Naval units excepting Battleships and Carriers

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

    • Naval units excepting Battleships and Carriers

      I think any player doesn't need another naval unit type excluding battleship and aircraft carriers

      add them naval bomber and interceptors

      battleships will destroy cruiser + destroyer
      your naval bombers will destroy enemy battleship + destroyer + submarine
      your interceptors will destroy enemy naval bombers

      if you come face to face with enemy navy like battleship + cruiser + destroyer you will have always more firepower
      probably you will have more battleship than enemy , because you focused to battleships
      and you can send in your naval bombers if you have hard time although enemy cruisers

      you can't use cruisers destroyers submarines with many ways , you will ask yourself always why I produced them
      battleships can bombard with long range and more power , they give a lot of damage to cities and enemy artilleries cant give damage
      aircraft carriers can carry tactical and attack bombers too
      naval bombers can destroy low level ground units even

      and you gained a lot of time at tech tree

      disadvantages
      there is only one problem here
      when you wanted to disembarking at enemy continent if enemy has air superiority like tier 2 rocket fighters with axis doctrine
      you can lose battle at air , and your transport ships might be defenseless
      while fighting with enemy interceptors you can miss enemy bombers
      so you need have many interceptors
      by the way it is very low possibility , like a situation enemy is waiting with railroad gun at coast

    • I like the idea of replacing part of the navy with air, since air has a lot more flexibility and uses. A disadvantage of NBs vs subs/DDs is perhaps the rare material cost (takes away from TACs, INTs and other things), air production cities being full when you might prefer to build TACs, and cruisers AA.

    • It'd be feasible but I think you'd have to be incredibly active. One benefit of combining battleships+cruisers+destroyers is not worrying about them being too vulnerable while I'm offline.

      I do think that big naval stacks are often a waste of time/resources, especially on some maps, but they are super fun to use when you've got full naval supremacy.

    • jubjub bird wrote:

      It'd be feasible but I think you'd have to be incredibly active. One benefit of combining battleships+cruisers+destroyers is not worrying about them being too vulnerable while I'm offline.

      I do think that big naval stacks are often a waste of time/resources, especially on some maps, but they are super fun to use when you've got full naval supremacy.
      To build on this point you would even need to be careful about moving much at all when you’ll be off line for long. You would need to constantly adjust your patrols as you move to keep your planes in range, otherwise you’ll lose them. Personally I like to move my fleets while I’m sleeping. That would be very risky with this approach, you would need to land your planes and be at risk of a stack of subs surprising you.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by 6thDragon ().

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Another downside to this approach is the additional HP the cruisers and destroyers would give to your stack. Remember, for planes, all an attacker needs to do is sink your carriers and all your planes go down with it.
      Yes but how they will come to near of aircraft carrier
      This strategy needs many planes many planes
      And yes you should be active and need to have info about enemy armies and locations
      We can say bigger risk bigger reward

      and there was a quote of great frederick
      He who defends everything defends nothing.

      yeah ıf you have everything you feel safe but you have less power and you lost a lot of time at tech tree

      on the other side level 1 subs still can work to hold points around and show enemy

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Undaunted ().

    • Cruisers are a cheaper, more reliable way to stop air attacks, compared to interceptors.
      Cruisers have a ton of HP, especially for Comintern doctrine, where they have more HP than battleships.
      Cruisers are a lot faster than battleships, so they can be where you need them more often.
      Cruisers speed aids in shoot-and-scoot tactics against enemy subs.
      Cruisers are available earlier and upgrade faster.

      This is why experienced players are more likely to skip battleships than they are to skip cruisers.
      All you really need to dominate the oceans are stacks of 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer.
      It's a fast stack that can reach the target quickly.
      It has a destroyer to detect enemy subs, allowing the cruisers to sink it.
      It has a built in defense against air attack that requires NO work.
      It's the ideal escort for an invasion force, protecting transports while they disembark.
      And if you see battleships... you can see them before they see you, and outrun them.
      This lets you pick the time and place of battle, bringing more cruisers and subs to the party, for example.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Cruisers are a cheaper, more reliable way to stop air attacks, compared to interceptors.
      Cruisers have a ton of HP, especially for Comintern doctrine, where they have more HP than battleships.
      Cruisers are a lot faster than battleships, so they can be where you need them more often.
      Cruisers speed aids in shoot-and-scoot tactics against enemy subs.
      Cruisers are available earlier and upgrade faster.

      This is why experienced players are more likely to skip battleships than they are to skip cruisers.
      All you really need to dominate the oceans are stacks of 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer.
      It's a fast stack that can reach the target quickly.
      It has a destroyer to detect enemy subs, allowing the cruisers to sink it.
      It has a built in defense against air attack that requires NO work.
      It's the ideal escort for an invasion force, protecting transports while they disembark.
      And if you see battleships... you can see them before they see you, and outrun them.
      This lets you pick the time and place of battle, bringing more cruisers and subs to the party, for example.
      problems

      still you need to be active because enemy battleships
      for cruisers you need to wait until enemy attack you , but with interceptors you are free you can attack you can defense
      you can use interceptors to help ground units you can use them on land , you can't use cruisers on land
      10 cruisers + 1 destroyers can't destroy enemy subs , enemy subs will destroy these stacks easily
      submarine lovers can produce hundreds and you can find yourself between 10 stacks

      even you succeed to escape from them you should stay active
      and we turn to beginning

      so if you will active why you will spend for cruisers
      cruisers should be for inactive players

      if you will be active and won't go destroyer + cruiser + battleship stack
      battleships better choice

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Undaunted ().

    • Undaunted wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      Cruisers are a cheaper, more reliable way to stop air attacks, compared to interceptors.
      Cruisers have a ton of HP, especially for Comintern doctrine, where they have more HP than battleships.
      Cruisers are a lot faster than battleships, so they can be where you need them more often.
      Cruisers speed aids in shoot-and-scoot tactics against enemy subs.
      Cruisers are available earlier and upgrade faster.

      This is why experienced players are more likely to skip battleships than they are to skip cruisers.
      All you really need to dominate the oceans are stacks of 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer.
      It's a fast stack that can reach the target quickly.
      It has a destroyer to detect enemy subs, allowing the cruisers to sink it.
      It has a built in defense against air attack that requires NO work.
      It's the ideal escort for an invasion force, protecting transports while they disembark.
      And if you see battleships... you can see them before they see you, and outrun them.
      This lets you pick the time and place of battle, bringing more cruisers and subs to the party, for example.
      problems
      still you need to be active because enemy battleships
      for cruisers you need to wait until enemy attack you , but with interceptors you are free you can attack you can defense
      you can use interceptors to help ground units you can use them on land , you can't use cruisers on land
      10 cruisers + 1 destroyers can't destroy enemy subs , enemy subs will destroy these stacks easily
      submarine lovers can produce hundreds and you can find yourself between 10 stacks

      even you succeed to escape from them you should stay active
      and we turn to beginning

      so if you will active why you will spend for cruisers
      cruisers should be for inactive players

      if you will be active and won't go destroyer + cruiser + battleship stack
      battleships better choice
      Yes, with focusing on cruisers, you need to be very active because enemy battleships will outrange you.

      I'm not following you about needing to wait for an enemy to attack you. With cruisers, you have the choice to attack. If you can't take out your opposition, as z00Mz00m pointed out, cruisers will be faster so just fall back and bring other stacks to take out the enemy fleet. You have the speed and view range advantage

      You're very perceptive to notice that ship for ship battleships are better than cruisers. No one here is trying to convince you otherwise. We're just asking you to think bigger. The resources you save only researching cruisers and destroyers and skipping battleships is significant and can easily be put to good use keeping your cruisers upgraded and building more of them.

      Going back to your example of cruisers taking on subs. Remember cruisers are faster, so if you're online you will see the subs and can bombard and retreat until the subs are destroyed. Several games ago I did this to a gold healing stack of 16 subs. Eventually the player realized he would never catch me and gave up. This same ratio of destroyers to battleships would be irresponsible given the speed of battleships. Personally, I like to have two or three destroyers for my stack of cruisers, but some of the best players I know only use one. It's a very viable strategy.

      Also consider that cruisers are more cost effective than battleships so your navy is more scalable. If you need to focus on being a land power, you can build a small fleet of cruisers. If you need to be a major sea power, just build more cruisers. With battleships, you still need to build cruisers to defend against naval bombers in addition to destroyers, because both battleships and cruisers are vulnerable to subs, however as I pointed out earlier, cruisers are less vulnerable if they don't have battleships slowing them down.

