Essays on the proper Use of the Navy

[cobains disease]

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

For the most part battleships during WWII were sunk by airplanes when they were in port and unprepared. Anyone can do that. And Battleships did not become obsolete. Several things ontributed to their demise:

I. The Washington Naval treaty of 1921 Stopped the building of battleships and thus halted their developement. (the treaty was designed to prevent the feared Anglo-American war of 1928 but anyways) However airplanes continued their developement.

II. Few battles had been fought with steel battleships thus Naval Captains were less expierenced.

III.Great Britain (the Ruler of the seas)had fewer serious naval threats and thus there werent as many oppurtunitys for naval engagement with battleships (1860-1921)

IV. By the time of world War II The worlds navys were filled with slow and obsolete relics from WWI due to the Washington Naval treaty.

V. Acording to naval admirals Air power was barely even considered a threat to capital ships so battleships were not armed correctly (The Modern American Battleships are an exception).

VI. The "line ahead" formation, where opposing fleets engaged each other in 2 long lines was monotonous and difficult. Carrier warfare presented a cheaper and somewwhat simpler alternative.

VII. By the time WWII was over Europe was left on the Brink of Bankruptcy. Battleships were the most expensive weapons on earth (excluding theatom bomb) And with The nations that would normally be able to afford them forming pollitical alliance (NATO) Battleships simply faded away.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Yes lots of BBs were sunk by planes, That wasnt the point. Most of them were built without much AA and/or were sitting in harbor somewhere. Of the BB with sufficient AA, that were sunk out to sea 100% by plane, here is what I've found:

Yamato took 18 from 384 planes,
Musashi took 37 hits
Prince of Wales 11 torpedoes from 49 land based bombers

All three of these were basically on their own and took huge amounts of planes to sink them, so I dont see the support for saying that carriers "owned" battleships. And it was possible for for BB to get close enough to sink the Gambier Bay. Only because Halsey was too arrogant.

 

[cobains disease]

i am agreeing with you, not disagreeing

 

[Pantastic]

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.

Why? You spend more hammers building a huge enough navy for that, since your navy has such limited movement. You're probably going to need at least half a dozen solid fleets to cover your coast, and I'd rather just let the AI drop his 10 units, pillage a little so my bored workers can have a hobby, then die. I can easily build enough army to crush an AI invasion for around the cost of 1 good combat fleet.

I also find that having a small elite force of city attackers and replacing artillary with frigates is the way to go.

So you don't ever take any inland cities? I can't really see the cost effectiveness of using a bunch of frigates instead of 1 transport carrying 4 trebuchets (you don't need to upgrade city bombarders), especially when you will have to go against full cultural defense on inland cities.

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,

That's the trick with Civ; ships don't get you installed on the continent, land units do. I'd rather take the huge number of hammers you spend on an ocean-dominating navy, scale it back to one set of escorts for a big transport fleet, and spend the savings on more land units that will actually get me installed instead of just sailing around.

and THEN I need a bunch of ships to maintain my control of communications and supply.

I think you're playing the wrong game, there are no communications in Civ, and the only supply is transporting reinforcements in. If you don't waste hammers on a big navy, and instead build a few more transports, you can just bring the whole army in at once and not worry about reinforcing.

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.

given that I can find something usefull for it to bomb down EVERY TURN of war.

Generally by the time my enemy has so few good targets that I need to find something for my fighters to bomb, I've completely won the war.

 

[cobains disease]

sorry this post was an accident because i pressed the back button too many times

 

[Warspite2]

Ok I am a big Naval fan, of all Naval stratagies and in CIV IV the Modern Era in Particular. Both my parents are Retired Naval offivers - 0-6 and 0-5, and as the stratagy buff that I am I am always trying to develope or learn new stratagies for the use of my Navy in Civ IV.

Like it or not - on a map such as Continetns or Archipelego the Navy is one of the most important branches of your Armed forces. Even on maps like Tarea or Pangea the Naval Branch can - if you let it - play a criticaly effective role in your operations - offensive in Particular. Reading up on some of the forums here many people, at least many new people, do not understand the true potential of the Naval forces. So without further interuption I shall begin my essay on my personal Naval Stratagy in the Modern Era.




As I have previously stated, the Navy is one of the most potent and versatile forces in your Military. I usualy play on Maps like COntinent, Tarea, or Archipelgo, so my Stratagy revolvles around that landscape.

One of the worst things you can do to your navy is put them on a purly defensive role. Your on maps like Archipelego or Continents your Navy should be the center of Production. Your Navy should be strong enough to always conduct offensive operations. Your Navy should Always be attacking your enemies in war, and prepared to attack them in peace. You Should have the Ability to Isolate enemy colonies, islands, and allies, from reinforcing eachother. With such done even a realtivly small Military can take on an enemy or enemies piece by piece. Absolute Control of the waters is a crucial advantage in winning against a powerful enemy.

The Naval offensive capabilities revolve around the Carrier. No other unit in the game has the mobility or strike range of the Carrier, and yet time after time I see newer players neglecting the Carriers and using them for minor and unworthy duties of Costal Protection, Fleet Protection, and Reconnisance. This is mainly because they fail to biuld the Carrier Strenght required to conduct worthwhile offensive operations.

My Navy has 3 branches: The independants (Destroyers and Battleships roaming alone on the open sea), The Sub Corps (again independant), and the Carrier Battlegroup. While the first 2 branches of the Navy maintain my Nations control over the high seas, the 3rd is strictly used to harras and destroy the enemy on his own turf.

The Traditional Carrier Battlegroup is made up of 2-4 Carriers with full Fighter Compliment and Destroyer and battleship escort. Realize that 4 carriers put 12 fighters are your disposal, a very larger amount of firepower. These Battlegroups roam there apropriat stations around the worls. Typicaly I would have 4 or more Battlegroups to roam to cover the four corners of the worls. With such broad Naval cover I can begine offensive operations in as short a span as the very turn war begins. But at the most 5 turns. Also with 7-8 Carrier Battlegroups I can divert more Carriers to aid the first Battlegroup, perhaps raising its Carrier strenght thoe 8 or even 12 carriers, enough to cover the widest Coast and destroy interior recourses in a very short amount of time.

12 Carriers parked on an enemies coast can deprive said enemy of most or perhaps all of his Natural recourses in a matter of 2-4 turns. Think of it - 36 fighters just continusly strafing and enemy country side. They will destroy farms, mines, plantations, windmilles, cottages, towns, villages, windmills, literal obliterate said nations infastructure and economy and starve out its population. 36 fighters will reduce enemy cities defensive bonuses and huge stacks of troops even before you can begin to mount a ground offensive.

If your enemy chooses not to beg for peace you can use your Navy to mount a seaborn assualt on Enemy territory. The Advantage of such an Assault in unpredictability. With conventional land assaults you have to cover your own territory and may only have a narrow area of assault. With a seaborne assault and aide of Naval Airpower you can choose to land your assault where the enemy is weakest, or strongest, depending on your stength. The Coast of an enemy, traditionaly, is larger that the corridor of attack factoring in Diplomatic and Natural limitations of you ground forces, thus the Enemy can not cover all its shoreling in strenght.

My personal stratagy takes the shape of a two-pincerd Blitzkrieg. Land tactics dictate that if I hold the center of the enemies territory, then they can not quickly mobailise and link up there Military forces. Hence when I attack I have two large forces, one seaborne carried on the backs of Marines and Armour, driving headlong for whatever target I may deem to be military value. Depending on where there recourses and the position of the capital I can drive these troops straight up the coast or directly in land while taking the Capital. At the same time I launch my offensive by land overwhelming even the stronges defenses. But I digress. You may decide what stratagy you like to destroy your enemy. The main point of my discourse is to illustrate the increadible important of the Navy.

Regards,

Excellent post Alot of your ideas about navy are very similar to mine. I usually get into the modern navy stuff as well. My strategies to conduct naval warfare are as follows... If I am preparing an overseas assault you can bet I will have a strong supporting fleet or two. These fleets usually consist of 2 carriers, 3 or 4 destroyers and how ever many tranports I need. I normally don't build battleships but will if I don't have a carrier in the fleet or a fleet has a different role. As far as this carrier supported fleet, it is mainly an invasion fleet. To attack land targets and support ground operations then finally land troops and artillery pieces. My non-invasion fleets, ones I use for fighting at sea or just air striking ground targets are different. I don't put any tranports with them because those usually get into direct combat at one point or another unless its a carrier fleet which I avoid direct combat with obviously. Oh and when you get jets on a carrier, thats even more powerful. So yes, I am all for a navy and use it every game. Use it as support for my land operations, a show of force, control of the seas and everything else a navy can be used for that some people fail to realize. You don't always need a big navy, but at least an effective navy and see the difference.

 

[Warspite2]

Oh, I also forgot to mention subs, another effective naval unit. I scatter these around the oceans sometimes to spy and sneak attack.

 

[Warspite2]

Why? You spend more hammers building a huge enough navy for that, since your navy has such limited movement. You're probably going to need at least half a dozen solid fleets to cover your coast, and I'd rather just let the AI drop his 10 units, pillage a little so my bored workers can have a hobby, then die. I can easily build enough army to crush an AI invasion for around the cost of 1 good combat fleet.

You don't need a huge navy. All I need is a carrier and 3 destroyers. The key is not to patrol your whole coast, no need to do this. There are only so many coastal cities an AI transport fleet can come from. I recon fighters, find the transport fleets, sink them when they leave port, done. Alot easier then trying to destroy an invasion force. Only 10 units? I have had the AI land many more units than that on me and more then once and usually its more then a couple of tranports. I have seen 3 or more invasion fleets from the AI hit my lands before. This was when I was going for a cultural victory and never had much of an army. So that was a time when I wish I had a navy out there. Also, a couple of subs parked by an enemy city will let you take a shot on some tranport fleets.

 

[Pantastic]

You don't need a huge navy. All I need is a carrier and 3 destroyers.

Then don't argue with me, argue with the guy I was arguing with who said "MUCH better to have a large navy...". I think large navies are silly, and I build more than that.

 

[Amelas]

Modern battleships wouldn't need near the effort to sink that WW2 ones did. That and the huge price tag is why modern navies have moved away from the idea of building larger and larger ships with more and bigger guns. In today's world all they would be is just one big target. A handful of planes, smaller faster ships, or ground based stations could easily fire anti-ship missles from way beyond the horizon and way out of range of battleship guns, which would make their way to their target near the water's surface. In modern warfare, aside from the carriers, there really is no need for large ships with large guns, missles are much more accurate and effective.

As for the game itself, unless I play with a modern or future start (which I sometimes like to do), by the time the carrier age rolls around (assuming the game even lasts that long) I tend to control most of the world anyways and there really is no need at all to build a complex naval task force.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Modern battleships wouldn't need near the effort to sink that WW2 ones did. That and the huge price tag is why modern navies have moved away from the idea of building larger and larger ships with more and bigger guns. In today's world all they would be is just one big target. A handful of planes, smaller faster ships, or ground based stations could easily fire anti-ship missles from way beyond the horizon and way out of range of battleship guns, which would make their way to their target near the water's surface. In modern warfare, aside from the carriers, there really is no need for large ships with large guns, missles are much more accurate and effective.

As for the game itself, unless I play with a modern or future start (which I sometimes like to do), by the time the carrier age rolls around (assuming the game even lasts that long) I tend to control most of the world anyways and there really is no need at all to build a complex naval task force.

Yes. Jets and rockets are much more cost effective. AEGIS is probably the latest pinnacle of this concept, a boat packed with high-precision guided missles and massive sensor capability. It doesn't need to be big like a Battleship and is certainly less expensive.

 

[TheRealCzar]

I like navies, towards the end of some games, when I'm in my victory lap with army sufficient to finish the game but taking its time for whatever reason. I build a nice big Navy with SURPLUS industry.

Navies are much like plastic model boats, they're fun to build, nice to look at, its fun to group them together and give them grandiose titles like South Tactical Carrier Group but useless nonetheless.

The OB says he like to make Navies for the challenge, but I wonder what challenge there is in dominating an ocean bereft of opposition.

I think this eloquently titled (if haphazardly capitalised) "Essays on the proper Use of the Navy" should be reworked as a debate piece on the pros and cons of navies, as it is of little strategic worth.

RE. The piece above about maintaining comms and supply. ROFL.

 

[cfacosta]

My games are usually effectively over before I get any of the modern ships to play with. If the game is still an actual contest in the modern era, it is usually me rushing to destroy some jackass who is going for the space race nonvictory. In that position, I cannot spare the turns for building carriers since I need to crank out troops. I will say, though, that I use subs with spies to always make sure I know what I am attacking into.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

A modern era start would likely change the equation of the importance of a navy, and airforce as well, especially in multiplayer archipelago. A priority would be to get non-proliferation treaty in place as quickly as possible to pull the unbalancing effect of nukes out of the picture and allow air defence to protect the ships.

In my single player games, the trireme and caravel are the two most useful naval units and I rarely build more than two or three.

The airforce is almost exclusively used for taking out resources and reducing city defense. Having to fight an opposing airforce would change the situation. The AI can't really handle any phase of combat, so naval and air combat is as unbalanced as land combat.

 

[Beamup]

The bottom line is this.

Sea superiority means pretty much nothing in Civ4. It has no economic effects worth mentioning, and the AI is far too stupid to win serious naval battles so there's no military advantage to be had from putting any effort into it either. A few ships to protect fishing nets and fend off lone transports is more than adequate for this purpose.

This does not mean that navies are useless. They can be a brutally effective way of waging war against land-based targets using the Sirian Doctrine (although the success of that is largely due to AI stupidity). But outside of that context, building much of an navy is a waste of hammers.

It's an unfortunate reality of the entire series. The sea is irrelevant, only land warfare matters. Where a navy can contribute to land warfare, it's useful. Other than that, it's most effective to mostly ignore it.

 

[Spartan117]

For the most part battleships during WWII were sunk by airplanes when they were in port and unprepared. Anyone can do that. And Battleships did not become obsolete. Several things ontributed to their demise:

I. The Washington Naval treaty of 1921 Stopped the building of battleships and thus halted their developement. (the treaty was designed to prevent the feared Anglo-American war of 1928 but anyways) However airplanes continued their developement.

II. Few battles had been fought with steel battleships thus Naval Captains were less expierenced.

III.Great Britain (the Ruler of the seas)had fewer serious naval threats and thus there werent as many oppurtunitys for naval engagement with battleships (1860-1921)

IV. By the time of world War II The worlds navys were filled with slow and obsolete relics from WWI due to the Washington Naval treaty.

V. Acording to naval admirals Air power was barely even considered a threat to capital ships so battleships were not armed correctly (The Modern American Battleships are an exception).

VI. The "line ahead" formation, where opposing fleets engaged each other in 2 long lines was monotonous and difficult. Carrier warfare presented a cheaper and somewwhat simpler alternative.

VII. By the time WWII was over Europe was left on the Brink of Bankruptcy. Battleships were the most expensive weapons on earth (excluding theatom bomb) And with The nations that would normally be able to afford them forming pollitical alliance (NATO) Battleships simply faded away.

i know it was multiple reasons, it was too vulnerable to airstrikes to expensive , it wasnt very efficient to bild battleships once varriers were used, hence them becoming obsolete

 

[Xanxir]

The bottom line is this.

Sea superiority means pretty much nothing in Civ4. It has no economic effects worth mentioning, and the AI is far too stupid to win serious naval battles so there's no military advantage to be had from putting any effort into it either. A few ships to protect fishing nets and fend off lone transports is more than adequate for this purpose.

This does not mean that navies are useless. They can be a brutally effective way of waging war against land-based targets using the Sirian Doctrine (although the success of that is largely due to AI stupidity). But outside of that context, building much of an navy is a waste of hammers.

It's an unfortunate reality of the entire series. The sea is irrelevant, only land warfare matters. Where a navy can contribute to land warfare, it's useful. Other than that, it's most effective to mostly ignore it.

OK. I read the first few posts and the last few of this thread. I'm going to assume that you mean sea superiority means nothing in a single player game. Yes, the AI is too stupid to wage an effective oceanic battle. However, another human player in a MP game may not be. Furthermore, let's realize that it's the land troops that actually win the war. The US could bomb County X into glass and use offshore naval ships to send missiles miles inland. However, regardless of how much any of that happens, a navy or air force doesn't win the war. It's won when a soldier sets foot on that soil to claim the victory. I think that in this discussion of naval effectiveness, it's a very pertinent point towards looking at this in the MP context. If you've decided that you're going for a given victory, space race for example, a large navy would be most effective in preventing someone else itching for a conquest victory from landing on your shores. Is it expensive to build a large navy? Prolly so. Is it worth it? Well, that depends on the circumstances and need.

Also, in regards to that argument about how the game should be over by the time units like a Carrier or Fighters appear, you're not necessarily right. Kudos on your ability to win a game that fast. Not all of us are that good, and an article on effective use of a modern unit can be quite helpful. There's also the perspective of starting the game in the modern era, too, for which the original post is quite inspirational and helpful.

My hat's off the OP. I might not agree with it 100%, but I did find it to be a very good read and thought provoking.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Xanxir, welcome to the forum.

You make some good points. Many of the players here are most likely making the assumption of an Ancient start and rarely make it into the modern age needing a large navy to dominate combat. That is the game I play also. I looked back, and though the OP didn't make it completely clear based on the language used (many of the forum members are NOT native english speakers, or are typing off the cuff jumping around many topics at once and expecting us to follow along), he or she does seem to be making the implicit assumption of a modern start on second reading, considering the examples cited (an example including all techs discovered). For a dedicated Ancient-Start player, all-techs-discovered sounds like cheating in the worldbuilder, rather than automatically assuming a Modern or Future scenario.

 

[EKikla20906]

The Naval Game in CIV IV is what you make of it. If you yourself put emphasis on controlling the seas it can be very effective and help you win a war a lot easier, if you choose not to biuld a Navy you can still win but you loose out on a fun aspect of the Game.

The Carriers, with their fighters, dominate the late game Naval war, which I focus on. On continents and even more effectivly on Archipelego you can literaly destroy whole treks of squares with little harm done upon yourself.

The mobility and amount of firepower a Carrier can carry is its biggest selling point. Lets say you've landed your force and the enemies Modern Armor is just kicking your ass and they're bringing in reinforcements by the turn, well a simple Carrier strike can eliminate there Aluminium source and prevent them from biulding Modern Armour.

A real example of mine is when I was plaing on a quasi-continental-archiplego map. The we started in the Modern era and the enemy had long been deprived of the recourse Coal, so for hundreds of years it had not biult up Railroads. Well they finaly create a settlement on an isolated island and get access to coal, while I am preparing for my invasion of there continent. As I establish a firm foothold on the continent they start rushing rienforcements towards the fight with the little bits of Railroad they have. So using a Carrier I find there coal supply, stop them from biulding the railroads and destroy there existing ones with conventional methods. Preventing them from massing rienforcements at my beachead.

 

[Beamup]

I'm going to assume that you mean sea superiority means nothing in a single player game. Yes, the AI is too stupid to wage an effective oceanic battle. However, another human player in a MP game may not be.

This is indeed true - MP games are a completely different ball of wax.

he or she does seem to be making the implicit assumption of a modern start

Or a game that was competitive into the modern era. Doesn't really make much difference anyway.

If you yourself put emphasis on controlling the seas it can be very effective and help you win a war a lot easier, if you choose not to biuld a Navy you can still win but you loose out on a fun aspect of the Game.

This is, quite simply, false. Controlling the seas is completely ineffective and won't help you do anything. Using a strong navy as part of the Sirian Doctrine is very effective and will help you win a war a lot easier, but that's a completely different thing than sea superiority.