Let's give modern Sea Warfare more variety!

[Veteranewbie]

Although modern sea units seems to provide more variety than ancient sea warfare (ancient sea units are limited and dull so I'll skip)
We have submarine, battleship, transport, destroyer and carrier
For some weird reason the game ALWAYS 'recommend' me to build destroyer
Submarine are suppose to do well with battleship in real life (that's why battleship has destroyer to escort them right?) but nooo.... it doesn't, two equally upgraded battleship and sub, the win ratio for a sub in attacking is something like 30%
Battleship owns all - destroyer, sub, carrier, transport
I just never build destroyer anymore, I just spam battleship and then with 3-4 battleships per stack I'm good to repel all, if any, amphibious landing attempt by the enemy
Carrier can do little good to anybody. I just split my ships into different stacks so that I can spot and respond faster to enemy approaching from any direction or distance. Fighter bombing sucks. I run my Battleships into a stack, collateral bombing help me to weaken most of the stacks, and the remainder become so weaken that I can chuck in the transports to kill them
When you sunk a Carrier you kill a carrier and 3 planes, the Carriers' escorts are nothing to your battleships, since every of your attack the enemy stacks grow weaker and weaker until you get a 100% winning rate for your ships to finish the job
Destroyer is mediocre, why get it when you have battleships?
Battleship has 40str, Destroyer only 30 and sub a pathetic 24
Destroyer vs Sub is a close fight, but battleship vs Sub? Battleship wins
Think something need to be done with all this misconcept? Yes please

 

[OzzyAlyanak]

I di not have a wide array of knowledge on naval warfare, neither am I an expert on different types of ships etc. YEt, from my very little knowledge I know that subs have to risk alot in order to sucsessfully destroy a battleship.
A battleship is not an ironclad it is a very complex machine. Its radars and sonars are very advanced, and hence can detect any moving object udner or above sea level. These battleships are of course new tech battle ships, I agree that the game lacks different types (levels) of the same unit.
If you remember from WWII, battleships can actually hit subs fairly easily. (BAltic Sea Wars etc.) But of course there have always been cases where subs could destroy battleships. Yet, very rare.
I have not tried but if you get a nicely upgraded sub, I'm pretty sure it'll destroy a Leve 1 or 2 battleship.
My two cents

 

[JJP]

There should be more modern ships. Cruiser and AEGIS Cruiser for example. Both of them were in Civ3.

 

[DrJambo]

What you should do with subs is give them the withdrawal promotion whenever possible. They start with a 60%(?) withdrawal chance, so assuming you're creating them where you've got a drydock, make sure you're giving them the withdrawal promotion and a pack of subs should be able to damage/destroy a pack of battleships without loss.

 

[Samson]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think you discount air power a bit easily. If I have a stack of carriers and planes and you a stack of battleships I think I will win. I will stay just too far away for you to reach me, and hammer you with the planes with no chance of loosing any. Yeah I shall need something to kill your ships, but they will all be 1/2 strength so will not be hard.

And within 2 turns my planes can be helping my land force to capture your cities

 

[Mad Professor]

Battleship owns all - destroyer, sub, carrier, transport
I just never build destroyer anymore, I just spam battleship and then with 3-4 battleships per stack I'm good to repel all, if any, amphibious landing attempt by the enemy
Carrier can do little good to anybody.

I beg to disagree.

As for destroyers, have you ever played a game where airpower is significant? A stack of battleships without destroyers will be perpetually half strength thanks to air strikes. I've seen it Destroyers have a small, but very useful chance of intercepting aircraft. Destroyers can see subs - on subs see below.

As for subs, they are very useful when given promotions to increase their withdrawal chances. A sub can come out of the factory with 80% chance to withdraw from combat - their natural 50% plus two promotions getting them to 80%. Used with either a stack of more powerful ships, or from under the cover of an ice pack, a sub can do significant damage to enemy ships, withdraw to its cover (destroyers/battleships or ice) then leave the now damaged enemy at the mercy of the battleships.

As for carriers, see the bit on destroyers. Air cover is devastating in a game where air power it significant. A carrier or two off the coast while your land forces advance on your enemy will provide air cover for the land forces, damaging or shooting down the bombers that try air strikes on your land forces. I use them in this particular way always when the enemy has bombers.

 

[Mad Professor]

There should be more modern ships. Cruiser and AEGIS Cruiser for example. Both of them were in Civ3.

The naval warfare of Civ IV is quite enjoyable and has a lot of potential, however I agree that it could be very much improved with a larger variety of units.

