NAVAL WARFARE/Who made me a settler?

[Jack American]

I never build up a navy because it seems the ships (even battleships on occassion) are the weakest link in an army. It seems that every time an enemy attacks one of my cities with multiple ships, his navy goes down by way of the Titanic. It seems to be a waste of resources. Is this a misconception? Do I need a strong navy to win at higher levels?

Next question, who made me a settler? and how do I get promoted?

[Scouse Gits]

Not necessarily although there are several strong advocates of naval power on these fora.
You did! For your first thirty posts you ar a settler then a Chieftain, Warlord, Prince etc- Deity after 10,000 posts (we have 2 here)
Good civin'

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

[Ming]

Whether you really need a navy or not depends alot on the world you have. If you have many islands, it might be needed. But if you have a few large land masses... all you need is some defense to keep the ships away from your shores (have to keep those spies/diplos away from your costal cities)

Check out the FAQ and it will answer your questions about titles on Apoyton



------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

[SCG]

There have been many discussions in this forum about naval warfare and it seems the concensus, if there is one, is that it depends on the type of map, and on your style of play how important a navy is. As with any stratagy, when used right, it can be effective. Check out some of the other topics here. If you need, change the "Show topics from last 10 days" option to "Show all topics" at the top right of this page.

As for question 2, check out the FAQ (frequently asked questions) at the top left of this page. #XIX (19) deals specifically with this one. Essentially, someone with less than 31 posts is a settler, and goes from there. #XX also covers the topic, and all of FAQ should be interesting reading

And darn, 2 people beat me to it

There are 2 people who transcended to deity???
I know only Ming, who is the second?

[DarkCloud]

Navies...

Navies in my mind are useless except for submarines. (Nuclear Missile Carriers), carriers (Airplane Carriers), and transports (people carriers)

You would do best to keep to a land battle and build coastal fortresses in your bases.

(This is why I just ignore the hassles of the sea and build all land maps.)

[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 14, 2000).]

[Scouse Gits]

Whatever the size of your map you must trade. The best results for caravans come from trading between two different continents. A navy is the only means of doing this prior to Radio, which allows airlifts. You need boats for transporting freights and warships to protect them. This is the role of the Navy in the most passive sense.

If you wish to use the Navy in a more aggressive way then use the science advantage that early trading should provide, to build some ironclads, at a time when most AI cities have Archers as defenders. Archers fortified behind city walls are too good for crusaders. Watch the result when an ironclad attacks. Don't take my word for it - try it!
-----------
SG (2)

(edit: spelling)
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited August 14, 2000).]</font>
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited August 14, 2000).]

[Smash]

In a regular game(whatever that is) I'll build 3-6 triremes and get those trade routes up ASAP.I'll keep them all game(Leo's).

Not a terrible plan to have an escort vessel.Very annoying having your caravan laden transport sunk by a barb frigate or an AI ironclad.

Ship chaining:best way to move large numbers of caravans/freights before Radio every turn.

You can get away with little or no navy against the ai.Now,in MP,sneak attacks from the sea can very effective.So its a good idea to have something resembling a real navy to patrol your coasts if nothing else.

VET-triemes in the early game can be a real pain in arse when it comes to MP.

[tonic]

My pet peeve about having a navy is the ease with which the AI knocks off the units (particularly your "mighty" Battleship) with mutiple missile strikes.

I'm a great fan of naval warfare. If there is water to be crossed, it is always better to defeat your enemy on the water.

[debeest]

Ships for transport are usually very important. Ships for fighting are very powerful when you've got ironclads and your opponents lack gunpowder and coastal fortresses. Even late in the game, ships can be important for exploration. But I would never build a "strong navy."

quote: Originally posted by BuilderR on 08-14-2000 11:51 AM There are 2 people who transcended to deity??? I know only Ming, who is the second?

okay, nevermind, congrats Mao

Big navies destroy coastal cities!

[DarkCloud]

Yes but land troops work better unless the city is on the only square on the continent, which rarely happens- unless you are in Malaysia.

Ships are just not strong enough, a good coastal fortress and two riflemen can take out a battleship for heavens sake.

A helicopter can destroy an AEGIS Cruiser. Is something wrong here?

[Scouse Gits]

debeest - If you would never build a "strong navy" - do you prefer a weak one!?

Trade hard, sail hard, fight hard and you will conquer a large world when the years are still going along in "tens"!

-------------
SG (2)

[Caesar]

Yes, a strong navy can be a great advantage. But like everyone prior said, it depends on the situation. You have to do decide relatively early in the game wether a strong navy will help you. If you do not then you may waste many many turns of production that could have been used for the production of other things, ie wonders, other military units, or you could miss an oppurtunity to gain an advantage on your opponent.

But on most small and medium maps navies are only troublesome. The only time I usually bother is on large archipeligo.

[Caesar]

It was merciless Ming who made you a settler, complain again and he'll pull out the magical banning rod