Navy

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

    • Because while you're building high-level Subs ~ (Depending on the scenario) I'm building high-level Destroyers and Cruisers. After I clear out your subs I'll deal with any remaining navy - move at will across oceans - attack any forces along your coast while I deliver a D-Day style invasion force. Take a look at the stats - Elite Sub vs elite Destroyer.
      "Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen" - There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
      Heinz Guderian (Schneller Heinz) German WWII general and tank commander, theorist of tank combat and father of the blitzkrieg.
    • *Submarines + HC* vs *fleet without HC and without naval bomber* =submarines win (same ressource value)

      Donald J. Trump wrote:

      Why bother building a complex surface fleet
      Becaus eit is really funny to have true battle fleet of many many many fleets.
      I have played many times with aircarriers, also aircarrierstack had battleships, cruiser, destroyer and submarines as escort. Naval bomber were watching every direction, Fighter deffed naval bombers. TB were transported to kill enemy land units from sea. But some hours streat ahead of carrier way i had another little fleet of cruisers and destroyers. and some hours behind i had main battleshipsfleet. and in any direction of up to 6 hours way i had some submarines stacks. And if i was online, on 4x map, it was really nice to move my FLEET from one coast to enemy coast. I was every time ready to fight. I could fight with several enemies at same time.

      True fleet is a joker. Without heavy teamplay nobodies submarines fleets can fight true battle fleets.

      Ok I had several times heavy teamplay and my submarinesfleet could kill more then average battle fleet, but not my own battle fleet. True submarines fleet should have at least 4 types of submarines. But even so it is not enough...

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

    • injinji wrote:

      I stopped building subs long ago, the only times I have any are when I trade for units or in an emergency when I can't afford any other sea units. I've never built a nuke sub.
      I can see the reasons for that, but imo by doing that you renounce the incredible use and resourcefulness even a single (regular) sub can give you.

      You can use subs for espionage along the coast, as well as to stalk and harass bigger ships (excluding Destroyers, of course) and transport ships.

      Also, the presence of even just one sub in the surrounding waters will have your enemy either send entire fleets in hunt of that sub or never dip his foot into the sea again. The psychological warfare aspect of subs is something that is very much overlooked, I find. There aren't many units that can make the enemy as paranoid and cause him to waste time and resources quite as much as a well utilized sub, the presence of which you must carefully chose to conceal or reveal to the enemy depending on the circumstances.

      I make fundamental use of subs (which work wonderfully on solo missions as well as in packs) in every one of my Navies, and that strategy has proven very effective for me so far.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      injinji wrote:

      I've never built a nuke sub.
      Too bad for you, Miss I. Because a two-squadron stack of nuclear subs will cut through an unescorted convoy of ground units like a hot knife through butter, and will sink an unescorted battleship in an hour or less.
      The only nuke ship I built was a carrier, I had to decide between all three, and being an air power freak I chose the obvious.
      Forum Gang Mascot
      Girls game too


      dxcalc.com/cow
    • injinji wrote:

      I built my CVN on a 100p map, a few weeks before it ended.
      There ya go, Miss I. Apart from their unrealistic speed and firepower advantages, the three nuclear-powered naval units also provide a late-game naval supplement for players who have already tapped out their available oil supply but are still sitting on more rare materials, food and manpower than they can use in oil-powered units. I would rather have eight BBNs in two battle groups for naval supremacy and coastal bombardment than 30 or 40 rockets that only provide one-time pin-prick strikes.
    • Kanaris wrote:

      There is no better or worst all units have a purpose, same as for the army a competent navy needs combined arms approach.
      Correct. But don't build a bigger navy than you actually need. Naval units are expensive to build and expensive to maintain through research, and they suck oil. If your opponents have small or non-existent navies, you don't need a giant battle fleet. If you want to play a version of COW that places greater emphasis on navies, try the 50-player Pacific map or one of the world maps.
    • Why are you Donald.j.Trump?
      Criticism is the key to being proud but empathy is the key to being successful.
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost
      Ask not what your countrycan do for you, ask what you can do for your country. John F Kennedy
      Time is beyond our control, and the clock keeps ticking regardless of how we lead our lives. Priority management is the answer to maximizing the time we have. John C. Maxwell
    • Subs are amazing, they are stealth, cheap and don't cost any manpower, they are cannonflesh really. They are great together with destroyers. You lock any ship into battle with subs and then you bombard with destroyers. No need for expensive battleships. Just keep it stupid, simple.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh