I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with navies 
. On the one hand ships are of course specialized units in their own right with a role to fulfill, but on the other hand I find that investing in a navy can be expensive and time consuming and in most cases not worth the effort. I would suggest only building the bare minimum of ships necessary for the task at hand and bolster a small navy with alternate strategies and units.
In this post I shall briefly look at two articles written by Scoutsout and Zardnaar respectively and how they use naval power. Subsequently, I shall attempt to explain how I use navies, looking at both pros and cons, and draw relevant conclusions.
This post turned a bit longer than I had initially expected, but I hope that doesnt stop you from reading it. I would be interested in any feedback or ideas
.
First of all, I have read Scoutsout's and Zardnaar's contributions to the war academy. In particular I found that Scoutsout's in depth explanation of how to successfully conduct an amphibious invasion with marines as spearhead very useful and well thought out
. And Zardnaar has made a good case for the use of the English Man-o-War .
However, in my opinion both of the above describe strategies which apply to very specific circumstances. A 'D-Day' style invasion as described by Scoutsout would require a substantial number of ships and not just for the initial landing, but such numbers would have to be sustained throughout the campaign. A constant conveyer belt of transports shipping across large armies would need constant naval escort protection. And following the rule of attrition, that escort fleet would have to be large in order to maintain local dominance. In other words, if you estimate that 6 battleships are required for the job then I would estimate that you'll need a fleet of at least 10-12 battleships to make sure the job is done. This is because you need battleships on the battlefield (6 ships) while others are en route to or from harbors for repairs, others will be undergoing repairs and inevitably some will be sunk. If you then wish to add destroyers, cruisers and subs for the establishment of a perimeter, and carriers for air superiority and bomber campaigns, it all adds up to considerable production and maintenance costs. And as a small side note, the use of such a wide array of units may complicate co-ordination unnecessarily. Fewer unit-types can accomplish the same task without necessarily loosing effectiveness or taking more losses.
As for playing with the English, well, I think that's an acquired taste
but you may of course think differently about this. Certainly, Zardnaar's evaluation of the Man-o-War is very compelling:
Quote
"Possibly one of the most powerful UU's in Conquests, the Man O War is just too versatile: Naval supremacy, city bombardment, strip coastal improvements, port defense, and enslavement."
In particular the bit about enslavement is very useful - build up a large fleet with very little upkeep. And of course the English have other advantages which should be considered (though I will not discuss those in further detail here). Nevertheless, there are also disadvantages to take into account. Again, as Zardnaar rightfully points out, the English are a "slow starting civ" which bears with it the implication that "you will probably be weak militarily until the late middle ages".
Hence, before choosing the English on account of their naval advantage, you should bear in mind that Steam power, which grants the ironclad, is just around the corner from Magnetism. And given the fact that you'll be weak until the late middle ages, it begs the question of whether you'll actually be able to produce enough Man-o-Wars to even out the score with other civs, who may already be showing off their ironclads (You can then argue about the merits of Man-o-Wars versus ironclads. Ill leave that up for discussion).
What I'm saying is that you will most likely be fighting an uphill battle in the attempt to establish naval dominance. And if dominance is established, the fight might have taken up so much time that Combustion, which grants the destroyer, is already on the horizon. And not to forget, such naval contests may take up a lot of resources, which could be invested in other things... What is more, once dominance is established you should of course put it to good use and have a follow-up strategy such as for example an invasion of an enemys continent. Here again preparation is needed in terms of landing troops and transports and of course ongoing production of naval fighting vessels. This brings me back to Scoutsouts article. A large amount of naval and land units will be required and Im just wondering whether the English, despite all their advantages, will have enough capacity left over for that?
Instead I propose a different approach and role for navies. As I mentioned earlier, naval units are specialized units, which have their own tasks to fulfill. By this I mean that youll of course need ships, but only limited numbers are necessary.
Before proceeding I have to specify that Im referring to the use of navies after the invention of Magnetism. The reason for this is that before such time empires may be relatively weak or small and wont be able to produce or sustain the production necessary for large scale naval commitments. Moreover, in my view, effective naval units only start coming onto the scene after Magnetism.
As far as Im concerned, I see ships as no more than the initial stepping-stone to another continent. They are merely the means to an end and not an end in itself. I shall not engage myself with sea exploration or communication, since these do not concern the use of navies but individual ships instead, but rather spend more time discussing the meat of the matter: invasions!
When playing a game of civ I most often attempt to conquer my own continent first. Only when this is done, do I look farther a field in order to expand my empire. This means that I can concentrate all of my energies on producing the relevant units for the invasion of a foreign continent (or if its the aim of my game settle down and concentrate on a cultural, diplomatic or spaceship victory). After selecting the target civ I begin building a small economical navy as that first and vital stepping-stone. Usually I need no more then 3-4 transports and 3-4 battleships. The transports I load up with my best attacking units available supplemented by 4 or so of the best defensive units. In the majority of cases this is all the ships I need. Before actually invading, I build as many airports as possible, usually somewhere between 8-10 in all. With these I can quickly build up a sizeable force of approx. 10-15 veteran bombers. In addition, I of course have a large force of attacking units and artillery ready and waiting as the follow-on force to the initial invasion.
In terms of production I give priority to the completion of my small navy, thereby allowing it to sail off while I complete the remaining units necessary for an invasion. For safety reasons, I keep all my naval units in a stack.
When all is ready and in position, I land my invasion force (preferably on a hill or mountain) along the line of least expectancy, thereby hoping to surprise the enemy. Naturally, this implies that I wont be able to attack until the next turn, but more often than not I will be at peace with the relevant enemy civ and declare war the next turn by doing a surprise attack. My aim is then to secure at the very minimum one enemy city and immediately rush build an airport there. By having overwhelming local superiority I should be able to quickly quell resistance and commence building. The airport will allow me to dispatch follow-on forces by plane and also allow bombers to lend support for the continuation of the invasion.
The above strategy may not come as a surprise to most, indeed it may seem somewhat intuitive, but I certainly prefer this to building up massive navies, which is the point of this post. As I have mentioned, these cost time and resources, all of which, I believe, is better invested in land and air units. In particular, I find bombers most useful since they can take on enemy ships, cities, strip improvements, move fast across the whole length of the map and are cheaper to build than the majority of naval units. Of course, in connection with the bombers comes the added costs of airports, but I still believe that its worth the investment. However, if you can secure Smiths Trading Company, the airports will be free and certainly this wonder ranks high on my list of wonders to get, if any.
Granted that the above strategy would be more difficult to initiate if you play with archipelagos, but in this case I simply repeat my modus operandum: Island-hoping with my small navy as a spearhead and rush building airports I go.
Surprise attacking a civ may of course result in a worsening of relations with other civs. However, by the time I initiate the above strategy, I should have a sizable empire on my own continent, which for me is a cue for starting a push toward world domination anyway. So what the hell
There is always the risk that captured enemy cities will flip thereby loosing your tenuous foothold on another continent. It is a risk that has to be taken, but mostly I find that its not a problem since I have a decent amount of units from the 3-4 transports to quell any resistance and quickly establish a bridgehead and build airport in order to subsequently move inland.
This of course brings up the issue of timing involved in the attack. On this basis Scoutsouts strategy might be quicker in the initial stages of the assault since he proposes the use of marines backed up by large amounts of other attacking units. This is a point to keep in mind, but I find that once the air-bridge is established and bomber support is available, there is no loss of momentum in the attack. Besides, you should also consider the amount of time needed to set up a large scale D-day invasion (and not just for one island, but also in terms of island hopping). In this case, I believe the use of a small navy and an air bridge are much less time-consuming overall and more versatile.
I have tried to weigh the pros and cons of each strategy and my conclusion is that navies are only a tool or a small (but still important) part of an invasion. The thing to remember is that no matter how large your navy may be, it CANNOT force a conclusion to a war on its own: you need land units for that!
I have to admit though that until now I'm at Monarch, so maybe the parameters when playing more difficult levels changes all of the above. Also, many games are finished by the time you reach the mid-industrial age thereby negating such naval considerations anyway.
I might have overlooked certain points and if so, please let me know , i would be very interested. Or if you have alternate strategies or opinions on navies post 'em! I leave it up for discussion!
Cheers
. On the one hand ships are of course specialized units in their own right with a role to fulfill, but on the other hand I find that investing in a navy can be expensive and time consuming and in most cases not worth the effort. I would suggest only building the bare minimum of ships necessary for the task at hand and bolster a small navy with alternate strategies and units.In this post I shall briefly look at two articles written by Scoutsout and Zardnaar respectively and how they use naval power. Subsequently, I shall attempt to explain how I use navies, looking at both pros and cons, and draw relevant conclusions.
This post turned a bit longer than I had initially expected, but I hope that doesnt stop you from reading it. I would be interested in any feedback or ideas
.First of all, I have read Scoutsout's and Zardnaar's contributions to the war academy. In particular I found that Scoutsout's in depth explanation of how to successfully conduct an amphibious invasion with marines as spearhead very useful and well thought out
. And Zardnaar has made a good case for the use of the English Man-o-War .However, in my opinion both of the above describe strategies which apply to very specific circumstances. A 'D-Day' style invasion as described by Scoutsout would require a substantial number of ships and not just for the initial landing, but such numbers would have to be sustained throughout the campaign. A constant conveyer belt of transports shipping across large armies would need constant naval escort protection. And following the rule of attrition, that escort fleet would have to be large in order to maintain local dominance. In other words, if you estimate that 6 battleships are required for the job then I would estimate that you'll need a fleet of at least 10-12 battleships to make sure the job is done. This is because you need battleships on the battlefield (6 ships) while others are en route to or from harbors for repairs, others will be undergoing repairs and inevitably some will be sunk. If you then wish to add destroyers, cruisers and subs for the establishment of a perimeter, and carriers for air superiority and bomber campaigns, it all adds up to considerable production and maintenance costs. And as a small side note, the use of such a wide array of units may complicate co-ordination unnecessarily. Fewer unit-types can accomplish the same task without necessarily loosing effectiveness or taking more losses.
As for playing with the English, well, I think that's an acquired taste
but you may of course think differently about this. Certainly, Zardnaar's evaluation of the Man-o-War is very compelling:Quote
"Possibly one of the most powerful UU's in Conquests, the Man O War is just too versatile: Naval supremacy, city bombardment, strip coastal improvements, port defense, and enslavement."
In particular the bit about enslavement is very useful - build up a large fleet with very little upkeep. And of course the English have other advantages which should be considered (though I will not discuss those in further detail here). Nevertheless, there are also disadvantages to take into account. Again, as Zardnaar rightfully points out, the English are a "slow starting civ" which bears with it the implication that "you will probably be weak militarily until the late middle ages".
Hence, before choosing the English on account of their naval advantage, you should bear in mind that Steam power, which grants the ironclad, is just around the corner from Magnetism. And given the fact that you'll be weak until the late middle ages, it begs the question of whether you'll actually be able to produce enough Man-o-Wars to even out the score with other civs, who may already be showing off their ironclads (You can then argue about the merits of Man-o-Wars versus ironclads. Ill leave that up for discussion).
What I'm saying is that you will most likely be fighting an uphill battle in the attempt to establish naval dominance. And if dominance is established, the fight might have taken up so much time that Combustion, which grants the destroyer, is already on the horizon. And not to forget, such naval contests may take up a lot of resources, which could be invested in other things... What is more, once dominance is established you should of course put it to good use and have a follow-up strategy such as for example an invasion of an enemys continent. Here again preparation is needed in terms of landing troops and transports and of course ongoing production of naval fighting vessels. This brings me back to Scoutsouts article. A large amount of naval and land units will be required and Im just wondering whether the English, despite all their advantages, will have enough capacity left over for that?
Instead I propose a different approach and role for navies. As I mentioned earlier, naval units are specialized units, which have their own tasks to fulfill. By this I mean that youll of course need ships, but only limited numbers are necessary.
Before proceeding I have to specify that Im referring to the use of navies after the invention of Magnetism. The reason for this is that before such time empires may be relatively weak or small and wont be able to produce or sustain the production necessary for large scale naval commitments. Moreover, in my view, effective naval units only start coming onto the scene after Magnetism.
As far as Im concerned, I see ships as no more than the initial stepping-stone to another continent. They are merely the means to an end and not an end in itself. I shall not engage myself with sea exploration or communication, since these do not concern the use of navies but individual ships instead, but rather spend more time discussing the meat of the matter: invasions!
When playing a game of civ I most often attempt to conquer my own continent first. Only when this is done, do I look farther a field in order to expand my empire. This means that I can concentrate all of my energies on producing the relevant units for the invasion of a foreign continent (or if its the aim of my game settle down and concentrate on a cultural, diplomatic or spaceship victory). After selecting the target civ I begin building a small economical navy as that first and vital stepping-stone. Usually I need no more then 3-4 transports and 3-4 battleships. The transports I load up with my best attacking units available supplemented by 4 or so of the best defensive units. In the majority of cases this is all the ships I need. Before actually invading, I build as many airports as possible, usually somewhere between 8-10 in all. With these I can quickly build up a sizeable force of approx. 10-15 veteran bombers. In addition, I of course have a large force of attacking units and artillery ready and waiting as the follow-on force to the initial invasion.
In terms of production I give priority to the completion of my small navy, thereby allowing it to sail off while I complete the remaining units necessary for an invasion. For safety reasons, I keep all my naval units in a stack.
When all is ready and in position, I land my invasion force (preferably on a hill or mountain) along the line of least expectancy, thereby hoping to surprise the enemy. Naturally, this implies that I wont be able to attack until the next turn, but more often than not I will be at peace with the relevant enemy civ and declare war the next turn by doing a surprise attack. My aim is then to secure at the very minimum one enemy city and immediately rush build an airport there. By having overwhelming local superiority I should be able to quickly quell resistance and commence building. The airport will allow me to dispatch follow-on forces by plane and also allow bombers to lend support for the continuation of the invasion.
The above strategy may not come as a surprise to most, indeed it may seem somewhat intuitive, but I certainly prefer this to building up massive navies, which is the point of this post. As I have mentioned, these cost time and resources, all of which, I believe, is better invested in land and air units. In particular, I find bombers most useful since they can take on enemy ships, cities, strip improvements, move fast across the whole length of the map and are cheaper to build than the majority of naval units. Of course, in connection with the bombers comes the added costs of airports, but I still believe that its worth the investment. However, if you can secure Smiths Trading Company, the airports will be free and certainly this wonder ranks high on my list of wonders to get, if any.
Granted that the above strategy would be more difficult to initiate if you play with archipelagos, but in this case I simply repeat my modus operandum: Island-hoping with my small navy as a spearhead and rush building airports I go.
Surprise attacking a civ may of course result in a worsening of relations with other civs. However, by the time I initiate the above strategy, I should have a sizable empire on my own continent, which for me is a cue for starting a push toward world domination anyway. So what the hell
There is always the risk that captured enemy cities will flip thereby loosing your tenuous foothold on another continent. It is a risk that has to be taken, but mostly I find that its not a problem since I have a decent amount of units from the 3-4 transports to quell any resistance and quickly establish a bridgehead and build airport in order to subsequently move inland.
This of course brings up the issue of timing involved in the attack. On this basis Scoutsouts strategy might be quicker in the initial stages of the assault since he proposes the use of marines backed up by large amounts of other attacking units. This is a point to keep in mind, but I find that once the air-bridge is established and bomber support is available, there is no loss of momentum in the attack. Besides, you should also consider the amount of time needed to set up a large scale D-day invasion (and not just for one island, but also in terms of island hopping). In this case, I believe the use of a small navy and an air bridge are much less time-consuming overall and more versatile.
I have tried to weigh the pros and cons of each strategy and my conclusion is that navies are only a tool or a small (but still important) part of an invasion. The thing to remember is that no matter how large your navy may be, it CANNOT force a conclusion to a war on its own: you need land units for that!
I have to admit though that until now I'm at Monarch, so maybe the parameters when playing more difficult levels changes all of the above. Also, many games are finished by the time you reach the mid-industrial age thereby negating such naval considerations anyway.
I might have overlooked certain points and if so, please let me know
, i would be very interested. Or if you have alternate strategies or opinions on navies post 'em! I leave it up for discussion!Cheers
since it could make for more interesting gameplay (also, I'm presuming that by the time invasions with transports become a threat, your empire would already be criss-crossed with railroad. if not, then of course the defense force would have to be larger and more distributed).