 

[Veteranewbie]

I di not have a wide array of knowledge on naval warfare, neither am I an expert on different types of ships etc. YEt, from my very little knowledge I know that subs have to risk alot in order to sucsessfully destroy a battleship.
A battleship is not an ironclad it is a very complex machine. Its radars and sonars are very advanced, and hence can detect any moving object udner or above sea level. These battleships are of course new tech battle ships, I agree that the game lacks different types (levels) of the same unit.
If you remember from WWII, battleships can actually hit subs fairly easily. (BAltic Sea Wars etc.) But of course there have always been cases where subs could destroy battleships. Yet, very rare.
I have not tried but if you get a nicely upgraded sub, I'm pretty sure it'll destroy a Leve 1 or 2 battleship.
My two cents

Well I just have this impression (I may not be right) that Battleship is good to kill anything on water but not air or subs, therefore destryoers are there to cover them
And I think sub is used to pick off transports (mainly), carriers and battleships. It'll be a good thing to give subs the ability to target individual sea unit in a stack i.e. like the ability in Civ3 and consider this ability a new promotion etc.
Carriers should become the powerful unit that it should be in real life, afterall, not many nations in this world can afford or has aircraft carrier anyway.
But on the other hand, I always want them to make modern sea units to work like Civ3 artillery working in land, able to bombard on tile with enemy ships etc.

 

[marioflag]

The naval warfare of Civ IV is quite enjoyable and has a lot of potential, however I agree that it could be very much improved with a larger variety of units.

Personally i agreed with the OP the naval warfare in CIV4 isn't enjoyable and there are som reason as explanations.
-In the modern era always naval warfare is about who build more battleships because they are the most powerful naval units and there isn't a scissor-rock-paper feature.
-Destroyer have nearly the same cost as a Battleship but aren't worth this cost while buildin some of them could be useful for air cover
-Submarines are worth the money you spend only as recoinassaince unit or to destroy unescorted transports, but they have no other use.
The problem of naval warfare is also in previous eras for example in industrial age naval warfare is only frigate vs frigate.
Anciente era naval warfare is worst with galleon vs galleon or galleon vs caravel or galley vs galley.
So at least 4-5 units are required to make naval warfare a bit more enjoyable

 

[HourlyDaily]

It'll be a good thing to give subs the ability to target individual sea unit in a stack i.e. like the ability in Civ3 and consider this ability a new promotion etc.

I forgot how much I missed that. I hope Warlords or some clever modder can reintroduce it. And for sniper units, assassins etc.

 

[IglooDame]

I di not have a wide array of knowledge on naval warfare, neither am I an expert on different types of ships etc. YEt, from my very little knowledge I know that subs have to risk alot in order to sucsessfully destroy a battleship.
A battleship is not an ironclad it is a very complex machine. Its radars and sonars are very advanced, and hence can detect any moving object udner or above sea level. These battleships are of course new tech battle ships, I agree that the game lacks different types (levels) of the same unit.
If you remember from WWII, battleships can actually hit subs fairly easily. (BAltic Sea Wars etc.) But of course there have always been cases where subs could destroy battleships. Yet, very rare.
I have not tried but if you get a nicely upgraded sub, I'm pretty sure it'll destroy a Leve 1 or 2 battleship.
My two cents

In the 20th century, submarines have sunk far more battleships than battleships have sunk submarines. Battleships virtually never were fitted with sonar and didn't carry shipboard antisubmarine weapons. They relied on escorting destroyers.

 

[mjs0]

Personally i agreed with the OP the naval warfare in CIV4 isn't enjoyable and there are som reason as explanations.
-In the modern era always naval warfare is about who build more battleships because they are the most powerful naval units and there isn't a scissor-rock-paper feature.
-Destroyer have nearly the same cost as a Battleship but aren't worth this cost while buildin some of them could be useful for air cover
-Submarines are worth the money you spend only as recoinassaince unit or to destroy unescorted transports, but they have no other use.
The problem of naval warfare is also in previous eras for example in industrial age naval warfare is only frigate vs frigate.
Anciente era naval warfare is worst with galleon vs galleon or galleon vs caravel or galley vs galley.
So at least 4-5 units are required to make naval warfare a bit more enjoyable

I have to agree, a variety of units would make naval warfare more enjoyable but even without that some simple tweaks could improve things.
The scissor-rock-paper approach does work well (in my opinion) for land units and a similar approach for sea units would be nice.
For instance how about if submarines got to choose who to attack in a stack...unless there were a destroyer present, in which case the destroyer defends and gets a couple of first strikes. Now submarines look really good for taking out transports in a stack using hit-and-run, but there is a counter if you care to use it.

 

[Veteranewbie]

Yeah
They better get the rock-scissor-paper approach worjing in sea battle as well
Let alone it is also quite realistic - Sub > Battleship > Destroyer > Sub, and throw in the carrier for some extra role etc.

 

[mtu]

I treasure carriers for one reason - SIGHT!

