I was wondering, if it was viable to only build submarines (and maybe warships too) and not mess with destroyers, cruisers and especially aircraft carries at all? I wanna focus more on the other tech trees since its impossible to keep all the tech up to date. I would also dismiss Naval Bombers because i really dont want to build airfields at every coast to support those bombers. Is it viable?
Submarines only
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
It is absolutely viable when you're playing Turkestan.
And absolutely not when you're playing Phillipines.When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
- BIG DADDY. -
Focusing your research on only a handful of units is a good strategy. You’ll save resources to use building your military and economy. Subs are a bit of a niche unit. For naval, focusing on just cruisers and destroyers is a viable strategy.
-
Very helpful thanksn't
K.Rokossovski wrote:
It is absolutely viable when you're playing Turkestan.
And absolutely not when you're playing Phillipines.
But with what am i gonna destroy convois and ships in general? Destroyers basically only deal damage against subs and cruisers basically just against planes
6thDragon wrote:
Focusing your research on only a handful of units is a good strategy. You’ll save resources to use building your military and economy. Subs are a bit of a niche unit. For naval, focusing on just cruisers and destroyers is a viable strategy.
-
Subs are best at:
1. sneaking to areas that are vulnerable and picking off a few unprotected convoys.
2. scouting a coast.
3. serving as a picket ship covering large areas as they are cheap to produce.
4. forming into larger "wolfpacks" of just subs and catching fleets with weak destroyer escorts.
Subs cannot bombard coastal units, but are more discrete than any other naval unit.
Cruisers generally cost about 2/3 what a battleship does and are also about 2/3 as effective against ships and land units. They don't have the range a battleship does, so you have to be active if you're going to use them as the focal point of your fleet. But their low cost allows you to build a lot of them and if you're focusing your research, keeping them upgraded is relatively easy. A lvl 5 cruiser is just as effective as a lvl 3 battleship. Plus they are faster (at the same level) and cruisers fair better against subs. If you have a destroyer to spot the subs, because cruisers and destroyers are both fast, you can absolutely bombard and retreat against small stacks of subs to the point where they are ineffective.
Remember, as a melee unit, subs can only do damage when they're taking it in return. If you can catch land units or naval units when the player is offline, you can bombard them all day without taking damage.
Don't forget, subs can't see other subs, so they would be of limited value escorting ground unit convoys.
Happy hunting. -
So cruisers are basically better battleships that are more focused on quantity and can fight off planes?
6thDragon wrote:
Cruisers generally cost about 2/3 what a battleship does and are also about 2/3 as effective against ships and land units.
-
Essentially battleships are more cost effective only when comparing their resource cost to their damage output for land and surface naval units. Battleships also have a significant range advantage. However they are slower, very expensive and vulnerable to both subs and naval bombers. So you would need to factor that into your cost benefit analysis when using them. I only consider battleships when playing Pan Asian.
This thread was about submarines. I don’t want to take it over with a debate about cruisers vs battleships. Here are a few other links to recent threads on that topic.
Curious about some units...
Strategys -
Well this was my question in the first place and i'm generally curious about the whole navy thing. So what about researching just the first level of battleships? You'd still get the range benefit.
6thDragon wrote:
This thread was about submarines. I don’t want to take it over with a debate about cruisers vs battleships. Here are a few other links to recent threads on that topic.
-
Then you can build a few in the early game which may or may not be useful (and they may well be; bombarding battleships can be VERY useful indeed early on!). But as the game progresses you'll find that they become obsolete. When L3 cruisers become available, your obsolete ships have equal firepower but less speed, air defense, vision, etc.
ItzK3ky wrote:
Well this was my question in the first place and i'm generally curious about the whole navy thing. So what about researching just the first level of battleships? You'd still get the range benefit.6thDragon wrote:
This thread was about submarines. I don’t want to take it over with a debate about cruisers vs battleships. Here are a few other links to recent threads on that topic.
In general (but with some notable exceptions!), when you consider researching units, either plan to keep them updated or don't bother with them at all.When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
- BIG DADDY. -
I double checked the math and its 2/3 the cost but only 1/2 damage to land and surface naval units.
ItzK3ky wrote:
So cruisers are basically better battleships that are more focused on quantity and can fight off planes?6thDragon wrote:
Cruisers generally cost about 2/3 what a battleship does and are also about 2/3 as effective against ships and land units.
Focusing on battleships would be more viable around day three or four, in my opinion. Battleships are expensive and you could use that steel and oil better by investing in building your industry instead. Building industry is very critical in the first couple days of the game.
The first few times I tried the larger maps, I started with land locked countries and made my first conquest a coastal country so I would have access to ports.
You’ll need to find units that fit your play style. I start off investing heavily in my economy the first few days of the game, while doing my best to only take on small AI countries and inactive players to give me time to also build up a military that I want to fight with. With this approach, I put a premium on cheap offensive units I can upgrade later.
With each map, you’ll need to gauge how important building a navy is compared to an army. If the naval side is more important, perhaps battleships are worth the investment.
Don’t get me wrong, subs are worth using, but not every game. My hang up with them is that they can’t bombard coastal units. -
ItzK3ky wrote:
Well this was my question in the first place and i'm generally curious about the whole navy thing. So what about researching just the first level of battleships? You'd still get the range benefit.6thDragon wrote:
This thread was about submarines. I don’t want to take it over with a debate about cruisers vs battleships. Here are a few other links to recent threads on that topic.
yes battleships would be a better option6thDragon wrote:
I double checked the math and its 2/3 the cost but only 1/2 damage to land and surface naval units.ItzK3ky wrote:
So cruisers are basically better battleships that are more focused on quantity and can fight off planes?6thDragon wrote:
Cruisers generally cost about 2/3 what a battleship does and are also about 2/3 as effective against ships and land units.
Focusing on battleships would be more viable around day three or four, in my opinion. Battleships are expensive and you could use that steel and oil better by investing in building your industry instead. Building industry is very critical in the first couple days of the game.
The first few times I tried the larger maps, I started with land locked countries and made my first conquest a coastal country so I would have access to ports.
You’ll need to find units that fit your play style. I start off investing heavily in my economy the first few days of the game, while doing my best to only take on small AI countries and inactive players to give me time to also build up a military that I want to fight with. With this approach, I put a premium on cheap offensive units I can upgrade later.
With each map, you’ll need to gauge how important building a navy is compared to an army. If the naval side is more important, perhaps battleships are worth the investment.
Don’t get me wrong, subs are worth using, but not every game. My hang up with them is that they can’t bombard coastal units.
知己知彼，百战不殆
-
As with most questions like this, the answer is it depends--it depends on your doctrine, your location, and your strategy. I will add that I think subs have increased value to players with High Command / Premium Account because, when set to Aggressive, they can serve as coastal defense / first warning system against other active players attempting sneak-attack coastal invasions. (This is less valuable in games where most countries have gone AI, since AI declares war before moving troops towards your land.) For example, I'm using subs right now playing as Colombia on the America map, and they're the only Naval unit I've researched--they get the Axis boost + the entire American southeast is active players and I want some advance notice if they start moving towards my shores so I can redirect troops to receive them.
-
Share