trade and health. Blockades would be a lot more useful then - blockading a city on a continent with lots of inland trade routes would have little effect but blocking an island city might cripple it.

2. Not allow troops to disembark from a ship on any turn in which the ship has moved. So you couldn't just declare war, sail in your ships and land your army in the same turn. It would force you to leave your ships exposed for a turn which means they will need to be defended. It would make it worthwhile to leave fleets on patrol so they could get a chance to attack any enemy force that attempts to raid your coastline.

The other thing I'd like would be a few more units - just to make things interesting. A ship of the line unit - maybe replacing the frigate with the frigate becoming a faster unit with less strength.

Giving ships the ability to attack land units is a bit problematic. With equivalent technology, ships should normally come off worse in a land-sea engagement - land positions can be more heavily defended and ships are vulnerable. I wouldn't like to see ships given the ability to bombard and damage land units without seeing land units getting abilities to hurt them back. Maybe this could be similar to the way some units can defend against air attack:

Eg ship of the line gets land bombardment ability.
Cannon gets a 40% chance of destroying the ship.
Artillery gets 80%.
Maybe a coastal battery city upgrade that gets 100% chance.

And then higher level naval units get to reduce this chance - eg for destroyers and battleships it gets halved again.

Anyway that probably needs some thought. But I think the first two changes should make naval engagements a lot more important.

 

[EKikla20906]

To me the problems with the navy could be fixed with a couple of small changes (for the next game / expansion pack )

1. Have the ability to block trade. By positioning your ships immediately outside of a city you should cut that city off from all sea trade. It should also remove any harbour bonuses to trade and health. Blockades would be a lot more useful then - blockading a city on a continent with lots of inland trade routes would have little effect but blocking an island city might cripple it.

2. Not allow troops to disembark from a ship on any turn in which the ship has moved. So you couldn't just declare war, sail in your ships and land your army in the same turn. It would force you to leave your ships exposed for a turn which means they will need to be defended. It would make it worthwhile to leave fleets on patrol so they could get a chance to attack any enemy force that attempts to raid your coastline.

The other thing I'd like would be a few more units - just to make things interesting. A ship of the line unit - maybe replacing the frigate with the frigate becoming a faster unit with less strength.

Giving ships the ability to attack land units is a bit problematic. With equivalent technology, ships should normally come off worse in a land-sea engagement - land positions can be more heavily defended and ships are vulnerable. I wouldn't like to see ships given the ability to bombard and damage land units without seeing land units getting abilities to hurt them back. Maybe this could be similar to the way some units can defend against air attack:

Eg ship of the line gets land bombardment ability.
Cannon gets a 40% chance of destroying the ship.
Artillery gets 80%.
Maybe a coastal battery city upgrade that gets 100% chance.

And then higher level naval units get to reduce this chance - eg for destroyers and battleships it gets halved again.

Anyway that probably needs some thought. But I think the first two changes should make naval engagements a lot more important.

I don't agree with these ones. For a simple Island hopping campaign you might not need much protection, but if you are going to invade a continent your ships are at least going to be exsposed for 1 turn.

As for the attacking land units, its not problematic, look at Vietnam. Just give them the same ability you give Artillery and Airpower, attacking - not destroying - units and inflicting collateral damage a couple squares inland. Land units will be able to respond to, and a shore battery could infict damage, but most of the time in the Modern age the ship had the advanatge. Look at all the massive naval Bombardments in WW2 or the British bombardment of Copenhagen in the late 1700s. Naval power ruled in those engagments. Of course the AI will have to respond to this problem by biulding more ships, make the Naval war much more interesting.

 

[Araqiel]

As for the attacking land units, its not problematic, look at Vietnam. Just give them the same ability you give Artillery and Airpower, attacking - not destroying - units and inflicting collateral damage a couple squares inland. Land units will be able to respond to, and a shore battery could infict damage, but most of the time in the Modern age the ship had the advanatge. Look at all the massive naval Bombardments in WW2 or the British bombardment of Copenhagen in the late 1700s. Naval power ruled in those engagments. Of course the AI will have to respond to this problem by biulding more ships, make the Naval war much more interesting.

