NAVY Strategies

[psweetman1590]

Ok I admit, the AEGIS cruiser's AA capabilities are not top-class. But they're not THAT bad either. I mean, what are the success rates for jet fighters doing air superiority? 50%? That's only 10% more than an AEGIS cruiser's chance of knocking down a plane.

Oh, really? First of all, that's 50% per fighter. 3 fighters would have their probablilities stacked just as AA units get their chances stacked. Second, AEGIS cruisers have 4 AA, right? That does not mean 40%. That means they have a .4/3.4 chance of shooting down a bomber. How do I get that odd number? The formula for a unit's AA chance of shooting down a plane is (AA/10)/(bombers defense + (AA/10)). Thus, we have (4/10)/(3 + (4/10)).

.4/3.4 is around 1/8. Doesn't sound that efficient now, does it? One jet fighter costs around the same (don't quite remember what the AEGIS costs), yet it has a 50% chance, while your AEGIS cruiser has a measly 12.5% chance. To get anywhere near the 50%, you'd need four AEGIS cruisers. Which costs about the same as three jet fighters and a carrier. Put a bomber on the carrier, and now you don't need the AEGIS cruisers for bombardment either. A Destroyer is less expensive than an AEGIS cruiser, and you'd only need one to hunt for subs. So, yes, a carrier and destroyer combo costs more than AEGIS cruisers do, but not much more. And at the same time, the carrier and destroyer are MUCH more effective.

btw, AEGIS CRUISERS' DO SO HAVE GUNS!!!

Pah. 5 whole inches? That's what destroyers use. And as far as animations go, it'd be much cooler to have them firing off missiles than to see a barely detectable flash from a miniscule gun.

sorry for the caps, just imitating you.

You don't need to apologize for reciprocating.

Can a navy capture a city?

No. Therefore they are pointless.

Two arguments defeat this sort of logic.

1. They ease the capture of cities, just like artillery do. Or, if you like, we can twist that around into: Does Artillery capture cities? No. Therefore they are pointless.

I don't think anyone sane will agree with that statement.

2. Fun factor. Sure, if you want you certainly CAN build nothing but a bunch of transports and cover them with two battleships, and leave it at that. But that's no fun, man. That's too gamey. If that worked in real life, you would not be an agumentative brit, rather you'd be speaking German, and your parents' life (or yours, if you're old enough) in a brutal fascist society would have quashed the argumentativeness out of you.

 

[Jazzmail]

Suggestion for the OP: if you like to play with ships, use the patch_suggestion mod by player1.
It let's you upgrade ships and also gives all ships a better role. There was no point building any subs or AEGIS 1.29 vanilla.
The mod keeps the game as close to the original while fixing some glaring balance issues (it also does interesting things with tanks, paras and marines).

 

[brennan]

Two arguments defeat this sort of logic.

1. They ease the capture of cities, just like artillery do. Or, if you like, we can twist that around into: Does Artillery capture cities? No. Therefore they are pointless.

I don't think anyone sane will agree with that statement.

Hmm, how much does it cost to bombard you opponent with ships as opposed to normal artillery? Compare the cost of a Battleship with a Radar Artillery. PLus consider that Your artillery can be upgraded throughout the game from your first catapults, whereas Battleships must all be bought from scratch. Add to this that your Battleships are only effective against coastal cities...

Useless. And in the one instance where they are not, they are vastly less effective than other units.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

If you want to know about ship to ship naval warfare, I would recommend El Justo's Age of Imperialism scenario.

You'll have to self teach yourself quick if you want to maintain your empire (if you choose an imperialist nation). Strong Navy & Smart Tactics = Victory.

You need smart tactics if you plan to take on the English Navy early on. Their warships ARE everywhere.

 

[psweetman1590]

Hmm, how much does it cost to bombard you opponent with ships as opposed to normal artillery? Compare the cost of a Battleship with a Radar Artillery. PLus consider that Your artillery can be upgraded throughout the game from your first catapults, whereas Battleships must all be bought from scratch. Add to this that your Battleships are only effective against coastal cities...

Useless. And in the one instance where they are not, they are vastly less effective than other units.

Surely that depends upon the shape of the map. First of all, Battleships have a range of 2, so the city in question does not have to be coastal, but rather just one square away (and the AI does build lots of these). Second, On archipelagos its a pain the buttock to have to keep shipping all those artillery around. Meanwhile, you can just build battleships that can move on their own, do not need escorts, do not need to board transports, and can fulfill the dual purpose of guarding the transports carrying other units as well. On some maps, I might not even bother sending artillery, because all of the cities are within 2 squares of the coast, and so it's faster and easier to just use the battleships.

Also, using battleships means that you don't need as many transports, because you're not transporting as many artillery.

Lastly, Battleships are far more mobile than artillery are. With naval gunfire, fast attackers, and a good rail system, you can spree along a coast in no time at all. Artillery has to be moved into position first, and that creates delays and slows the advance.

Of course, if you only play on pangaea, they are, indeed, superfluous and wasteful.

Useless? I think not.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

The one thing I *really* hate about AEGIS Cruisers and Battleships is the fact that they are still limited to only a single attack per turn. Those two, at least, ought to get Blitz capability; or similar to Civ2's reduction of movement for damage, they get Blitz as long as they have 3 or more Hit Points.

 

[Aceman101]

Oh, really? First of all, that's 50% per fighter. 3 fighters would have their probablilities stacked just as AA units get their chances stacked. Second, AEGIS cruisers have 4 AA, right? That does not mean 40%. That means they have a .4/3.4 chance of shooting down a bomber. How do I get that odd number? The formula for a unit's AA chance of shooting down a plane is (AA/10)/(bombers defense + (AA/10)). Thus, we have (4/10)/(3 + (4/10)).

.4/3.4 is around 1/8. Doesn't sound that efficient now, does it? One jet fighter costs around the same (don't quite remember what the AEGIS costs), yet it has a 50% chance, while your AEGIS cruiser has a measly 12.5% chance. To get anywhere near the 50%, you'd need four AEGIS cruisers. Which costs about the same as three jet fighters and a carrier. Put a bomber on the carrier, and now you don't need the AEGIS cruisers for bombardment either. A Destroyer is less expensive than an AEGIS cruiser, and you'd only need one to hunt for subs. So, yes, a carrier and destroyer combo costs more than AEGIS cruisers do, but not much more. And at the same time, the carrier and destroyer are MUCH more effective.

I've never really known the percentage of the success rate of AA. But 12.5% does sound measly, but I guess there are those of us who just want to have a more convenient strike force, consisting of more than carriers and BB's.

Pah. 5 whole inches? That's what destroyers use. And as far as animations go, it'd be much cooler to have them firing off missiles than to see a barely detectable flash from a miniscule gun.

Actually the gun is smaller for a reason...

The basic economic 'unit' in Civ is the city.

Can a navy capture a city?

No. Therefore they are pointless.

I have GOT to disagree with this. That's like saying, can an artillery capture a city, no they're pointless. Can a bomber capture a city, no they're pointless. And of course bombers and artillery (although not so much bombers) are almost vital to success. (I noticed Psweet already stated that.)

Their only use is to transfer the units you should be building to where they are needed, this requires whatever transports you have available + some escorts.

Well if they're pointless why make escorts?

Enemy navies bombarding your coast may be irritating, but just count the resources they've spent to do it, and consider how easy it is to repair the damage...

I find it a lot funner to reply to the enemy by sending out more advanced ships.

Hmm, how much does it cost to bombard you opponent with ships as opposed to normal artillery? Compare the cost of a Battleship with a Radar Artillery. PLus consider that Your artillery can be upgraded throughout the game from your first catapults, whereas Battleships must all be bought from scratch. Add to this that your Battleships are only effective against coastal cities...

While I agree that battleships are expensive. Consider this. A very effective stack of artillery would consist of about 60, maybe a bit less, artillery. How much would that cost? IIRC one artillery costs 80 shields. Times 80 by 60 and you get... 4800 shields. Quite a fair bit. But since you were talking about radar artillery I'll convert those into the amount of shields needed to make 60 radar artillery. Wow, it costs 7200 shields to make 60 radar artillery. And you don't need 60 battleships to bombard the enemy.

