Naval combat

[Quokka]

I also only build a navy for defensive and transport reasons. The only real use is to uncover the whole map.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I personally find the navy useless. I only build ships defensively, because offensively is a waste of time and resources.

Shore bombardment works pretty good.

[MonsterMan]

Navys are not useless!

If you have plenty of bombardment-capable ships, you can for example take a metropolis down to below 7 pop, which makes it twice as easy to conquer it. You can also destroy improvements, like barracks, which slows down the rate units heal in that city. You can also bombard improvements to level the playing field when it comes to improvements. For any serious offensive against civilizations on other continents, I wouldn't wanna be without my fleet.

[Willem]

Re: Navys are not useless!

Originally posted by MonsterMan
If you have plenty of bombardment-capable ships, you can for example take a metropolis down to below 7 pop, which makes it twice as easy to conquer it. You can also destroy improvements, like barracks, which slows down the rate units heal in that city. You can also bombard improvements to level the playing field when it comes to improvements. For any serious offensive against civilizations on other continents, I wouldn't wanna be without my fleet.

Can you also destroy roads using Bombardment? Certainly would be handy for seperating a civ from a resource.

[Zachriel]

Yes, you can destroy roads. And what good is a harbor without a road?

[MonsterMan]

Yes, the bombardment of ships work the same way as catapults do.

Actually... a harbor will let the city recieve luxury resources, with or without roads. Or did you mean something else?

[Willem]

Originally posted by MonsterMan
Yes, the bombardment of ships work the same way as catapults do.

Actually... a harbor will let the city recieve luxury resources, with or without roads. Or did you mean something else?

It might let the city have the resource, but if you destroy the road leading out of it, the rest of the empire can't.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Willem
I suppose with nuclear subs, you could add the stealth flag as well. I'm not sure how that well that would work though.

Stealth is only calculated when it comes to air missions, in particular the odds that a jet/f-15 or a SAM system could intercept a bombing run. Stealth is not calculated in any other way. Unless you make you subs capable of air missions.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Quokka
I also only build a navy for defensive and transport reasons. The only real use is to uncover the whole map.

The importance of naval power in Civ-type games is under-represented due to the simplified-to-the-point-of-distortion economic system. In real life, most nations are not self-sufficient. Even those which are essentially self-sufficient find it profitable to engage in foreign trade, and suffer economically when their trade is blocked. In real life, prior to railroads most cargos could only be economically moved long distances by water - the exception being things with a very high value to mass ratio (most of which are "luxuries" in both real life and Civ3). Even with railroads, sea transport is cheaper unless the route is much, much longer than by rail.

So, in real life there is all this water-borne trade going on. So, in real life navies primarily exist to protect that trade. Countries which are more involved in oceanic trade tend to have big navies (or rely on the big navies of their trading partners). When such countries are fighting each other, you get a naval war with the goal of cutting off one's opponent's foriegn trade. The enemy's of such countries also often build navies for the purpose of interfering with the enemy's trade. Since sea powers have to invest in big navies anyway, they tend to look for strategies where they can make use of that power even against land powers.

The root of all this is economic, though. Overseas trade for most nations that have navies is VITAL, not just a way to get a little extra cash, and that is why they have navies to start with. The Civ games do a poor job of modelling the economics of it, and provide little in the way of means by which your navy can screw up your opponent's trade, thus Navies appear relatively useless.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by Deathwalker
The whole navy things needs to be updated. The units, ai power and more. The naval asspect of the game was servealy ignored

Yes. Along with excessive culture flipping (and vanishing garrisons), and excessive corruption, the pathetic way navies are handled in Civ III is my biggest complaint about the game.

Privateers and submarines should be attacking TRADE ROUTES and enemy merchant shipping - NOT WARSHIPS. They are not intended for that in reality. But in Civ III I could have dozens of privateers on the trade route of some enemies and it would accomplish NOTHING! It should greatly hurt their trade.

In World War One and Two the Germans almost won both wars by attacking those trade routes - not blockading a port with battleships.

Bombardment? NO WAY warships would spend all their time mucking about bombarding improvements. Only batteshiips (and maybe Aegis) had the capability anyway. I eliminated all bombardment functions of all warships except those two.