You cite real world examples which is silly. The naval combat and overall naval system of Civ4 is incredibly simple. So simple to make such references meaningless. Adding unit bombardment capability would merely give human players another way to abuse the AI in the modern age, and would add no meaningful naval depth.

 

[cobains disease]

You cite real world examples which is silly. The naval combat and overall naval system of Civ4 is incredibly simple. So simple to make such references meaningless. Adding unit bombardment capability would merely give human players another way to abuse the AI in the modern age, and would add no meaningful naval depth.

sigh, if only the AI could be less stupid

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I don't agree with these ones. For a simple Island hopping campaign you might not need much protection, but if you are going to invade a continent your ships are at least going to be exsposed for 1 turn.

As for the attacking land units, its not problematic, look at Vietnam. Just give them the same ability you give Artillery and Airpower, attacking - not destroying - units and inflicting collateral damage a couple squares inland. Land units will be able to respond to, and a shore battery could infict damage, but most of the time in the Modern age the ship had the advanatge. Look at all the massive naval Bombardments in WW2 or the British bombardment of Copenhagen in the late 1700s. Naval power ruled in those engagments. Of course the AI will have to respond to this problem by biulding more ships, make the Naval war much more interesting.

Copenhagen also involved a lot of land based artillery and troops. And the use of naval power for bombardment in WWII was a lot less decisive than air bombardment. I have a problem imagining that a group of battleships could do much damage to an inland infantry division. Or that anyone with a fleet could reach out and punish ground troops that strayed too close to the coast. (Modern carriers excepted - but then we are talking airpower)

The navy was to protect trade and supply lines and disrupt the enemy trade and supply lines. And to support amphibious invasions. It has never had a big role in attacking ground forces of the enemy.

The problem is that the effect in real life of disrupting trade and supply is enormous - hence the navy is extremely important. Imagine what could have happened if the Germans in WWII had succeeded in halting convoys from America to UK. In civ, the effect of this disruption is pitiful - losing a few pillaged resources which you can quickly replace later. So the navy loses a large part of its traditional role and becomes a fancy bus service for troops.

 

[Spartan117]

I totally agree with you!!! In real life, about a century ago Naval power was actually more important than land power. I think that naval units should be able to attack land units. Also since Battleships mounted some of the biggest guns in history they should also be able to "range attack land or sea units a square away although Im not sure if this can be done. Also I think the following should be added to the game:

Ship of the line

Pre drednaught (runs on coal)

Battlecruiser

cruiser

nuclear submarine

and battleships should be able to fight air planes.

battleships became obsolete with carrier, it was too vulnerable to airstrikes

 

[alpha wolf 64]

battleships became obsolete with carrier, it was too vulnerable to airstrikes

I dont recall any major air atacks on a "modern" WW2 BB being successful. The US took around 30-40 (if memory serves me) to sink the big Jap BBs, but those didnt have the AA that American BBs had. Seems that the CVs sunk rarely took more than 6-8 hits before sinking. Given some air cover, I think I would rather have been on a BB than a CV. And modern BB could have insane amounts of defensive missiles, and load them up with AEGIS guns and they'd be tough to sink. Unfortunately they are just too expensive to maintain (another aspect missing in CIV is maint cost different for each unit).

 

[uberfish]

Game featuring naval action:

http://uberfish.atspace.com/epic4.html

 

[PurpleTurtle]

The man is right folks, unless you are on a pangea your navy is going to be of great consequence. I typically play on Emperor and have found that it is MUCH better to have a large navy capable of preventing a single ship from unloading troops on my shore than it is to have a large army waiting to respond. I also find that having a small elite force of city attackers and replacing artillary with frigates is the way to go. I usually play with 3-4 continents but after I have dominated one I don't want the game to end right? So I need a lot of ships to get me installed on the next continent, and THEN I need a bunch of ships to maintain my control of communications and supply.

Haven't any of you ever experienced a game where you had a coastal city that couldn't trade with anyone because an AI had borders cutting off the water route out of that city? Often there are small islands located in places to do exactly that, and if you are the lucky one who places a city there(or takes one over) you will need a navy to maintain the defensive position.

In the late game navies are indispensable for sailing around and taking out enemy resources. After having circumnavigated the globe with a caravel in one game I had a ships getting +3 to their default movement, then +4 with refrigeration. Consider then the possible range each turn of a fighter stationed on that carrier, it has something like 11 movement, and the fighter has 6 range, given that I can find something usefull for it to bomb down EVERY TURN of war.

