Air and Naval Power, is it worth it?

[Kc7mxo]

or you could just launch your fighters and bombers at them and send them to the bottom of the deep blue sea. . . . . . um, never mind

[barefootbadass]

I mainly use destroyers to take out the obselete stuff. I use my battleships for carrier escort and invasion support. Eventually I have so many battleships I use them for everything, which happens when I have a lull in infrastructure options.

[Kc7mxo]

Which interestingly enough didn't happen as much in civ 2. Personally I used a combination fleet of cruisers to watch for subs, carriers to give me range, and battlehsips to protect my stack.

i think that with the removal of full stack loss, if they'd just kept the old ships, the naval combat could have been pretty cool in civ3. at least for the modern age.

for the middle ages it would have been nice if they introduced say a frigate combat vessel, a battleship level galleon, and a transport vessel.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Arrian
At the end of the day, M.A. is unstoppable vs. anything short of Mech Inf. or other M.A. (I assume mech inf would give them trouble, I've never actually experienced that).

-Arrian

It is an experience. & yes, they can & do give them trouble, even if they're only fortified on grassland. Unfortified on grassland, not so much.

[Eric S]

I'd have to say that it very much depends on the map. If you're attacking islands, they make all the difference in the world, as battleships can take out the roads/railroads of resources near the coast, bombers on aircraft hitting ones farther in, limiting the opponents ability to wage war before you land any troops.

Artillery is good, but it can't be used before you land on an island, and it can't be airlifted in. Aircraft can rebase in one turn quite easily. However, once you've established a foothold on the island, artillery is more mobile, as it doesn't need to be rebased as you attack inward, loosing turns that it could be used to attack. Aircraft still maintain the advantage of being well to the rear, so less likely to be destroyed due to a counterattack, but since
they have to be stationed in a city, they're vulnerable to culture-flipping.

[Dodgy Geezer]

This all makes interesting reading. From what I can see the main reason I haven't used it Naval/Air is I don't play on maps with lots of islands (in fact I prefer Pangaea most of the time), and when I do I tend to be so much in the lead that I just send in the Tanks/MA and accept a few losses. The other reason is that I prefer surgical strikes rather than wars of attrition. This means that even if the enemy has 100 ironclads and I have none, the amount of damage I take can be repaired in less than ten turns since the war only lasts three or four turns. On the rare occasions I have had longer wars I found I could keep my resources connected even if they were disconnected every turn (like that bridge in Apolocalypse Now).

The problem with bombardments of cities is you never seem to get good feedback on what you were hitting. I thought they just killed people/destroyed resources. Now that I know you can injure defenders as well, I might be inclined to give it a go, especially the marines attack, although I am not sure I have ever bothered making Marines before.

One of the things that is puzzling me though, is all this talk of nukes, Minf etc. I always play at Monarch (Deity requires an anal attention to detail in the early game I just can't get enthused about), and have played at all map sizes, but have never found the need to research anything past Synth Fibres and Rocketry to get MA unless I am going for a Space Race victory. The one time I did get MInf, it was only because I spent too long getting my MA's ready for an onslaught of a massive enemy continent (we both had about 80 cities) involving around 150 MAs. This was quite amusing because as I was busy with my Blitzkreig, barbarians began setting up on the cleared land. Not that they stand much of a chance against MA:
- *BUMP*
- Commander to Driver: "What was that noise?"
- Driver: "Dunno, must have hit a 'roo or summink."

One final question. Does air defence using fighters work? I had several fighters based around squares that were getting hit by bombers repeatedly, and the fighters did sweet FA. This was a while ago, so it might have been pre-patch. It's one of the reasosn why I stopped building fighters.


I think that both Naval and air units should be able to kill ground units (including workes) with bombardments. That would make them worth having, and would certainly be consistant with reality, especially in the modern age.

[Encomium]

Simply put, naval combat stinks in Civ III.

It is all too simplistic.

There is no difference between slow diesel subs and nuclear subs.

Bombers cannot sink warships!!

Privateers and submarines SHOULD be able to attack an enemy's trade and commerce by merely getting on his trade routes - that is realistic, not this bloackading stuff.

Warships do not in reality muck around bombarding improvements, and only warships AFTER the ironclad had the firepower to make a difference.

And a lot more.

We can't even attack diplomats and caravans on transports as we did in Civ II!!

[Ironwood]

I don't know about modern warfare, since I can't seem to force myself past that point where a single turn begins to take ten minutes (I probably won't actually beat a game until I get my Morrowind machine, which will be able to shorten turn times significantly), but i know in the early Industrial Era, I find a strong fleet of Ironclads to be indispensable. First off, my galleons have this annoying tendency to get sunk before they deliver their payload if I haven't already dealt with the enemy's navy. Of corse, on Pangea, this really doesn't matter, but I prefer to have at least one new land to discover (if not more).

Secondly, a good fleet of ships can do some serious damage to the enemy civ while costing a very minimal amount to yourself. This is usually how it goes in my Archipelago games:

1. Annoying civ makes outrageous demand, which I refuse, thus war is declared.

2. My massive fleet of Ironclads completely destroy's their navy.

3. My massive fleet of Ironclads then proceeds to reduce all coastal towns to slag heaps; meanwhile, my invasion force is being constructed (as I was pumping my resources into infrastructure development up to this point). The enemy's massive army is useless, or learning to swim the hard way, at this point.

4. I take some territory (maybe a secondary island or something) as well as some concessions from the enemy. My reputation is completely unsinged.

I prefer the simplicity of sea combat to the uncertainty of land combat, as you can plainly see. I do the "vassalage" method, just from island to island, rather than from sea to shining sea.

[Kc7mxo]

Privateers and submarines SHOULD be able to attack an enemy's trade and commerce by merely getting on his trade routes - that is realistic, not this bloackading stuff.

well, thats a very nice thing to say, but how would oyu inplement it? this trade route is going to be massive (many many squares) and a privateer can block it, where? anywhere? how would you prevent it then? have ships spaced ALL along the route?

As it is, its pretty useless, but it doesnt' hinder the system, and it can happen sometimes. but if it was badly implemented. . . .come on, we got enough things to complain about.

Personally, I just bombard any city with a harbor instead, which tends to be much easier than a blockade, and much more effective.

[Dodgy Geezer]

Maybe trading routes could be represented by automated ships travelling between harbours, either individually or in groups. Each ship represents a turns worth of trade. But it will complicate things somewhat.

But as it stands the U-boats campaign of WW2 can't be played out in CIV3.

[Dida]

In CTP trate routes are represented by a physical line, and you can use submarines to mess their trade up.

[Dodgy Geezer]

Worker Kidnapping

Hey, I just read this on CIVFANATICS, and thought it was worth mentioning here.

Fanny Brice??? came up with the idea of bombarding the enemies land, waiting for the workers to arrive and then stealing them with Marines.

Finally, a use for both Marines AND naval bombardment!!!

[=DrJambo=]

iF YOU change the types of things the AI spends its shieds on in the editor/civilisations tab, then you'll almost certainly require a Navy and Airforce.

FOr instance, i flagged many of the AI civs to build artillery, naval and air units on that page and then played a game. The AI then builds quite a substantial naval/airforce which if left alone can cause havoc in your lands.

You see, at present the AI civs have build offensive land troops as the most common build type... which seriously limits the variety in AI strategies. Modify these and you'll get a more diverse AI experience!

[Eric S]

I find that against the computer, a group of about 4-6 fighters in the right place at the right time can be very beneficial, but more than that is usually wasted.

Bear in mind, I'm only up to Regent level, and I prefer island maps. Every once in a while, I'll get war declared on me unexpectedly, and suddenly the computer will start pounding on my resources and cities with bombers.

After a turn or two of getting the bombers shot down in large numbers, the AI has usually depleted his supply of bombers, and after that, you might see one or two more, but not enough or suddenly enough to cause serious damage.