Is there any reason to build a navy or airforce?

[Ron Wee]

Embarked land units seem to fight well enough
AI rarely build aircrafts

 

[Navystorm]

Yeah - its fun. Sea domination, particularly with battleships out of city centre range so there is next to nothing they can do, is strangely satisfying (especially if you played nice until that point). Of course you can win at all levels without either - so they aren't essential. I've not built much of an airforce to date... but plan on trying it out in my next game. It is a shame that, in general, the AI doesn't ever really try and dominate sea or air in a way that is meaningful.

 

[AmtrakQuebec]

Yes

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I enjoy using Naval Raiders to pillage tiles, since I don't like to take cities.

So you don't need to, but if you enjoy it, feel free to do so.

 

[TurboJ]

Frigates are the most powerful military unit of their era; submarines and battleships are also very very good at attacking coastal cities. If only AI built ships too it would be fun to have naval battles too.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Neither type of unit is as useful as it ought to be, imo. Bombarding cities that are protected by terrain can be useful, but most of the time those cities can be ignored anyway.

 

[Turbofish]

I typically get a couple of P-51s for defence whenever I'm playing America and going for a cultural victory, though for the amount of cogs spent on the aerodrome and the aircraft, building more ground units might be more optimal. I do like their ability to quickly cross from one end of your empire to the other in the event that barbarians appear at a location you are unprepared for, or another civ which has denounced you for a long time suddenly declares a war and your ground units are caught out of position.

Rarely get to use them for long, as by the time I get them, i'm pretty close to achieving a cultural victory (I typically play emperor or immortal, deity is a little too stressful for my liking).

 

[rschissler]

No. If the AI doesn't build them, why bother.

 

[stormerne]

Reasons to build a navy or an airforce:

• to take over enemy cities very rapidly in an offensive war
• to force a quick peace offer in a defensive war
• to keep your trade routes free of pillaging
• to control barbarians at a distance
• to minimize losses to your own ground units

If you're ahead on tech, an airport of jet bombers can bombard a strong city 15 tiles away into submission in a single turn and with zero retaliation. You can then take the city with just a single ground unit. Even ordinary bombers will take no more than two turns, provided the target is within 10 tiles. Beelining bombers is easy.

Battleships can do similar, from 3 tiles distance, only they'll take longer (they're nowhere near as strong) and they're less useful on Pangaea maps. However, they're a useful assist if your airforce is light or fragmented.

By contrast I don't build balloons, biplanes or fighters.

 

[rschissler]

Reasons to build a navy or an airforce:
"zero retaliation" "take the city with just a single ground unit" "take no more than two turns"

Does this game have flaws, or what?

 

[Rosty K]

The later game navy (starting with frigates) is actually quite powerful, especially if you prefer the non-aggressive style. Allows much faster enforcement of peace than with land units. And you don't need to worry about placing your cannons and all that. Just need 3-4 frigate-type ships and 1 caravel. Or I think privateers/subs work as both, but I'm not sure about that.

Well, the enemy must have coastal cities, that's a slight downside, of course.

Don't know about air units, haven't built any in any of my Civ 6 games yet.

 

[stormerne]

Does this game have flaws, or what?

Yes, of course. All games do. But in this case the things you quote are not flaws! In this case it's an accurate reflection of real life.

In real life, if you bomb a country, a city, or just a group of people hiding out in the mountains, and if your opponent has neither ground-to-air nor air-to-air defense, then unimpeded slaughter will ensue. Same in Civ6. In both cases you pick your opponent, one who technologically backward compared to you, or one who hasn't the capability of building defenses in time, or one who does not have the diplomatic or economic clout to summon an ally.

And... I forgot to mention in my first post, another possible reason to build a navy or an airforce is if you feel the need to impress a civ who admires either of those things or to get them off your back if they're nagging you about not having them.

 

[Shorlin]

Navy is great, except for maybe carriers? starting with only 2 plane capacity seems very weak.
Airforce is great, albeit at a huge investment cost.

The problem, as usual, lies with the AI. They don't build enough/any planes or boats, making domination with them beyond trivial. All these fun high tech units and the AI is so bad it just feels like cheating.

 

[stormerne]

Navy is great, except for maybe carriers? starting with only 2 plane capacity seems very weak.
Airforce is great, albeit at a huge investment cost.

The problem, as usual, lies with the AI. They don't build enough/any planes or boats, making domination with them beyond trivial. All these fun high tech units and the AI is so bad it just feels like cheating.

Carriers are also fragile. You have to have a really special reason to build one. I've never found that reason.

I find an airforce - or bombers at least - is usually worth the investment, an investment that I don't find that great anyway. If you maintain air superiority, you can build ordinary bombers and they won't be harmed, so you can upgrade all of them fairly cheaply to jets when you have the tech. New jet bombers will cost you around 2k each, so if you have (as you should by that point in the game) a flourishing economy, then buy rather than build and save city production for other things. You'll probably keep them all intact to the end of the game.

The AI may not be using them, but the developers want you to use bombers!

Civilization VI ‘Spring 2017 Update’
BALANCE CHANGES

• Bomber units are now more effective against cities.

All this, of course, ignores multiplayer, and that's a very different set of decisions to be made.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Land units can get suction-ZoC'd at sea if they don't have help.

Other than that, navies are useful if you have majority of opposing cities on the map within reach of their shots. Air units are more convenient to utilize than additional ground troops if you can usefully rebase them, but that's about it.

 

[Shorlin]

@stormerne I was talking more about the investment into aerodromes and their buildings (you kind of need them for the extra plane slots), usually I'm only raining down bombs when I'm onto the last Civ.

Carriers inheriting the same xp as the planes they are carrying might be a good buff..

 

[Victoria]

The navy is not necessarily mid-late game.... rushing frigates can be frighteningly good done right.

Playing tonight on immortal I got both the fleet and armada admirals... your frigates just wreck and then the +4 range with battleships is frightening.

Also for England with a culture rush you can get sea dogs fairly early with a good wind. They have some big advantages over frigates... even normal privateers will do a good job.

The main problem with a navy is there is less challenge, and the AI is appalling and for example Tomyris tonight just kept sending droves of knight corps to the beach for me to xp farm

 

[Agent327]

So, in short, it shows another lack in AI design. Seeing as there's no threat naval or airborne, there really is no point in building such units, unless you want to steamroll the AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So, in short, it shows another lack in AI design. Seeing as there's no threat naval or airborne, there really is no point in building such units, unless you want to steamroll the AI.

It's about like land combat, yes .

 

[Agent327]

I have no clue what you just said. I can guess, and my best guess is you agreed with the last part of my sentence.