|
|
Post by brian333 on Mar 8, 2017 16:12:54 GMT
The game says a sub does about half the potential damage of a DD, but in game I see much better output by subs, often far in excess of the listed potential damage.
So far I have avoided building many of either vessel, instead focusing on carriers for my naval needs, but I'm working out a 1939 invasion of Japan via Alaska early game strategy, and I need a navy capable of neutralizing two battleship generals.( I don't need to defeat them, just neutralize them.)
With this in mind, I turn to cheaper vessels. I usually find that combat with cheaper units becomes a fine art. Knowing your enemy is often touted as the key to victory, but the actual quotation includes a bit about knowing your own abilities and limitations, and I have discovered that I know very little about these units.
Destroyers are listed as almost twice the potential damage of a sub, but rarely achieves above average damage results, while withering in two or three turns of fire from units other than seabourne land units.
Subs cost half as much as DD's, but produce as much, if not more, damage output in game. They rarely last more than two rounds against a battleship or carrier, but then, neither does the destroyer.
My questions are, do subs or DD's gain situational bonuses? For example, are subs buffed when fighting battleships? The destroyer may receive improved results versus subs and reduced results versus battleships, as another exanple. I don't know if any of these things are true, but in game I see consistently high output by subs, and I want to learn how to make the most of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 8, 2017 22:55:37 GMT
The game says a sub does about half the potential damage of a DD, but in game I see much better output by subs, often far in excess of the listed potential damage. So far I have avoided building many of either vessel, instead focusing on carriers for my naval needs, but I'm working out a 1939 invasion of Japan via Alaska early game strategy, and I need a navy capable of neutralizing two battleship generals.( I don't need to defeat them, just neutralize them.) With this in mind, I turn to cheaper vessels. I usually find that combat with cheaper units becomes a fine art. Knowing your enemy is often touted as the key to victory, but the actual quotation includes a bit about knowing your own abilities and limitations, and I have discovered that I know very little about these units. Destroyers are listed as almost twice the potential damage of a sub, but rarely achieves above average damage results, while withering in two or three turns of fire from units other than seabourne land units. Subs cost half as much as DD's, but produce as much, if not more, damage output in game. They rarely last more than two rounds against a battleship or carrier, but then, neither does the destroyer. My questions are, do subs or DD's gain situational bonuses? For example, are subs buffed when fighting battleships? The destroyer may receive improved results versus subs and reduced results versus battleships, as another exanple. I don't know if any of these things are true, but in game I see consistently high output by subs, and I want to learn how to make the most of it. What should I answer when you don't even check the unit ability out? |
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Mar 8, 2017 23:22:07 GMT
You are correct, sir.
I still have much to learn. So far the sub-swarm seems to be working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 8, 2017 23:31:31 GMT
You are correct, sir. I still have much to learn. So far the sub-swarm seems to be working. Almost nothing can stop sub-spamming in the ocean. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 8, 2017 23:34:21 GMT
Yes, been awhile since I played, but the sub is deadly against Battleships AND carriers. I imagine a good SUB general could kill a battleship general, but I cannot test that belief.
Destroyers, thus, have less use, but that they are cheap. More health and damage (against Subs anyway) they are cheaper than battleships, and can fight land units. Submarine generals not controlled by you can find themselves destroyed by land units when they stop moving in a port surrounded by enemy land. (Usually the fate of Doenitz in 1939 conquest)
So, if you are hunting enemy carriers and battleships, use the sub. I imagine its much more worthwhile to put a strong general on one.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Mar 11, 2017 4:56:00 GMT
Sub swarm appears to be a viable tactic.
Beginning on Turn 2, (USA, 1939,) I built a sub per turn on Alaska. I also built a Light Infantry on Alaska every turn. I consolidated the four destroyers in Alaskan waters.
By turn twelve I had killed two and was chasing a third battleship general into Canadian waters while swarming Hokkaido Island with destroyers and light infantry. Between Japan's air force and the general who spawns there, Sapporo was able to hold out until turn ninteen.
I was able to focus my main attention on the South China Sea, (very successful,) and Spain/Africa, (very unsuccessful,) while eliminating the Japanese Navy using a tier 1 shipyard and a crapload of steel.
I'd like to thank Erich von Manstein for reminding me to read the unit's info page. With so much to learn all at once it's easy to overlook important info.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 8:26:02 GMT
Subs are good against air craft carriers and battleships. Destroyers are only recommended for countering the enemy sub forces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Otto von Stierlitz on Mar 11, 2017 17:44:29 GMT
I haven't used subs in any conquest, just because you can always bypass enemies fleets. But in some campaigns they are very useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Mar 12, 2017 5:07:09 GMT
Aren't destroyers just used for killing submarines?
