Some questions on navies

[Gdown94]

What are the long-term benefits, or even more immediate benefits, of a pre-atomic navy? I see the obvious ones, ie protecting fishing boats, possible supplementing land troops with ranged bombardment, actually succeeding in a naval invasion, etc, but is there anything that would cause an early navy to be worth it? In almost every game I've played (and I've played a lot, >350 hours), I find that the production required to have an effective navy is better spent elsewhere, such as in shoring up my power base on land, or in buildings. This strikes me as a bit unrealistic, though, as ancient and even medieval navies were pretty important. Athens, for instance, thrived mostly on the might of its navies.

Perhaps BNW will change this, with the implementation of overseas trade routes, but for now I see little point in a pre-atomic navy (unless you're England or the Netherlands). Why take 15 turns to build a frigate when you can build a cannon/trebuchet/musketman in 12? (I think the production on all units could stand to be lowered a bit, by the way, but that's a discussion for another thread).

So, to perhaps beat on a dead horse now, do any of you find any use for a pre-atomic navy that justifies building one? And by a navy, I don't mean one or two frigates. I mean 6-10 frigates with any number of privateers.

 

[nanomage]

well, what you need a navy for is conquering overseas. That's pretty much it, a scouting trireme/caravel is hardly a navy.
So, capturing a few enemy cities is what justifies building 5-6 frigates and a privateer, or 5-6 galeasses and a trireme.

 

[Maxym]

If AI has coastal caps all you need is 4-6 frigates and a naval melee and you can romp to a quick Dom victory ( fastest I saw was 156 turns on deity) more is better of course. And you don't build frigates, you upgrade from galleases after beelining Navigation. If the situation doesn't warrant it don't build a navy, as you mention only certain civs had big navies.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

You have to play on a map where the other civs actually build navies. I'm guessing most of your games are pangaea or continents, and they usually don't build enough of a navy on either of these to be worth your time. Obviously, map type indicates effectiveness of navy- pangaea maps means navies are all but useless, archipelago or (my personal favorite) small continents means they're beneficial but not essential. But you probably know this already.

I used to play very similar to what you're describing: with so much demand from your gold and hammers with land units, buildings, settlers, and the occasional wonder, navy seems like one of the few areas that can be cut. But the great thing about a navy is that you don't have to build it... Ignore triremes, other than scouting. Upon researching compass, build 2-3 galeasses to support the land assault along the coast, picking off land melee units to clear the path, and then you'll find them about as effective as catapults in attacking coastal cites but with a much higher survivability. Plus, the city only gets one bombardment per turn: if it attacks a cat, the galeasses get a free shot, if it attacks the ships, the cats get a free shot. But at this point, navy is really just supplementary.
As Maxym notes, Navigation is THE technology for naval incorporation, but you don't need that many hammers. Simply return your galeasses to upgrade to frigates, and all you need is 1-2 privateers. From there, find opponents ships and attack first with the frigates, attempting to reduce their HP as low as possible WITHOUT KILLING IT, then attack with the privateer and that ship is yours. Return the newly acquired ship to your territory, heal it and upgrade it. Rinse and repeat. And later on, those frigates upgrade to enormously powerful battleships; you really have to experience it to understand. When attacking a size 25ish city, 1 shot from the battleship took out about half its HPs. Plus they have a default range of 3, making cities unable to counterattack, which becomes range 4 with promotion. In most of my small continents domination games, I end up with a fleet of 50-60 ships and I only built 5 or 6. While naval campaigns usually don't pick up until much later in the game, they still end up with faster victories because of the faster movement, the lack of hindering terrain (forest/jungle/hill/river), firepower, and fleet strength increasing through commandeering rather than building/buying.

If you still have doubts, you MUST check out MadDjinn's LP of Carthage. I guarantee after watching it, you'll want to try a naval campaign.

 

[pilot00]

You have to play on a map where the other civs actually build navies.

Even at those maps the fact that the AI cant use the navy effectively, relegate navies into a coastal city offender at best a useless commodity at worst. Also a navy becomes usable only when you research compass (and the relevant ship upgrades from then on) in order to allow them to go through the ocean tiles. Ships stack in coasts are useless.
On the AI and navy effectiveness all you need is a couple of cannon/artillery pieces garrisoned in or around the capital. Every DoW I faced that included navy from the AI ended with sues for piece trities after they got a couple of stones to the face.

Now the saving grace is that almost no city can resist a good number of ironclads

 

[Catan_Settler]

I usually only bother with a Navy in the late game, for Carriers or Subs. Unless you're playing a Pangaea map you will need them if you need to make a raid against the other continents. That beign said, unless you're going for a full domination game, a little raid here or there is all you need one for. In case an AI on the other continent gets out of hand and starts building a spaceship way before you or something. For raids, I like to have a couple aircraft carriers (1 fighter, 2 nukes each) and some subs. The point is to get close to his capital and nuke it. If he's really strong, you may want to send a couple tanks or death robots with the fleet to puppet his city. Even if you abandon it, it will waste a huge amount of time/energy on his behalf and all for the price of a couple nukes and a handful of ships. Nuke it, capture it, then pull out. If he's way way way ahead, maybe you will rinse/repeat the nuke/puppet routine on 2 or 3 of his cities before pulling back and going home.

If you're playing to own the whole map though, yeah you want a decent navy for most maps. Nothing will mess you up quite so bad as a huge land force, that gets wiped out in the middle of the ocean on your way to the other side. By and large though, a little raiding navy based on submarines should be plenty to do the odd punitive strike and buy time for your science or cultural victory to play out.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

Even at those maps the fact that the AI cant use the navy effectively, relegate navies into a coastal city offender at best a useless commodity at worst. Also a navy becomes usable only when you research compass (and the relevant ship upgrades from then on) in order to allow them to go through the ocean tiles. Ships stack in coasts are useless.
On the AI and navy effectiveness all you need is a couple of cannon/artillery pieces garrisoned in or around the capital. Every DoW I faced that included navy from the AI ended with sues for piece trities after they got a couple of stones to the face.

Now the saving grace is that almost no city can resist a good number of ironclads

I guess we'll agree to disagree. First off, it's astronomy, not compass, that allows for oceanic travel. Second, yes naval combat doesn't really pick up until compass and take off until navigation, but naval-based combat games usually finish, at least for me, much quicker than ground combat because naval units have more moves, don't run into hills/rivers/etc., and as you said, the AI can't use a navy effectively. Third, The player cashes in on this not by eliminating it as a land unit would, but by capturing it. Merely coastal city offender? Not really- frigates can take out units 2 tiles inland, 3 with range, and battleships are 3/4 range - To say that they're limited to attacking coastal targets is like saying that facing a superior Atlantic and Pacific fleet wouldn't affect the U.S. because their entire army could hide out in Nebraska and Missouri. Giving up after a few stones to the face?- again, you see what you can do to an incompetently run AI navy and fail to consider that you could do it much better yourself. Unlike barb galleys that wander into and out of city bombardment range, effectively run player-controlled navies move in and fire en masse on the same turn. Post Navigation, the turn in which the navy moves into bombardment range is the same turn that the city is taken; the city never gets to bombard. You can't do this with land units until after artillery, a cat/treb/cannon has 2 moves - 1 moves into range and the other is set up: you can't actually fire until the next turn, during which all you can do is cross your fingers and say "please don hit my cannons, hit my knights instead." With naval combat, the AI doesn't have that option.
And the one unit you endorse, ironclads, is the one that I see no need for. Galeasses are the first effective naval unit that can be built, it's cheap and can attack at range making it a good ground assault supplement, gaining XP before they upgrade to frigates. Frigates are very powerful, attack at range, can 1-shot most land units, and just 3-4 reduce a city's HP to 0, all in the same turn, allowing a melee unit to capture a city, all in the same turn before the city can counterattack. Privateers are the aforementioned melee unit, give a little bonus gold, and most importantly capture your navy for you. Ironclads are pretty strong melee units that don't capture your navy for you, don't give you bonus gold, move half as fast in ocean, and reduce the number of factories that you can build.

In any case, if your opinion is that navies are at best a coastal attacker and at worst useless, please watch MadDjinn's Carthage LP. Your opinion will be corrected after doing so.

 

[BrokTheFanatic]

Navies are map/situation dependent.

Since some ships can take cities, they are now very useful in some games. I don't guard fishing boats, I either have a few to scout or I build to go and take enemy cities. Anything inbetween is usually a waste of production, like you said. Only on high seas, all islands do I maintain a Navy.

 

[atreas]

I have a different kind of question: in a recent game of mine I noticed that around 100AD there was a message that Polynesia had proven the Earth was round. Being an old Civ player I know that in previous editions that meant an extra movement for naval of the specific country - is it this the same in civ 5?

Now the most difficult part of it: many turns later it was obvious that the initial message was completely FAKE. I was playing continents and the map had some parts of ice completely separating it in two "hemispheres" (btw, that made it funny later because I was forced to build two fleet to crash the other continent). ONLY a submarine would be able to go under the ice and complete the tour. Even the Great Admiral seems to lack the skill of crossing ice. So, does anybody have any idea on how can this happen?

 

[Browd]

No longer extra movement for proving the earth is round. No idea what might have happened on your specific map, but to get the achievement/recognition you aren't required to complete the journey only by water. A combination of water and land exploration seems to suffice, but since there's no impact on game play I don't pay much attention.

 

[nanomage]

Would be fun to see once in a blue moon a message informing other players that "Kamehameha has proven that the world is flat "

 

[RonMar]

You can enable the extra move from circumnavigation by opening the ..Assets\Gameplay\XML\GlobalDefines.xml in notepad. Search for "circum" without quotes to find "CIRCUMNAVIGATE_FREE_MOVES". Change the number on the next line from 0 to 1.

 

[atreas]

I guess we'll agree to disagree. First off, it's astronomy, not compass, that allows for oceanic travel. Second, yes naval combat doesn't really pick up until compass and take off until navigation, but naval-based combat games usually finish, at least for me, much quicker than ground combat because naval units have more moves, don't run into hills/rivers/etc., and as you said, the AI can't use a navy effectively. Third, The player cashes in on this not by eliminating it as a land unit would, but by capturing it. Merely coastal city offender? Not really- frigates can take out units 2 tiles inland, 3 with range, and battleships are 3/4 range - To say that they're limited to attacking coastal targets is like saying that facing a superior Atlantic and Pacific fleet wouldn't affect the U.S. because their entire army could hide out in Nebraska and Missouri. Giving up after a few stones to the face?- again, you see what you can do to an incompetently run AI navy and fail to consider that you could do it much better yourself. Unlike barb galleys that wander into and out of city bombardment range, effectively run player-controlled navies move in and fire en masse on the same turn. Post Navigation, the turn in which the navy moves into bombardment range is the same turn that the city is taken; the city never gets to bombard. You can't do this with land units until after artillery, a cat/treb/cannon has 2 moves - 1 moves into range and the other is set up: you can't actually fire until the next turn, during which all you can do is cross your fingers and say "please don hit my cannons, hit my knights instead." With naval combat, the AI doesn't have that option.
And the one unit you endorse, ironclads, is the one that I see no need for. Galeasses are the first effective naval unit that can be built, it's cheap and can attack at range making it a good ground assault supplement, gaining XP before they upgrade to frigates. Frigates are very powerful, attack at range, can 1-shot most land units, and just 3-4 reduce a city's HP to 0, all in the same turn, allowing a melee unit to capture a city, all in the same turn before the city can counterattack. Privateers are the aforementioned melee unit, give a little bonus gold, and most importantly capture your navy for you. Ironclads are pretty strong melee units that don't capture your navy for you, don't give you bonus gold, move half as fast in ocean, and reduce the number of factories that you can build.

In any case, if your opinion is that navies are at best a coastal attacker and at worst useless, please watch MadDjinn's Carthage LP. Your opinion will be corrected after doing so.

I admit I was pretty much of the opposite opinion, mostly under the influence of previous CIV editions (where navy was completely worthless IMO, unless you specifically went for Archipelago maps). But then in my last game by accident I saw AI using almost efficiently his navy to massacre a modern armor I innocently had into a coastal city (recovering), and I realized the potential. Then I went on reading and searching and now I admit I am a full believer - I think that navy is by far OP. In fact, it is so much so that definitely they need to add in BNW something that hinders the extreme easiness of taking enemy cities with naval units, just like they did in G&K with stealth bombers and mechanized artillery.

I just want to add another factor: whereas in land battles you can see what is coming, in naval combat you MIGHT notice it at the very last moment, IF you are lucky enough. Unless, of course, you have the luxury of sparing ships for patrol close to your coastal cities - but I doubt anybody does that in SP. I suppose, though, that in MP this would be standard practice.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

I admit I was pretty much of the opposite opinion, mostly under the influence of previous CIV editions (where navy was completely worthless IMO, unless you specifically went for Archipelago maps). But then in my last game by accident I saw AI using almost efficiently his navy to massacre a modern armor I innocently had into a coastal city (recovering), and I realized the potential. Then I went on reading and searching and now I admit I am a full believer - I think that navy is by far OP. In fact, it is so much so that definitely they need to add in BNW something that hinders the extreme easiness of taking enemy cities with naval units, just like they did in G&K with stealth bombers and mechanized artillery.

I just want to add another factor: whereas in land battles you can see what is coming, in naval combat you MIGHT notice it at the very last moment, IF you are lucky enough. Unless, of course, you have the luxury of sparing ships for patrol close to your coastal cities - but I doubt anybody does that in SP. I suppose, though, that in MP this would be standard practice.

Concur that navy in civ4 and prior was ornamental. Somewhat disagree that navy in civ5 is OP, if you return to your previous philosophy you did have a point; the initial investment in navy is cumbersome, possibly a "want" rather than a "need," and the higher difficulty you go, the less "wants" you can afford. As the initial investment in a couple of naval ranged units and, most importantly, 1-3 privateers can capture you an entire armada, I'd argue that the hammers spent on the 1-3 privateers is the most efficient use of hammers in the game. As far as fixing with BNW, if it isn't too late, I did have one 2-part suggestion that I feel holds water:
1.) ships can no longer capture cities
2.)marines can earn a first level promotion allowing them to move with a ship (similar to the Swedish Hakkepelitta's movement allowance to GG). For role-playing purposes, the marines have boarded the ship.

2 birds with 1 stone - first, addresses marines questionable utility in the game, second, addresses the ease at which a navy can conquer a city. Plus, it addresses some role playing concerns (ok, the privateer can launch the final volley on a city, but a dozen or so pirates conquering and establishing new leadership in a metropolis of millions? suspension of belief broken), and provides an unequaled level of versatility (and respect, which they deserve) to a unit that respresents military versatility.

 

[atreas]

I agree. And, if I can add my own two cents, there were historically two ways of combating ships:

1. Give the city the ability (maybe through some unit/building/improvement) to bombard ships at EVERY movement they make within the range. That's exactly what happened in reality - cannons were installed in fortresses, and ships had a very tough time approaching unless they first cleared this.

2. (and this is much more general and IMO sufficient). Capturing is one thing, but shouldn't be the end of the story. There should be a short period (let's say, two turns) for making the city safe, at which the strength of the city defense should be very low (but increasing every turn) and the only defense would be provided by the capturing units. Then you would capture cities temporarily with your ships, but without a melee unit to defend you would lose it next turn (here the marines would play a role).

 

[Antiphon]

Concur that navy in civ4 and prior was ornamental. Somewhat disagree that navy in civ5 is OP, if you return to your previous philosophy you did have a point; the initial investment in navy is cumbersome, possibly a "want" rather than a "need," and the higher difficulty you go, the less "wants" you can afford. As the initial investment in a couple of naval ranged units and, most importantly, 1-3 privateers can capture you an entire armada, I'd argue that the hammers spent on the 1-3 privateers is the most efficient use of hammers in the game. As far as fixing with BNW, if it isn't too late, I did have one 2-part suggestion that I feel holds water:
1.) ships can no longer capture cities
2.)marines can earn a first level promotion allowing them to move with a ship (similar to the Swedish Hakkepelitta's movement allowance to GG). For role-playing purposes, the marines have boarded the ship.

2 birds with 1 stone - first, addresses marines questionable utility in the game, second, addresses the ease at which a navy can conquer a city. Plus, it addresses some role playing concerns (ok, the privateer can launch the final volley on a city, but a dozen or so pirates conquering and establishing new leadership in a metropolis of millions? suspension of belief broken), and provides an unequaled level of versatility (and respect, which they deserve) to a unit that respresents military versatility.

I agree something needs to be done ! In it was too tedious to cooporate land units and navy, especially for Falkland style military action on the other edge of the globe. In it is currently too easy. Sure, it feels good for the player never having to build land units on an archipelago map again after wiping out those barbs on home island, but it is too easy to capital snipe.

Remember, friggin' frigates (don't get me started on SOTL with Naval traditon and Great Lighthouse ) and those other units in same upgrade path are like siege weapons. Like siege weapons that are fast as cavalry, fire in same turn like rocket artillery, kill other units like Hwach'as and obviously don't have hills or forests on their terrain.

Im not a pro, but conquest victory on archipelago is currently so much easier than on pangaea, that I love archipelago maps. But I disagree with your proposal to make marines board ships so they could capture cities whereas ships couldn't anymore - in practice, it would be just replacing destroyers with marines and no change in gameplay. I think rather land bombardment needs to get weakened, ranged units in general are too powerful when not hampered by woods and hills, and on archipelago ranged ships are like camel archers on speed - unstoppable.

 

[pilot00]

I guess we'll agree to disagree....

Didn't put the whole quote just to save space. Man we are saying the same. A human player can find a niche for it but the AI cannot use it properly therefore it poses no actual threat. Tell you what, I prefer facing a carpet of Battleships and cruisers, than a carpet of Tanks. Yes you can use them to destroy/capture coastal cities and destroy coastal units but thats it. The AI cant use subs, It sends carriers without a single plane strapped on them, has never launched to my experience any nukes using either subs or missile cruisers and subs for the AI are wasted upkeep etc etc. Therefore I don't feel the need to invest into a strong navy VS the AI.

Yes two players facing each other will find many uses for navy, to the point where the game might be judged by successful naval actions. Vs the AI it has never happened to me and I honestly never believe it will. Mismanaging a fleet is one thing. Sending a flotilla of empty carriers to assault a coastal city is another horrible story.

Would be fun to see once in a blue moon a message informing other players that "Kamehameha has proven that the world is flat "

I always found the newspaper announcements of CiV 1 for world/national events to be the best implemented in the entire series.