Interceptor vs Submarine

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

    • Interceptor vs Submarine

      It seems to me like subs should be able to damage enemy fighters on patrol. I am aware the fighters do not attack subs therefor the subs defense against fighters are obsolete. In my opinion if the planes are on an attacking patrol they should be damaged by a unit with air defense.
    • Yea, I wasn't suggesting one way or the other, I was just wondering about actual behavior when subs were in view, since in that case, theoretically, the planes could be bombing but missing. Your idea does have some merit though, but technically, the sub AA is only a defensive stat, which means it only responds to being fired upon. For subs to attack without being fired upon they would need an attack stat against air.
    • markprice112 wrote:

      Not very realistic but maybe better for gameplay.
      Worst. Rationale. Ever. I really wish people would quit trying to tweak units for the sake of "gameplay." IMHO the more we concede to "gameplay," and the further we depart from WW2-based reality, the more unintended consequences we have, and the more unbalanced the unit capabilities become -- thus requiring, of course, even more tweaking for the sake of "gameplay" and "balance." Wash, rinse, repeat. What's worse is that the "gameplay" excused tweaking usually leads to worse game conditions, not better.

      If we wanted to be realistic, fighters should have a very minimal anti-sub capability (say, 0.3 or thereabouts) and tactical bombers slightly more so. The real problem at present is the ridiculously unbalanced sub-vs-naval patrol bombers capability, whereby a flotilla of 12 stacked sub squadrons can shoot down an entire wing of 12 stacked NPB squadrons. That never happened even in Karl Doenitz's wildest fantasies. Submarines, especially late model U-boats, had decent AA capability and could inflict damage on attacking patrol bombers, maybe even get lucky and shoot one down now and again, but the outcome of NPB vs. sub was going to end with the sub sunk, damaged or diving to escape 9 out of 10 times.

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

    • markprice112 wrote:

      . . . you wonder why you even built naval bombers.
      In one word: detection.

      But, yes, I'm not the first forum discussion participant to complain of the screwed-up, over-powered AA capability of our in-game submarines. The relative capability of subs and NPBs is exactly the opposite of what it should be. If this is some 20-something game developer's idea of "balance" and "playability," then I will take realism every time.

      HEY BYTRO: FIX THIS. DAMN IT.

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

    • markprice112 wrote:

      Yeah I was recently in a situation where I was trying to maneuver my naval bombers so as not to patrol the enemies subs and he was trying to move his subs underneath my naval bombers. At that point you wonder why you even built naval bombers.
      Yea so NB and subs can hit each other. Using this example, if there was a separate stack of non NB planes would they get damaged. That is what I was asking.

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

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      Submarines, how could they shot down an inteceptor? and how could an interceptor even damage a sub submerged?
      How can submerged submarines shoot down entire squadrons of NPBs?
      The whole submarine-vs-aircraft combat scenario is screwed up, starting with subs vs. NPBs.
      bloddy right



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye