1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Modern Era naval warfare reworked in BtS?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by marioflag, Jun 8, 2007.

  1. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
    I personally find navies useful in the modern area, when im attacking enemy continents, because i can quickly destroy all their happiness, health and stratigic resources that are located near the sea with Jet fighters, Jet fighters can attack battleships and make them weak enough so my submarines (which i give flanking upgrades so they have 70% chance to withdraw) can finish of battleships, and i so i can easily establish a beach head where i can get stealth bombers at fast, and in the expansion we will be able to use paratroopers too.. if they can be launched from ships that would be beautiful!
    Note that Carriers were only dominating the later stages of WW2 in the pacific region for two reasons, America gave Britain like 50 destroyers for Britains naval bases in the caribbean.
    Pearl harbour had no aircraft carriers staged their(the 3 they had were out on patrol) Only big battleships were in pearl harbour, so that America HAD to use Aircraft carriers, and at the time of WW2 commanders on both sides were mostly trainned only in battleships tactics, and the Japanese naval commander expected a battleship confrontation to be the decisive event in WW2, not the battle of Midway.
    In the atlantic, i dont think Aircraft carriers were even used.. it was just submarine warfare against convoys of allied shiping.
     
  2. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Only the WWII Pacific scenario, right ?
     
  3. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    No. They were in the epic game.
     
  4. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ignoring the fact that carriers WERE pretty important on December 7, 1941... ;) not to mention the battles of Midway, Coral Sea, Truk, Leyte Gulf, and many others... they are extremely dominant today, but this is not reflected at all in civ. I think that's real the gist of Say_my_name's argument.
     
  5. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
    December 7th they had over a year prior planning, and testing to do, it was a total suprise attack, American planes were parked wing to wing, all outside their hangars, all the ammunition in the AA emplacements were locked away in the armory ect, thats the real reason for why it was so successful, consider that the Japanese never made a third wave of attack, because by then the Americans were started to get their few so planes, and AA emplacements online, and even though they had depleted anti air capabilities now because of the attack taking out most, they Japanese still didnt dare for that third wave (which by the way could of won them the war).
    So consider air attacks from aircraft carriers onto areas defended with AA emplacements that are actually aware of the situation, and dont have to spend half an hour to get the ammunition from the armor :crazyeye: , they most likely end up failures.

    Again all the significent naval battles, were with aircraft carriers, because of the two reasons i listed in my prior post, them being the only ships available from the Americans, The carrier battles required instantaneous thinking, where decisions had to be made with seconds to contemplate ideas, whereas the Japanese navy would of been use to hours to contemplate stratergy. American Bomber attacks from China were more significent in Japans fate then aircraft carriers.
    Japanese naval plan in the pacific, lacked any real stratergy at all, because they thought the typhoons ect would save them, as they were saved from those same typhoons from the Mongols when they tried to invade Japan on two seperate occasions. Kamikaze means "god-wind", "wind of god"; common translation: "divine wind" they believed this would save them from the Americans, when it didnt the Kamikaze bombers were used, which were totally devastating towards Carriers, and showed what a guided missile could do to a carrier in that time, an essentially a Kamikaze bomber was a guided missile. Im sure if there was any warfare between USSR and NATO that, carrier groups would of been devastated by guided missile attacks, even if they were some what lacking at the time on being guided :p.
    Truth be told you cant really call them dominant today, because when was the last time a major naval battle took place? The Falklands?
     
  6. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Wasn't that the war where an airplane sunk the HMS Sheffield?
    Didn't the country with the carrier win that one?

    If there's no navy to oppose it, a carrier task force can set up shop off the coast with it's portable air force. Last I heard , air superiority was a viable strategy, even a dominating one.
     
  7. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    Perhaps this is what the stealth destroyer would look like:



    It's a US Navy project, and it's called the DDG-1000, and they will cost approximatly $3,000,000,000 per ship. It will be, in fact, stealth. It uses disruptors to foil the enemy.
     
  8. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
    Ill just copy and paste :D
    Militarily, it still remains as the major air-naval combat operation between modern forces since WWII. In his Price of Admiralty, military historian Sir John Keegan noted that the brief conflict showed the irremediable vulnerability of surface ships to anti-ship missiles, and, most importantly, to the submarines. Thus, despite the seemingly limited consequences of the war, it, in fact, confirmed the dominance of the submarine in naval warfare. This is especially so, Keegan argues, because submarines are far less vulnerable than aircraft to counterattack, being able to approach and destroy their targets with almost complete impunity. However, Keegan's conclusions must remain conjectural since no other naval conflict of consequence has occured since 1982
    <--end of copy and pasta-->
    Falklands war, for Britain i would say was a test of logistics ability, this is the biggest major air-naval combat since WWII, but you gotta remember it was Britain, a previous superpower, and backed by America against Argentina, while Argentina was not backwards in any way as a country, Britain was in another league really. Yet still Britain had naval losses
    The ship HMS Sheffield was sunk by a exodus missile, the ship served her purpose as a part of the missile picket line &#8212; she took the missile instead of the aircraft carriers, but it clearly shows if a destroyer could of been sunked easily by one missile, then a aircraft carrier would of been able to aswell. Other ship losses were HMS Coventry, HMS Argonaut and HMS Brilliant were badly damaged too.
    Also note that the bombers used by Britain, they did not get launched by aircraft carriers, they were flown from Britain airbases to the falklands and Argentina, required about on average 11 refuelings each going there.


    it has been asserted, although not corroborated, that the French President François Mitterrand claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened to carry out a nuclear strike against Córdoba unless the UK Government were provided with destruction codes for the Exocet missile... just felt like noting that! Yay Margaret Thatcher :D
     
  9. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Interesting! Since you're generous enough to include the note that it's conjectural, I'll be generous enough to agree that the carrier's greatest vulnerabillity is to submarine-launched missles and add that I'd met an ex-sailor who claimed his attack sub had multiple "hits" against carriers in training exercises.

    To be fair , I recall that the Argentine aviation officer who led the attack against the Sheffield had previously exercised with the USN.

    You're an impressive young man, Grimz.
     
  10. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
    playing civilization II when i was like 7 years old or so, and reading the civilopedia helped me so much so in thinking and questioning philosophy and military warfare, and then wikipedia as a grew older just enhanced it :king:
     
  11. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    I really wouldn't base my philosophy of military warfare on the combination of Civilization and Wikipedia. :D

    :joke:

    All kidding aside, what do you have against beefing up the carrier's role in Civ 4? Everything you've said so far deals with the vulnerability of a carrier, and the so-called dominance of the sub in warfare. While I disagree, it's not important for the sake of this argument. All right, suppose that's all true; so what? The fact of the matter is a carrier's still pretty darn effective as a portable airfield and has played a major role in every conflict since WW2. One of the first questions asked today whenever there's an outbreak of conflict or increased tension somewhere in the world is, "Where are the carriers?" You might object that their true influence lies not in the carriers themselves, but in the aircraft they carry. That's fine, which is why I think increasing the capacity to 5 or more planes would do the trick.

    Additionally, I'd like to see a better role for subs, particularly in nuclear strategy. (The sub-based Trident missile might be a good model here.) Subs that can attack the new shipping lanes would also be much more realistic, and it'd actually give you a good reason to build them. Right now they don't do much and usually fare poorly against capital ships, even with the withdrawal bonuses.
     
  12. phungus420

    phungus420 Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,296
    My understanding is that in a war between great naval powers, all Carriers are expected to be destroyed within the first hour of the start of the conflict. Modern naval warfare between major powers would end up being a war of submarines very quickly. Of course in WWII the Carrier was very important, and in asymetrical wars the Carrier is a great way to project naval power inland, at realatively little risk considering the destructive power a Carrier can unleash. But they are very vulnerable to submarines and guided missiles. Very vulnerable, and any major naval conflict would see them taken out nearly immediately.
     
