Is there any use to navies?

[Ulyaoth]

I never really use navies in my games, as I've found no use to them. I usually just build a curragh or two in the early ages to explore, then I just have no use for them other than shuttling settlers to islands or of course invading enemies, but I have no use militarily other than shipping land units. I've never really found a use to aircraft either. Any tips on how to use either of these?

 

[vmxa]

Not much is it is pangea or contients. Archi maps they can come into play, but mostly for escorts and to stop harassment.

 

[gmaharriet]

I've never really found a use to aircraft either. Any tips on how to use either of these?

Maybe it's that I've never played a higher level than regent (and I don't play pangea maps), but I'm often several techs ahead of the AI. If you've conquered your own continent, bombers can sink enemy ships before they can even land their troops. Even when they manage to land troops, their ships are NOT getting home to pick up another load.

It's also helpful to load bombers onto a carrier (protected by a cruiser or other armed craft) to reduce the AI cities on another continent before you invade them. It's possible to carry this tactic to the point where your invading forces can just walk into a city which has been reduced to a town of pop 1 with no defenders.

 

[Ulyaoth]

Maybe it's that I've never played a higher level than regent (and I don't play pangea maps), but I'm often several techs ahead of the AI. If you've conquered your own continent, bombers can sink enemy ships before they can even land their troops. Even when they manage to land troops, their ships are NOT getting home to pick up another load.

It's also helpful to load bombers onto a carrier (protected by a cruiser or other armed craft) to reduce the AI cities on another continent before you invade them. It's possible to carry this tactic to the point where your invading forces can just walk into a city which has been reduced to a town of pop 1 with no defenders.

I thought that bombardments can't kill units? Just weaken them?

 

[gmaharriet]

I thought that bombardments can't kill units? Just weaken them?

Hmmmm, I think that may be true in vanilla Civ3. C3C has lethal bombardment. I'm sorry if I misunderstood which version you're playing.

 

[brennan]

Yeah, lethal bombardment is C3C.

Navies have been useless, stupid and pointless since Civ1.

Bombers can be useful in large numbers late in the game, having a much longer range than ground-based artillery; they can penetrate much farther, whereas your artillery are often wasting whole turns moving into range inside enemy borders. Fighters are only useful if your opponents use bombers on you. (Stick half a dozen fighters on Air Superiority in a city the AI is bombing around and the enemy bombers will all be dead in a few turns.)

 

[Fried Egg]

I disagree that navies are useless.

Having control of the oceans ensures that the enemy can't send any seabourne invasions against you and you can send seabourne invasions with little fear of interception.

I wonder how those who disdain navies so much manage to launch amphibious assults when the enemy controls the seas?

Also, they're great for bombarding enemy shorlines, either to soften up cities in preperation for an amphibious assult or else simply to destroy tile improvements and deny them access to crucial luxuries or resources.

In particular aircraft carriers are the only way to utilise bombers against the enemy on remote islands or continents.

A fleet comprising of aircraft carriers and battle ships can be critical for ensuring a quick and successful amphibious campaign.

 

[onomastikon]

I tend to agree with Fried Egg up to a point, since I play with Continents or big Archis often, and depending on the map situation, I will need to go to further continents often.
However:
- If you are planning to be a builder with very little warfare, a serious navy is not a priority.
- The AI tends to make exceptionally poor navies, so even just a few superior craft can often deal with his swarms of Ironclads (I play vanilla, the AI loves Ironclads).
- It is often possible to control (enough of) the seas with just bombers at strategically placed coastal towns. Otherwise, just one or two carriers with an escort of 1 or 2 destroyers is all I find necessary: the bombers on the carriers reduce any enemy ships you may find (and the AI has a generally crappy navy) to 1 hp, and then they usually run away quickly; if not, you have your destroyers or battleships.
- Transports alone will often survive at least the trip to the enemy continent in order to drop their load if you plan the route correctly; a single destroyer escort will be more than enough, at least on my emperor games.

 

[Himalia]

I go alittle overboard with my navy when i play the Ai but thats probably beacause i play multiplayer most of the time and human players often realsie the advantage in having a reasonable sized navy even if its just to sink transporters.

 

[Offa]

In general galleys etc are useful for transport, and ship chaining can be very powerful, allowing instant transport to the front line.

On island maps, if you play as the Byzantines the dromon really rules, making for a (relatively) straightforward always war Sid game. Check this thread out:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=117296

 

[brennan]

Having control of the oceans ensures that the enemy can't send any seabourne invasions against you and you can send seabourne invasions with little fear of interception.

I wonder how those who disdain navies so much manage to launch amphibious assults when the enemy controls the seas?

Ok. So have you seen the AI launch an amphibious assault? It totally sucks. They land one transport of troops on your land at a time, which you can pick off at your convenience.

As for launching your own invasions: you build as many transports as you like, a small stack of Escorts, dash to the target and unload. There is no need for a 'navy'.

The crucial question you need to ask yourself is this: What do ships do?

Answer: They sink other ships. Some may transport land units from coast to coast.

