Naval warfare needs reworking

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

    • Carking I really do appreciate your help, you're a good guy but now you are tying yourself in knots !!

      Fact WWII 1939-45 RN largest fleet at start, USN largest fleet at end. And you have said '43 was the switch over. Great.

      Notwithstanding here in UK we didn't exactly get on with Adm King, it isnt an issue who had the largest fleet.

      A bit of speculation. What do you think would have happened if the USN carriers had been at Pearl Dec 7th?

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      That’s too bad, considering that the largest navy of the entire war and a whole doctrine in the game is based off of them. You kinda have to be interested in them to make things realistic…
      Of the entire war, not through it. That’s not what I meant and you know it. Noblebright, is that you? Either way, sources say that the UK was surpassed in 1943. That doesn’t really matter, though. It was the largest fleet during the entire war since at no other point at the start or end was there a larger naval force than the US at the start of the war. Hence, largest fleet.
      And do you happen to be British…? Or maybe Swedish…
      It's not NobleBright.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      Militarily I am not sure if any on here understand how subs were used. The Germans and USN were similar in that it was an attritional war against merchant shipping. The RN were more interdictional (if such a word exists). The IJN strangely used them as part of their surface fleet, which probably explains why they were viewed as not very successful.
      OK, let me switch to your phrasing now, maybe then you could comprehend Talvisota's earlier message... you are completely stupid for saying such a thing. Despite clear evidence of the contrary, you keep insisting that no one understands naval warfare better than you. Saying that the US and Germans both used them against merchant shipping is a gigantic case of kicking in an open door (something you show yourself to be good at for this entire conversation), I think even a ten-year old knows that. Then saying ""I'm not sure if any on here understands that" is like telling a math teacher that he can't add one plus one. In general, you are either completely thick-headed or have some grave deficiency of your ears.

      There. I'm sure you didn't like reading that. Now can we maybe turn this into a civilized discussion again, without using derogatory names for our discussion partners? Thanks.
      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 think the destroyers shouldn't get a range, in battles against bigger warships their primary weapon was not their gun, but their torpedoes. Torpedoes are typically fired at short range, like 1,000-2,000 meters. Yet if destroyers got that close, the enemy warships feared them. So I'd favor to buff them by keeping them a melee unit (1,000-2,000 meters IS melee in naval terms), but raising their anti-ship value, maybe in combination with a slight decrease of speed and/or HP. That way the bigger ships could kill the destroyers from range, but if they managed to close in to melee, they could do significant damage to enemy ships.
      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.

    • The funny thing about "range" is that hitting a small target that's zig zagging at speed is pretty hard. Capital ships could, and did, land kill shots on destroyers. But more often than not, they missed, and destroyers fired off their torpedoes before getting destroyed. In essence, the effective range of the combatants was quite similar. The only thing keeping destroyers from getting in range was a sense of self preservation.

      Of course, large caliber naval guns were better for suppressing army units. Their range and firepower was more useful in that regard. But a battleship did NOT want to get into a fight with a squadron of destroyers. It expected its own screen of cruisers and destroyers to "screen" them before they got close enough to fire torpedoes.

      I'm not sure how to model that in the game. I do know that current destroyer stats make them undesirable. You just need a handful to spot subs, and most of the time they don't see combat. That's boring.

      By the way, some German and Japanese torpedoes had ranges in excess of 30 km, similar to a large caliber naval gun. Did anyone expect the target to sit still, and for the torpedo to swim straight enough to hit the target at that range? No, but they didn't expect a gun to do that, either ;)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by z00mz00m ().

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      BladeFisher wrote:

      Militarily I am not sure if any on here understand how subs were used. The Germans and USN were similar in that it was an attritional war against merchant shipping. The RN were more interdictional (if such a word exists). The IJN strangely used them as part of their surface fleet, which probably explains why they were viewed as not very successful.
      OK, let me switch to your phrasing now, maybe then you could comprehend Talvisota's earlier message... you are completely stupid for saying such a thing. Despite clear evidence of the contrary, you keep insisting that no one understands naval warfare better than you. Saying that the US and Germans both used them against merchant shipping is a gigantic case of kicking in an open door (something you show yourself to be good at for this entire conversation), I think even a ten-year old knows that. Then saying ""I'm not sure if any on here understands that" is like telling a math teacher that he can't add one plus one. In general, you are either completely thick-headed or have some grave deficiency of your ears.
      There. I'm sure you didn't like reading that. Now can we maybe turn this into a civilized discussion again, without using derogatory names for our discussion partners? Thanks.
      I was replying to the comment that the 'America did not consider submarines very useful'. Obviously over your head. And where did I say no one understands naval warfare better than me. You cant. What I have said is that some of the things quoted in this post is sheer rubbish and fake, but there again you cant argue with a clique. People should read books. There were a number of U-boat commanders and one USN commander who have written about this stuff, but of course that does not suit your agenda.
      So rubbish like cruisers sinking submarines, subs surfacing at night to fire shells and so it went on. I would not expect to wade into something like artillery or tanks as they are not my interest.

      It was your mate Talvisota who first started slinging the mud around. I suggest you look at his post. Oh by the way is it gas or electricity meters you are referring too? The word is metres. And of course the two largest navies used metres . . . It is like again this use of kms on here. What!!! At sea we use nautical miles dear boy.

      This dumbing down because people are too darn ignorant/lazy to learn the proper terminology. It is a generational thing I'm sure but it doesnt bode well for the future. And that is my whole point. Debate/opinionise fine but dont put down facts because you dont agree with them.

    • Talvisota wrote:

      BladeFisher wrote:

      A Eastman wrote:

      AleksanderZ wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Agreed, destroyers need more love. Give the sight range cruisers have to destroyers, and slight boosts to HP and speed.
      Destroyers the already the fastest naval unit in the game by a significant margin. They don’t need another speed buff. Maybe upping the ATK/DEF stats against subs to reduce the counter-damage the subs will deal?
      Now that makes sense. Only a few destroyers were killed by subs but most of the subs were killed by destroyers. Also German subs came up at night to recharge their batteries or to use their gun to sink convoys which was more then 70% of their kills. PT boats killed some but they were mainly for larger boats like destroyers, cruisers and no battleships since they did not get that close. They tried hard in the pacific and put a few holes in some but never sank them. Give them more defence and offensive against subs. They did sink some c whsruisers in Latay golf but it was so hard for them to get close to cruisers.
      Alexander what you say about German subs surfacing at night to fire their guns is total rubbish. Such utter ignorance is unbelievable.Just think about what you said. Creep unannounced in the dark and then announce your presence by opening fire with a gun ! Doh! This is where I am, I am here. Sink me.

      The gun was only used to sink stragglers or lone merchantman if there was no chance of being discovered. Later in the war it was removed. Just THINK about it. You may not be interested in subs. I get that but if you are interested read some proper books by guys that were there.
      What's with the ad hominems man, been silently following this thread for a couple of weeks and all I've seen from you is just calling people stupid or ignorant instead of trying to understand what they're saying and having a good conversation. Do you understand netiquette? Do you understand how rude you're being? Like I say, you could have made your points in a MUCH more respectful manner. You don't have to dump on everyone just because you know more about the navy (which I would also dispute), is it some kind of superiority complex? Just respect other people for goodness sake. On page one of this thread, you accused other people of abuse when they did NOTHING wrong, and yet all you have done throughout this thread is that: abuse. Learn some manners for god's sake.
      When others run out of respect their manners always go out the window. Also I do not concede him having more knowledge. Me being in the military for 31 years and interacting and working with all the other services to a say High degree.

    • A Eastman wrote:

      Talvisota wrote:

      BladeFisher wrote:

      A Eastman wrote:

      AleksanderZ wrote:

