Curious about some units...

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

    • randomperson0195 wrote:

      Imo battleships have their uses, I mainly use them to bombard land along with abusing their massive health and damage. I usually just stack battleships with some destroyers and carriers, as interceptors are just more effective then cruisers in many ways.
      I am a firm believer in the Kantai Kessen doctrine, and battleships are the centre of my navies. Carriers are useful for amphibious assaults or for attacking other fleets without cruisers. Battleships are in my opinion better for fleet action.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I am a firm believer in the Kantai Kessen doctrine, and battleships are the centre of my navies. Carriers are useful for amphibious assaults or for attacking other fleets without cruisers. Battleships are in my opinion better for fleet action.
      Has this actually worked for you? if so could you give me an example or a particular battle or war i am just curious.
      "I don't know jeff!"

      Chris kamara

    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I am a firm believer in the Kantai Kessen doctrine, and battleships are the centre of my navies. Carriers are useful for amphibious assaults or for attacking other fleets without cruisers. Battleships are in my opinion better for fleet action.
      Has this actually worked for you? if so could you give me an example or a particular battle or war i am just curious.
      Absolutely. My first game I played UK in Clash of Nations. I built about 9 battleships at first, and eventually a total of 14.
      In that game, Canada (who had taken over the whole Americas, and with whom I was at war) sent a large convoy fleet accompanied by six or seven battleships and some cruisers, plus high-level destroyers so submarines weren't an option. I spotted them off Iceland with a naval bomber. I deployed my Atlantic battlefleet of 6 ships (the rest were in the Med) from Thurso and sent it to the area. I intercepted the invasion force between Iceland and Thurso, and sunk all the battleships. I then bombarded the destroyers and convoys into oblivion. Given that there were probably 40 units in the convoy it was a decisive victory, and I was able to mount a force to invade the Americas shortly thereafter, and ultimately my coalition won the match.
      In another game (HWW) I played as Australia and similarly won a great victory along with Japan over the United States. Again this was won by battleship against battleship, and had similarly decisive results as I was able to gain mastery of the Pacific Ocean. Twice is enough to build my military doctrine on, so yes, it has definitely worked for me.

      That and as far as I'm concerned Admiral Togo is a role model for anything naval ;) . Battleships and high-level cruisers, way to go.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • AMG Morgan wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      That and as far as I'm concerned Admiral Togo is a role model for anything naval ;) . Battleships and high-level cruisers, way to go.
      Nah Nah my BOY Horatio Nelson is the true naval Role mode, even died in battle as well surely can't get more cooler than that.
      Damn right, Nelson's even cooler.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • If your 6 battleships beat a convoy stacked with land units and 6-7 of their own battleships, then you must have invested heavily into your battleships research and leveled them up. Else a bigger stack with more HP wins the fight, with ease. But if you're comparing level 3 ships with level 1, then it's not really a fair comparison. You effectively had 2 times many battleships, in terms of level 1 firepower.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      If your 6 battleships beat a convoy stacked with land units and 6-7 of their own battleships, then you must have invested heavily into your battleships research and leveled them up. Else a bigger stack with more HP wins the fight, with ease. But if you're comparing level 3 ships with level 1, then it's not really a fair comparison. You effectively had 2 times many battleships, in terms of level 1 firepower.
      I did. Lvl.3 for me and lvl.2 for him, both Allied doctrine. Although that's only a difference of one.
      Mind you, the convoys were being escorted by a battlefleet though, not stacked. They were not in the line of battle at the time, but waiting behind. Enemy consisted of 4 stacks of convoy with cruisers and destroyers, with an additional stack of battleships (presumably to shell landing sites) and their escort cruisers & destroyers. Not one stack.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • I see, a bunch of separate stacks ambushed by a skilled player with superior research :)

      All he had to do was put his ships in one big stack. Attack him, and you're going to lose your navy. His landing force would have been damaged, but alive. Or you could have let him go, saved your navy, and then faced a full strength invasion on home soil.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      I see, a bunch of separate stacks ambushed by a skilled player with superior research :)

      All he had to do was put his ships in one big stack. Attack him, and you're going to lose your navy. His landing force would have been damaged, but alive. Or you could have let him go, saved your navy, and then faced a full strength invasion on home soil.
      Well fortunately for me that didn't happen. Especially as all my coastal fortifications & guns were in the south.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • For battleships, it is actually more useful than you think, naval bombers and battleships are the only majors deciding factors when it comes to massive naval battle so, bb are more like for competing firepower while naval bombers are more for more maneuverability where you can gain control of larger range of covering movable positions for your fleet. But in early games, it is better not to use much bb coz they are too expensive and probably less use of them, use them only when u have to invade oversea or providing coastal defense of the country.

      For AC, since the release of 1.5 version, AC has become a lot incredible much than in 1.0 version and if combine Doctrine buffs of Axis or Pan, it is something you must really use. They are more suitable for both offensive and defensive. In case of offensive, you should either use it with air force or supporting artillery units coz AC alone cant do much itself. Well, for defensive guess I don't need to mention it, people use them pretty in defending but for more me. Although I use motorized before, I started using AC instead for offensive as they can hold the counter-offensive as well.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      thegreasegun wrote:

      I think producing a mix of the vessels is best
      I know, that is the point of having 5 different types of ships. The point is that cruisers are the most versatile and can deal with all other naval vessels effectively. Obviously, it can't deal with a 10 stack of battleships, or a 10 stack of subs. They do, however, deal moderate damage, unlike the low damage battleships do to subs and planes, destroyers do to naval ships and planes, and subs do to other subs and planes. Cruisers are the perfect balanced naval unit.

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      I would say that battleships r cost effective
      Try making battleships as Axis. You'll see my point. You'd rather have the food for motorized infantry and the steel and oil for tanks and attack bombers. Unless you have a mega-economy (which usually only happens using Comintern and Allies), battleships are very costly to invest in, especially as 7/3 cruiser/destroyer stacks are very deadly in the hands of an experienced and active player. If playing Comintern, the -10% damage really reduces the point of battleships, especially with the cruiser buff and the battleship nerf. As Allies, all you really need are high level destroyers to deal with subs, so doesn't really matter whether you choose Battleships or Cruisers to invest research in (both is preferably, but depends on the enemy).I actually remember me and 6thDragon havving a conversation about how cost-effective cruisers and battleships were as Comintern. He has some really good strategies, you should check them out.
      I just got schooled using my own tactics. Was playing an inter-alliance game on a historical map. I was playing with a navy I wouldn't have built heavy on destroyers and battleships and had an alliance mate crush me.
      Using cruisers against mixed stacks is unbalanced. All you need to do with all cruiser/destroyer stacks is let them hit you at battleship range, then close to cruiser range to bombard them. Then retreat so only their battleships return fire and repeat. Micromanaging mixed stacks is ridiculously time intensive.

      It was a very effective reminder why I never play with battleships.

      Battleships good for bombarding land units. I can't take away from that as it's an important role for a navy. Otherwise, cruisers are better, especially as Comintern.
      It only works against less active players if you are also facing micromanaging opponent you won't survive a chance with his split-up cruisers bumping your fleet and use battleships from a distance as he got more firepower, you will lose the combat

    • Remember, WWII demonstrated how obsolete battleships had become by that time and I think that is accurately reflected in the game. However, I’ve seen good players play well with both.

      It's probably going to vary by doctrine. Pan Asian battleships are best in the game because of their bonuses, the speed bump compensates for a battleship’s slowness. With Comintern, because of their cruiser bonuses and delayed access to battleship upgrades, focusing on battleships wouldn’t make much sense. But you could build them cheaply. Axis could go either way, but battleships are already expensive and with axis, everything costs more. Allied would be easier to research multiple ships types out, build them quicker, and keep them upgraded, but allied battleships are SLOW.

      Battleships can be effective, but only if you go all out for a navy. If you’re primarily going to be a land power, that’s very difficult to do. Battleships are vulnerable to bombers and subs so would need destroyer escorts and either cruisers or aircraft carriers and interceptors to protect them. All of that takes a lot of resources to build. It also takes a lot of resources to research and keep upgraded. The point I can’t emphasize enough is how scalable a navy can be if you focus on just cruisers and destroyers. If you don’t think you’ll be a major sea power, you can still build an effective navy. If you think you’ll be a major sea power, build the same thing, just build more of them and give them research priority. You can build a lot of cruisers and destroyers and keep them upgraded very easily, if you’re only focusing on two types of ships. Sure ten cruisers will probably lose to ten battleships, but I probably won’t have just ten. When playing with Comintern, you can probably build about two cruisers for every battleship another doctrine can produce, with the same resources. Plus a level 5 cruiser is about as effective as a level 3 battleship, aside from range. Cruisers are faster, so if I see a naval group coming at me, I can just back off and have other fleets converge on that location to take down a serious opponent.

      I’ve only ever struggled against Pan Asian players focusing on battleships. But then again, you need to be active to use cruisers against battleships and I’m more active than most. Battleships would probably be better for those who are less active.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by 6thDragon ().

    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      The thing is
      1. 1 battleship has the does more damage than 2 cruisers
      2. 1 battleship costs less than 2 cruisers
      3. Battleships has much more range than cruisers
      the only thing good about cruisers is that they have good anti air defence

      Have to disagree with this.

      Looking at level 1 units is not very helpful. If you build your game strategy around level 1 units, you'll end up researching every type of unit that exists, which is fine on day 1. But time goes on. Other players will research their cruisers to 2, and then 3, and the enemy level 3 cruiser will beat your level 1 battleship. With less manpower invested. And their unit will be twice as fast, able to cover the map, while your slow battle wagons rumble around consuming manpower and food and oil every day. And you won't be able to keep up, because your opponent will focus on 2 ships while you're trying to research 4-5 unit types.

      This is true on land as well. The more unit types you research, the weaker they will be, and the more you will spend. You can never win against good opponents playing this way. Have to focus your attention on what is most effective for your doctrine, your map location, and your resource allocation.

    • Plus, you have to consider that battleships compete for resources with building up your industry. The same can be said for cruisers, but a cruiser costs 2/3 what a battleship costs. If you focus your research and limit your build in the early game, it's easier to also invest in your industry so your economy is strong in the late game. Which will help you upgrade your units easier and be a powerhouse in the late game.

      The same can be said for tanks (competing for resources with industry), which is partly why I never build tanks.

      I usually look to expand slowly in the early game and it usually serves me well.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      The same can be said for tanks (competing for resources with industry), which is partly why I never build tanks.

      This is another excellent point, by my brother from another mother.

      At the start of the game, you need to build industry. This uses metal + oil + rares. If you waste these resources on researching tanks, constructing tank factories, and then building tanks, you will not invest in your industry. And that's a recipe for disaster in the mid game as your economy stalls out and your enemies pass you by in research and production potential.

      Unless I'm under immediate pressure at the start of the game, I only build infantry + artillery, because these only require a tiny bit of metal and no oil or rares. Food and goods are OK to use at the start, because you don't need them for anything else.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by z00mz00m ().

    • Chet Zwe Han wrote:

      There is no the best unit nor bad units in cow game. Every unit has come with its own purpose and the usefulness of the unit depends on how they were used effectively.
      I would go so far as to say, as I have always said, that there are no bad units; merely there are bad, or at least inflexible, players. If it weren't for Tōgō Heihachirō I'd make this my signature.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

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