Navies?

[vee4473]

With all this talk of the improvement to armies in the game, a question streaked out of the blue into my mind...literally (maybe as a result of the beer)

How come there are no navies? (or air forces for that matter)

You know, the same concept as the armies, but with naval units. (or air units)

Has this been discussed before? and I just missed it?

or is it possible and I just don't know it?

[Kuciwalker]

Because it wouldn't actually add all that much. Naval combat is, unfortunately, not a big part of civ3 (though from what I've seen in this forum about c3c says this may change, I hope), and navies would actually reduce the strategy in naval combat, not increase it.

[vee4473]

You may be right, but I and others have experienced (as you say) that in c3c, the AI uses big navies, and the change to bombardment may make "navies" as valid as armies.

But I gotta say, that even if some feel that naval warfare is not the core in civ3, controlling the seas and skies is very important, so why not extend the concept to sea and air?

[notyoueither]

Naval combat is more intricate than land combat in Civ3. All combatants after the Ancient era are both bombardment platforms and direct melee units.

My stack against his one or two stacks. Do I bombard to pling him down before attacking? Or do I simply commit to surface action in hopes of getting more of his units at the risk of more of mine? After action, and there are enemy left, where do I go? Where will he go? Do I want another round, or do I want to disengage to lick my wounds?

Having 'Fleets' would detract from this, IMO. They would detract because they would create 'uber' units at sea which would be far too powerful compared to everything else the oppo has.

Besides, a 'Fleet' of Frigates just might take a BB down. That would not be good.

[Vince278]

I really can't picture real world examples of navies or air forces.

[Tassadar500]

NYE is right. Naval armies would just cause less strategy used in naval combat.

[vee4473]

and you are saying that this less strategy would be due to the fact that ships have BOTH bombard and melee attacks?

[Kuciwalker]

It would be due to the fact that it would be an essentially unbeatable unit, and so would remove ALL maneuver from naval combat. It would just be lots of little ships vs uber ship.

[vee4473]

well, why would a navy be any more unbeatable than an army?

[Kuciwalker]

It's not that it would be more or less unbeatable than a land army in open combat - they are both as powerful. However, the diversity of terrain on land means that open combat can be avoided and encourages maneuver. Having an uber sea unit makes naval combat one-dimensional.

[Shogun Gunner]

Jutland?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Jutland?

Battle of Coral Sea too. I understand the ships there never really even saw each other.

[pauli]

Originally posted by Vince278
I really can't picture real world examples of navies or air forces.

spanish armada?

thousand bomber raids over germany?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Vince278
I really can't picture real world examples of navies or air forces.

There are huge number of examples.

Ancient: Salamis.

Medieval: Many, many, many naval battles for control of Constantinople.

Modern: Battle of the River Platte. i.e a cruiser "fleet" vs a pocket battleship.

[Alfonso]

Leader naval: They would have the same options that the terrestrial ones, that is to say, could finish a wonder or form a Navy. When discovering Navigation and having an active Navy would unblock the small wonder “Naval academy” that would serve to create Navies. The Navies serian in the sea the equivalent thing to the earth armies.