      Mixed stacks of battleships and cruisers need considerably more micromanagement to be used effectively. For example, when the stack fires, all ships need to wait the 30 minutes before they can fire again, so unless you separated your cruisers before the battleships fired, they need to wait as well even though they were not in range the first time. I can't count the times I've given an opponent the first shot by declaring war on them and letting their battleships fire first then moving into cruiser range, then back out to battleship range (so their cruisers don't get the second shot either), and repeat the process until they're sunk. With the advantage of micromanagement, you can reduce their cruisers to just extra HP when you encounter mixed stacks, or you force them to match your level of micromanagement and activity.

      Also as z00mzoom pointed out, cruisers are faster and given the same amount of resources you can build more of them. So if you have multiple cruisers stacks and you come across something you can't beat, you have the option to fall back and converge your fleets. I've done this on many occasions as well. Yes a stack of 10 battleships will probably beat 10 cruisers, but at the same cost, you can probably build 20 cruisers for their 10 battleships. You may as well use them.

      Battleships probably are better for those than can't be online as much, but otherwise, focusing on cruisers and a small destroyer escort is probably the best naval strategy out there.

      I've often wondered if your strategy of focusing on battleships, carriers, naval bombers, and interceptors would be viable. I even had an alliance mate who tried this with Pan Asian (probably your best bet with this strategy as they get doctrine bonuses on all units). He complained about all the issues we brought up to you earlier. If you don't believe us, try it anyway.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Undaunted wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      Cruisers are a cheaper, more reliable way to stop air attacks, compared to interceptors.
      Cruisers have a ton of HP, especially for Comintern doctrine, where they have more HP than battleships.
      Cruisers are a lot faster than battleships, so they can be where you need them more often.
      Cruisers speed aids in shoot-and-scoot tactics against enemy subs.
      Cruisers are available earlier and upgrade faster.

      This is why experienced players are more likely to skip battleships than they are to skip cruisers.
      All you really need to dominate the oceans are stacks of 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer.
      It's a fast stack that can reach the target quickly.
      It has a destroyer to detect enemy subs, allowing the cruisers to sink it.
      It has a built in defense against air attack that requires NO work.
      It's the ideal escort for an invasion force, protecting transports while they disembark.
      And if you see battleships... you can see them before they see you, and outrun them.
      This lets you pick the time and place of battle, bringing more cruisers and subs to the party, for example.
      problemsstill you need to be active because enemy battleships
      for cruisers you need to wait until enemy attack you , but with interceptors you are free you can attack you can defense
      you can use interceptors to help ground units you can use them on land , you can't use cruisers on land
      10 cruisers + 1 destroyers can't destroy enemy subs , enemy subs will destroy these stacks easily
      submarine lovers can produce hundreds and you can find yourself between 10 stacks

      even you succeed to escape from them you should stay active
      and we turn to beginning

      so if you will active why you will spend for cruisers
      cruisers should be for inactive players

      if you will be active and won't go destroyer + cruiser + battleship stack
      battleships better choice
      Yes, with focusing on cruisers, you need to be very active because enemy battleships will outrange you.
      I'm not following you about needing to wait for an enemy to attack you. With cruisers, you have the choice to attack. If you can't take out your opposition, as z00Mz00m pointed out, cruisers will be faster so just fall back and bring other stacks to take out the enemy fleet. You have the speed and view range advantage

      You're very perceptive to notice that ship for ship battleships are better than cruisers. No one here is trying to convince you otherwise. We're just asking you to think bigger. The resources you save only researching cruisers and destroyers and skipping battleships is significant and can easily be put to good use keeping your cruisers upgraded and building more of them.

      Going back to your example of cruisers taking on subs. Remember cruisers are faster, so if you're online you will see the subs and can bombard and retreat until the subs are destroyed. Several games ago I did this to a gold healing stack of 16 subs. Eventually the player realized he would never catch me and gave up. This same ratio of destroyers to battleships would be irresponsible given the speed of battleships. Personally, I like to have two or three destroyers for my stack of cruisers, but some of the best players I know only use one. It's a very viable strategy.

      Also consider that cruisers are more cost effective than battleships so your navy is more scalable. If you need to focus on being a land power, you can build a small fleet of cruisers. If you need to be a major sea power, just build more cruisers. With battleships, you still need to build cruisers to defend against naval bombers in addition to destroyers, because both battleships and cruisers are vulnerable to subs, however as I pointed out earlier, cruisers are less vulnerable if they don't have battleships slowing them down.

      Mixed stacks of battleships and cruisers need considerably more micromanagement to be used effectively. For example, when the stack fires, all ships need to wait the 30 minutes before they can fire again, so unless you separated your cruisers before the battleships fired, they need to wait as well even though they were not in range the first time. I can't count the times I've given an opponent the first shot by declaring war on them and letting their battleships fire first then moving into cruiser range, then back out to battleship range (so their cruisers don't get the second shot either), and repeat the process until they're sunk. With the advantage of micromanagement, you can reduce their cruisers to just extra HP when you encounter mixed stacks, or you force them to match your level of micromanagement and activity.

      Also as z00mzoom pointed out, cruisers are faster and given the same amount of resources you can build more of them. So if you have multiple cruisers stacks and you come across something you can't beat, you have the option to fall back and converge your fleets. I've done this on many occasions as well. Yes a stack of 10 battleships will probably beat 10 cruisers, but at the same cost, you can probably build 20 cruisers for their 10 battleships. You may as well use them.

      Battleships probably are better for those than can't be online as much, but otherwise, focusing on cruisers and a small destroyer escort is probably the best naval strategy out there.

      I've often wondered if your strategy of focusing on battleships, carriers, naval bombers, and interceptors would be viable. I even had an alliance mate who tried this with Pan Asian (probably your best bet with this strategy as they get doctrine bonuses on all units). He complained about all the issues we brought up to you earlier. If you don't believe us, try it anyway.
      math
      level 6 battleship needs 13k res
      level 6 cruiser needs 10k res
      I looked from allied doctrine

      it shows you can produce only 13 cruisers against 10 battleships not 20 cruisers
      your idea attacking to battleships with 999 cruiser doesn't seem well

      by the way in the example you gave subs are in small numbers
      16 is a joke ? you can keep to shot them forever it is not important
      why we don't talk about many submarines for your cruiser plan ??
      we can say enemy will have always more subs , and why we think all of them are coming from same direction ?

      axis with pan asian has speed bonus for submarines
      pan asian sub has 114speed cruiser has 126 speed
      allied sub has 86 speed cruiser has 95 speed
      axis sub has 109 speed cruiser 105 speed
      Comintern sub has 95 speed cruiser speed 105

      with forced march pan asian sub speed can reach 171
      with forced march axis sub speed can reach 164
      with forced march comintern cruiser speed can reach 158

      no need to add allied doctrine
      even with 10 vs 10 scoot and shoot is hard and enemy will always has more subs than you

    • This is a great and educational discussion. It sounds like X.CL+1.DD is the meta, but Undaunted is suggesting an alternative. It sounds like both benefit a lot from being active. I'd like to see Undaunted test this out and update us with successes and failures, problems and solutions, advantages and disadvantages, etc!

    • Undaunted wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Undaunted wrote:

      if you will be active and won't go destroyer + cruiser + battleship stack
      battleships better choice
      You're very perceptive to notice that ship for ship battleships are better than cruisers. No one here is trying to convince you otherwise. We're just asking you to think bigger. The resources you save only researching cruisers and destroyers and skipping battleships is significant and can easily be put to good use keeping your cruisers upgraded and building more of them.

      Going back to your example of cruisers taking on subs. Remember cruisers are faster, so if you're online you will see the subs and can bombard and retreat until the subs are destroyed. Several games ago I did this to a gold healing stack of 16 subs. Eventually the player realized he would never catch me and gave up. This same ratio of destroyers to battleships would be irresponsible given the speed of battleships. Personally, I like to have two or three destroyers for my stack of cruisers, but some of the best players I know only use one. It's a very viable strategy.

      Also consider that cruisers are more cost effective than battleships so your navy is more scalable. If you need to focus on being a land power, you can build a small fleet of cruisers. If you need to be a major sea power, just build more cruisers. With battleships, you still need to build cruisers to defend against naval bombers in addition to destroyers, because both battleships and cruisers are vulnerable to subs, however as I pointed out earlier, cruisers are less vulnerable if they don't have battleships slowing them down.math
      level 6 battleship needs 13k res
      level 6 cruiser needs 10k res
      I looked from allied doctrine

      it shows you can produce only 13 cruisers against 10 battleships not 20 cruisers
      your idea attacking to battleships with 999 cruiser doesn't seem well

      Your math is still oversimplified. Again no one is arguing that ship for ship, battleships aren't better. With cruisers however you can get by with only building a destroyer or two to accompany them. Your math overlooks the ships that accompany the battleships and/or cruisers. Both will need destroyers, but the cruisers will need fewer. You'll also need either cruisers or carriers and interceptors to protect against naval bombers. You'll also need to consider the research cost, and not just level one. Sorry for not spelling this out for you in my last post, the post was getting fairly lengthy and I thought it was implied. You've proven me wrong in that regard.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • DxC wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Both will need destroyers, but the cruisers will need fewer.
      No, his main idea is to use carriers with naval bombers and fighters, so the only ships needed are BBs and carriers.
      Carriers are expensive, and you need a lot of them or high-level ones to carry a sufficient number of planes. I think the same concept applies. If you want to substitute NBs and INTS those costs should be taken into consideration.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Undaunted wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Undaunted wrote:

      if you will be active and won't go destroyer + cruiser + battleship stack
      battleships better choice
      You're very perceptive to notice that ship for ship battleships are better than cruisers. No one here is trying to convince you otherwise. We're just asking you to think bigger. The resources you save only researching cruisers and destroyers and skipping battleships is significant and can easily be put to good use keeping your cruisers upgraded and building more of them.
      Going back to your example of cruisers taking on subs. Remember cruisers are faster, so if you're online you will see the subs and can bombard and retreat until the subs are destroyed. Several games ago I did this to a gold healing stack of 16 subs. Eventually the player realized he would never catch me and gave up. This same ratio of destroyers to battleships would be irresponsible given the speed of battleships. Personally, I like to have two or three destroyers for my stack of cruisers, but some of the best players I know only use one. It's a very viable strategy.

      Also consider that cruisers are more cost effective than battleships so your navy is more scalable. If you need to focus on being a land power, you can build a small fleet of cruisers. If you need to be a major sea power, just build more cruisers. With battleships, you still need to build cruisers to defend against naval bombers in addition to destroyers, because both battleships and cruisers are vulnerable to subs, however as I pointed out earlier, cruisers are less vulnerable if they don't have battleships slowing them down.math
      level 6 battleship needs 13k reslevel 6 cruiser needs 10k res
      I looked from allied doctrine

      it shows you can produce only 13 cruisers against 10 battleships not 20 cruisers
      your idea attacking to battleships with 999 cruiser doesn't seem well
      Your math is still oversimplified. Again no one is arguing that ship for ship, battleships are better. With cruisers however you can get by with only building a destroyer or two to accompany them. Your math overlooks the ships that accompany the battleships and/or cruisers. Both will need destroyers, but the cruisers will need fewer. You'll also need either cruisers or carriers and interceptors to protect against naval bombers. You'll also need to consider the research cost, and not just level one. Sorry for not spelling this out for you in my last post, the post was getting fairly lengthy and I thought it was implied. You've proven me wrong in that regard.
      why you think cruisers need only one or two destroyer ?

      cruiser def value 9.5
      battleship def value 7
      for allied doctrine

      oh scoot and shoot strategy
      I said you still think it like 15 sub vs 10 cruiser + 1 destroyer

      yes always enemies are coming from same direction with one big stack and they let you to slow down them
      by the way only 2 submarines can hold for a time to big stack of cruisers with fewer destroyer while waiting for others

      I know battleships with planes more expensive but they work for another jobs too and they bring more damage with more benefit

    • Everything that 6Dragon says.

      This is an interesting point:
      >>> you can use interceptors to help ground units you can use them on land , you can't use cruisers on land

      In most games, I find the reverse to be true. My cruisers can go up and down the coast, clearing enemy units without fear of enemy bombers. This is very useful to an invasion force. You own the coastline. Very hard on coastal nations who have some of their main cities (and all their factories, industry, recruitment centers) in cruiser range. Oftentimes the enemy doesn't have an air force, so my interceptors are doing nothing.

