08-07-2002 21:42									#1
	Destroyers vs Battleships Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'm nearing the end of my first ever archipelago game, and I've come to realize that destroyers are usually a much better buy than battleships. Unless I have a city that can produce a battleship or a destroyer in the same number of turns, I'll almost always build the destroyer. In naval warfare the key is to be the attacker. And a destroyer's attack value of 12 is usually enough to sink a battleship (which defends at 12), especially if a few other destroyers bombard it first.

Battleships do bombard slightly better (8 vs 6), but it's not that big a difference. And the bombard range of 2 for battleships is rarely significant since most of the time you're bombarding other ships or coastal cities.

Since ships can't heal at sea, it's very important to lose as few hit points as possible. So the key to using destroyers is to send them out in packs of 3 or 4. When you encounter an enemy ship, the first few bombard it down to 1 hit point and the last one attacks it to sink it. Even against a battleship, if you can bombard it down to 1 hit point then odds are your final destroyer will only lose 1 hit point in the attack. This of course assumes that your ships are out in enemy waters on the attack. If you're defending your own shores, then losing hit points isn't as big a concern since you can quickly retreat to a harbor to heal.

One final observation - I've seen a lot of people say that air units should be able to completely sink ships (lethal bombardment against sea units). I used to agree, but I now disagree. In most non-archipelago games, there isn't much point to building a navy until you're ready for an intercontinental invasion. So it's extremely annoying to see an enemy ship show up off your shores and start bombarding your improvements, and you can't do anything about it other than bombard it. I now realize that this is a good thing, and it means you should have to build a navy or suffer the consequences. What modern power doesn't have a navy? My opinion now is that if you don't take the time to build even a defensive navy, then you deserve to have the AI bombard your shores. Building planes should not be a shortcut.

	08-07-2002 21:58									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

albiedamned,

I usually find that my coastal cities can put out a destroyer in 3 turns or so, and a battleship in 1-2 extra turns. If it's a choice between a destroyer in 3 and a battleship in 4... I go battleship. If it's 3/5, I will go with destroyers if I feel I need numbers.

Destroyers and Battleships each cost 1gpt in upkeep. The Battleship, however, is more powerful for offense, defense and bombardment. What you say about packs of destroyers is very true, and effective. However, I rarely encounter a strong AI navy which would require such tactics. Therefore, I prefer the versatility of the Battleship - the 2 tile bombard range is nice, as is the extra bombard strength.

If the battle for the high seas was really a tough one, I would probably use your approach (along with artillery zapped around my coastline to bombard AI ships) in order to gain the upper hand, and then switch over to Battleship production.

-Arrian

-Arrian
edit: hmm, there seems to be an echo in here.

	08-07-2002 22:51									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Battleship is a powerful attack vessel, but yes, I keep destroyers, too. However, if your pack of 4 Destroyers runs into a pack of 4 Battleships, you're probably going to lose your units. And BTW, I prefer to send Battleships out in pairs.

	08-07-2002 23:06									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I find that a primary use of naval units is to destroy enemy shipping -- particularly enemy transports. For this, you need either (1) numerical superiority so you can take out the escort first, or (2) add blitz capability to specific naval units.

I am trying #2 for the first time, but it happens to be a game where the AI are not naval powers. I made all modern naval units (except subs) blitz capable, and battleships (only) have lethal sea bombardment.

May have overdone the blitz capability, though it definitely gives battleships "queen of the seas" status with multiple bombardments, etc.

	08-07-2002 23:25									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I agree with Arrian about the choice - 3/5 turns, build the destroyer; 3/4, build the battleship.

Multiple destroyers is often enough for being a thorn in the AI's side. They can move quickly along enemy coastline to pick off wayward ships and bombard terrain improvements once everything is sunk. They are quick to escape if a big force sets sail after you, too.

	08-07-2002 23:57									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: [SIZE=1] May have overdone the blitz capability, though it definitely gives battleships "queen of the seas" status with multiple bombardments, etc.

Good lord! If you gave Battleships blitz ability and lethal bombardment, then that's liking giving them 10 attacks per turn! 12 if you have Magellan! Since their Rate of Fire is 2, then each bombard is like two attacks. With Magellan, a single Battleship could possibly sink three healthy veteran ships in a single turn, all without any risk of damage.

I think you may have overdone it!

	09-07-2002 02:00									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by albiedamned Good lord! If you gave Battleships blitz ability and lethal bombardment, then that's liking giving them 10 attacks per turn! 12 if you have Magellan! Since their Rate of Fire is 2, then each bombard is like two attacks. With Magellan, a single Battleship could possibly sink three healthy veteran ships in a single turn, all without any risk of damage. I think you may have overdone it!

No, each action takes one movement point. So an otherwise unmodded BB would only do 5 actions (move, attack or bombard) total per turn. Rate of fire of 2 means that each bombardment can take out a maximum of two hit points.

	09-07-2002 02:04									#8
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think I had it right. Each bombard costs one movement point, and each bombard can do two hit points of damage. So if you have Magellan and thus 6 movement points, you could conceivably sink 3 healthy veteran ships (12 total hit points) in a single turn by using 6 bombard attacks.

	09-07-2002 02:08									#9
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Solver The Battleship is a powerful attack vessel, but yes, I keep destroyers, too. However, if your pack of 4 Destroyers runs into a pack of 4 Battleships, you're probably going to lose your units. And BTW, I prefer to send Battleships out in pairs.

Your scenario of 4 destroyers encountering 4 battleships isn't necessailry a loss. It's all about who attacks first, since the attack values are so much higher than the defense values. If the battleships attack you, there's a good chance you'll lose all 4 ships. But if you attack the battleships, then it's 12 on 12 and your odds are even. And the advantage of destroyers is that since they're cheaper, you can build more of them. So hopefully your other pack of 4 destroyers can come to their aid and use bombard attacks to weaken the battleships before the main attack!

	09-07-2002 04:38									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: you could conceivably sink 3 healthy veteran ships (12 total hit points) in a single turn by using 6 bombard attacks.

Excuse me albiedamned but what is wrong with that? The Bismarck sank the Hood and severely damaged Prince of Wales in a quick engagement. I would not think it inconceivable for a single battleship to be able to sink several destroyers in a single engagement.

	09-07-2002 04:41									#11
	Remove this text

I don't disagree with you from a historical perspective, but it's not good for gameplay. Under these mods, the battleship is so much more powerful than anything else out there that there would no point to building anything else.

	09-07-2002 05:27									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I don't disagree with you from a historical perspective, but it's not good for gameplay. Under these mods, the battleship is so much more powerful than anything else out there that there would no point to building anything else.

Agreed, to keep proper game-play and use that mod, the cost of the battleship should be quadrupled but add 5 bonus hp. You would then still have incentive to build the lesser ships because with enough of them and the initiative victory would then be possible.
Like the attack from the US heavy cruisers Portland and San Francisco, destroyers Cushing and O’Bannon against the lone IJN Battle Cruiser Kongo. I should note that it took further attacks from two aircraft carriers and finally land based B-17’s before she went down. (To sink the Bismarck it took 5 battleships, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 9 cruisers and eight destroyers; but after the Hood was sunk it became a holy grail.)
Give the battleship the mod, add 5 bonus hp and quadruple the price. I think it would add to the game play.

	09-07-2002 06:02									#13
	Got spare money?

Maybe the existing battleship should just be renamed to Heavy Cruiser, and create a new Battleship unit with the powerful stats and high cost. I personally won't be doing this since I like to play the game without mods, but this might be a better way to go if you're seriously considering this.

	09-07-2002 07:22									#14
	Re: Destroyers vs Battleships Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by albiedamned What modern power doesn't have a navy?

A landlocked one.

I wish navies played a more important role in the game, other than transporting units.

My modern navy is always very large, and also very useless in most cases, as the AI ignores the sea for the most part. But I build it nonetheless.

Depending on my civ's location, access to sea, need to transport units for invasion, etc, I will have a fleet for each "ocean", a small number of ships patrolling the coastline, and a submarine force for launching nukes.

Each fleet consists of 2 battleships, 1 aircraft carrer, 6 destroyers and four submarines. The aircraft carrier remains in the center, with a battleship on either side, and the destroyers forming a perimeter along with the submarines. (This is more for visual appeal than anything else...)

I keep 10-15 Nuke Subs parked along the coastlines of my enemies. I build submarines simply because of my RL love for them.

I guess I might have to actually devise real naval strategies in PtW...

	09-07-2002 08:00									#15
	Re: Re: Destroyers vs Battleships Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Verto I wish navies played a more important role in the game, other than transporting units. My modern navy is always very large, and also very useless in most cases, as the AI ignores the sea for the most part. But I build it nonetheless.

In most games you are correct. But try an archipelago game with 80% water, like the one I'm playing now. Ancient and middle ages are very boring, but once you get to frigates, ironclads, and eventually the modern naval units, it gets more interesting.

I've actually built a defensive navy that stays by my coastlines and attacks anyone that approaches, and a strike force that goes out towards whatever victims I'm attacking. The defensive navy is all destroyers, since the idea is that my bombers will decimate any approaching ships down to 1 hit point and the destroyers just need to finish them off. I suppose subs would work for this purpose also, but I like the faster movement of destroyers. My offensive navy contains carriers, transports, and a ton of destroyers. The transports are carrying marines or other land units. Marines are pereferable since it saves a turn (you don't have to land first and expose yourself to a counterattack), but it's best to use your carrier-based bombers and naval bombardment to knock all the defenders down before launching the marine attack. Losing marines is a pain since typically you're fighting pretty far from home and reinforcements take a long time to arrive.

	10-07-2002 03:26									#16
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I've actually built a defensive navy that stays by my coastlines and attacks anyone that approaches, and a strike force that goes out towards whatever victims I'm attacking. The defensive navy is all destroyers, since the idea is that my bombers will decimate any approaching ships down to 1 hit point and the destroyers just need to finish them off. I suppose subs would work for this purpose also, but I like the faster movement of destroyers. My offensive navy contains carriers, transports, and a ton of destroyers. The transports are carrying marines or other land units. Marines are pereferable since it saves a turn (you don't have to land first and expose yourself to a counterattack), but it's best to use your carrier-based bombers and naval bombardment to knock all the defenders down before launching the marine attack. Losing marines is a pain since typically you're fighting pretty far from home and reinforcements take a long time to arrive.

I can see it now: PTW Multi- Player Tournament; Jutland – Leyte…
Can't wait!

	12-07-2002 05:49									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've got to say that I go exclusively with Battleships over Destroyers. My thing is quality of quantity. I also use my Battleships in stacks as well, so I don't have problems with ambushes at sea. Besides, what would you rather have protecting 10 Transports carrying your most loyal and bloodthirsty countrymen? 4 Destroyers, or 4 Battleships?

The key for me is to focus cities on developing Battleships. I always take care to develop border cities with the best possible production possibilities. That way, once they're up and running, I know I can kick out Battleships in 3-9 turns. Then, I dedicate most of my border cities to cranking them out exclusively, with 2-3 cities devoted to spitting out Nuclear Subs. That's for the entire game with few exceptions. I might take a couple of these cities and build some cruisers when I get to them for the visibility factor but that's it. I've had a battleship take a head-on ambush from multiple subs and have personally talked to the mess hall soldiers in my nation who lived to talk about it! Battleships for sure!

	12-07-2002 21:52									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Of course you would prefer 4 battleships to 4 destroyers. There is no question about that. The question is, given the production costs, would you prefer 4 battleships or 6 destroyers?

	12-07-2002 22:12									#19
	Tired of ads?

The ratio is actually 3 Battleships (200 shields each) to 5 Destroyers (120 shields each).

And if this is of any help, an army of three regular Battleships (if there were such a thing) attacking an army of five regular Destroyers, would win 67% of the time. But the Destroyer army attacking the Battleship army wins 85% of the time.

I would go with the Destroyers.

	13-07-2002 01:04									#20
	Suffering from ads?

And those odds are using straight attacks, I assume. In reality, with greater numbers, you would probably use bombard attacks first (with no chance of taking damage yourself), and then sink the weakened battleships with your remaining destroyers.

Your odds also clearly show that the key is being the attacker, not the defender. If you're the attacker, the odds are you will win regardless of which side you take in this battle.