  13. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    I don't disagree with what you said, but again, what does this have to do with beefing up carriers? I'm not talking about increasing their attack strength, just their capacity to carry fighters. You'd still be able to lob 5 cruise missiles in their direction and totally obliterate them and the entire stack. :D
     
  14. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
    i would just love to upgrade my carriers, to nuclear powered carriers :D! To make carriers more powerful whilist being realistic would be.
    1) Introducing crusie missiles into the game..
    1) Well we are getting tactical nukes :D, but if they dont destroy road improvements im going to just quit the individual games that get as far as the modern era :crazyeye:

    2) Make them faster, and have the ability to hold more aircraft
    2) Yay my nuclear powered aircraft carriers with 2km launch strips :king: that would also travel faster so i wouldnt have to give them the annoying navigation bonus, but instead give them the erm.. what else is there :cry:
    So on topic again, give my nuclear powered aircraft carriers more space for ships, and the ability to hold hybrid bomber/fighters :D.

    3) give them % chances to shoot down aircraft and missiles still.
    3) Even though im quick to point out aircraft carriers would be destroyed by nuclear powered submarines and cruise missiles quickly, their Phalanax defence systems, where thousands of rounds of bullets are fired in the direction of incoming missiles, the carriers various anti missile missiles are effective too, HMS Sheffiled really got several warnings by another HMS ship about a possible exodus missile incoming, but the first two times the captain of the Sheffiled dismissed it, and the third warning he thought it was weather/decoys. If he actually was aware of the situation at hand, that missile would of been shot down fast i think.
    Other ships anti air capabilities were limited due to the weather giving an advantage towards Argentina's aircraft, and since some other reason about electronic interference caused by British ships own sonar or something :confused: .
    In 2007 i do think Aircraft carriers would stand a good chance indeed against less then 5 or so cruise missiles, but if its like over a dozen cruise missiles which are all synchronized.. bye bye Ship :D.
    The only real way to sink a aircraft carrier beyond using big cruise missile barrages (which would still be cheaper then building a submarine, but whatever) would be to use submarines, and the fact that countries like America and Britain sonar capabilities are very good to say the least, if the aircraft carrier is defended by sufficent naval task forces, then to torpedo the aircraft carrier would be sucide for the sub.
    Again i will add emphasis on the fact just using like a dozen or so synchronized cruise missiles should be able to take out a aircraft carrier, and that NATO nations, China, Saudia Arabia, Russia, India and Israel do indeed have many stockpiles of cruise missiles :D
     
  15. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    I never said it wasn't suicidal for a sub to take out a carrier. But it is cost effective. ;-)



    Have cruise missiles reached the point where they can take out a moving target on a tractless sea? I haven't kept up with them.
     
  16. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    That is absolutely false.

    http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsAtlanticDev.htm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/battle_atlantic_04.shtml

    I highly endorse not taking at face value anything in the Wikipedia or (god help me) even the Civilopedia. For instance, the Civilopedia contained a major error in Winston Churchill's biography, which I pointed out here, and to my knowledge, has never been corrected.
     
  17. von Choltitz

    von Choltitz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    I do hardly agree with the reason of the importance of carriers. It became obvious that a battleship that needed minimum 2 years of construction could be sunk by a handful of divebombers or torpedobombers (launched from carriers, see the sinking of the Bismarck). The carrier enabled attacks over several hundred miles, whereas the artilliery of a battleship was useful over 20 miles. What I want to say is that the importance of carriers is not a result of the sinking of battleships at Pearl Harbor, but because of their superiority and cost effectiveness against battleships. During WW2 the US naval construction policy was turned towards carriers, not towards battleships and that cannot be a result of Pearl Habor.

    Well, long talking and little meaning : If BTS could reflect the later game the fact that the construction of battleships is less effective compared to carriers, that would be fine !
     
  18. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Anybody know the answer?
     
  19. J.Rose

    J.Rose Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    S.W. Michigan
    Rusty if they tell you they might have to kill you. Just for security of course.
     
  20. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Probably true
    :lol:
     

Share This Page