Present naval disputes indicates that naval compellence has endured since imperial expansionism and is still an active part of nation’s maritime diplomacy and strategy. In this study, I argue that sea power is more than a symbol of the aggressor’s national power and have a substantial impact on the outcome of naval compellence. Due to the exclusiveness of specific types of warships, the strategic prioritisation creates strategic cost that can signal resolve and credibility as sunk cost. Submarines also creates the opportunity for private signalling, without public transparency. Combining data from multiple datasets that compares the outcome of naval compellence between 1918-2011 with the naval power of the aggressor, this study presents systematic evidence that battleships increase the probability of successful naval compellence while carriers, conventional and nuclear submarines can’t be proven to have a significant impact on the outcome.