Transporting Naval Units

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Transporting Naval Units

      Is this a good idea? 20
      1.  
        no (18) 90%
      2.  
        yes (2) 10%
      You should be able to put naval units inside of trucks and transport them across land, so it won't take a long time to get them where they need to go. Instead of going around a continent to put a ship somewhere, you could just go across. Also, you could create naval bases where there are lakes, create a navy there, and then ship it to the ocean.
    • Chief, that might work for something like an MTB/PT boat/E-boat or other small patrol craft (50-85 feet in length), but it's not going to work for destroyers (300-400 feet), cruisers (450-650 feet), battleships (600-900 feet), or aircraft carriers (700-1,000 feet). It might be conceivable to cut a smaller destroyer into 50-foot pieces, and move it by rail, but as a practical matter, it would probably be easier to build a DD from unassembled parts at the destination port. Even moving WW2-era submarines over land was a major undertaking. The Germans moved a dozen or so Type VII U-boats from the Baltic to the Black Sea by rail and barge, after cutting them into pieces, and it was a damn difficult process. For the record, a Type VII U-boat weighed about 700 tons and was 220 feet in length. Most destroyers had a displacement of twice that and a length of 300 to 375 feet. Cruisers had a typical displacement of 8,000 to 15,000 tons, and battleships from 30,000 to 45,000 tons. Nobody every attempted to move those beasts over land.
    • mznxbcw wrote:

      I wasn't thinking straight when I said truck, it would be a train
      A train still wouldnt transport a battleship or aircraft carrier. Usually ships are made by the ocean ports of where they are needed they dont even transport ships like that in real life now a days. If a ship has to go to LA from Norfolk VA they literally go all the way around through the panama
    • mznxbcw wrote:

      You should be able to put naval units [...] and transport them across land, so it won't take a long time to get them where they need to go.
      ...
      For this, you would need to research SPMT at Level 3 (approximately available from Day 106 or later), and of course, infrastructure level 7 must be built up all along the way. :thumbup:
      But transportation would be extremely slow, very expensive and, of course, very vulnerable. :thumbdown:
      All in all in this game it's much cheaper to build ships / fleets directly at the destination, and greatly quicker to send them around the world across the sea. :thumbsup:
      :D

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
    • But in all seriousness if anything you should be able to build a canal maybe. but even that would take forever and considering how little Naval Units are involved in most games it would probably be to costly to be worth it.
      "A ship is always referred to as she because it costs so much to keep her in paint and powder." - Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

    • akruska wrote:

      in pacific conquest it is an essential part of the game along with a few other maps such as the mediteranean map
      Yes, naval units are often an essential part of the big map games, both for getting your own ground and air units safely across water bodies (primarily DDs and other surface units), as well as interdicting your opponents' ground units from moving freely across water (subs and surface units), and also for providing fire support for amphibious invasions (BBs, CVs).

      And if you're going to build capital ships (CCs, BBs, CVs), then provide them with proper DD escorts of sufficient strength and number to ensure they are something more than expensive targets. For a single BB or CV, I group them with 4 DD squadrons; for a group of 2 or 3 BBs or CVs, I add 3 DD squadrons per capital ship; for 4 BBs or CVs, I add 2 DD squadrons per capital ship. I've never lost a capital ship of any kind, and that's not an accident.

      I recently got careless with one of my nuclear BB battle groups (4 BBNs, 8 DDs) while I was pursuing what I thought was a single lower-level DD squadron. I sent my battle group after it to run it down and destroy it, and then went offline for 90 minutes or so. When I came back, it was locked in melee combat with that single DD squadron and 8 previously hidden high level submarine squadrons that were part of the DD's stack. I could have lost all 4 BBNs in the battle group but for the 8 DD squadrons in the stack. As it was, I was able to reinforce the first battle group with my second battle group and destroy the remaining attacking submarines with naval gunfire from my DDs.

      Smart people learn from their mistakes. Really smart people learn from other people's mistakes, and not their own.

      Final piece of advice: don't over-produce naval units. All naval units burn oil, and they compete for that precious resource with your powered ground units and aircraft units. Even in big map games where a good navy can provide you with a winning edge, if your naval units constitute more than 20% of your total units, your navy is probably too big.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      if your naval units constitute more than 20% of your total units, your navy is probably too big.
      So that is why Japan always loses the 25p historical. interesting.

      In all seriousness, We don't need to transport ships across land. There is a reason for the Northwest Passage, Panama canal, Indian sea, Arctic ocean and other passages joining the two oceans to each other to exist exists.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower