What do you use carriers for?

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

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      I usually use carriers to destroy naval superiority and to destroy ground units. What do most of you use them for?
      I use them to operate planes out of reach of my land airports.
      This may sound simple, but it's what it is. I'd use carriers for supporting a naval invasion for example. But overall, carriers aren't really good for a navy. Naval bombers are sick, but the carriers are vulnerable and even with perfect scouting a fast enough sub could reach and snipe them. Just water is worthless, so I prefer to push on land and you can still use airforce to secure strategic points like the Panama strait using just land airports.
      Naval bombers are very good on large water fronts or shorelines.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      I usually use carriers to destroy naval superiority and to destroy ground units. What do most of you use them for?
      I use them to operate planes out of reach of my land airports.This may sound simple, but it's what it is. I'd use carriers for supporting a naval invasion for example. But overall, carriers aren't really good for a navy. Naval bombers are sick, but the carriers are vulnerable and even with perfect scouting a fast enough sub could reach and snipe them. Just water is worthless, so I prefer to push on land and you can still use airforce to secure strategic points like the Panama strait using just land airports.
      Naval bombers are very good on large water fronts or shorelines.
      Bro you obviously have to escort them if you want them to work well. If they're well protected they can deal some serious damage.

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      Bro you obviously have to escort them if you want them to work well. If they're well protected they can deal some serious damage.
      That's obviously what I'm talking about though. Escorting them is a pain. You need the numbers on the front in the ranged battles (cruisers or battleships). You can either have carriers behind, making you lose a lot of numbers and putting you in a bad disadvantage, or send the escorts forward, but then you have to send carriers forward too and they will be vulnerable and easy to snipe. See the problem now?

      Edit: Also remember carriers are slow. You waste a lot of resources and research time on them. So for my 10 cruiser + 1 destroyer stacks build I don't use carriers. I like to upgrade to high levels so I never have enough research time, and I limit the number of unit types I'm using as much as possible. For that reason, and also because carriers slow down the cruiser assaults, I just rely on land airports, protected by adding different buildings and upgrading the airports, if possible.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Bro you obviously have to escort them if you want them to work well. If they're well protected they can deal some serious damage.
      That's obviously what I'm talking about though. Escorting them is a pain. You need the numbers on the front in the ranged battles (cruisers or battleships). You can either have carriers behind, making you lose a lot of numbers and putting you in a bad disadvantage, or send the escorts forward, but then you have to send carriers forward too and they will be vulnerable and easy to snipe. See the problem now?
      Edit: Also remember carriers are slow. You waste a lot of resources and research time on them. So for my 10 cruiser + 1 destroyer stacks build I don't use carriers. I like to upgrade to high levels so I never have enough research time, and I limit the number of unit types I'm using as much as possible. For that reason, and also because carriers slow down the cruiser assaults, I just rely on land airports, protected by adding different buildings and upgrading the airports, if possible.
      Why move them forward? If the enemy escorts their battleships and carriers you will have a similar amount of firepower compared to them. If they just spam capital ships without escorts just use subs to sink them. I destroyed 6 battleships using naval bombers on another player once. Naval bombers are like tactical and attack bombers in the ocean. They will completely demolish entire stacks of ships.