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 12, 2017 5:12:53 GMT
Aren't destroyers just used for killing submarines? Been awhile since I played, but sounds right. I remember distinctly that Destroyers had the clear advantage in a fight. In game, not even just the IRL truth. |
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Mar 12, 2017 6:04:35 GMT
I haven't used subs in any conquest, just because you can always bypass enemies fleets. But in some campaigns they are very useful. I need to learn this. Japan's navy is a formidable obstacle in 1939, but I'm willing to try new things. I'll have to figure out a way to bypass Japan's main strength instead of confronting it. So far I have found that: Submarines tend to underperform against seabourne land units and destroyers. Submarines excell in fights with capital ships. Three subs killed a Battleship General in three turns, and all three subs survived. (Barely survivesto.) Submarines take damage every time they attack. I had a lot of crippled subs. I used them to distract air strikes from my good stuff. Enemy destroyers perform far in excess of mine, roughly doubling damage output compared my destroyers. I may need to learn more. My destroyers do minimal damage to land units; even land units at sea. They are horrible for this, taking as much or more damage as they deliver. Destroyers quickly reduce forts, but die doing so. Still, three Destroyers guickly reduce a fort on the coast. The primary lesson, I suppose, is that Destroyers and Submarines are very limited units, but very powerful in groups. Building large numbers of them early allows you to dominate a region, but the steel cost is high enough to limit capital ship construction, and once a region is free of enemies, those fleets will spend the rest of the game looking for something to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 12, 2017 11:24:50 GMT
I tend to use a thin layer of destroyers to behave like a wall or a cushion to prevent subs from touching my capital ships. Carriers or battleships can make short work out of subs from a distance.
OR
Build a couple of them to take out a cluster of enemy forts, just 2 or 3 is enough to rip into them in joint attacks then allow my land forces invade freely.
Invading America will require a bit more due to heavy resistance due to enemy's bombings, battleships fits this purpose better. Invading England is simpler because of airports within range, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Otto von Stierlitz on Mar 13, 2017 15:19:05 GMT
Aren't destroyers just used for killing submarines? No, destroyers (which shot only 1 hex) are very weak against subs. If you mean battleships (which shot 2 hexes), your battleships are good for killing AI subs, and your subs are good for killing AI battleships. This is just because of AI dumbness. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 13, 2017 18:23:35 GMT
Aren't destroyers just used for killing submarines? No, destroyers (which shot only 1 hex) are very weak against subs. If you mean battleships (which shot 2 hexes), your battleships are good for killing AI subs, and your subs are good for killing AI battleships. This is just because of AI dumbness. Using battleships solely for killing subs are not very cost-effective. A battleship costs 4 times as much as a submarine. To make it a worthwhile exchange, your battleship would have to make 4 kills plus doing some damage to the 5th sub (preferably killing it). Unless you have high naval tech, you will end up with a badly damaged battleship that serve no further purpose. Also, a lone battleship without anything else (an invasion force or a fleet of escorts) has limited use because even if you manage to kill 5 subs and got away with it only half damaged, it ends up fairly isolated from important battlefronts most of the time. Transferring the battleship from one ocean to another is very annoying with its 2-hex speed. However, if you put a destroyer in between your battleship and the enemy subs, you will have a far better K/D ratio in terms of gold lost. A lone battleship or a lone destroyer rarely helps. It has to be used in combination with other sea units or land units. This principle applies to both ships: you have to have a real reason for picking that type and build it in the right place and at the right time. There are certain situations where a destroyer is better, and where a battleship is better. |
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Mar 13, 2017 19:24:38 GMT
So far, my best use of destroyers comes in taking the kill shot on crippled enemies, flanking enemy cities for my ground forces, and reducing coastal forts. All of these result in crippled destroyers.
You should never build more destroyers than you need but detemining how many you need is a real trick until you know the map and the AI.
Destroyers and subs which are badly damaged are still useful. Here are some suggestions:
1) Steal unoccupied navy bases. You get credits each turn you own it, plus denial of the construction facilities to the enemy.
2) Waste enemy airpower. Each wounded unit costs the enemy 75 credits to kill, and that's 75 credits less the enemy has to use against your invasion forces. Send the cripples in when you want to divert enemy attention from something valuable.
3) Crippled destroyers can mob forts. Forts can't be flanked, but neither do they earn exp. Bash crippled destroyers into them until you don't have the problem any more.
4) Screen your capital ships. By creating a barrier two hexes away you can stop any ship but a carrier from threatening your capital ships. The enemy must stop to engage or attempt to go around your barrier.
Since none of these things are essential to success, so I don't advocate building fleets just for that. This only applies to ships left over from battles but which are so crippled that their next attack will just give the enemy some easy exp.
|
|