      Now let's consider a different scenario. The enemy has a large air force. I have limited carrier space. Let's say I can carry 30 planes, and I bring 10 interceptors for bomber protection, 10 naval bombers for sub protection, and 10 tactical bombers to do something on land. What if the enemy has 20+ interceptors? What if the enemy has higher research? By the time you build and sail a carrier fleet across the ocean, days have passed, and your enemy is improving his air force the whole time. It's easy to end up with not enough planes when you're limited by carrier space.

      As far as micro-management goes, all navies require it. Opponents who leave their navy stacks exposed will get slaughtered. One stack of subs to pin them down, and then several stacks of cruisers come in to fire their cannons. You can't leave your navy sitting there no matter how "balanced" it is. Carrier based navies require the most care. You're constantly moving around your patrols to match your fleet movement, and you have to constantly form and re-form your squadrons depending on what you find. A stationary carrier task force parked overnight is the juiciest target of all.

      In terms of pure damage output, a navy built around 10 CC + 1 DD stacks is almost pure damage. No overhead of carriers, which do no direct damage. No overhead of interceptors, which only provide air cover, and don't deal attacking damage to navies or ground forces. And more efficient sub killing, shelling them for free instead of using naval bombers which eventually wear down. What all this means is that you can have more cruisers bringing more firepower for less cost and with less wear and tear, compared to a carrier-based navy.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Everything that 6Dragon says.

      This is an interesting point:
      >>> you can use interceptors to help ground units you can use them on land , you can't use cruisers on land

      In most games, I find the reverse to be true. My cruisers can go up and down the coast, clearing enemy units without fear of enemy bombers. This is very useful to an invasion force. You own the coastline. Very hard on coastal nations who have some of their main cities (and all their factories, industry, recruitment centers) in cruiser range. Oftentimes the enemy doesn't have an air force, so my interceptors are doing nothing.

      Now let's consider a different scenario. The enemy has a large air force. I have limited carrier space. Let's say I can carry 30 planes, and I bring 10 interceptors for bomber protection, 10 naval bombers for sub protection, and 10 tactical bombers to do something on land. What if the enemy has 20+ interceptors? What if the enemy has higher research? By the time you build and sail a carrier fleet across the ocean, days have passed, and your enemy is improving his air force the whole time. It's easy to end up with not enough planes when you're limited by carrier space.

      As far as micro-management goes, all navies require it. Opponents who leave their navy stacks exposed will get slaughtered. One stack of subs to pin them down, and then several stacks of cruisers come in to fire their cannons. You can't leave your navy sitting there no matter how "balanced" it is. Carrier based navies require the most care. You're constantly moving around your patrols to match your fleet movement, and you have to constantly form and re-form your squadrons depending on what you find. A stationary carrier task force parked overnight is the juiciest target of all.

      In terms of pure damage output, a navy built around 10 CC + 1 DD stacks is almost pure damage. No overhead of carriers, which do no direct damage. No overhead of interceptors, which only provide air cover, and don't deal attacking damage to navies or ground forces. And more efficient sub killing, shelling them for free instead of using naval bombers which eventually wear down. What all this means is that you can have more cruisers bringing more firepower for less cost and with less wear and tear, compared to a carrier-based navy.
      If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. ( Sun Tzu )

      I guess we forget to spies here

      btw yes there are advantages and disadvantages it varies from person to person who use effective to advantages and reduce to effects of disadvantages

    • This thread reminds me of discussions around heavy tanks. Yes, it is possible to win using heavy tanks, if you have the patience. Wait for the research, wait to build them, wait to move them into position. Then hope the enemy is well behaved, waiting for you.

      By the time you research and build and move a carrier-based navy into position, my cruiser navy has already reached the enemy, killed his navy, cleared the coastline, and my army has already landed and taken the enemy's core.

      I've even done this to myself: built a carrier navy (5 carriers with 6 planes each), loaded with planes, sailed into position, and by the time I got there my own cruisers had already finished the job. Because they were able to start sooner, and move faster, the enemy had less time to respond. This is like invading an enemy with AC's on day 4 versus bringing heavy tanks on day 8. Yeah the HT beats an AC one on one, but we're not fighting one on one ;)