Submarines, destroyers balance

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

    • Submarines, destroyers balance

      Lets start with purpose of each of the units:

      Destroyers:
      -Counter submarines (somewhat)

      Submarines:
      -Counter Cruisers
      -Counter Battleships
      -Counter Aircraft carriers
      -Can hunt for transport ships, reinforcements
      -Stealth, they can scout for free as long as enemy doesnt have detection

      As we can see submarines have "slighly" more uses and are much more universal unit. It might not necessarily be bad but what is actually irrational is that submarines are also cheaper that destroyers. How is that a good idea that unit with a single purpose is more expensive than one size fits all unit.

      On top of that they dont even counter them that hard. Destroyers have literally one job and are mediocre at that.
      10d vs 10s lvl1 in Comintern results in 50% loss of destroyers.

      You also have to keep up with submarines upgrades just to not get rekt by them. 10s lvl2 vs 10d lvl1 (all the way to 4lvl vs 5lvl) results in destroyer defeat?!

      You might also not know how many subs enemy have, so you might think 10 destroyers is enough to protect your fleet but you might get rolled over by:
      -twice as many subs
      -actual fleet or naval bombers which make your destroyers totally usless

      Finally you have to rely on naval bombers - actual submarine counter. But then again why multi purpose unit like naval bombers that counter every single ship except cruisers are better than single purpose unit?

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

    • You’re neglecting that fact that your ships will work together-you’ll have battleships and cruisers in your fleet as well. While that fleet would fight more subs than destroyers, it would have a huge range advantage and since it can stop the enemy, would be able to shoot from afar, and scoot if needed. While the stack would eventually be caught in melee by the subs, it would still do considerable damage and most likely win in an engagement with a sub.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      You’re neglecting that fact that your ships will work together-you’ll have battleships and cruisers in your fleet as well. While that fleet would fight more subs than destroyers, it would have a huge range advantage and since it can stop the enemy, would be able to shoot from afar, and scoot if needed. While the stack would eventually be caught in melee by the subs, it would still do considerable damage and most likely win in an engagement with a sub.
      Right but:
      -Ranged ships deal mediocre damage to subs
      -Subs can always disengage and hunt for reinforcements, do some scouting, they are hella cheap after all.
      Meanwhile destoyers need to hug the fleet or big, bad stack of subs will kill them the moment they leave. Subs can also engage in such stack, suck the damage while ranged ships attack the fleet, destroyers cant do that, they will evaporate under battleships' fire the moment they leave the group.

      In my opinion numbers arent right there. Subs have all the initiative and variety of uses meanwhile MORE EXPENSIVE destroyers are just escorts against single threat that might never ever engage into them.

    • Incorrect assessment there. Mediocre damage, but you take none back, you can shoot as long as you want. Destroyers 1v1 subs and are still stronger, ignoring cost. Subs can run away but all you have is subs then you can just chase and shoot them, running away while dealing damage if needed. If not, then you just bombard their naval bases yards, no more subs. Unless the sub player is hyper active they may have to sleep, and during that time you can simply blow them up as well…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Don't forget Subs are really slow, so catching them with faster units such as Destroyers as ranged units bombard is an effective way to destroy them if they decide to run. Ranged units are providing your "Mediocre" damage that lets the destroyers leave with alot more health

      But tbh i do think Destoryers need a 0.5 dmg buff to subs at the least for all doctrines
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.

    • This is an interesting discussion, thanks for raising it Sewur.

      DD versus SS strength is a rare instance where the game reflects a historical reality. WW2 era destroyers had a difficult time finding subs until torpedoes were in the water. Subs did enormous damage, especially to transports.

      In anything, I would advocate for making subs stronger, and much more expensive. They should also lose their stealth if they start to Fast March. Also, subs should not be stackable with ships. CoW encourages players to stack subs as "damage soakers". This feels completely wrong. Subs should operate on their own, in silence. They had no ability to coordinate with surface vessels during a battle, though they were used to scout and send reports back to fleet HQ.

      These changes would reflect both the power of subs, and the relatively greater difficulty in building, stationing, and using them effectively.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      They had no ability to coordinate with surface vessels during a battle, though they were used to scout and send reports back to fleet HQ.
      Can you send a source about this? I’d like to know more. I always assumed that they could use radio to talk to the flagship. How did it work during naval battles and such?

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      This is an interesting discussion, thanks for raising it Sewur.

      DD versus SS strength is a rare instance where the game reflects a historical reality. WW2 era destroyers had a difficult time finding subs until torpedoes were in the water. Subs did enormous damage, especially to transports.

      In anything, I would advocate for making subs stronger, and much more expensive. They should also lose their stealth if they start to Fast March. Also, subs should not be stackable with ships. CoW encourages players to stack subs as "damage soakers". This feels completely wrong. Subs should operate on their own, in silence. They had no ability to coordinate with surface vessels during a battle, though they were used to scout and send reports back to fleet HQ.

      These changes would reflect both the power of subs, and the relatively greater difficulty in building, stationing, and using them effectively.
      Ye same here, I also somewhat agree with OP. Historically, many destroyers were needed to counter the threat of subs, and why subs are so deadly to anything that floats. I feel instead of making them more expensive (maybe slightly, idk), they should make them slower: they should be stealth, not speedy. Also agree with the Forced march comment and dmg soaking comment. I also feel ranged ships (CC, BB) should do more attacking dmg to subs than defense (maybe a 1.5:1 ratio), since then if DD is present in their fleet, they can bomb from range, but idk idea might not be practical.

      Fox-Company wrote:

      But tbh i do think Destoryers need a 0.5 dmg buff to subs at the least for all doctrines
      Prolly more, but 0.5 might go a long way, it would need to be balanced more.
      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

    • I feel like the possibility of bombardment is very expensive. If you defend you need subs, naval bombers and interceptors. All the cheapest units in their branches. Easy to keep them all upgraded.
      You cant go wrong with that. Opponent will always have to spend uproportionally large amounts of resources to attack.

      If you attack you need basicly every single ship. Theoritically you could play only cruisers and destroyers but then you invest quite a lot into them and you cant afford meeting battleships. If you play subs against enemy battleships then you need carriers with interceptors to protect them from naval bombers... and thats how you end up with way more expensive army just so you can bombard some cities.

      Also that kind of well around army is vulnerable to amassed single type threat like 30 subs.

    • Subs are slow, you can out run them with most ships. If the player is asleep, you just blow them up and they can’t do anything. Submarine only fleet also can’t support naval landings. Get some artillery and it’s basically over for any attempt to land on another continent. You need a surface fleet to actually project naval power, just are just to weaken it. 30 subs against say 20 ships seems like an unfavorable match up, but using the at ranged bonus you can shoot and scoot your way around, using a bit of forced march if needed with battleships. That doesn’t make subs useless, but the fact is you can get plenty of damage on them without taking any back, and using your already higher and now significantly higher amounts of health you can easily destroy them.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • That's how it is in theory. Subs are faster than battleships but it might get doctrine specific...

      To respond to attack of stealth units with shooting and scooting is setting up a quite high standard, doesnt it? You need to be active enough to respond to subs appearing in 54 view range of destroyers (pan-asians). And then countinue such manevour for prolonged time since bombardment units deal a little damage to subs.

      "You need a surface fleet to actually project naval power".
      Yes as i said you need unproportionally large and diverse fleet to earn privilege to shoot at some coastal city.

    • Sewur wrote:

      I feel like the possibility of bombardment is very expensive. If you defend you need subs, naval bombers and interceptors. All the cheapest units in their branches. Easy to keep them all upgraded.
      You cant go wrong with that. Opponent will always have to spend uproportionally large amounts of resources to attack.
      Isn't that fair? The defender always has an advantage when facing naval attacks. This is how it should be; there should never be a "one-size-fits-all" ship. A DD defends the fleet against subs, a CC is a medium-class bombardment vessel and has good AA, a BB kills any surface threat and bombs groud troops effectively, a CV carries the ints to deter NBs, NBs to hunt for subs, convoys or undefended ships, and NBs on their own (from coastal airstrips) deter naval landings and hunt lone ships that do not have effective air control. I have learnt the hard way that spamming CC isn't going to save you like it did in the past: remember when CC were king of the seas, since they were mid at fighing subs and too good against air, but now they'vev been rebalanced so 2-3 NBs can fight them and having active AA (like ints or RFs) is necessary, which validates the need for CVs.

      Sewur wrote:

      Also that kind of well around army is vulnerable to amassed single type threat like 30 subs.
      I mean, any fleet would cry if they face 30 NBs as well ^^. Or 30 BB. Or 30 CC. Or even a fleet of 3 BB and 30 convoys is pretty deadly. A large force of anything is deadly, the point is to find its counter. Use the "reveal armies" function to your benefit; see what your opponent is producing, and find the best counter-unit. For subs either DD (which, I do agree with your original point, they are a tad weak against subs, but tbh they are pretty fast) or CVs with NB (or if you're on the defense, just NB from your coast, paired with ints so you don't die to enemy ints).
      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

    • Im pretty sure its numbers game:
      30bb get smoked by 10 subs
      30 cruisers get smoked by 10 battleships
      30 destoyers get smoked by anything other that subs
      30NB get smoked by 10 interceptors/ 10 cruisers in stack with other ships

      30 subs dont get smoked by 10 dd (20 to 10 is pretty even trade) <- that is unproportional to comparisons above

      The thing is nobody will amass dd otherwise than to counter subs.
      You can play Cruisers to bombard cities, air defense, some shooting scooting potential.
      You play dds and there are no subs? You wasted crap ton of resources on cannon fodder.

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      I mean DD are a nice and cheap but of extra health if needed.


      Sure nothing can smoke them melee, but 1 destroyer and 9 cruisers can outrun and smoke you that way!
      But in my opinion it's not okay that theoritically hard counter to subs is most effective in just scouting for subs. It's like 1/2 of a counter. It will find them and then someone else gets kill them.
      It's like destroyers dont even have 1 job they have 1/2 of a job?

      But are we seriously forced to research and build dd just to scout for subs?

      I can blindy build subs every game and always make use of them.

      If i build dd i need not only use them against potential subs but also need them in right proportion.

      The try hard version is i guess just building one dd per fleet and then kill them with NB, but it requires a lot of activity. I dont see same standard to other units. I hard counter cruisers with battleships and you can micro all day long and you will still lose them to my battleships. Thats what i would expect with subs - destroyers relations.