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.

[Kuciwalker]

could finish a wonder or form a Navy

MGL's can't finish wonders anymore

The Navies serian in the sea the equivalent thing to the earth armies.

Except that they would remove all strategy from naval warfare.

[Dis]

If we couldn't stack units, then I would say this was a great idea. Civ2 needed something like this.

I really can't say Navies would be more powerful than armies. Armies can be overpowered because the ai seems to never have them (of course I never let their elite units live )

[vee4473]

Originally posted by skywalker


Except that they would remove all strategy from naval warfare.

I still don't understand this position.

If you cite the lack of terrain tiles with defensive bonuses as the reason that there would be no strategy on the sea if there were navies, then that same lack would mean there is no strategy period. navies or not.

If having an army doesn't negate any inherent strategy on land, then I really don't see how having a navy would negate any pre-exixting level of strategy on the sea.

unless you are admitting that there really never was any startegy on the sea.

[vee4473]

i mean, if you want to say that having 4 batleships in a navy would create some kind of unbeatable "uber" sea unit and therefore navies are a bad idea, then couldn't you make the same argument against land armies.

[Kuciwalker]

I still don't understand this position.

If you cite the lack of terrain tiles with defensive bonuses as the reason that there would be no strategy on the sea if there were navies, then that same lack would mean there is no strategy period. navies or not.

If having an army doesn't negate any inherent strategy on land, then I really don't see how having a navy would negate any pre-exixting level of strategy on the sea.

unless you are admitting that there really never was any startegy on the sea.

The dimensions of naval strategy arise from the fact that forces are more likely to be spread out over a large area, to guard against attacks from multiple directions (ESPECIALLY now with submarines' stealth attack). If you can integrate several units into one, you have in effect brought the battle to a single tile. This doesn't have the same effect with land units, because a) you will ALWAYS have LOTS of supporting units for an army and b) you actually have to hold land, rather than destroy the enemy army.

[vee4473]

i dont agree

combining a bunch of ships into a single unit only brings the battle to a single tile if that group is in the right place. you admitted that there can be alot of space on the ocean, and if they are, then the effect is still the same as a combined army.

unless you think that a specific group of 4 ships will be unbeatable and need no support...


if you think that land battles need more supporting units than naval battles, then I respectfully disagree.

and as far as naval battles being about just destroying the enemy, controlling the sea is just as important as controlling any land area.

and land battles most often degenerate into just battling it out to destroy each other as much as any naval battle ever does.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by vee4473
i dont agree

combining a bunch of ships into a single unit only brings the battle to a single tile if that group is in the right place. you admitted that there can be alot of space on the ocean, and if they are, then the effect is still the same as a combined army.

unless you think that a specific group of 4 ships will be unbeatable and need no support...


if you think that land battles need more supporting units than naval battles, then I respectfully disagree.

and as far as naval battles being about just destroying the enemy, controlling the sea is just as important as controlling any land area.

and land battles most often degenerate into just battling it out to destroy each other as much as any naval battle ever does.

Sorry navy doesn't matter as much as land in Civ 3

[Kuciwalker]

dont agree

combining a bunch of ships into a single unit only brings the battle to a single tile if that group is in the right place. you admitted that there can be alot of space on the ocean, and if they are, then the effect is still the same as a combined army.

Wrong. Partly because there is less space, and partly in spite of it, land battles with or without armies are spread over many tiles. There is a "front". This is also because you can USE land tiles, where you almost never can use sea tiles. Without a front, sea combat already occurs over only a few tiles. With a navy, sea combat will probably only occur in one.

[vee4473]

I'm trying to say that you are incorrect for arguing that a navy would elimnate strategy because it would create some kind of unbeatable unit.

A navy wouldn't be any more unbeatable than an army is, and with the vastness of the ocean, even if it WERE unbeatable, unless it was in the right place at the right time, that power would be useless.

but we aint gonna agree on this i suspect.

I unerstand land is more the focus than sea in the game, but to say that grouped stacks (armies/navies etc.) would be out of line except for land use is just weird to me.

And as far as your assertion that sea battles occur over only a few tiles, i'm sure there are many that would disagree.

It seems to me that navies would be bad for your play style.

[vee4473]

apparently no one else agrees with me either, but this isn't the first time I have had a lone opinion.

[notyoueither]

Speed issues would be a killer for Navies.

Stick 4 DDs into a Navy and go around popping Battleships at will. They could never catch you, let alone kill you.

It is not a good idea.

[Tiberius]

Let's take it the other way round:

what would Navies add to naval combat?

(for air forces, it is even worse: what in hell would you do with an air force army?)

[SpencerH]

Hows about the ability to regenerate lost HP at sea?

For air force hows about precision bombing?

I think that we just need to come up with viable add-on abilities that improve the gameplay rather than simply copy what the army brings to land warfare.

[Uncle Thade]

Navies should be like Armies and have leaders after so many battles, Naval Academy, forthwith. Check my other posts on navies... etc.

[pauli]

(for air forces, it is even worse: what in hell would you do with an air force army?)

well, i've always wanted to firebomb dresden...