 |
| |
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
At the present, we only have one Ironclad. 3 more are in the que's. Given the AI's inability to handle sea assualts, this should be enough to hamper AI assualts on Uber Isle (we have sufficient forces to eliminate any forces that land on the mainland). When it becomes feasible I would like to see 2-3 naval units stationed in Uber for it's defense, though I wouldnt build additional Ironclads unless we have a few bad sea battles since they are not upgradable. I think overall a sea defense for Uber is more practicle than building extra ground units that cannot easily participate in our offensive battles.
Long term, probably after The Great War, a sea strike force (at least one, 2 if possible) consisting of 2-3 transports (when we get them) and 3-4 of "best available attack boat" so if we find we have to wage a war against Shaka, etc. if we have to (i.e. they declare on us) without wasting turns building units such as transport vessels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Meshelic
Once we are more technically advanced and can build Destroyers, Battleships, Submarines I recommend the Navy be upgraded like so.
5 Destroyers
2 Battleships
3 Submarines
Some SP games I've played, the AI has SUBSTANTIAL naval fleets, and naval battles were occuring everywhere all the time.
The English will probably want to build a large navy, although by the time they can build a fleet large enough they will be conquered by us. Of course that depends on the Senate to declare war against our soon-to-be former ally....
Aircraft Carriers.....you never know, we might be able to use one....
I would LOVE to command the Air Force...  |
hi ,
we shall need more then one aircraft carrier , about 12-14 shall do to start with , .....
we shall need at least 20 nuclear subs with rows of ICBM's in them , .......
anyway , we need a navy , but before we get one we need to get factories so we can build banks to fund the navy 
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
Yes, we should certainly build a large stock of ICBMs once we discover the necessary technologies, but IMHO that should only be done in order to increase our power rating in the histograph and to deter other nations from attacking us, just like you said.
However, if that's the case then there's no need for lots of nuclear subs with nukes packed into them. I mean, the subs themselves would be nice as means to detect other subs before we start building AEGIS cruisers, but not as carriers for nukes. I for one would prefer to use bombers launched from aircraft carriers that are backed up by a destroyer or two, or a battleship.
quote:
Originally posted by panag
where does it mention the use of them , WHERE ? , no where it does , ....... |
Maybe you weren't very clear, or maybe it was my fault for not getting your drift.
In any case, I apologize for this misunderstanding.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiber
Yes, we should certainly build a large stock of ICBMs once we discover the necessary technologies, but IMHO that should only be done in order to increase our power rating in the histograph and to deter other nations from attacking us, just like you said.
However, if that's the case then there's no need for lots of nuclear subs with nukes packed into them. I mean, the subs themselves would be nice as means to detect other subs before we start building AEGIS cruisers, but not as carriers for nukes. I for one would prefer to use bombers launched from aircraft carriers that are backed up by a destroyer or two, or a battleship.
Maybe you weren't very clear, or maybe it was my fault for not getting your drift.
In any case, I apologize for this misunderstanding. |
you aplogize but still speak about drift , well who is on a drift here
now , go and pick on some else all the time , there are plenty of people here you can try with
and would you stay on topic instead of bashing all the time certain posters , ....
thanks , and an answer is not needed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
you aplogize but still speak about drift , well who is on a drift here
|
You completely misunderstood my expression. To get someone's drift means to understand what he was talking about. In short, what I said was that perhaps you weren't very clear, or perhaps it was my fault for misunderstanding you.
quote:
now , go and pick on some else all the time , there are plenty of people here you can try with
|
Excuse me, is disagreeing with you now considered picking on you?
I disagreed with your views regarding the plans for the future composition of our navy. I did not attempt to insult you in any way, but it's not my fault if you have chosen to be insulted, or to interpret my words in a way that would sound insulting.
quote:
and would you stay on topic instead of bashing all the time certain posters , ....
|
I was exactly on topic, which was our plans for the future composition of our navy. I was disagreeing on your view that we should have nuclear subs in our navy in the future, and you call that off-topic talk?
I was not bashing you either. I did not once use mean, sarcastic or otherwise offensive language in this thread. Your statement is completely baseless.
quote:
thanks , and an answer is not needed
|
Funny, you're the one who always says that I "have to say the last word", but then you do the same yourself. You accuse me of bashing you in purpose and of spamming this thread with off-topic discussions and then you try to end the discussion with that conclusion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
Okay, let's get back to topic.
How do you think our navy should look like in the future?
We'd obviously need a transport or two to carry out the assault on Zululand. The question is - do we also want marines to go with the transport so that we can execute amphibious assaults in tactical locations, or can we simply rely on the brute force of tanks?
We're also gonna need at least two destroyers to escort the transport(s). The question is, do we want more destroyers, to use as interceptors of enemy vessels, and possible seaport blockers?
Moving on, we have the big bad battleships. Having them in handy would sure be nice thanks to their awesome bombardment capabilities. But again, I ask: do we want battleships, or can we do with the bombardment capabilities of our trusty artillery (which we already have in large quantities)?
And finally, aircraft carriers. Again, do we want to make the investment or can we rely on our land forces?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
hi ,
we shall always need aircraft carrier , not only to patrol and attack fleets or invasion forces when they are on the way , but also to flex our muscle on the other side of the planet , ........
we shall need about 8 of them , its better to start to build them when we can , .......
this way we can send them to predesignated spots not to far from the areas where they shall be put in action , ....
each group should have two subs and two aegis and three maybe more battleships , a couple transports later on in predesignated spots might be usefull to but they are not a priority right now , .... we should also protect our shores with subs as to prevend enemy subs of coming to close to launch some nukes , we our selfs should send at least 20 nuclear subs with a "special" out to act as a deterent , ....
have a nice "we need a navy now" day 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meshelic
|
 |
Bringer of Peace, Destroyer of Worlds
Sep 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
we shall always need aircraft carrier , not only to patrol and attack fleets or invasion forces when they are on the way , but also to flex our muscle on the other side of the planet , ........
we shall need about 8 of them , its better to start to build them when we can , .......
this way we can send them to predesignated spots not to far from the areas where they shall be put in action , ....
each group should have two subs and two aegis and three maybe more battleships , a couple transports later on in predesignated spots might be usefull to but they are not a priority right now , .... we should also protect our shores with subs as to prevend enemy subs of coming to close to launch some nukes , we our selfs should send at least 20 nuclear subs with a "special" out to act as a deterent , ....
have a nice "we need a navy now" day |
I have a feeling that by the time those units become available to us, there will be few nations in the world who can even oppose us, let alone build a Navy or Air Force that can stand up to our own.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2002 17:49
|