How do you lay out a good Navy plan?

[losttribe04]

Hey All,

I have read miles and miles of text on how laws of land warfare work (both in the US Army and here) I have a good grasp and working knowledge of how to move land units and win. My question for an takers is how do you 1) build, 2) maintain, 3) deploy and engage a successful Navy wile keeping a moderate to high survivability ratio. Let me elaborate:

1. Build: I know how to buy units thats not what I mean. In land warfare I buy INF to absorb losses. What do I use a fodder for a Navy?

2. Maintain: any where a Navy goes it takes a few rounds to get there in force and just as many rounds to resupply losses. How to you compinsate?

3. Deploy: after answering the above mentioned what are rules of engagement for a successful round of combat, wile only taking minimal losses? For example an INF only costs 3 IPC’s thats a minimal loss. A SUB costs 8 IPC’s thats a “minimal Navy loss” but even then they can’t respond to an Air attack.

I guess my big question is if you dominantly use SUBs as fodder you sacrifice your Navy’s well-roundedness to be able to respond to air attack.

Are there any takers on this complex situation, or am I making this harder then it has to be?

[rjclayton]

The reason for navy is to transport land troops, or prevent your opponent from transporting land troops.  This is significantly different than the reason for army (conquering/defending territory).  In my opinion, the focus with navy when it comes to build, maintain, and deploy, should be focused on this main objective (transporting troops).  ie. how do I build a supply line of transports, consistently loading and unloading every turn?  How do I maintain the supply line, including protecting transports from attack, but also including being able to overwhelm an opposing navy/airforce that is attempting to disrupt my supply line?

[losttribe04]

Thank you thats exactly what I want to ask!

I would think you could break it down like you could land warfare into

1. mobility, 2) Counter-mobility, 3) surviveability

As I was told when I was in the Army on ship “You make a piss poor sailor” How do you make it work? what strategy do you use to accomplish this?

[way2slo]

@losttribe04:

How do you make it work? what strategy do you use to accomplish this?

Well, I build one of three types.  Escort or Wolf Pack or Mixed

For me, an Escort Navy is all about the Transports and their cargo.  I am not afraid to have more transports than needed for the cargo where the extra are used for fodder.  Basically, lots of Transports with Destroyers for support.  (I call Destroyers the “Tank” of the sea) If I can swing a Carrier and a plane or two that’s great.  I maintain it by adding a new Transport or Destroyer from time to time when practical.  At that point, it’s just a matter of figuring out the logistics of the cargo.  I find myself doing this with the Americans a lot.  Buying bunch of transports first turn, maybe a Destroyer.  After that, I really have to think about the logistics of moving the cargo to where I want and how I want to protect it.

My Wolf Pack Navy is centered around Subs.  Lots of them with Destroyers for support.  A Battleship is great, if available.  Here I am looking to break up a shuck-shuck or perhaps stop an Island Hopping campaign.  I also may use it to strafe a naval force or get a cheap bombardment if I have a Battleship.  I maintain it by adding a new Sub when possible.  I usually do not do this.

Mixed is usually what I do with America while Island Hopping or Germany in the Baltic Sea if I feel that the Motherland needs protection from a Naval form of Market Garden.  Transports are nice to quickly shuffle units between the Eastern Front, for fodder, and can shoot at Planes.  Sub mostly for fodder.

I’m sorry if I have been a bit lax on details.  Frankly, I do not feel that I have an exact formula for a Navy.  For my Army, I use cold hard math quite a lot, but with my Navy I use my “feelings” and “instincts” more.

[newpaintbrush]

1.  Wat rjclayton wrote.

2.  First, you see what your opponent is up to.  Then you build an appropriate counter.

If your opponent goes mass subs, a couple of carriers are not going to do you a lot of good.  He will attack, force you to take the hits on carriers (because subs can’t hit air), and run.  On the other hand, if you build fighters to counter, those subs aren’t gonna contribute much to his defense.

If your opponent goes with a few subs, you can counter with a few subs.  You don’t need a destroyer, not really; you can take your own subs as casualties after they fire.  Note that a destroyer is probably a good idea though.

If your opponent goes battleships and carriers, either build carriers and sub fodder, or if your opponent is some kinda naval freak, consider some battleships.  (The free hit adds up over multiple attack and retreat battles).

MOST of the time, I would much rather have a transport than a sub.  But if you are going to fight a serious serious naval battle, and you need to make every IPC count, you will need sub fodder.

[losttribe04]

Hey,

In the end I think it boils down to what your up against. I was just wondering if any one had a scientific equation to combating an opposing Navy the way (from what I can tell) most of us use to combat land forces.

Thank you all for your input

[newpaintbrush]

There isn’t any given equation.  There’s a good reason for this.

If you’re calculating odds for a land-based battle, there’s a GOOD CHANCE there are a chunk of infantry on both sides.  If there were no infantry on one side or the other, that side is probably already losing.

For a naval battle, there is no given unit on which you can base your attack.  Your opponent MIGHT have lots of subs.  Or your opponent might have lots of transports.  Your opponent will probably have carriers, but not necessarily.  Destroyers, battleships, and subs can be present in any variance.

Short version:  You gotta do the math.

[Jennifer]

I’ve done my share of naval engagements and I’ve found the following formula seems to give your navy a balanced offensive and defensive punch. (Bear in mind I’ve crushed some good players in naval engagements.)

1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters, 4 Destroyers, 10 Submarines

That seems to be the magical ratio.  You will notice I did not include the transport and that’s because transports are not fodder!  They are civilians!!!  Actually, it’s because I’m assuming your transports are transporting something and thus are not avialable as casualites.  But if you want to go the fodder route, you’d need at least 1.414 transports to replace 1 submarine. In other words, the following (with no submarines)

1 BB, 2 CV, 4 Fg, 4 DD, 14 Trn  At least.  You might need to bring in some fighters from elsewhere because your offensive punch just dropped by 20 and your defensive punch by 10.

[losttribe04]

Hey guys/gals,

I think Jen brings up a good point I personally don’t like to use transports a fodder. Ideally I would use subs. so here is the question

What unit makes the best fodder at sea?

Personally in the end I don’t see a long term need for a navy in the game because of the following: 1) anything that floats is expensive. 2) like in any war at the end of a battle no one wins just some loose more than others. 3) the only need for a navy in the game is ship troops to shore to kill other land units. 4) lastly after the smoke clears no one gains or looses IPC’s as a result (revised game).

[Jennifer]

Battleships make the best fodder. =)

Damaged battleships make the worst fodder!

[losttribe04]

Hey all,

lol I would have to agree 100% with that Jen.

[Commander]

well i’ve only played this version only 3 times, but i have to say that the backbone of any of the Navies should
be the Destroyer, why? for 12 points you get a 3/3 unit, and can shoot at anything, subs are cheaper, yes
but they can only hit other naval units, one fighter will make your submarines run for their lives

in my opinion, transports should never form part of your attacking naval force, if you want fodder for something an assault
on an enemy navy force, you should use your subs as fodder, plus they can do some serious damage, unlike transports that
can’t attack, but like i said thats my opinion

for me, i will always keep my transports and my task force(BB’s, AC’s, etc.) seperate at all times, unless my transports
are in danger, which from what i have seen in this version of the game, they aren’t as long as i control the pacific, or atleast
have the upper hand

so pretty much what i am saying is that, the backbone of your navy should be Destroyers, supported by subs, and Aircraft Carriers, and 1 or 2 Battleships

hopefully i made sense  :-D

[Jennifer]

There is no backbone of the navy in this game.  Every naval piece serves a vital role in a combat oriented fleet.

You need a respective number of battleboats augmenting your fleet.  Not for punch, but for absorbtion of damage.  You need destroyers for punch, and to prevent submarines from running away.  You need submarines for fodder and because they have a decent attack/defense cability.  You need carriers to bring fighters for defense and prevent the enemy from attacking you easily.  And you need fighters to be cheap fodder after submarines die off and to add signigicant range and punch.

[Commander]

@Jennifer:

There is no backbone of the navy in this game.  Every naval piece serves a vital role in a combat oriented fleet.

You need a respective number of battleboats augmenting your fleet.  Not for punch, but for absorbtion of damage.  You need destroyers for punch, and to prevent submarines from running away.  You need submarines for fodder and because they have a decent attack/defense cability.  You need carriers to bring fighters for defense and prevent the enemy from attacking you easily.  And you need fighters to be cheap fodder after submarines die off and to add signigicant range and punch.

i only used the word “backbone” so that it would make some sense, and yes your right, their is no backbone for the navy in this game
but i used that word, so that he could see that the Destroyer will augoment for the majority of the offensive power of your navy,
yes the BB is more powerful, but it costs twice as much and can only be in one place, while you can have 2 Destroyers seperate(example–>one
near Australia and one in India) the AC is better at defense, but if want something for both things, the Destroyer imho
is better(but like i said i’ve only played this version 3 times) mainly because it cheaper, and can pack quiet a punch both defensively and offensively

i’m not saying that you should have like 10 destroyers and forget about everything else, but having them be the firepower of your task force is not a bad idea,
especially if your Japan which is the only country i play as

[losttribe04]

Hey All,

I suppose that you just need a mass fleet where every you go (if you fight mostly Navy conflicts AKA Japan) the thing is they can see you coming from the other side of the ocean / a few turns away.

That might be the best card to play just telling the opposing force (OP4) you there might be all you need to do so as to avoid a fight.

[DarthMaximus]

I perfer AC’s + ftrs.  They give you the best range and are the best defensively, and still pack a significant offensive punch.  You only need 1 dd and that is assuming your opponent has a sub.

If you’re worried about someone attacking your fleet, trns are the best fodder b/c they can fire at planes (while subs cannot), plus they can always move troops.

Ftrs are equal to DD’s offensively, are better defensively and cost 2 ipc less.

For 36 IPC, I’d rather buy 1 AC, 2 ftrs than 3 dds.

DDs and Subs are one dimensional.

Trns, Ftrs help in land battles.

Per Jens fleet example, I’d much rather have:

1 BB, 2 DD, 4 AC, 8 Ftrs, 4 subs

Any serious threat (ie a large sub attack force) can be sunk before it even reaches your fleet since your ftrs can flyout 3 and be picked up by your AC’s for the 4th move.  I’d even consider trading in a dd and some subs for another AC with 2 ftrs, or just additional trns.

I think it is to your advantage to build a defensive fleet (trns for fodder) and force your opponent to buy the subs and attack you, rather than you buying a bunch of subs to attack him.

[losttribe04]

Yeah,

I would think it a good idea to maintain a good Naval Air Wing. this way you can initiate a strafe attack to “thin out there numbers” and return to the CV’s in time for them to attack you.

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

Any serious threat (ie a large sub attack force) can be sunk before it even reaches your fleet since your ftrs can flyout 3 and be picked up by your AC’s for the 4th move.

So let us say that I have a LARGE sub attack force, call it 9 subs.  You have 2 carriers and 4 fighters.  (Both fleets cost 72 IPC).

You fly your 4 fighters out and hose 2 subs.  Then you fly back to your carriers that are in range of my subs.  Then my 7 subs attack, get sub shots on both carriers, kill the carriers, and I lose 2 more subs to fighter fire before I submerge.  Your fighters splash into the water.  I have 5 subs left.

Granted, that is taking things hella out of context.  But that goes to my point that you should build to counter what your opponent builds.

–

As rjclayton wrote, navies are pretty much for transporting cost-effective ground units around.  That is a pretty damn good point.  It is also the reason why you WILL want to have transports as fodder rather than subs a lot of the time.

A sub is like “I’m going to mess with your navy.  But I’m not going to mess with ANYTHING else.  I’m not going to mess with your ground units, or your air units.  Nope, Imma just sit here in the sea and look mean.”

A transport is like “IM IN UR FACE SUCKA!  NOW WAT?!  HAHAHA!”

True, a sub has an attack of 2, and a transport has no attack.  But try using a sub to invade a land territory.  Doesn’t work.

–

Basically, if you anticipate serious naval engagements, you DO NOT NEED ANY DESTROYERS, so long as you have a hell of a lot of subs and a few carriers.  If your opponent attacks you with mass subs, your subs get to fire back before you take them as casaulties (so it’s LIKE you had a destroyer, sort of, because you’ll still get to fire with all your defenders.  This assumes you have PLENTY of subs of course).  If your opponent attacks you with navy and air, your subs kill his naval units.  If your opponent attacks you with JUST air, your subs suck, but then, your carriers should be able to sink lots of enemy fighters, and the equation is - each loaded carrier costs 36 IPC to produce, and defense value total is 11.  Your opponent’s fighters cost 10 IPC each with attack value 3.  But every time your opponent kills something, it’s an 8 IPC sub (since you can take subs as casualties).  You, on the other hand, are killing a 10 IPC fighter or 15 IPC bomber every time you fire.  A couple of loaded carriers plus sub fodder will stand up to a lot of punishment from air, after which your opponent’s air is all blown up, and you will probably still have those carriers to retreat with.

[Guest]

–

[losttribe04]

New Paint Brush,

If you had the above mentioned Sub fleet why would I fly the fighters back at all until your subs retreated or were killed off.

crazy straw brings up a good point you can only think as fast as your slowest unit.