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. El Koeno

    El Koeno Emperor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,926
    I for one don't consider carriers to be ineffective. True, it might help if ships could be bombed beyond 50% of their health, but still. As it stands, a few carriers in your naval taskforce can diminish losses by bombing. A strength 20 battleship is a lot easier to kill than a strength 40 one. You might lose fighters, but they can be flown in in only one turn, getting a ship to the other side of the world on the other hand... Also, air cover over ongoing invasions can be crucial, as well as the extra air support carriers provide.

    What I'm more interested in is how stealth destroyers will be implemented. Like subs? Invisible? Surely they should be visible to some units, but which ones?

    EDIT: A dutch steath destroyer. It's not too stealthy, but I think that's because a patch of ocean that doesn't reflect radar would attract attention. ;)
     
  2. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
    Pearl Harbor

    Before hostilities broke out in the Pacific Theatre, there was extensive pre-war planning centered around dreadnoughts. The Royal Navy could not achieve parity with the estimated nine Japanese capital ships in Southeast Asia, since doing so would leave only a handful of ships to use against Nazi Germany. However, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was optimistic about the improving situation in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean and allocating two ships to the colony's defense was seen as a compromise. Furthermore, the US Navy would agree to send its Pacific Fleet with its eight battleships to Singapore in the event that hostilities with Japan broke out.

    Initially, when the US entered the war in December 1941, they had no battleships available in the Pacific Theatre. Eight of them were sunk or crippled at Pearl Harbor and would be sent home for repairs and reconstruction; regardless they would not have been able to keep up with the carriers. As well, the new fast battleships of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes were still undergoing trials. The North Carolina and South Dakota were ready by summer of 1942 and provided crucial anti-aircraft defense during the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz Islands carrier battles.

    The Battle off Samar, on 25 October 1944, proved that battleships were still a lethal weapon. The American escort carriers of "Taffy 3" had a narrow escape from falling under the guns of the Japanese battleships Yamato, Kongō, Haruna and Nagato and their cruiser escort. American destroyers and aircraft attacked the battleships, enabling the American task force to disengage. Inexplicably, the Japanese fleet disengaged as well, despite being near to their intended target - the American amphibious landing forces at Leyte.

    A modern fast battleship could provide a vital point defense against attackers that broke through the fighter screen. The North Carolina and South Dakota demonstrated just that in the battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz Islands, respectively, with North Carolina downing between 7 to 14 planes while South Dakota shot down 26 to 32. The battleships' presence was crucial during these 1942 battles, as the US were still months from being able to realize their material advantage, with too few planes and ships to interdict enough of the skilled Japanese pilots.


    So battleships still did have purpose in WWII as i was pointing out in the post you quoted, although i may have gone a little overboard in stating that the only reason America used carriers was because they had no available battleships :D

    I Completely agree though, that battleships are too strong in this game, submarines should easily be able to destroy them i personally think.
    Look at all the modern navies, no battleships remain in service (including in reserve) with any navy worldwide.

    I still contest carriers value for money though, because heavy nuclear and conventional tipped cruise missiles were seen by the USSR as a primary weapon to destroy US carrier battle groups. Large submarines (e.g. Echo and Oscar classes) were developed to carry these weapons and shadow US battle groups at sea. Carriers are only effective against nations, which are not technolodgy on the same level as you, and countries which do not have submarines, or effective cruise missiles. How big was the soviet unions carrier force?

    Tomahawk missile model has become a significant part of the US naval arsenal. It gives ships and submarines an extremely accurate, long-range, conventional land attack weapon. Each costs about $1,900,000 USD.

    the Tomahawk uses inertial guidance or GPS to follow a preset course; once over land, the missile's guidance system is aided by Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM). Terminal guidance is provided by the Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) system or GPS, producing a claimed accuracy of about 10 meters.

    so 1.9 million dollar missile capable of destroying billion dollar inventments :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

    Soon Tomahawk missiles will cost as little as $600,000 in production costs for the American navy, which makes them even more dangerous, but consider the fact that Tomahawk missiles arnt really primary anti ship missiles

    Anti Ship Missiles

    AShMs are a significant threat to modern warships and were used extensively in the 1982 Falklands War. In 1987, a US Navy guided-missile frigate, the USS Stark, was hit by an Exocet AShM fired by an Iraqi Mirage F-1. The Stark was damaged but was able to make it to a friendly port for repair. The next year, AShMs were fired by both US and Iranian forces in Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf. During this naval battle, several Iranian warships were hit by US AShMs (and by Standard SAMs doing double-duty in this role). Also, in October 1987 an American-owned tanker under the Liberian flag and a Kuwaiti tanker under the US flag, the Sea Isle City, were hit by Iranian HY-2 missiles.

    In 2006, Hezbollah forces fired a Chinese C-802 AShM at the Israeli corvette INS Hanit, inflicting heavy damage and spilling a huge volume of oil into the marine environment. A second missile in this salvo sunk an Egyptian merchant ship, as well.

    The counter to AShMs are Anti-missile missiles, Anti-aircraft guns, Close-in weapon systems, Deception Jammers and Decoy systems such as chaff and flares.

    Passive countermeasures against AShMs include the use of stealth features in the design of modern warships to reduce their radar cross section (RCS) which reduces the ships radar signature and also measures to reduce their infra-red and acoustic signatures too. The aim of making the ships stealthly is to reduce the risk of detection and to make them harder targets for attacking AShMs. Examples include the US Arleigh Burke class destroyers and the French La Fayette class frigate.

    For further reading on the possible future of AShMs look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos :D:D
    For some more information on Warships vulnerability and the fact they are really obstele in a naval battle between great powers goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos
     
  3. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Thanks, Grimz.

    The USSR built one carrier for the black sea fleet , they may have sold it to China after the cold war.

    So officially, the tomahawk is still a GPS point to point weapon, not a radar -guided homing missile.

    The -super sonic Indian cruise missile now being tested may be another matter.

    The USS Stark was a friendly fire incident. In 91' the Iraqi airforce didn't survive long enough to take out anything.

    I'd say that in Civ terms , anti- ship missiles are like air strikes, they don't normally sink ships, just weaken them to the point that they are out of action and need to head for home.

    I'd also say that carriers still had a long run as dominant conventional naval weapon. In civ terms, where would you draw the line?
     
  4. Grimz101

    Grimz101 King

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    London, England
  5. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
  6. winddbourne

    winddbourne Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Location:
    michigan
    One thing to think of, other than the debate on how ships should operate and what ships really are best (carriers/battleships). . .

    It doesn't matter if nobody uses them!

    The first change tht needs to be made is to make the oceans important. They are doing a LOT to help with this. But one change I haven't heard mentioned would really make a difference.

    In civ III we had "colonies" used to exploit resources outside our empires borders. Something similiar for the seas in the later game wouldn't be out of place. Especially if corporations could use deep sea resources such as pearls, oil, etc . . .

    And carriers that are very slow moving but hold planes with long range abiities would make it important for me to kill those ships before they got the planes/missils in range of my cities/terrain.

    The sea needs to be important enough TO warrant a lot of military battle over it, or all the units on earth are still going to be a waste.
     
  7. phungus420

    phungus420 Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,296
    The consensus among the military is that battleships are no longer remotely cost effective. Carriers are awesome if the war is asymetrical powerwise, but like the entire surface fleet will cease to exist in a balanced war, since most carriers are expected to last less then 1 hour in a war against two modern navies. Carriers and battleships are just too susceptible to missiles and attack submarines, and Carriers can project force a hell of a lot better then a battleship. So we no longer see them. In CIV terms it would be good to see carriers buffed slightly, so that they can be easily destroyed by nuclear attack subs, or cruise missiles, but give them more fighter slots so they'd be great to attack a nation that you can already overwhelm thier Air defense.
     
  8. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    That, and give them either fighter promotions, or a new fighter-bomber with more strike strength.
     
  9. Chengora

    Chengora Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Precisely. My last post in the other navy thread was getting to this. I don't know if just have trade routes over the ocean is enough though. They definitely usage blue-water resources to be available. At the moment, there's so little point in defending water.

    And one othe wrinkle I'd like to add about the "which ships are best" issue. You also have to remember what other elements in a modern military exist that obviate the need for battleships. It's not just that battleships are slower and their firepower doesn't have range. It's that long-range bombers have been combined with precision weaponry, and cruise missiles have increased destructive capacity. So, if you think battleships should become obsolete (and perhaps they should), there's got to be something else that takes their place while performing their functions better.
     
  10. wioneo

    wioneo King

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    752
    I may be wrong, but I think that helicopters are a class.
     
  11. Vox Mentis

    Vox Mentis Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Reduced visible range would be my guess.
     
  12. qwert

    qwert Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    212
    The point that modern ships are very vulnerable to Anti Ship missilles, only indicates the importance of carriers, because their planes offer an ideal way to deliver such weapons over great distances.
    In reallity the point that an aircraft carrier has no importance in sea battles is nosense in my opinion.
    Carriers provide the ability to launch attacks against other fleets over longer distances than any other way. Of course, carriers are vulnerable to cruise misiles and batleships if they come too close, but that is why escorts are used. Aircraft on the carriers can easily detect any threat from long distances and dealt with it, even submarines. Anti-air frigates equiped with aa misiles and AEGIS radar can deal with the menace of aircraft and cruise missilles. Frigates, Destroyers and submarines have the objective of dealing with any sub that comes too near. Submarines and cruisers should be able to deal with any ship that commits the same error.
    In short, every ship is important, they designed to work in group, a carrier without its escort is vulnerable to almost anything and the same happens to battleship or a frigate.
    Not only the importance of navies is because they offer a very effective way to project power and the carrier together with cruise misiles allow a navy to project power inland, in real life without a navy ther wouldnt be any succesfull military operations.

    Something to remenber is that any war between great powers would end in a stalemate or in nuclear war, this last situation would practically render all non nuclear weapons obsolete.
     
  13. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Dead right. they could be the most powerful, fastest, sophisticated units in the game now and it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference. They have nothing to protect. If they were protecting a distant city, colony, or were a deterent against a naval invasion they would have a purpose. We havew to be able to go in the ocean earlier so distant cities have time to develop and become worth protecting. Maybe sea based trade should become dependent on a "caravan" style trade ship that would need to be protected, that way, just as in real life, your navy would be used to protect and attack merchant shipping.
     
  14. El Koeno

    El Koeno Emperor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,926
    Well, I like to protect my empire from naval invasion and protect any of my invasion fleets from enemy navies. The problem is of course that the AI handles naval invasion poorly, leaving a defensive navy almost useless. The AI doesn't defend his coasts at all either, leaving escorts pretty much useless.


    Visible trade-routes are to be in BtS, let's hope for the best and see how it works out.
     

Share This Page