 

[yavoon]

The man is right folks, unless you are on a pangea your navy is going to be of great consequence. I typically play on Emperor and have found that it is MUCH better to have a large navy capable of preventing a single ship from unloading troops on my shore than it is to have a large army waiting to respond. I also find that having a small elite force of city attackers and replacing artillary with frigates is the way to go. I usually play with 3-4 continents but after I have dominated one I don't want the game to end right? So I need a lot of ships to get me installed on the next continent, and THEN I need a bunch of ships to maintain my control of communications and supply.

Haven't any of you ever experienced a game where you had a coastal city that couldn't trade with anyone because an AI had borders cutting off the water route out of that city? Often there are small islands located in places to do exactly that, and if you are the lucky one who places a city there(or takes one over) you will need a navy to maintain the defensive position.

In the late game navies are indispensable for sailing around and taking out enemy resources. After having circumnavigated the globe with a caravel in one game I had a ships getting +3 to their default movement, then +4 with refrigeration. Consider then the possible range each turn of a fighter stationed on that carrier, it has something like 11 movement, and the fighter has 6 range, given that I can find something usefull for it to bomb down EVERY TURN of war.

this is incorrect, u can conquer other continents w/ mostly transports.

 

[asabahi]

I have to agree that a large navy is important. It depends on how you play your game. Not everyone plays for domination or a conquest victory, or try to beat the clock type of strategy. I, for one, like to conquer my land mass or part of it, and build my economy. Now if someone declares war I want to be ready to respond quickly and desicevly. A large navy helps in that regard. I have not used carriers before, but I will in my next game. What I have learned from my own games and what was originaly posted in this thread is that you can use the navy the following ways: 1) Protect your water rescources and your coastline, by this I do not mean prevent landing of enemy troopes, but to stop their navy from starving cities and razing fishing boats. 2) Use my ships to raze my enemies fishing boats, and park outside their coastline cities to starve them. 3) Have 3 or more transports full of marines, and 3 or more battleships and attack the coastal cities. Battleships bring the cities defense down and the marines attack from the sea. Holding the city is optional can be used to park bombers. 4) Use carrier based fighters to raze tile improvements therefore putting a hurt on the enemies production/economy. The first 2 points can used as soon as caravels are avaliable. The last to require some more advanced techs. In warlords if the civ has many coastal cities and you raise 2-3 they will probably capatuilate. Marines that have been promoted twice, combat I and the next Pinch, are powerfull at bringing cities down.

 

[Mind_worm]

I dont recall any major air atacks on a "modern" WW2 BB being successful. The US took around 30-40 (if memory serves me) to sink the big Jap BBs, but those didnt have the AA that American BBs had. Seems that the CVs sunk rarely took more than 6-8 hits before sinking. Given some air cover, I think I would rather have been on a BB than a CV. And modern BB could have insane amounts of defensive missiles, and load them up with AEGIS guns and they'd be tough to sink. Unfortunately they are just too expensive to maintain (another aspect missing in CIV is maint cost different for each unit).

CVs absolutely dominated BBs by WWII, so much to the point that the only reason BBs werent obsolete is that there were so few nations with a large CV force (US, UK, Japan). CVs may take less hits to sink, but their range is SO much larger than BBs, that in many cases they would have sunk the BB before the BB even got close enough to attack!

 

[Welnic]

I dont recall any major air atacks on a "modern" WW2 BB being successful. The US took around 30-40 (if memory serves me) to sink the big Jap BBs, but those didnt have the AA that American BBs had. Seems that the CVs sunk rarely took more than 6-8 hits before sinking. Given some air cover, I think I would rather have been on a BB than a CV. And modern BB could have insane amounts of defensive missiles, and load them up with AEGIS guns and they'd be tough to sink. Unfortunately they are just too expensive to maintain (another aspect missing in CIV is maint cost different for each unit).

You would have been safer on a BB in the Pacific in WWII since they were not ever the target if there was a CV around. And if there was not a friendly CV around then a BB would have to run from any enemy CVs. A battleship now might be able to fight off an aerial attack for a while, but it has no offensive options against a carrier, since it would never get within range.