Curious about some units...

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

    • Curious about some units...

      So as I come to think of it.....
      For navy battles only....is it crucial to build battleships? Destroyers are necessary against subs....crusiers against planes and subs against enemy battleships and crusiers...
      The way I see it..... battleships are good only for bombarding land units and cities on coast....is it really that necessary? Like aircraft carriers with bombers can get that job done right?? It's just battleships are very expensive for that right?
      And are armoured cars any useful except on the very early game? Like as axis I have light tanks on day 1 just 2 hours later...and are set to be offensive vehicles unlike ACs ....and "mobile defense" is honestly weird to me...like if you are someone who is invaded and caught off guard with it then you are dead...even the fastest unit won't help so much if running to help from the opposite side of the country...you will still suffer lose provinces enough to cripple you I would say ...
      The same applies to naval bombers....these are situational like ACs...the problem is is it really worth it maintaing a decent number of decently upgraded naval bombers just for costal defence in case of surprising enemy sea landing?? Aren't most of these other ships made for exactly that?
      It's just as roles overlap.....can someone tell me why even bother with these units?

    • If you want unit info the place to look is the Unit info Sheet in research. This is a post on the Unit info Sheet I have posted in another thread.

      To answer your questions, some of them are totally personal preference. For example I build few if any naval units, IF I do they are mainly Destroyers (DDs) and Aircraft Carriers (CVs). I do these units ONLY if I have to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Some time I will build only subs and this is mainly after I have removed most of my units from my core to attack on another continent. Some games I build NO navy at all esp on the 22 player map. My reasons are simple, like air units Naval forces cannot capture a single province for you (you might get lucky and bombard a province into rebelling but that does not mean it will be yours) but unlike Air Forces they are limited to a range of 70 km of influence along coastal provinces (70 km is the max range for Battleships (BBs) while planes are at least 250 km, 3 times as far and for far less cost than a BBs). Thus I NEVER build Cruiser or BBs nor do I waste precious research time and resources on them.

      As for Armored Cars (ACs), there are the best defensive unit in the game and when you add the speed to get into position in front of you enemy to make him attack them and thus slowing or halting his progress to allow other defensive unit to move into position. Also its speed can be used to create a defensive offense by capturing an enemy province so that he must attack it, this is esp useful when attacking an enemy core where that enemy would get a home core defense bonus, this 15% bonus increases his damage and decreases his damage taken, so if you can capture an empty province and he has to attack you he has lost this bonus which could make a serious difference in the outcome So ACs cannot be ignored as an extremely useful unit. As a side note I always leave a few ACs in my rear areas I have limited defense in including my core.

      To answer you on naval bombers, I would first refer you to the best article on aircraft on the forums, Air Combat for COW1.5v- Guide for dealing some (in)decent damage I personally use naval bombers in my 5/5/5/5 stacks.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel

    • I couldn’t have said it better.

      Another thing to consider is extra benefits from a given doctrine.

      I primarily only play Comintern or Pan Asian and use different units depending on which.

      Perfect example is with naval units. With Comintern I go heavy on cruiser, but with Pan Asian I use battleships more.

      It really is a matter of personal preference.

      I didn’t see much use for armored cars either for about my first ten games. Now they are a staple no matter which doctrine I play. But Pan Asian ACs are incredibly fast!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • It depends on doctrine. You can see what units r good in which doctrine in the game wiki.

      Battleships are very good they r used to destroy other ships not just bombing shores. Make at least 10 of these upgrade to lvl 3 at least. Add in some destroyers to protect from submarines.

      Destroyers r good agains submarines but I personally don’t build a lot of them. Invest on naval bombers instead, good for ships and submarines.

      Cruisers just build some of them only if your enemy have loads of naval bombers.

      Submarines r the best units, make lots of them and surround your coast and narrow water ways with them

      Armoured cars r really useful especially pan asian. It’s my main units in game. Indestructible if paired with tank destroyers and sp artillery. AC r good in attack even it is mainly for defence you can upgrade it to max lvl.

      Naval bomber is a must have. One naval bomber damage is the same is a battleships. Put them on aircraft carriers with interceptors and it’s indestructible. Keep it in stacks of 10, don’t split it like other people. You have your submarines for coastal defence.
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • thegreasegun wrote:

      I think Battleships are there to fight other naval units such as cruisers, destroyers, and other battleships. Of course, they also bomb land units. I think battleships are pretty important in naval warfare.
      The biggest thing is that they are not cost-effective...and not to mention very slow compared to cruisers and destroyers. Their biggest trait is that they outrange artillery on land, so can effectively deal with coastal land units. Cruisers are better in almost every way, They cost less, are faster to produce, are faster, have the best anti-air (to deal with naval bombers), and can successfully deal with lone subs (not wolfpacks tho, however they will deal damage so often the wolfpack chooses not to engage). The only doctrine I think battleships are even considerable in is Pan-Asian, since the speed and sight bonus can be used well, along with the battleship, carrier, interceptor, and naval bomber buffs.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      thegreasegun wrote:

      I think Battleships are there to fight other naval units such as cruisers, destroyers, and other battleships. Of course, they also bomb land units. I think battleships are pretty important in naval warfare.
      The biggest thing is that they are not cost-effective...and not to mention very slow compared to cruisers and destroyers. Their biggest trait is that they outrange artillery on land, so can effectively deal with coastal land units. Cruisers are better in almost every way, They cost less, are faster to produce, are faster, have the best anti-air (to deal with naval bombers), and can successfully deal with lone subs (not wolfpacks tho, however they will deal damage so often the wolfpack chooses not to engage). The only doctrine I think battleships are even considerable in is Pan-Asian, since the speed and sight bonus can be used well, along with the battleship, carrier, interceptor, and naval bomber buffs.
      I agree with your statements about cruisers, but Battleships are good at damaging other vessels and have a longer range. However, I think cruisers are mainly there to repel naval bombers, not against submarines. (destroyers are against submarines) Even though the cruiser is my favorite naval vessel, I think producing a mix of the vessels is best. So, I think the Battleship is pretty important.

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      thegreasegun wrote:

      I think Battleships are there to fight other naval units such as cruisers, destroyers, and other battleships. Of course, they also bomb land units. I think battleships are pretty important in naval warfare.
      The biggest thing is that they are not cost-effective...and not to mention very slow compared to cruisers and destroyers. Their biggest trait is that they outrange artillery on land, so can effectively deal with coastal land units. Cruisers are better in almost every way, They cost less, are faster to produce, are faster, have the best anti-air (to deal with naval bombers), and can successfully deal with lone subs (not wolfpacks tho, however they will deal damage so often the wolfpack chooses not to engage). The only doctrine I think battleships are even considerable in is Pan-Asian, since the speed and sight bonus can be used well, along with the battleship, carrier, interceptor, and naval bomber buffs.
      cruisers r only for air defence and early naval. Battleships r almost twice the damage. I would say that battleships r cost effective
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • 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.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _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 completely agree with your statement about cruisers, I do think cruisers is the perfect balanced naval unit. Cruisers act like a battleship and a destroyer. The cruiser is also my favorite vessel.

    • Las unidades navales se clasifican igual que las demás, las unidades cuerpo a cuerpo y las unidades a distancia, los submarinos y destructores son unidades cuerpo a cuerpo, por lo que para causar daño deben entrar cuerpo a cuerpo, a diferencia de los acorazados y cruceros, que también pueden causar daños desde la distancia, pero si bien es cierto que el crucero es la unidad naval más equilibrada y por otro lado es la que causa el mayor daño antiaéreo mientras que los acorazados toman mayor cantidad de daño. daño tanto a naves como a unidades a tierra y edificios, porque también deberían usarse para destruir todas las construcciones opuestas y desmoralizar las ciudades costeras, el hecho de tener el segundo rango más grande del juego también las hace importantes, por lo que para mí todas se complementan entre sí porque todo depende de las circunstancias y la calidad del enemigo.

    • BETANO23 wrote:

      Las unidades navales se clasifican igual que las demás, las unidades cuerpo a cuerpo y las unidades a distancia, los submarinos y destructores son unidades cuerpo a cuerpo, por lo que para causar daño deben entrar cuerpo a cuerpo, a diferencia de los acorazados y cruceros, que también pueden causar daños desde la distancia, pero si bien es cierto que el crucero es la unidad naval más equilibrada y por otro lado es la que causa el mayor daño antiaéreo mientras que los acorazados toman mayor cantidad de daño. daño tanto a naves como a unidades a tierra y edificios, porque también deberían usarse para destruir todas las construcciones opuestas y desmoralizar las ciudades costeras, el hecho de tener el segundo rango más grande del juego también las hace importantes, por lo que para mí todas se complementan entre sí porque todo depende de las circunstancias y la calidad del enemigo.
      Generally ranged units are better than melee, for obvious reasons; this is compounded at sea where you may want to bombard coastlines. An exception is convoys; they seem to do so little damage that a submarine or destroyer, or a naval bomber, could take on out with ease.
      I'd actually argue that, unless your enemy has cruisers, naval bombers are better than ships, and cheaper too. However, in general any action should exploit a weakness; lack of destroyers means attack with subs, lack of cruisers, use planes. Battleships are best used if enemy lacks subs or cruisers, preferably against other battleships.
      Also, what has larger range than a battleship?
      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:

      BETANO23 wrote:

      Las unidades navales se clasifican igual que las demás, las unidades cuerpo a cuerpo y las unidades a distancia, los submarinos y destructores son unidades cuerpo a cuerpo, por lo que para causar daño deben entrar cuerpo a cuerpo, a diferencia de los acorazados y cruceros, que también pueden causar daños desde la distancia, pero si bien es cierto que el crucero es la unidad naval más equilibrada y por otro lado es la que causa el mayor daño antiaéreo mientras que los acorazados toman mayor cantidad de daño. daño tanto a naves como a unidades a tierra y edificios, porque también deberían usarse para destruir todas las construcciones opuestas y desmoralizar las ciudades costeras, el hecho de tener el segundo rango más grande del juego también las hace importantes, por lo que para mí todas se complementan entre sí porque todo depende de las circunstancias y la calidad del enemigo.
      Generally ranged units are better than melee, for obvious reasons; this is compounded at sea where you may want to bombard coastlines. An exception is convoys; they seem to do so little damage that a submarine or destroyer, or a naval bomber, could take on out with ease.I'd actually argue that, unless your enemy has cruisers, naval bombers are better than ships, and cheaper too. However, in general any action should exploit a weakness; lack of destroyers means attack with subs, lack of cruisers, use planes. Battleships are best used if enemy lacks subs or cruisers, preferably against other battleships.
      Also, what has larger range than a battleship?
      Railroad Guns have a larger range than battleships.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      BETANO23 wrote:

      Las unidades navales se clasifican igual que las demás, las unidades cuerpo a cuerpo y las unidades a distancia, los submarinos y destructores son unidades cuerpo a cuerpo, por lo que para causar daño deben entrar cuerpo a cuerpo, a diferencia de los acorazados y cruceros, que también pueden causar daños desde la distancia, pero si bien es cierto que el crucero es la unidad naval más equilibrada y por otro lado es la que causa el mayor daño antiaéreo mientras que los acorazados toman mayor cantidad de daño. daño tanto a naves como a unidades a tierra y edificios, porque también deberían usarse para destruir todas las construcciones opuestas y desmoralizar las ciudades costeras, el hecho de tener el segundo rango más grande del juego también las hace importantes, por lo que para mí todas se complementan entre sí porque todo depende de las circunstancias y la calidad del enemigo.
      Generally ranged units are better than melee, for obvious reasons; this is compounded at sea where you may want to bombard coastlines. An exception is convoys; they seem to do so little damage that a submarine or destroyer, or a naval bomber, could take on out with ease.I'd actually argue that, unless your enemy has cruisers, naval bombers are better than ships, and cheaper too. However, in general any action should exploit a weakness; lack of destroyers means attack with subs, lack of cruisers, use planes. Battleships are best used if enemy lacks subs or cruisers, preferably against other battleships.Also, what has larger range than a battleship?
      Railroad Guns have a larger range than battleships.
      I see.
      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

    • _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.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • Absolutely! Cruisers are the mainstay of my navy as well.
      But I think Battleships aren't that bad either. Especially when they are levelled up to L3/4. The other day, I obliterated a stack of cruisers with just 2 L3 battleships. Against land units heavily upgraded battleships are of great use.

      It's better to build a fleet according to utility. For eg: If you take an inland country like Ukraine, you will be fighting and expanding on land most of the time. So there's no use wasting huge amounts of resources on researching and stacking up battleships. All you need is perhaps a small defense force near your ports.

      Navy is crucial if you wanna expand across continents, like in the HWW map. That's where cruisers are the most useful-against subs, planes and they are also faster.