There's nothing greater than having three fighter jetzs in your battle group spread out to the north, south and east (depending on where you are, of course ) and being able to see half the ocean.

 

[Mad Professor]

Personally i agreed with the OP the naval warfare in CIV4 isn't enjoyable and there are som reason as explanations.
-In the modern era always naval warfare is about who build more battleships because they are the most powerful naval units and there isn't a scissor-rock-paper feature.
-Destroyer have nearly the same cost as a Battleship but aren't worth this cost while buildin some of them could be useful for air cover
-Submarines are worth the money you spend only as recoinassaince unit or to destroy unescorted transports, but they have no other use.
The problem of naval warfare is also in previous eras for example in industrial age naval warfare is only frigate vs frigate.
Anciente era naval warfare is worst with galleon vs galleon or galleon vs caravel or galley vs galley.
So at least 4-5 units are required to make naval warfare a bit more enjoyable

I agree that more of the rock/scissor/paper thing would be really nice. More variety of units too would greatly improve naval warfare in Vic IV. I wasn't saying it was as good as it could be. However your other comments here only tell me you've not used naval units to the capacity you can or perhaps should. Please read my post above again for some alternative strategy options! If you come against me with just battleships and no destroyers or subs, and I have bombers, I'll sink the lot of them. They'll get hammered down to half strength from the air first and sunk by whatever I have on the water, battleships or not.

Happy gaming!

 

[Mad Professor]

It'll be a good thing to give subs the ability to target individual sea unit in a stack i.e. like the ability in Civ3 and consider this ability a new promotion etc.

Yes! I like this suggestion. This would make subs more useful, and balance out things more. I use subs a bit, and I believe they are worth the hammers as long as you don't go building too many of the things, but it's a hit and run existence relying on 80% withdrawal chance and an icepack or stack or more powerful units. This ability to pick units out of a stack would be appropriate for subs I think, and give them a real sting in their own right.

It would also make destroyers more of an option because you could have destroyers with the capability ( percentage chance) to intercept a sub making such an attack against, say, a transport.

 

[Yarmoss]

Civ 4 has really missed the boat (so to speak ) with naval and air warfare.

Where are the Ships of The Line for the sailing period? Where is the shore bombardment ability for Battleships (what they actaully spent more time doing during WW2 instead of fighting ships and bombarding cities)? Where are the planes that were designed to sink ships (Torpedo bombers, Naval Dive Bombers etc)? Where are the Cruise missles that make modern warships so powerful? Where are the SSBNs that lurk in the depths undetected with their nuclear missiles? Where are the cargo planes to fly troops around (including into enemy land)? Where are the paratroopers?

Thankfully Sevomod adds in most of the above. Thats one of the reasons why I dont play vanilla civ anymore. Its so halfbaked, its laughable.

 

[DrJambo]

Yes! I like this suggestion. This would make subs more useful, and balance out things more. I use subs a bit, and I believe they are worth the hammers as long as you don't go building too many of the things, but it's a hit and run existence relying on 80% withdrawal chance and an icepack or stack or more powerful units. This ability to pick units out of a stack would be appropriate for subs I think, and give them a real sting in their own right.

It would also make destroyers more of an option because you could have destroyers with the capability ( percentage chance) to intercept a sub making such an attack against, say, a transport.

This would be far too powerful. No transport would ever be able to reach any enemy shores. The best and simplest solution I can see is potentially giving subs a +50% vs battleships.

 

[Veteranewbie]

This would be far too powerful. No transport would ever be able to reach any enemy shores. The best and simplest solution I can see is potentially giving subs a +50% vs battleships.

Perhaps make a new promotion call 'anti-sub' or 'sonar' something like that, which makes sub can't pick on the transport unless they sunk the unit with this 'anti-sub' upgrade first?
Destroyers would start with sonar promotion and other ships can gain sonar promotion from experience? How this sounds?

 

[NP300]

. YEt, from my very little knowledge I know that subs have to risk alot in order to sucsessfully destroy a battleship.

Not really; think about it... A battleship's main armament is its big guns. Those are absolutely useless against a submerged submarine. So when dealing with a submerged submarine a battleship is no better than a destroyer. In many ways it's worse because because it is less maneuverable and presents a bigger target.

The two things that saved WWII era battleships were that their armor was so thick they could often survive torpedo hits and the fact that submarines considered transports to be better targets.

A battleship is not an ironclad it is a very complex machine. Its radars and sonars are very advanced, and hence can detect any moving object udner or above sea level.

Radar is useless against a submerged submarine since radar can't penetrate the water. WWII era battleships probably lacked active sonar, which was very primitive in any case. Further, even when faced with active sonar, submarines can stay invisible if they hide behind a thermocline.

Here are some suggested naval mods for those interested:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161889
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=164133