I also compared the amount of shields more to make a battleship then a radar artillery, 80 shield difference. Not much I would think. Considering many cities in the late industrial/early modern times can produce that amount of shields. And plus, your navy shouldn't consist of all battleships. I noticed that a destroyer costs 120 shields, 0 more then a radar artillery.

Useless. And in the one instance where they are not, they are vastly less effective than other units.

You obviously don't enjoy building naval units. Well think about it this way, is it really worth it to get rid of the fun element of the game, just to make "economic sense"? I wouldn't think so.

 

[brennan]

While I agree that battleships are expensive. Consider this. A very effective stack of artillery would consist of about 60, maybe a bit less, artillery. How much would that cost? IIRC one artillery costs 80 shields. Times 80 by 60 and you get... 4800 shields. Quite a fair bit. But since you were talking about radar artillery I'll convert those into the amount of shields needed to make 60 radar artillery. Wow, it costs 7200 shields to make 60 radar artillery. And you don't need 60 battleships to bombard the enemy.

I also compared the amount of shields more to make a battleship then a radar artillery, 80 shield difference. Not much I would think. Considering many cities in the late industrial/early modern times can produce that amount of shields. And plus, your navy shouldn't consist of all battleships. I noticed that a destroyer costs 120 shields, 0 more then a radar artillery.

Er, Radar artillery has twice the bombardment strength of battleships for 60% of the cost. And they never cost me shields. In fact Artillery rarely cost me shields, i've usually got about 80 cannon to upgrade by the time I get my hands on any rubber... So it's research to 0% for a few turns and then boom, boom, boom go the big guns.

I'd build naval units if there were a point, and if it was interesting. Frankly all that Civ naval combat appears to entail is that you park your ship somewhere, an AI ship appears out of nowhere and sinks you. You then have to sink the AI ship. All pointlessly tit-for tat, and it has zero effect on your economy, other than being a major drain on your resources.

 

[Marsden]

The one thing I *really* hate about AEGIS Cruisers and Battleships is the fact that they are still limited to only a single attack per turn. Those two, at least, ought to get Blitz capability; or similar to Civ2's reduction of movement for damage, they get Blitz as long as they have 3 or more Hit Points.

I agree, I find it hard to believe all a battleship can do is take one hit point off of a galley and it's done for the turn.

 

[Aceman101]

Er, Radar artillery has twice the bombardment strength of battleships for 60% of the cost. And they never cost me shields. In fact Artillery rarely cost me shields, i've usually got about 80 cannon to upgrade by the time I get my hands on any rubber... So it's research to 0% for a few turns and then boom, boom, boom go the big guns.

But radar artillery aren't capable of going overseas without some transports and escorts. They also aren't capable of Blockading harbour's, sinking enemy transports (which makes the enemy loose lots of shields because they loose all their units in the ship) or any other type of ship. They also aren't capable of detecting subs, and they aren't armed with AA equipment. They also can't support bombers/fighters like carriers can. Actually, when I think about it, I can make the enemy loose many shields by sinking all their transports loaded with troops. And all their carriers...

If you've got the gold to upgrade artillery great! If you don't, then I guess it's "bad luck".

I'd build naval units if there were a point, and if it was interesting. Frankly all that Civ naval combat appears to entail is that you park your ship somewhere, an AI ship appears out of nowhere and sinks you. You then have to sink the AI ship. All pointlessly tit-for tat, and it has zero effect on your economy, other than being a major drain on your resources.

Well all I can say is, you have fun with the way you play your game, and i'll have fun the way I play.

 

[Innichen]

Suggestion for the OP: if you like to play with ships, use the patch_suggestion mod by player1.
It let's you upgrade ships and also gives all ships a better role. There was no point building any subs or AEGIS 1.29 vanilla.
The mod keeps the game as close to the original while fixing some glaring balance issues (it also does interesting things with tanks, paras and marines).

Where to find a links to download "the patch_suggestion mod by player1" ?
Thanks in advance.-
Innichen

 

[Jazzmail]

The .zip is at the bottom of player1s post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21025