Unlike land units they cannot capture cities, they cannot deny resources or luxuries to your opponents (except in the special situation that said goody is on the coast), therefore the only benefit you get from sea units is the transport ability. Building more than you need is a major waste of resources IMO. For most of the game (until you get aircraft, and then only if you use them for reconnaissance) an enemy ship will have enough movement to attack you without warning (because it started its move in the Fog Of War) and without terrain bonuses for defence, the odds of you losing your ship are about 50/50, which means that you are just wasting each other's resources. Better to use those resources on something useful.

Apologies for ranting, but this has been the worst aspect of Civ (IMO) now for 12-13 years.

PS: Britannia rules the waves

 

[Fried Egg]

brennan

Unlike land units they cannot capture cities, they cannot deny resources or luxuries to your opponents (except in the special situation that said goody is on the coast), therefore the only benefit you get from sea units is the transport ability.

Battles ships can bombard up to two tiles in land so a resource doesn't have to be right on the coast.

Whilst they cannot capture enemy cities themselves, they can certainly help. Afterall, you can't capture cities with artillery, but that doesn't stop you building those does it?

As for launching your own invasions: you build as many transports as you like, a small stack of Escorts, dash to the target and unload. There is no need for a 'navy'.

What about using their bombarding capabilities? Having a few destroyers for escorts and a few battleships for bombarding cities is quite a good strategy in my opinion.

Subs can be good for launching cruise and nuclear missiles too...

 

[brennan]

Battleship: 200 resources, bombard 8/2/2, max effective range 2 tiles inland.

Artillery: 80 resources, Bombard 12/2/2, the only city it can't bombard is a 1 tile island.

Remember what I said about using resources better?

 

[Fried Egg]

brennan

Battleship: 200 resources, bombard 8/2/2, max effective range 2 tiles inland.

Artillery: 80 resources, Bombard 12/2/2, the only city it can't bombard is a 1 tile island.

Remember what I said about using resources better?

I was just pointing out that battleships have bombarding capabilities that should be factored into their cost/benefit analysis (because you neglected to mention it in your previous post).

Artillery needs to land and be protected by other land units in order to start bombarding. Battleships can bombard right away and you don't need to worry about defending them (once you have naval supremecy).

 

[brennan]

There was no cost/benefit analysis. Navies are all but useless. That was my point; you have suggested using Battleships as artillery, to which I pointed out that they are far more expensive than land-based arty, less effective, and cannot be used in the majority of cases. You are also far more likely to lose them if attacked, whereas an arty stack can be defended by infantry, placed on a hill, gets a defensive shot...

You do not need to achieve naval supremacy, so why waste resources doing it?

The next time you play build a stack of 25 artillery instead of 10 Battleships, land them all in a stack next to an enemy city, with a couple of tanks and some Infantry for defence. They should take the city within a couple of turns and then could move on to the next city, regardless of where it was, while your battleships would be left floundering in the ocean with nothing to do.

Stick the stack on a hill/mountain and it will be hard to shift. A battleship out at sea has a 50/50 chance of being lost if a destroyer comes along, costing you 200 resources. They are just too expensive for the utility you get from them.

 

[Fried Egg]

Using battleships as artillery is only one of it's uses. It can quickly move around enemy islands taking out valuable resources and luxuries when not lending a hand in the taking of a city.

However, I think navies would be more important if you needed them to protect trade overseas. If you could damage enemy trade routes thereby denying them of the benefit of that trade each turn, navies would be far more important.

 

[Tman65]

This thread prompted me to write an article on the ways you can use a navy in C3C...I didn't want to hijack this thread so I put it in the Strategy Aritcles section. You might check it out.

 

[Breunor]

Using battleships as artillery is only one of it's uses. It can quickly move around enemy islands taking out valuable resources and luxuries when not lending a hand in the taking of a city.

However, I think navies would be more important if you needed them to protect trade overseas. If you could damage enemy trade routes thereby denying them of the benefit of that trade each turn, navies would be far more important.

Navies would also be more useful if they had more of a 'real world' intercept capability. A strong navy would be patrolling around, protecting everything int he area. In Civ a superior navy won't stop you. So players can build smaller navies and still land troops much of the time.

Breunor

 

[Tesuji]

However, I think navies would be more important if you needed them to protect trade overseas. If you could damage enemy trade routes thereby denying them of the benefit of that trade each turn, navies would be far more important.

I think this is how it was in the Civ derivative 'Call To Power'. It's been a long time and I didn't play it that much (but it got me into Civ3) and if I remember well setting up a trade-route took buying/building a caravan. These trade-routes could be pillaged, making a strong navy compulsory to protect overseas trading. I think there was also the concept of a 'trading monopoly', making it extra beneficial to control all luxuries of one type on the map. I think it's a pity Civ3 doesn't have these concepts anymore.

 

[Fried Egg]

I think this is how it was in the Civ derivative 'Call To Power'. It's been a long time and I didn't play it that much (but it got me into Civ3) and if I remember well setting up a trade-route took buying/building a caravan. These trade-routes could be pillaged, making a strong navy compulsory to protect overseas trading. I think there was also the concept of a 'trading monopoly', making it extra beneficial to control all luxuries of one type on the map. I think it's a pity Civ3 doesn't have these concepts anymore.

I remember the caravan trade system of CivII and I found that incredibly tedious so I'm glad they changed the trade system for CivIII.