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      Why move them forward? If the enemy escorts their battleships and carriers you will have a similar amount of firepower compared to them. If they just spam capital ships without escorts just use subs to sink them. I destroyed 6 battleships using naval bombers on another player once. Naval bombers are like tactical and attack bombers in the ocean. They will completely demolish entire stacks of ships.
      If your enemy goes 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer build, you are DEAD. I know this build isn't common as it requires a lot of activity and only high level players use it. But you will be using research time on carriers, cruisers and destroyers, naval bombers and probably battleships as well. this causes you to be awfully behind in levels, and the naval bombers won't really do anything. I mean they aren't really bad against cruisers 1v1 but if the cruisers are in 10-stacks together they all deal full defensive damage, while the naval bombers' damage is spread out. This way the naval bombers get obliterated achieving just very little, not counting in the resources spent on carriers. Battleships have nice firepower but are long to prodduce, so need higher level naval bases and extra research time, plus cost way more. They will get destroyed as well, same about subs, you can just hit-and-run and they can't do anything.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Why move them forward? If the enemy escorts their battleships and carriers you will have a similar amount of firepower compared to them. If they just spam capital ships without escorts just use subs to sink them. I destroyed 6 battleships using naval bombers on another player once. Naval bombers are like tactical and attack bombers in the ocean. They will completely demolish entire stacks of ships.
      If your enemy goes 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer build, you are DEAD. I know this build isn't common as it requires a lot of activity and only high level players use it. But you will be using research time on carriers, cruisers and destroyers, naval bombers and probably battleships as well. this causes you to be awfully behind in levels, and the naval bombers won't really do anything. I mean they aren't really bad against cruisers 1v1 but if the cruisers are in 10-stacks together they all deal full defensive damage, while the naval bombers' damage is spread out. This way the naval bombers get obliterated achieving just very little, not counting in the resources spent on carriers. Battleships have nice firepower but are long to prodduce, so need higher level naval bases and extra research time, plus cost way more. They will get destroyed as well, same about subs, you can just hit-and-run and they can't do anything.
      Thats why I also use submarines. If you simply leveled up a naval base it only takes 4 hours to build. The key to naval combat is like any type of combat in Call of War. You go to have variety/

    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Why move them forward? If the enemy escorts their battleships and carriers you will have a similar amount of firepower compared to them. If they just spam capital ships without escorts just use subs to sink them. I destroyed 6 battleships using naval bombers on another player once. Naval bombers are like tactical and attack bombers in the ocean. They will completely demolish entire stacks of ships.
      If your enemy goes 10 cruisers + 1 destroyer build, you are DEAD. I know this build isn't common as it requires a lot of activity and only high level players use it. But you will be using research time on carriers, cruisers and destroyers, naval bombers and probably battleships as well. this causes you to be awfully behind in levels, and the naval bombers won't really do anything. I mean they aren't really bad against cruisers 1v1 but if the cruisers are in 10-stacks together they all deal full defensive damage, while the naval bombers' damage is spread out. This way the naval bombers get obliterated achieving just very little, not counting in the resources spent on carriers. Battleships have nice firepower but are long to prodduce, so need higher level naval bases and extra research time, plus cost way more. They will get destroyed as well, same about subs, you can just hit-and-run and they can't do anything.
      Cruiser is bad and is only good when your active 24/7. They have short range, someone can just use a single battleship to destroy an entire stack when you're inactive. Also, since there is only one destroyer level 3 submarines can obliterate the entire stack without little effort. I use the allied doctrine if I were to play as a naval power.

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      Cruiser is bad and is only good when your active 24/7. They have short range, someone can just use a single battleship to destroy an entire stack when you're inactive. Also, since there is only one destroyer level 3 submarines can obliterate the entire stack without little effort. I use the allied doctrine if I were to play as a naval power.
      I must agree with the first thing you pointed out. Battleships can outrange your cruisers, that's all they are good for.
      But if you're active a lot like me, you will destroy submarines easily. Simply hit and run, they are about same speed as Axis and Axis have +15% speed on them, so imagine other doctrines. You can just micro it out all day and use waypoints to retreat afterwards.
      Sure battleships are an issue when inactive, subs are not. Subs are just free k/d.

      you're true that key to victory is sometimes variety, but that's when you're playing slow. Again, you will be researching a lot so you will be behind in levels badly. Even if I didn't hit and run my cruisers your lv3 subs will just get easily destroyed by lv5 cruisers. The only counter to my strategy is go full battleship and invest a lot in the upgrades. You still need quite an economic lead to sustain them as cruisers are way cheaper, but the larger range can sometimes pay off a lot.
      But to be honest, who goes full battleship when so many people like subs.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • Hemzed The Sultan wrote:

      maybe but in naval wars you can get away with not having as much variety. like you could spam subs and succeed because people don't upgrade their destroyers
      Exactly. If you use your variety strategy and spam all kinds of navy the all-in subs strat can easily obliterate you as well. A lv2 sub already beats a lv1 destroyer, but the subs will be ahead more and only part of your army is destroyers. Good luck when you meet a good player...
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • Hemzed The Sultan wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Thats why I also use submarines. If you simply leveled up a naval base it only takes 4 hours to build. The key to naval combat is like any type of combat in Call of War. You go to have variety/
      maybe but in naval wars you can get away with not having as much variety. like you could spam subs and succeed because people don't upgrade their destroyers
      I always upgrade my destroyers

    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      Hemzed The Sultan wrote:

      maybe but in naval wars you can get away with not having as much variety. like you could spam subs and succeed because people don't upgrade their destroyers
      Exactly. If you use your variety strategy and spam all kinds of navy the all-in subs strat can easily obliterate you as well. A lv2 sub already beats a lv1 destroyer, but the subs will be ahead more and only part of your army is destroyers. Good luck when you meet a good player...
      My minimum destroyer is a level 2 destroyer, I also have level 3 and level 4 destroyers. I usually have level 3 to level 4 submarines. My destroyers outnumber the battleships. I never keep level 1 destroyers.

    • smart but navy depends on your resources you can not go all out variety spam. unless you have the resources if you do yeah go all out variety. but most of the time unless your an island nation you resources is better spent on ground troops planes or whatever. its is better to have small navy that can get the job done (especially in early game)

      than a navy that is perfect but it is expensive .

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

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      My minimum destroyer is a level 2 destroyer, I also have level 3 and level 4 destroyers. I usually have level 3 to level 4 submarines. My destroyers outnumber the battleships. I never keep level 1 destroyers.
      If destroyers are more than half of your navy and never more than a level behind the highest available, you can fight all-in subs with equal resources effectively. Otherwise, you can not without micro management (like with the cruisers).


      Hemzed The Sultan wrote:

      smart but navy depends on your resources you can not go all out variety spam. unless you have the resources if you do yeah go all out variety. but most of the time unless your an island nation you resources is better spent on ground troops planes or whatever. its is better to have small navy that can get the job done (especially in early game)

      than a navy that is perfect but it is expensive .
      Exactly. Water is worthless, so many players focus on land rather than water and defend it off with ranged units+militia (to absorb damage) or naval bombers. You could theoretically keep all your navy levelled up but you'll get shredded on land. Levelling up is important and increases effectivity drastically, so you must choose very carefully what you want to upgrade, not invest in everything...
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper

    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      My minimum destroyer is a level 2 destroyer, I also have level 3 and level 4 destroyers. I usually have level 3 to level 4 submarines. My destroyers outnumber the battleships. I never keep level 1 destroyers.
      If destroyers are more than half of your navy and never more than a level behind the highest available, you can fight all-in subs with equal resources effectively. Otherwise, you can not without micro management (like with the cruisers).

      Hemzed The Sultan wrote:

      smart but navy depends on your resources you can not go all out variety spam. unless you have the resources if you do yeah go all out variety. but most of the time unless your an island nation you resources is better spent on ground troops planes or whatever. its is better to have small navy that can get the job done (especially in early game)

      than a navy that is perfect but it is expensive .
      Exactly. Water is worthless, so many players focus on land rather than water and defend it off with ranged units+militia (to absorb damage) or naval bombers. You could theoretically keep all your navy levelled up but you'll get shredded on land. Levelling up is important and increases effectivity drastically, so you must choose very carefully what you want to upgrade, not invest in everything...
      I just deploy my escorts along with my capital ships. I never separate them. Although, in some cases a navy is not necessary, in other situations, when you're playing as an island nation. A navy will be necessary.