Increased ironclads strength to 7.6. MOW to 5.4. Frigates to 4.3. Privateers to 3.2 (otherwise there is no point in building them). All ships had their moivement points increased by from two or four. Destroyers (CAN see subs) and carriers being the fastest.

Nuclear subs are very different from regular subs. The former STAY SUBMERGED always and move very quickly. The nuclear subs should be faster and harder to find.

Bombers apparently can NOT sink warships!! This is absurd. It happened regularly in WW II. I gave bombers attack and defense strengths; maybe that will work. Maybe not.

I am not sure if fighters can fly interception off carriers. (?).

There is also no way scouts, workers, explorer, and warriors should stop a large invasion force from landing. But they do stop them just by occupying tiles. Very unrealistic.

POSSIBLE BUG: Someone posted elsewhere that a friendly transport (loaded) entering the same tile as a carier was sunk by the carrier! Anyone hear of that?

Anyway, Sid's handling of naval warfare STINKS, and it should be patched pronto.

At least in Civ II we could use naval units to attack caravans and diplomats on transports. We even had a cruiser unit.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
Bombardment? NO WAY warships would spend all their time mucking about bombarding improvements. Only batteshiips (and maybe Aegis) had the capability anyway. I eliminated all bombardment functions of all warships except those two.

I agree wholeheartedly that privateers and subs should be used to attack trade, and further, that trade needs to be more important.

However, bombardment has been a staple of 3rd world domination since the colonial age. Nothing like pulling your ships up to an enemy port with impunity and opening fire. Many times just the presence of bombarding ships will result in a favorable treaty.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Encomium
Bombers apparently can NOT sink warships!! This is absurd. It happened regularly in WW II. I gave bombers attack and defense strengths; maybe that will work. Maybe not.

I am not sure if fighters can fly interception off carriers. (?).

POSSIBLE BUG: Someone posted elsewhere that a friendly transport (loaded) entering the same tile as a carier was sunk by the carrier! Anyone hear of that?

I agree bombers or "Topedeo Fighters" should be able to sink ships. However, adding attack and defense will do nothing but change the odds who will win in an air intercept missions.

As for the fighters, as long as you don't move the carrier (fort it), you can set the fighters for the air intercept missions.

As for your "Bug", it's not a bug. The carriers do have an attack and defense value, although small compaired to battleships and destroyers. The transports are weaker.

[YC4B4U]

Ah yes, the great Aircraft Carrier

A sure indication of how unrealistic carriers are in my opnion. Transports shouldn't be able to get close enough to carriers and then I can't remember what carriers have actually had weapon mounts that can sink a Transport. (I don't think the Phalanx on modern carriers could...)

I suppose an Aircraft Carrier is only as good as the aircraft it carries.

[steelehc]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Willem
Artillery and cannons are way to inaccurate. The odds of them hitting a ship often enough, or in just the right spot, are so extreme that they're virtually non-existant. I'd be surprised if artillery were even able hit a ship more than once every ten or so rounds. They're mainly useful for fixed targets or locations, not something that's moving around like a ship.

I am suprised you think this way. After all, what are the guns on battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc... if they are not artillery and cannons? Ships have been sinking ships with guns for hundreds of years. And speaking of accuracy, the American Iowa class battleships have guns accurate to 5 yards at 30,000 yards or range. What moves faster? A ship, or a cannon shell?

Originally posted by Thrawn05
well, I thought japan's UU was a little dumb, so I edited my game and gave them Yamoto Battleship. Basicly the same as the regular battleship only with an extra bombardment range and an extra movement point. It works out nicely

The Yamato was the largest battleship ever built, but also one of the slowest, and weakest. It's top speed was about 25 knots, with a range of 30-40 miles, compared with the Iowa's speed of 30+ knots, and 50 mile range.


I apologize if I come off the wrong way. I am not intending to sound like an arrogant as**ole, but if I do, the forgive me. I am a history person, and cannot stand innacuracies, even such trivial ones as these. (My girlfriend hates this)

Steele

[steelehc]

That last post of mine is screwed up. The second paragraph is my response to the first. I hope that helps.

Steele