Is there any reason to build a navy or airforce?

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.
Sea Dogs are great fun. And they and Privateers make good coastal city assailants.

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.
To be honest, the greatest threat I've seen is seaborne barbarians pillaging oceanic trade routes on Island Plates maps. Even if you only want to deal with threats rather than steamroll AI civs, that's as good as reason as any to keep your navy free of barnacles.
 
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

And speaking of Tomyris, she is actually quite good on Island Plates with a strong navy. That insta-heal on defeat of unit is OP with naval units, especially Ironclads if you rush them.
 
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.

Not at all. Most Dom games I have played have been with Japan for some reason and while Japan has a good navy game I play them land wise.

Many games I play I just mess around looking at stats and just enjoying the journey, I rarely finish games. Winning is not high on my priority, I like naval and probably use half the time with Victoria based on how the game is going. I must add that unless you have an entire coastal civ having a large navy is an expense that may have been better spent on land troops.
 
Seeing as Japan is supposed to be an island civ, a navy might come in handy at some point. I do generally build some naval units for coastal protection; they are great against embarked units. Is it necessary for winning the game though? I seriously doubt it.
 
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.

England and Norway both build naval carpets every game. Last game, every turn Victoria had a galley getting the Embolon promotion. Nearly every turn.

Funnily, I got the admiral that gives a battleship with one promotion, and the one that gives a free promotion. I parked at the Causeway with a couple of escorts and absolutely feasted.

Japan builds tons of ships too. Can barely get my chinese galleys out of port for the long trip to Norway.
 
Is it necessary for winning the game though? I seriously doubt it.

Well I did say I play japan without navy when playing Dom so no... no-one said a navy was necessary ... however if you play Japan or England on TSL deity you will need a navy to win
 
if you have no navy, a warring AI will often send a single submarine to pillage all your coastal districts (at least at higher difficulties). it sucks to be oon the wrong side of it. you need at least some naval melee to defend against those. once you have revealed the submarine, a bomber is pretty useful to attack it from afar. in general, if there is war near the coast, I find naval units much better than land ones: a missile cruiser or battleship can wreak havoc among land troops while being safely out of range, while submarines can destroy anything on the enemy coast without retaliation. and battleship come into play around the time ranged units become weak. playing against godlike AI, i generally have to face stronger armies, and the strategy for it is to keep them pinned while attacking them from afar. naval ranged units are the best in the modern and further eras, when the machine gun has too short a range and will manage to attack just once before getting killed.
No, I like navies more than land units.

As for airplanes, they give you free ranged attacks, so they are a good supporting force in any situation. only limitation is that carriers suck; they need to attack in melee to gain experience, while in real life staying out of the fray is the very reason for a carrier to exist. they should gain 1 experience every time their aircrafts go on mission.
 
I tried a few early on, but I no longer build planes. There is just no need, unlike in V when the AI got bombers and starts owning you with them. Fighters used to be essential. That is probably the biggest thing missing mid-late game. Now when the AIs get ahead of you in tech they fart around with a mech infantry or two, but never really are a threat.

Ranged sea units are very useful on water maps but the only real reason to build them is to patrol for rogue AI subs or barbarian navy.
 
[QUOTE="PendragonWRB, post: 14728576, member: 22919.... the only real reason to build them is to patrol for rogue AI subs or barbarian navy.[/QUOTE]

.... your only reason perhaps....
I use navy to have fun, be different ... I do not want archer knight bombard own every game
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A couple of early galleys are excellent for scouting, especially on large and huge Pangea. If you play as Norway, the longships are great because you can grab coastal goodie huts ( there are a lot of them) and scoop up unprotected settlers and workers from other civs.
 
[QUOTE="PendragonWRB, post: 14728576, member: 22919.... the only real reason to build them is to patrol for rogue AI subs or barbarian navy.

.... your only reason perhaps....
I use navy to have fun, be different ... I do not want archer knight bombard own every game[/QUOTE]

No, I build a navy in most games, but they are not really necessary accept for defending against barbs and rogue AI raiders.

It's much quicker and easier to take cities with fleets.
 
Seeing as Japan is supposed to be an island civ, a navy might come in handy at some point. I do generally build some naval units for coastal protection; they are great against embarked units. Is it necessary for winning the game though? I seriously doubt it.

Very little is "necessary for winning the game" right now.

However there are situations where having a naval presence is a reasonable course of action and can speed up a victory.
 
... and therefore land troops are not really necessary?

Ideally not, but obviously taking any non-coastal city requires at least one melee unit tagging along. It's the pain in movement on land that makes land invasions such a slog. I like to take a few coastal cities and 'secure' a beachhead before migrating my main land force to another continent. I never built airports so they kind of get committed to the new continent once I do that.
 
I built my first aircraft aramada tonight and was a bit depressed I could only fit 2 bombers on it.
yeah, though in theory there are three carriers in that tile, they still can only carry planes as if they were one carrier. I say the whole fleet/armies stuff is poorly made. it was supposed to give some chance to stack units, but once you group units, they will be grouped forever, and they behave on every aspect as if they are a single unit - including having the maintenance cost of a single unit. so what happens in practice is that you pay extra to have a stronger unit. also, you have to wait pretty far in the civics tree to reach them. i'd like to have a real possibility to stack units, one that would allow to protect a ranged unit under a strong melee unit, or to divide corps when needed.
 
The whole 'air' game feels like a last minute effort. You can't station fighters on carriers? Doh!

Certainly not worth wasting precious district space on. Maybe if most games where not already 'over' by then they could be worth the effort.
 
You can't station fighters on carriers? Doh!
Yes you can. Although in general it's not worth it since Bombers are 100% better then Fighters until the AI is taught how to effectively use the air units that they finally know how to build.

I use my air force and navy (including carriers) a lot in games that I take into the late eras. Not because I need to, but because I enjoy them. Sometimes I'll play domination focused games on Island Plates just because - although I realize this is essentially "easy mode" against the AI right now.
 
Yes you can. Although in general it's not worth it since Bombers are 100% better then Fighters until the AI is taught how to effectively use the air units that they finally know how to build.

I use my air force and navy (including carriers) a lot in games that I take into the late eras. Not because I need to, but because I enjoy them. Sometimes I'll play domination focused games on Island Plates just because - although I realize this is essentially "easy mode" against the AI right now.

Has that changed in one of the patches? Is it bombers that cannot land on carriers? I am sure one of the two could not the one game I decided to give aircraft a try quite some time ago. In V, you could put your fighters on air patrol on a carrier and move that carrier around and the fighters would continue to protect it. Now you have to pick a fixed patrol location and you could not do that from a carrier. Maybe that is what I am remembering incorrectly. I just know they sucked as implemented when I tried them. (And they where pointless on top of that.)
 
Has that changed in one of the patches? Is it bombers that cannot land on carriers? I am sure one of the two could not the one game I decided to give aircraft a try quite some time ago. In V, you could put your fighters on air patrol on a carrier and move that carrier around and the fighters would continue to protect it. Now you have to pick a fixed patrol location and you could not do that from a carrier. Maybe that is what I am remembering incorrectly. I just know they sucked as implemented when I tried them. (And they where pointless on top of that.)
bombers couldd not use carriers in civ4. in 6, they can, but yes, fighters have that problem with fixed patrols, which on a carrier is probably a bug. Why don't they patrol automatically anyway? incidentally, you can also tell a fighter to patrol a space and then launch missions from there, effectively increasing its range, which i think is another bug. and sometimes I had bombers stay behind in the middle of the sea when I moved a carrier, yet another bug.
finally, fighters set on patrol only patrol a small area, no bigger than a SAM. not sure how much that's worth in terms of effective capability. yoou'd need dozens of fighters to cover your land, and a single bomber could easily slip between them to hit the few spots that aren't covered.
 
Back
Top Bottom