      _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Agreed, destroyers need more love. Give the sight range cruisers have to destroyers, and slight boosts to HP and speed.
      Destroyers the already the fastest naval unit in the game by a significant margin. They don’t need another speed buff. Maybe upping the ATK/DEF stats against subs to reduce the counter-damage the subs will deal?
      Now that makes sense. Only a few destroyers were killed by subs but most of the subs were killed by destroyers. Also German subs came up at night to recharge their batteries or to use their gun to sink convoys which was more then 70% of their kills. PT boats killed some but they were mainly for larger boats like destroyers, cruisers and no battleships since they did not get that close. They tried hard in the pacific and put a few holes in some but never sank them. Give them more defence and offensive against subs. They did sink some c whsruisers in Latay golf but it was so hard for them to get close to cruisers.
      Alexander what you say about German subs surfacing at night to fire their guns is total rubbish. Such utter ignorance is unbelievable.Just think about what you said. Creep unannounced in the dark and then announce your presence by opening fire with a gun ! Doh! This is where I am, I am here. Sink me.
      The gun was only used to sink stragglers or lone merchantman if there was no chance of being discovered. Later in the war it was removed. Just THINK about it. You may not be interested in subs. I get that but if you are interested read some proper books by guys that were there.
      What's with the ad hominems man, been silently following this thread for a couple of weeks and all I've seen from you is just calling people stupid or ignorant instead of trying to understand what they're saying and having a good conversation. Do you understand netiquette? Do you understand how rude you're being? Like I say, you could have made your points in a MUCH more respectful manner. You don't have to dump on everyone just because you know more about the navy (which I would also dispute), is it some kind of superiority complex? Just respect other people for goodness sake. On page one of this thread, you accused other people of abuse when they did NOTHING wrong, and yet all you have done throughout this thread is that: abuse. Learn some manners for god's sake.
      When others run out of respect their manners always go out the window. Also I do not concede him having more knowledge. Me being in the military for 31 years and interacting and working with all the other services to a say High degree.
      Exactly. Honestly, some people just need to learn basic manners.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • You are completely impossible to argue with. The point isn't the right spelling of the word "meter", which is perfectly correct in my native language. Come to me some day to have a discussion in Dutch and I'll point out every single mistake you make; I'm really looking forward to that.

      It isn't my fault that you Anglosaxons have this weird system if measuring distances. 10 millimeters (*) in a centimeter (*), 100 centimeters (*) in a meter(*), 1,000 meters (*) in a kilometer (*), it seems so much more efficient than 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, and I don't know how many yards in a mile because you have like three different TYPES of mile. Of course I know the navy uses miles and knots (hope you noticed I used that word, not km/h), but we have an international community here and I thought using meters (*) would be more clear to the other users of this forum.

      Do you even realize that you are holding me responsible for statements different users made? I didn't start about the deck gun (though I did clarify how they WERE used), and I never said cruiser guns were efficient against submarines historically; I just tried to explain to you why it wouldn't be quite fair in the game if a single sub could slowly eat away a 100-stack of cruisers simply because the game doesn't support retreats. Did you even understand that comment? Because if you are still supporting you own suggestion (zero ASW points for CA and BB), you obviously have no idea that designing an enjoyable simulation game is something different than trying to copy reality. Avalon Hill tried that, and the result was unplayable games (let alone that they weren't even accurate EITHER). Heck do you even realize how far artillery can shoot in this game? How weird it is that your speed doubles when you pass a province center? That you need goods to build an armored car, but not for a medium tank? That dwarf states will attack a superpower with the only argument "We don't like them? That obscure Soviet tankettes from the thirties can dominate a battlefield? The list goes on and on and on. It is a game, it isn't a mapping of reality.

      So until you finally manage to get your head relieved from the place where the sun don't shine, I suggest you take all your naval knowledge and put it back in said place where the sun don't shine, and present us with a WORKABLE suggestion which might actually improve the game.


      (*) Deliberatly used the wrong spelling of "metre" to annoy you. Just thought I would do some annoying back because you are so deliberately annoying everyone here as well.
      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.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The funny thing about "range" is that hitting a small target that's zig zagging at speed is pretty hard. Capital ships could, and did, land kill shots on destroyers. But more often than not, they missed, and destroyers fired off their torpedoes before getting destroyed. In essence, the effective range of the combatants was quite similar. The only thing keeping destroyers from getting in range was a sense of self preservation.

      Of course, large caliber naval guns were better for suppressing army units. Their range and firepower was more useful in that regard. But a battleship did NOT want to get into a fight with a squadron of destroyers. It expected its own screen of cruisers and destroyers to "screen" them before they got close enough to fire torpedoes.

      I'm not sure how to model that in the game. I do know that current destroyer stats make them undesirable. You just need a handful to spot subs, and most of the time they don't see combat. That's boring.

      By the way, some German and Japanese torpedoes had ranges in excess of 30 km, similar to a large caliber naval gun. Did anyone expect the target to sit still, and for the torpedo to swim straight enough to hit the target at that range? No, but they didn't expect a gun to do that, either ;)
      I agree that the destroyers need more love; you said you use them for sub spotting, but I find carriers with NB's about ten times better for that, so I basically never build them except sometimes in AvA. Giving them more anti-surface combat value IF they manage to close the range might well make them a more versatile unit. Destroyers never were ONLY an anti-sub ship.
      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.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The funny thing about "range" is that hitting a small target that's zig zagging at speed is pretty hard. Capital ships could, and did, land kill shots on destroyers. But more often than not, they missed, and destroyers fired off their torpedoes before getting destroyed. In essence, the effective range of the combatants was quite similar. The only thing keeping destroyers from getting in range was a sense of self preservation.

      Of course, large caliber naval guns were better for suppressing army units. Their range and firepower was more useful in that regard. But a battleship did NOT want to get into a fight with a squadron of destroyers. It expected its own screen of cruisers and destroyers to "screen" them before they got close enough to fire torpedoes.

      I'm not sure how to model that in the game. I do know that current destroyer stats make them undesirable. You just need a handful to spot subs, and most of the time they don't see combat. That's boring.

      By the way, some German and Japanese torpedoes had ranges in excess of 30 km, similar to a large caliber naval gun. Did anyone expect the target to sit still, and for the torpedo to swim straight enough to hit the target at that range? No, but they didn't expect a gun to do that, either ;)
      I agree that the destroyers need more love; you said you use them for sub spotting, but I find carriers with NB's about ten times better for that, so I basically never build them except sometimes in AvA. Giving them more anti-surface combat value IF they manage to close the range might well make them a more versatile unit. Destroyers never were ONLY an anti-sub ship.
      I’m gonna agree with you in this case. The fact is that destroyers didn’t only exist to fight subs; they really functioned as smaller, kinda support ships. Only allowing them one role makes them inherently worse less in the game, no matter how well they can counter subs. It makes no sense that Destroyers are basically armored transport ships when it comes to surface combat.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      AleksanderZ wrote:

      Destroyers the already the fastest naval unit in the game by a significant margin. They don’t need another speed buff. Maybe upping the ATK/DEF stats against subs to reduce the counter-damage the subs will deal?
      This misses the point. Destroyers are already too specialized. They serve as scout units, revealing subs for capital ships to bombard from long range. Most of the time, destroyers never get to fire a shot. Giving them better anti submarine stats doesn't change anything.

      What destroyers need is a better chance against surface ships. Maybe a small firing range to mimic the effect of torpedoes and small caliber guns. The Allies need this change the most, because their ships are too slow to be competitive against active players.
      Destroyers originally had a small firing range. I believe it was half the radius of the Cruiser’s range. Why was that removed? (Rhetorical question, not directed at anyone specifically)

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      Alexander what you say about German subs surfacing at night to fire their guns is total rubbish. Such utter ignorance is unbelievable.
      Just think about what you said. Creep unannounced in the dark and then announce your presence by opening fire with a gun ! Doh! This is where I am, I am here. Sink me.

      The gun was only used to sink stragglers or lone merchantman if there was no chance of being discovered. Later in the war it was removed. Just THINK about it. You may not be interested in subs. I get that but if you are interested read some proper books by guys that were there.
      Bless your heart. Have a nice day.

    • I really don’t think Bytro is overly concerned about the historical accuracy. Consider two points. First land battles between experienced players usually involve railroad guns as the dominant unit. Second regular maps anyone tend to be dominated by gold/card use. Creating units and resources out of nowhere is the logical equivalent of calling on your fairy godmother.

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

    • To be fair railroad guns are a bit weaker after the nerf. Just sending a bunch of planes tends to overcome their defenses and catch up their speed. They just don’t dish enough damage to matter and are easy to plow though on lv1. If you’re smart about it these days you might not even have to face lv2 much of the time.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate