Essays on the proper Use of the Navy

[EKikla20906]

This is, quite simply, false. Controlling the seas is completely ineffective and won't help you do anything.

For someone who's never tried it it would propably seem false. At the least a strong Navy can provide a good defense for someone stupid enough to use a Navy as Defense only. One would have to beg the question what is the use of a strong Army on a continent surrounded by ocean? I can do jsut as mush damage with a some Carriers and fighters as you can do with the greatest Army in the world under the correct circumstances. The benefits and abilities of the Carrier far outgrow those of the humbe infantry.

Take the case of recourses. What does it take to take a recourse away from the enemy? Using land units it takes a very large stack of units, transportation to get there, and reienforcements and ground suppieriority to maintin control over it. What does it take for the navy? One Carrier parked off the coast and a sortie every now and then to destroy improvements.

See the difference now?

 

[TheRealCzar]

I can do jsut as mush damage with a some Carriers and fighters as you can do with the greatest Army in the world under the correct circumstances.The benefits and abilities of the Carrier far outgrow those of the humbe infantry ?

What exactly are "correct circumstance". They must be some significant circumstances to make that sentence anything but a farce.

Carriers (or more explicitly, their attached fighters) can't control anything and in Civ4 (this needs stressing... IN CIV 4) a lowly warrior can stand right on the beach and moon your armada all day and all night and there's not a damn thing you can do with a hundred carriers and a three hundred fighters, they can harass, damage a few units. They can pillage a few resources but they can't take control of a resource (They don't even get the money a soldier would for pillaging). Fighters aren't even much good when it comes to attacking land based units, and presuming your enemy is also modern and well equipped, a couple of SAM's will start inflicting casualties on you for ZERO loss.

I don't advocate no navy, but a naval dominated strategy isn't much use, because if I want to fight a war, I need troops on dry ground, their dry ground. How do I get them there? Quickly! Because I don't need to wait for an armada.

If you can destroy all an empire's oil resources, this is of course useful but unless you have a large army ready to move and take advantage, what's the point. By moving in directly with ground troops and taking a city, then flying a lot of bombers into it, you can accomplish much the same, except bombers are much better than fighters at supporting a ground invasion.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

One would have to beg the question what is the use of a strong Army on a continent surrounded by ocean?

If you aren't playing for a domination victory, a large army increases your power rating which will usually be enough to stop those annoying wars with no goal that the AI likes to launch on 'weaker" opponents. With 3 defensive units per city and a mobile reserve of 8-15 units, I can easily defendmy cities. Anything pillaged will be replaced within 3 turns so no real harm is done, but I will have gained more XP. When I play a peaceful game, I actually hope the AIs will launch lots of these silly little invasions.

I can do jsut as mush damage with a some Carriers and fighters as you can do with the greatest Army in the world under the correct circumstances. The benefits and abilities of the Carrier far outgrow those of the humbe infantry.

Who only has infantry if you have carriers already? I'll either have tanks, or cavalry for a pillaging party.

My normal invasion fleet is 1-2 BB, 3-4 DD, and 4-6 transports (oh for an amphibious carrier unit). So lets take the average of 5 transports, and since there are carriers, I would already have tanks. With these 20 tanks, I can do the following things. I'll either grab a defendable coastal city in order to airlift in reinforcements, or raze as many coastal cities as are within easy strike distance. Leaving improved tiles with no city to use them is by far the easiest way to hurt an opponent. If all I want to do is pillage, 20 tanks will do far greater damage than than 6 CVs full of planes since each tank can pillage pillage then move thus also deprieving the opponent of the use of the occupied tile(s). I can also pillage farther inland than the limited range of planes. Also, a SAM inf defending a resource is more effective against a fighter than against a tank, especially since few tanks ever have less than 4 promotions. And where are the defensive fighters? The AIs will usually build one per city, so its not like offensive fighters are completely safe. Also tanks can pillage roads and RR.

Take the case of recourses. What does it take to take a recourse away from the enemy? Using land units it takes a very large stack of units, transportation to get there, and reienforcements and ground suppieriority to maintin control over it. What does it take for the navy? One Carrier parked off the coast and a sortie every now and then to destroy improvements.

ground superiority unfortunately simply means having a bigger stack than the number of "offensive" units an AI has. I've landed many invasion where the AI had only defensive units left, and I could run around with stacks of 2 and freely pillage. Taking away a resource within range of the coast only hurts if they do not already a second of the same, nor are they able to trade for it. I find both of these cases to be rare.

I'll use a real game that I recently played to illustrate why I disbanded that navy after invading. Five AI civs left, 2 friendly, 2 pitifully small and not worth even noticing. And the top one has launched numerous annoyance wars on me, each time losing 5-15 units, and minimal pillaging before I wiped them out. Once I get transports, I load 6 up with various units (not very well planned out on my part) and a small support fleet. Off I go towards an isolated enemy city defended by 2 old units. Land next to the city and bombard. Bombard next turn and take it, flying in a new tank. Leave 2 for defense hop back on the ships and move up the coast. Repeat process but raze the city of 10. (thats 11 tiles no longer worked without need of pillaging. Repeat process to 3rd city. Its a hill city behind a river so I keep it. Now I'm close enough for the "dreaded" counterattack of infantry versus tanks/infantry. AI just doesnt have enough offensive units to hurt me. So far my loses have been 3 tanks, but its still ahead of me in score. I repeat the process on the last 3 coastal cities (razing each) with similar losses. With 2 new infantry arriving a turn, and the AIs offensive ability crushed, I can move inland towards the 6 core cities all of which are outside of fighter range even from the hill city. I use infantry to squat on resources and mines, so the AI cannot use them, but they will be there when I take the city. It was the 3rd core city that finally dropped them below me (I really dont understand how score is calculated). All this was done in under 50 turns with never a force greater than 30 land units, and reduced the AI pop by over 100, and thus removed same number from the number of worked tiles. In 50 turns, even 6 loaded carriers would not have done any harm: a) the AI population still would remain, b) AI still controlled the land, both count towards score.
C) yea, might be fewer good tiles to work, but with AI bonuses, I'd be hard pressed to say it hurt them.

BTW, it was FUN!!!!!

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

Take the case of recourses. What does it take to take a recourse away from the enemy? Using land units it takes a very large stack of units, transportation to get there, and reienforcements and ground suppieriority to maintin control over it. What does it take for the navy? One Carrier parked off the coast and a sortie every now and then to destroy improvements.

If you can build a carrier and a bunch of planes, you can also build a few transports and a bunch of tanks for the same hammer cost. Either will do what you described, but the tanks can keep the momentum going. The planes...?

Unfortunately, the game mechanics are such that navies really are superfluous. Perhaps in the expansion they can introduce some kind of control for the seas that's based on naval power instead of culture that would be relevant to trade routes and therefore impact your civ's economy?

For now, we can all enjoying playing it the way we like to.

EW

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Great idea for the next expansion. Civ4: High Seas

 

[TheRealCzar]

Its been mentioned in this thread already, but it would definitly add to the importance of naval units if you could blockade enemy ports so they could not work sea tiles, import/export resources or have sea based trade routes. If this started happening your cities, you'd be more inclined to build navies, and perhaps "control of seas" would be a little more than useless.

 

[Beamup]

For someone who's never tried it it would propably seem false.

Done it. Extensively. Gave up on it once it became 100% obvious (as it will to anyone paying any attention) that it was useless.

One would have to beg the question what is the use of a strong Army on a continent surrounded by ocean? I can do jsut as mush damage with a some Carriers and fighters as you can do with the greatest Army in the world under the correct circumstances. The benefits and abilities of the Carrier far outgrow those of the humbe infantry.

If I just have an army, I can build a few transports and win. If you just have a navy, you have to build an entire army before you can accomplish anything that will actually contribute to winning the game.

Take the case of recourses. What does it take to take a recourse away from the enemy? Using land units it takes a very large stack of units, transportation to get there, and reienforcements and ground suppieriority to maintin control over it. What does it take for the navy? One Carrier parked off the coast and a sortie every now and then to destroy improvements.

Two points:
- That has absolutely no need whatsoever for the sort of navy you're advocating. To the extent it's useful, it is indeed just one or two Carriers. None of this flushing hammers down the toilet to build more.
- Resource denial doesn't mean much of anything compared to capturing cities.

See the difference now?

I have all along. It's quite clear that you choose not to actually look at it.

 

[uberfish]

Transports give you mobility. Navy protects that mobility and denies it to the enemy. If you're fighting a late game war against a large AI on high difficulty level, it becomes a lot more relevant as the AI might have 50-100 offensive units as this stage and a lot of ships.

You don't need a huge navy, just enough to defeat the enemy navy. The AI isn't very good at naval combat.

 

[Xanxir]

Great idea for the next expansion. Civ4: High Seas

oooh. Great idea. I love it. The land based warfare in Civ4 is pretty well thought out and developed. I'm not saying that naval and air warfare isn't well thought out, but there's certainly room there for expansion. This thread, IMHO, shows that there is that room to grow for naval and air warfare.

 

[Lager]

I like the idea of navies but in practice they are horrible because they require an ungodly amount of micromanagement and are inefficient as has been pointed out. Even if using navies in the manner suggested by the OP were 10% or 20% more effective than simply loading transports with troops and dumping them after declaring, I would still use the stack and dump approach because it is easier and less time consuming.

It's high time Navies were sorted out though, maybe they will be done properly in Civ 5

How about scaling sea movement to map size? Zones of control? Merging 3x3 land tiles into one sea tile? Simplified blockades? A decent naval tech tree? I want to be able to play Nelson in my Civ games but at the moment it just does not pay to try and do so.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

oooh. Great idea. I love it. The land based warfare in Civ4 is pretty well thought out and developed. I'm not saying that naval and air warfare isn't well thought out, but there's certainly room there for expansion. This thread, IMHO, shows that there is that room to grow for naval and air warfare.

Not just the military aspect. The economic aspect of the ocean should also be incorporated into the expansion should there be one. Allowing the extraction of hammers from ocean squares by building some kind of improvements is one example.

 

[Comrade_YORI]

Well, from my point of view it's obvious that people play civilization for various reasons and I for one won't put down any reason why you play it. But in the light of what I have read this is what I have come up with.

Some people play civ for Points (win the game fast and more points) these people will never abanndon their way of playing civ, therefore never use the game to it's fullest potenial. Althou I for one isn't one of these persons I do not dislike the way they see navy in civ. These people are what I usally call Hardcore Gamers - They play the game to win it and with the fastest strategy they know and are able to do. They Go for highest frags in FPS games and highest score for Civ. Now back to topic (I admit I went little off -topic there). These kinds of players will only use Naval Vessals if neccessary (in other words transports and guards for the transports, as some other poster said). They win the game fast with high score and does the same thing again and again.


The other players that play civ play for leisure and doesn't really care if they win 2049AD or 1AD. These people will try new tactics often and try to win different most of the times and often have low scores becouse of their playing style (often renders in a diplomatic or space race victory). These kinds of people will use navys, spies, groundforces, air and well pretty much all kinds of things. These kinds of players usally goes for what is best for the team in FPS games (if I die but I take the fragleader on the opposite side out of combat, or save the point of importance it helps the team). Again off-topic there alittle. These players win the game slow but atleast in my oppinion get greater value out of the game.

That being said: I do NOT put ANY strategy down or any way of playing the game as you see fit to play it WRONG. This is the way I see it. To illustrate my view of the way to play the game I say this: My most enjoyable game was as Egyptians and won domination with a large fleet and constant bombing. I used the whole array of the game from warrior (maybe scout even) to ICBM and Modern Armor. it ended 1 year before the timelimit kicked in, but what a game!

Naval Warfare is a part of the game or there would only be polar-ice and landmass. If you choose to ignore the water it's like taking away a part of the game. It's your choice you bought it!

I am fully aware of people saying: "It's not efficient", "It's not the fastest way to conquer the enemy" and "Why should I use a navy when I can run them over with tanks!" BUT it's still the most enjoyable experience you can have playing civ 'couse playing civ just to get the highest score and fastest win doesn't make you a civfanatic, playing the game while loving it does.

But then again, It's just how I see it. You may see it different.

 

[TheRealCzar]

Not just the military aspect. The economic aspect of the ocean should also be incorporated into the expansion should there be one. Allowing the extraction of hammers from ocean squares by building some kind of improvements is one example.

Not sure about the hammers from the ocean bit. Hammers represent industry and production whereas fishing is almost entirely agricultural hence food with the exception of whaling which does provide hammers. The vital trade allowed by sea is represented by a generous amount of commerce per square.

I miss the oil platform city improvement because of the way it transformed island cities into industrial centres, but I think the way its done now is more realistic. Oil should be worth more hammers though I think.

They Go for highest frags in FPS games

So if you don't build a strong Navy, you're not a team player? This argument is simply bizzare. Is this an obscure way of saying that the reason you're not a good FPS player is because you like to take your time playing Civ!?

The other players that play civ play for leisure and doesn't really care if they win 2049AD or 1AD. These people will try new tactics often and try to win different most of the times and often have low scores becouse of their playing style

Because players who go for score don't constantly try new strats to squeeze more from the game?

But then again, It's just how I see it.

correct.

 

[Comrade_YORI]

So if you don't build a strong Navy, you're not a team player? This argument is simply bizzare. Is this an obscure way of saying that the reason you're not a good FPS player is because you like to take your time playing Civ!?

Well if you re-read the post you should see that I was refeering towards the similarity of a hardcore gamer weather he/she plays civ or a FPS, and has nothing to do with if you are a teamplayer or not. Even you should see that, but if you want to hear a duck kwack, you will hear a kwack no matter if it's a dog that barks.

It's been on the forums time and time again that couple of transports and some guards for those transports are the most effective invasion, therefore faster win and higher score. Please don't take the quotes out of context... you'll only look like a cheap tabloid(insert your own hated tabloid here) journalist.

Because players who go for score don't constantly try new strats to squeeze more from the game?

I didn't say that. I said that player that play for leisure tries new strats. Weather those that goes for score tries new strategies or not is not my place to say, so I didn't. However if you play for score you don't play to try a new strategy, you play for score. Therefore it's not a valid claim to say you are going to try a new strategy, when your object is high score rating, not to; as you said: "squeeze more from the game".

correct.

And yes I am correct

 

[yavoon]

Well if you re-read the post you should see that I was refeering towards the similarity of a hardcore gamer weather he/she plays civ or a FPS, and has nothing to do with if you are a teamplayer or not. Even you should see that, but if you want to hear a duck kwack, you will hear a kwack no matter if it's a dog that barks.

It's been on the forums time and time again that couple of transports and some guards for those transports are the most effective invasion, therefore faster win and higher score. Please don't take the quotes out of context... you'll only look like a cheap tabloid(insert your own hated tabloid here) journalist.



I didn't say that. I said that player that play for leisure tries new strats. Weather those that goes for score tries new strategies or not is not my place to say, so I didn't. However if you play for score you don't play to try a new strategy, you play for score. Therefore it's not a valid claim to say you are going to try a new strategy, when your object is high score rating, not to; as you said: "squeeze more from the game".



And yes I am correct

there's so much wrong here its obscene. ppl who play to be as efficient and effective as possible are the ppl who are most concerned w/ strategy. they're the ones interested in new, better ways of accomplishing things. its no their fault u can't think of new, better ways of doing things. ppl like u seem to take the fact that ur madeup, ineffective strategy is bad as somehow indicative that ppl who play to get better are somehow not on the lookout for getting better? that is blatantly insane.

 

[Comrade_YORI]

there's so much wrong here its obscene. ppl who play to be as efficient and effective as possible are the ppl who are most concerned w/ strategy. they're the ones interested in new, better ways of accomplishing things. its no their fault u can't think of new, better ways of doing things. ppl like u seem to take the fact that ur madeup, ineffective strategy is bad as somehow indicative that ppl who play to get better are somehow not on the lookout for getting better? that is blatantly insane.

yavoon the only thing about this whole thing that is obscene is that
you agree with my whole point and still don't see it, maybe I expected too much from the ppl on these forums! I totally agree with you that ppl that play to be most efficient and effective as possible are the ones most concern with strategy.

Me I tried every old strategy here to try it out, but when I flick the switch to my comp. and sit down to play civ, i'm certinly not going to use the same strategy agian! Then why play a new game?! If its the same as the one before, why do it again?! I try to make up new strategies to win the game everytime I play. To always go BW and Axe-rush is to play the same game agian and agian. I ain't saying my strategies is any better then the once out there or that my next strategy is going to be! I'm just saying those that goes for score DO NOT make NEW strategies! They only try different.

The once that do make new strategies are the once that think "outside the box" for example lets not go beeline to BW today lets go horseback riding! It isnt more effective or efficient, its NEW. Now it stands to reason anyone putting this in the forum would be flamed by ppl like you yavoon saying: "It isn't good", "It's slow, I would own you with my axes" and so forth! And you would be right, but it's still a NEW strategy!
(This whole passage was just an exemple)

You state that the ppl that tries to get better and more effective and efficient invent NEW strategies thats just wrong! They try different not NEW. If you want a good score you take a old proven strategy and make it work! It isn't harder then that. There are a difference between NEW and different strategies I suggest you learn it before bashing down on co-players and especially the once that agree with you!

Yes players that wants to get better (higher score?!) does maybe try different strategies but only if they are proven to get a faster win. Hense, those sorts of players will never come up with a strategy on their own. There for will never try NEW strategies.

Someone came up with the Axe-rush, someone came up with using GP-farm and so on! None of these strategies is new anymore after it's been used once the strategy is not NEW. The Keyword is NEW!, if someone post a NEW strategy then they haven't gone for score, they have tried to make a NEW strategy!

The intent of the player playing is the thing that matters. If your intent is to have high score and faster win, then it's useless to creating a new strategy as strategys need refinement. If you looking to make a good strategy then your score ain't going to be high until after you refined the strategy. It's pure logic.

"The result is the effect of a strategy not the other way aroud." Read it, Grasp it and Love it!


When I write "you" it's not specificaly meant for anyone. If I mean you specific your name is written.

Now that I think I have explained everything, If you all non-agree:ers choose to hear a kwack thats your decision, but here's a clue: It's a bark! If you don't understand the kwack mentioning, read previous posts in this thread by me. And if you still don't, well thats your loss.

I'm done, and I sure was remineded why I seldom post here... From now on I'll probbly just read the posts made by others couse ppl are well either too stupied or just dumb in general. Hell I wouldn't be suprised if you are americans even, becouse the once that I've seen posts from that made sence were most often europeens.

Bye

 

[yavoon]

yavoon the only thing about this whole thing that is obscene is that
you agree with my whole point and still don't see it, maybe I expected too much from the ppl on these forums! I totally agree with you that ppl that play to be most efficient and effective as possible are the ones most concern with strategy.

Me I tried every old strategy here to try it out, but when I flick the switch to my comp. and sit down to play civ, i'm certinly not going to use the same strategy agian! Then why play a new game?! If its the same as the one before, why do it again?! I try to make up new strategies to win the game everytime I play. To always go BW and Axe-rush is to play the same game agian and agian. I ain't saying my strategies is any better then the once out there or that my next strategy is going to be! I'm just saying those that goes for score DO NOT make NEW strategies! They only try different.

The once that do make new strategies are the once that think "outside the box" for example lets not go beeline to BW today lets go horseback riding! It isnt more effective or efficient, its NEW. Now it stands to reason anyone putting this in the forum would be flamed by ppl like you yavoon saying: "It isn't good", "It's slow, I would own you with my axes" and so forth! And you would be right, but it's still a NEW strategy!
(This whole passage was just an exemple)

You state that the ppl that tries to get better and more effective and efficient invent NEW strategies thats just wrong! They try different not NEW. If you want a good score you take a old proven strategy and make it work! It isn't harder then that. There are a difference between NEW and different strategies I suggest you learn it before bashing down on co-players and especially the once that agree with you!

Yes players that wants to get better (higher score?!) does maybe try different strategies but only if they are proven to get a faster win. Hense, those sorts of players will never come up with a strategy on their own. There for will never try NEW strategies.

Someone came up with the Axe-rush, someone came up with using GP-farm and so on! None of these strategies is new anymore after it's been used once the strategy is not NEW. The Keyword is NEW!, if someone post a NEW strategy then they haven't gone for score, they have tried to make a NEW strategy!

The intent of the player playing is the thing that matters. If your intent is to have high score and faster win, then it's useless to creating a new strategy as strategys need refinement. If you looking to make a good strategy then your score ain't going to be high until after you refined the strategy. It's pure logic.

"The result is the effect of a strategy not the other way aroud." Read it, Grasp it and Love it!


When I write "you" it's not specificaly meant for anyone. If I mean you specific your name is written.

Now that I think I have explained everything, If you all non-agree:ers choose to hear a kwack thats your decision, but here's a clue: It's a bark! If you don't understand the kwack mentioning, read previous posts in this thread by me. And if you still don't, well thats your loss.

I'm done, and I sure was remineded why I seldom post here... From now on I'll probbly just read the posts made by others couse ppl are well either too stupied or just dumb in general. Hell I wouldn't be suprised if you are americans even, becouse the once that I've seen posts from that made sence were most often europeens.

Bye

one, ur post is entirely too long for how much information ur communicating. its like ur talking to urself or something.

as for ur assertion that ppl who play to win "dont make new strategies" there is very little more laughable than that idea. thinking outside the box is essential for innovation, but once u've got ur new idea u have to realize that it might suck. u can't take the position that thinking outside the box is good for thinking outside the box's sake. so no, I in no way agree w/ u.

as for this constant rephrasing of the drivel about "ppl can play how they want." I sincerely want to find where someone in this thread said anything along the lines of "and u can't play this way." being told ur strategy sucks is far different from being told u can't play this way, and this overdefensive nonsensical reaction to criticism should stop.

 

[TheRealCzar]

Please don't take the quotes out of context... you'll only look like a cheap tabloid(insert your own hated tabloid here) journalist.

To better target my comments, I quoted a segment of your prose, the FPS comparison I was taking issue with is actually all mixed up amongst the two paragraphs, and I felt that quoting the whole thing was a waste of pixels, since people could re-read the whole thing just above my post.

Well if you re-read the post you should see that I was refeering towards the similarity of a hardcore gamer weather he/she plays civ or a FPS, and has nothing to do with if you are a teamplayer or not.

re-re-re-re-re-reading, I'm not the kind of guy to idly diss someones post because I don't like the first line, or even my first impression, but perhaps YOU should re-read your posts from time to time before posting:

These people are what I usally call Hardcore Gamers - They play the game to win it and with the fastest strategy they know and are able to do. They Go for highest frags in FPS games and highest score for Civ. Now back to topic (I admit I went little off -topic there). These kinds of players will only use Naval Vessals if neccessary

The other players that play civ play for leisure and doesn't really care if they win 2049AD or 1AD. These people will try new tactics often and try to win different most of the times and often have low scores becouse of their playing style (often renders in a diplomatic or space race victory). These kinds of people will use navys, spies, groundforces, air and well pretty much all kinds of things. These kinds of players usally goes for what is best for the team in FPS games

So you meant no comparison here at all? Seems to me that you're contrasting the two cIV playing styles and using as an example, the different styles of FPS gamers. If that is not the case, why mention that cIV funsters (so to speak) are team players? You seem to think that playing to win is different to playing for the team. I think confusion on my part was understandable. Are you basing this on anything but yourself or do you conduct surveys?

Even you should see that

Even me? nope, not even I can see WTH your talking about.

but if you want to hear a duck kwack, you will hear a kwack no matter if it's a dog that barks.

I definitely hear quacking alright, and I think I see a duck.

I didn't say that. I said that player that play for leisure tries new strats. Weather those that goes for score tries new strategies or not is not my place to say, so I didn't. However if you play for score you don't play to try a new strategy, you play for score. Therefore it's not a valid claim to say you are going to try a new strategy, when your object is high score rating, not to; as you said: "squeeze more from the game".

That bit in bold made my day, I've seen people contradict themselves, but its not usually in consecutive sentences.

To paraphrase somebody famous, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

How would I improve my score without changing something? Its a single player game, I know I can win, but I challenge myself to win better, because for me, challenge increases my enjoyment. How can I do this? By trying new ways of doing something, changing research paths, using different units, experiementing with different naval combinations etc. If it works, and I get a better score, I'm happy, I'll try and find an even better strategy next game. If it doesn't work, I'll try something new next time. See a pattern here?

 

[TheRealCzar]

But then again, It's just how I see it. You may see it different.

From now on I'll probbly just read the posts made by others couse ppl are well either too stupied or just dumb in general. Hell I wouldn't be suprised if you are americans even, becouse the once that I've seen posts from that made sence were most often europeens.

Ah the muppet reveals himself, the "just my two cents" devolves into this, Ironic that the point I gather from this incoherent, vaguely racist drivel is that Europeans make more sense!

Bye

Bye!!

PS I'm European

 

[Warspite2]

Navy not needed? In my last game, this is the most false statement I could say. When I declared war on America, who was in first place, I was in second, they showed up with oh about 12 battleships. Think thats bad? Well, they also had at least 12 destroyers or maybe close to 20. All around my island, patrolling. There were around 6 fleets or more (try around 4 ships each), not to mention all the others I could not see, these are just what I was able to see So what did this do? Well, lets say, first, I could not step foot off my island! My army was grounded, completely grounded. I only had 1 destroyer in port (which could not dare to venture out) and a few old frigates. So my question... how was I able to get my troops off my island to attack without a navy??? A few turns later, I managed to build about 5 jets and a couple of subs. I took out a few ships with these but they just came with more and more. Man those jets were my best friend, talk about help, just not enough of them.

There is no way I could have got off this island. I tried twice, lost 2 loaded transports and said thats enough. This was on a archipelago map with random style so I don't know if it was small islands or snakey continents or what. I do know that a navy was absolutelya must have and not a small one, I decent sized one. You think a couple of escorts for my transports would stop that many ships? No way in hell. That AIs navy was all that kept my ground forces from crushing them. I had an advanced ground army that could not do a thing other then defend my lands. The AI never landed, just kept me from landing on his land all the while his score is just increasing and I am losing. I really think the AI builds a much larger navy on archipelago and water heavy maps.

I think my experience here should no doubt change a few others minds on the importance of a navy. Trust me, it has its moments and there will be times when you wish you had some powerful ships. At last, try archipelago or another map type with alot of water and see the difference. Also, I mostly play archipelago so this is certainly not the first time I had problems like this, it has happened time and time again in my games.