Naval warfare needs reworking

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

    • Naval warfare needs reworking

      Right from the off (2020) I have thought that the naval aspect of the game is pretty pants. The reason it seems is that the designers failed to understand the difference between land and sea warfare.

      Here are the glaring examples. The other day I was faced with a large convoy, no naval units just transports and used a battleship and sub to attack it. I lost both. Absolutely ridiculous. Troops, tanks guns etc are merely cargoes on transports not fighting units - error 1.

      Submarines. How on earth do the developers think a battleship or cruiser can attack a submarine except on the surface? They cant. Only destroyers, sub chasers, corvettes could. So to me subs need to be reworked completely. Now this could be difficult because really the game needs to take account of when subs are on the surface and when submerged. When submerged their speed needs to be drastically reduced aka level 1 militia almost.

      During WWII subs were basically submersibles and spent most of their time on the surface moving around but submerged to attack or keep anonymous if likely to be discovered (eg aircraft patrols) until the XXI types became available or snorts.

      Perhaps an approach like if a sub gets to the viewing range of a warship it is assumed to be on the surface then dives, at which point its speed drops dramatically. Then the 'game' changes. The sub has firepower advantage but massive speed disadvantage and it will then only succeed if its initial positioning was to put it on a converging course.

      As for attacks against transports, cmon Bytro a battleship versus a convoy is no contest. The BS would hammer it straight off. The reality is the convoy might split up and scatter in order to safeguard as much of the precious cargo as possible.

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      Right from the off (2020) I have thought that the naval aspect of the game is pretty pants. The reason it seems is that the designers failed to understand the difference between land and sea warfare.

      Here are the glaring examples. The other day I was faced with a large convoy, no naval units just transports and used a battleship and sub to attack it. I lost both. Absolutely ridiculous. Troops, tanks guns etc are merely cargoes on transports not fighting units - error 1.

      Submarines. How on earth do the developers think a battleship or cruiser can attack a submarine except on the surface? They cant. Only destroyers, sub chasers, corvettes could. So to me subs need to be reworked completely. Now this could be difficult because really the game needs to take account of when subs are on the surface and when submerged. When submerged their speed needs to be drastically reduced aka level 1 militia almost.

      During WWII subs were basically submersibles and spent most of their time on the surface moving around but submerged to attack or keep anonymous if likely to be discovered (eg aircraft patrols) until the XXI types became available or snorts.

      Perhaps an approach like if a sub gets to the viewing range of a warship it is assumed to be on the surface then dives, at which point its speed drops dramatically. Then the 'game' changes. The sub has firepower advantage but massive speed disadvantage and it will then only succeed if its initial positioning was to put it on a converging course.

      As for attacks against transports, cmon Bytro a battleship versus a convoy is no contest. The BS would hammer it straight off. The reality is the convoy might split up and scatter in order to safeguard as much of the precious cargo as possible.
      For your first point, you do realise that units, when in convoy format, take on the stats of the convoy and not the unit, right? For example, level 1 mech inf does 8.0 damage to unarmoured, but when in convoy form it only does 0.5 damage to anything. That's something that's already been incorporated.

      And, I don't really like the submarine suggestion either. Call Of War, at the end of the day, is not meant to be completely true to life and complicated. The stats of a submarine attempt to emulate it without over complicating it, and frankly I don't want to learn a whole new submarine mechanic just because it's more "realistic" when that really isn't what this game is.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

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

    • So how can a convoy with just cargo, no naval support defeat a battleship?

      As for the second point what you say is total rubbish. You might as well have jumping tanks.

      What I say is easily engineered. The offensive capabilities of battleships and cruisers against subs needs to be zero and when a sub gets within visibility range the speed defaults to the equivalent of about 3 knots

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      So how can a convoy with just cargo, no naval support defeat a battleship?

      As for the second point what you say is total rubbish. You might as well have jumping tanks.

      What I say is easily engineered. The offensive capabilities of battleships and cruisers against subs needs to be zero and when a sub gets within visibility range the speed defaults to the equivalent of about 3 knots
      First of all, I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this "convoys can defeat battleships in the game" bullshit from, because they lost certainly can't. And, you're deliberately misinterpreting my second point. What I said was not "let's have a fantasy war game with jumping tanks", rather that these overused suggestions for "realism" are, well, overused. Making an ENTIRE NEW combat mechanic specifically for submarines is dumb.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      The other day I was faced with a large convoy, no naval units just transports and used a battleship and sub to attack it. I lost both. Absolutely ridiculous. Troops, tanks guns etc are merely cargoes on transports not fighting units - error 1.


      As for attacks against transports, cmon Bytro a battleship versus a convoy is no contest. The BS would hammer it straight off. The reality is the convoy might split up and scatter in order to safeguard as much of the precious cargo as possible.
      This sounds like a skill issue. A battleship against a convoy will always win if done correctly. What did you do, just slam them into the transport in melee combat? What did you expect?

      You're forgetting (or never learned) two important rules of Call of War. 1. bombarding is your friend. You can shoot and move in 30 minute increments and would have taken no damage. 2. everything counts in large amounts. In reality, those convoys have minimal defensive weapons.

    • Just stop the abuse and debate rationally or dont reply at all. I dont understand your first point.

      The second shows you know nothing about naval warfare whatsoever. Your point is totally stupid since the mod is not a great deal. You dont have strategic bombers on aircraft carriers do you? Well you dont have battleships sinking submarines. Only in your warped thinking. I dont mind debating but as they say you cant reason with idiots.

    • 6th is absolutely right and some people find it hard to swallow the truth. You could've bombarded the convoy instead of sending it into meele combat. Convoys do 0.5 damage per amount. You, the genius you are should've known this before asking us idiots. This is a game and is not supposed to resemble every part of what happened in real life.
      The Saviour

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      Just stop the abuse and debate rationally or dont reply at all. I dont understand your first point.

      The second shows you know nothing about naval warfare whatsoever. Your point is totally stupid since the mod is not a great deal. You dont have strategic bombers on aircraft carriers do you? Well you dont have battleships sinking submarines. Only in your warped thinking. I dont mind debating but as they say you cant reason with idiots.
      "You clearly know nothing about naval warfare whatsoever"

      For your information, 6thDragon serves in the US Marines. So yeah.

      Anyway. This "stop the abuse" (he says, before going on to literally insult the guy who he's debating with a paragraph later) rubbish is stupid, not any of our points, because you came out all guns blazing about a unit that you clearly have very little knowledge about its in-game stats, and when corrected starts using the most desperate ad hominems against his opponent. What the hell man.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Well another thing you are wrong about is the cruiser. Lighter cruisers DID carry depth charges and fought/sank submarines during ww2.

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Carking the 6th ().

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Well another thing you are wrong about is the cruiser. Lighter cruisers DID carry depth charges and fought/sank submarines during ww2. Even battleships carried depth charges although they never really sank subs.

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:


      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.
      "You clearly know nothing about naval warfare"
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Well another thing you are wrong about is the cruiser. Lighter cruisers DID carry depth charges and fought/sank submarines during ww2. Even battleships carried depth charges although they never really sank subs.

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.
      I was writing that when I was half awake. Wrong.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Well another thing you are wrong about is the cruiser. Lighter cruisers DID carry depth charges and fought/sank submarines during ww2. Even battleships carried depth charges although they never really sank subs.

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.
      I was writing that when I was half awake. Wrong.
      Relatable, that six day's war thread was done at 5:30 AM
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Talvisota wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.
      "You clearly know nothing about naval warfare"
      I’ve never served aboard a ship, but understand the theory. My last job in the military was human intelligence; essentially running a network of informants in Iraq.

      I’m 6’ 3” so would have been very uncomfortable aboard a ship or submarine. I know my limitations.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Talvisota wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.
      "You clearly know nothing about naval warfare"
      I’ve never served aboard a ship, but understand the theory. My last job in the military was human intelligence; essentially running a network of informants in Iraq.
      I’m 6’ 3” so would have been very uncomfortable aboard a ship or submarine. I know my limitations.
      Wow, you were in Iraq? I've been reading a lot about the Iraq war recently, would love to hear your experiences if you're happy to share.
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • I agree with the OP's first point (Transports). It should take a really, REALLY large amount of transports to kill a battleship. I think the transport damage values are too high. Better, more realistic values would be (for attacking and defending against anything): 0.1 for L1, 0.3 for L2, 0.6 for L3, and 1.0 for L4.

      As for your Submarine suggestion, it's highly unlikely that Bytro will do anything like this in the near future.

    • AleksanderZ wrote:

      I agree with the OP's first point (Transports). It should take a really, REALLY large amount of transports to kill a battleship. I think the transport damage values are too high. Better, more realistic values would be (for attacking and defending against anything): 0.1 for L1, 0.3 for L2, 0.6 for L3, and 1.0 for L4.

      As for your Submarine suggestion, it's highly unlikely that Bytro will do anything like this in the near future.
      But battleships are ranged units, of course they will get killed in close combat
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Talvisota wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      Carking the 6th wrote:

      Submarines were somewhat inefficient. They inevitably HAD to surface after a certain amount of time or else they would drown. They were usually slower than ships… Planes and ships had techniques that allowed them to spot subs underwater by looking at something like how the water was displaced (I don’t remember exactly). They could then pull up and drop depth charges. Of course it wasn’t as perfect as it is in the game but it does show that you can find and destroy submerged subs. Or they’d eventually have to surface and be destroyed.
      I don't believe battleships did carry depth charges. For a number of reasons. First their maneuverability and speed limitations would have made employing them effectively very difficult. The second reason was the way depth charges were stored on surface ships; typically in open racks on the deck of the ship. Battleships typically stored munitions in armored citadels within the battleships because anything on the deck was vulnerable to being hit by incoming fire. That would be catastrophic for the ship if hit. Essentially having depth charges would have interfered with a battleship's intended primary mission of engaging other ships. However in reality, most battleships only conducted coastal bombardments of dug in troops as part of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.
      "You clearly know nothing about naval warfare"
      I’ve never served aboard a ship, but understand the theory. My last job in the military was human intelligence; essentially running a network of informants in Iraq.
      Was that during the Gulf war, Iraq war or more recent times?

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate