Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Fleet Compositions

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #6

    Default Re: Fleet Compositions

    Almost a month and 2 campaigns' worth of playing later, the arty/javelin setup is definitely the way to go. Once I switched to OP's composition, naval battles have gotten quite viable. I won't claim to "never" AR them any more, but I play them out now at least as often as I do land battles. Before I had AR'd almost all sea battles regardless of odds; too many instances where an "inferior" force had caused disproportionately high losses on me because I couldn't get assault ships to do what I wanted them to do. With the missile-heavy composition, the performance difference is startling...almost to the point where I begin to wonder if it's not supposed to be this way. Here's a couple of thoughts:

    1. We know there's two broad types of naval vessels; naval and assault. Obviously they have different roles. Rather that just different sea-combat roles, however, my thinking has evolved to different fleet roles altogether. An arty/missile fleet is specialized for at-sea combat, and as such used to establish dominance on water. An assault-ship fleet, on the other hand, is a specialized amphibious force, and is used for capturing ports. One could counter-argue, of course, that an embarked army is better for such a role, rendering an amphib fleet superfluous. That would be true of course, except for the army cap. A specialized amphib fleet can conceptualized as a way to get an "extra" army or two above the cap...with the limitation of course that they're only capable of capturing (minor) coastal settlements. The amphib fleet has additional advantages over a land army afloat. First, if it does run afoul of an enemy fleet, it has sufficient hull strength to put up a real fight if it can't withdraw...it will take losses, but it will not be easily destroyed. Second, an amphib fleet is better able to destroy an enemy land army afloat, than is one's own land army afloat. So, to draw an imperfect modern analogy, an assault-heavy fleet can be thought of as one's "Marine Corps" embarked in an "Amphibious Task Force". It won't stand up to a true land army on land, nor should it seek battle with a true naval fleet...but it offers a kind of sea/land flexibility in coastal regions.

    2. All that said, I've come to realize that an arty/missile fleet can capture a port as well, IF the settlement is minor and is defended only by a garrison or perhaps a garrison plus smaller army. The fleet can simply bombard the garrison from the harbor until they all break morale. It won't work against a garrison plus large army because the ships will probably run out of ammunition before breaking all those units. At least, that's my theory, I haven't actually tried to take out a full-size army this way yet.
    Last edited by Bramborough; 10-19-2013 at 19:36.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO