|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 13, 2017 19:28:50 GMT
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. No, you still need some support from building naval units when launching a D-Day invasion into North America. That is, if you don't want to waste 10 turns (or even more, it could go real wrong, especially in 1950/1960). Building naval units are helpful but don't overbuild. This is it. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Otto von Stierlitz on Mar 13, 2017 23:01:43 GMT
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. IMO building any ships is not cost-effective instead of 2 campaigns where you have big sea battle. But killing subs with battleships you have from the very beginning works quite good. Sure, support from some carrier or something like that is appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 15, 2017 19:42:08 GMT
Max Otto von Stierlitz, one interesting thing about Battleships, they have high base damage (but nerfed badly against land units). They do pretty heavy damage to the city's HP, but light damage to the land unit sitting in the city. So while most units would have killed the enemy occupier before the city goes to zero many times, the battleship is the opposite. I've used the battleship's cannons to whittle down the city while the rest take care of the occupying unit, it's a nice combined-arms approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Otto von Stierlitz on Mar 19, 2017 23:25:30 GMT
Max Otto von Stierlitz , one interesting thing about Battleships, they have high base damage (but nerfed badly against land units). They do pretty heavy damage to the city's HP, but light damage to the land unit sitting in the city. So while most units would have killed the enemy occupier before the city goes to zero many times, the battleship is the opposite. I've used the battleship's cannons to whittle down the city while the rest take care of the occupying unit, it's a nice combined-arms approach. May be. But anyway that depends on situation, whether you have better ways to spend money or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 20:15:08 GMT
Actually Battleships are best when it comes to destroying Enemy Fortress. In my experience with the Soviet Union it was necessary to build them in the eastern coast because the Japanese like to build Land forts and Coastal Artilleries. Also Battleships inflict significant damage on Cities, which coupled with some airstrikes(Or Artillery attacks) can easily bring Countries like UK, Japan or Italy down.
Submarines are also pretty good against enemy Aircraft-Carriers and Battleships. while they are not so good versus Destroyers.
Destroyers are not my favorite because i see no point in creating them. I only make them when i'm facing lots and lots of submarines.
But the ability to transfer your land troops without any additional cost(Unlike WC2 or GOG)over seas makes navy units less relevant.
Sorry for my bad english.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 21, 2017 21:04:05 GMT
Actually Battleships are best when it comes to destroying Enemy Fortress. In my experience with the Soviet Union it was necessary to build them in the eastern coast because the Japanese like to build Land forts and Coastal Artilleries. Also Battleships inflict significant damage on Cities, which coupled with some airstrikes(Or Artillery attacks) can easily bring Countries like UK, Japan or Italy down. Submarines are also pretty good against enemy Aircraft-Carriers and Battleships. while they are not so good versus Destroyers. Destroyers are not my favorite because i see no point in creating them. I only make them when i'm facing lots and lots of submarines. But the ability to transfer your land troops without any additional cost(Unlike WC2 or GOG)over seas makes navy units less relevant. Sorry for my bad english. Not necessarily the BEST in cost-effective terms. They cost twice as much as destroyers do, and the 2-hex long-range attack of the Battleship is not an advantage against Land Forts and Coastal Artilleries because they can shoot at a 2-hex range too. It's cheaper to use destroyers to take out a bunch of Land Forts than battleships. If you DO have another additional reason for building a battleship, then it's okay to use battleships to attack LF/CA. What IS very nice about battleships is their strong HP, and better base damage in attacking cities, and their 2-hex long-range attacks, all of this comes at a very high price however and is inefficient, slow. What you said about navies being less relevant is also agreed upon by both Max and I in our posts earlier in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on May 3, 2017 14:55:54 GMT
If you intend to control the Pacific seas, a combination of Subs and Destroyers will help.
As 1939 USSR, they helped me eliminate the Hokaiddo navies and ports, while killing the isolated Koiso.
As 1939 Japan, place more emphasis on Subs because once US and USSR ports are yours, the SEA ports fall very easily to your swarms and Carriers, if you want, spawn a few destroyers for those pesky coastal cities but reserve them when it comes to Brisbane.
As WW2 Italy, Subs and Destroyers are a must to soften Asia up, because your land forces tend to be caught up in Europe so spawn this navy in alternating ship-type patterns and you can wreck the enemy navies and coastal cities for a easy takeover.
When I gun for the US and Canada, I use transport ship (as in land troops that are transported) swarms to spread the hits while they sail as the Annhiliation Wave for North America. I support them with Carriers (dumb yes, but good to secure safe sailing and landing). However, if you are attacking into South America and the Carribean, use the right ships at the right time or alternate if you are rich.
|
|
