Naval warfare needs reworking

It pains me to realize that 2012, when I was back in Jordan was 12 years ago, let alone that the 2000’s are now a somewhat distant memory.

Carking, on this one you are talking tosh.

Submarines underwater were limited by battery endurance until the advent of snorts needing to surface to recharge batteries using the diesels. Snorts were difficult to use too because of depth keeping issues and the radar signature they could leave. I know of no cruiser that sunk a submarine through depth charges.

The whole naval 'thing' was based on a hierarchy. And destroyers provided the a/s role until it was aided by aircraft flying from carriers later in the war.

I do appreciate the game is derived mainly as a land based game. I am not arguing against it. But as a navy guy of a few hundred years lineage I've been following submarines since I was 6 and that's 60 years ago.

All I was suggesting was a couple of mods to make subs more realistic before being slagged of by Mr 'you can't change a thing'. Jeez.

It would help if the game had its long running bugs resolved. Perhaps there are labour/cost issues. If so . . just tell us!

BladeFisher wrote:

Carking, on this one you are talking tosh.

Submarines underwater were limited by battery endurance until the advent of snorts needing to surface to recharge batteries using the diesels. Snorts were difficult to use too because of depth keeping issues and the radar signature they could leave. I know of no cruiser that sunk a submarine through depth charges.

The whole naval 'thing' was based on a hierarchy. And destroyers provided the a/s role until it was aided by aircraft flying from carriers later in the war.

The point of the game is rock paper scissors, with more units.

There's a counter for everything, and activity can make up even for bad unit matchups.

Anyway, one unit I've been thinking about is the destroyer. Its primary role in CoW is to detect subs from a distance, so ranged units can take it out. It can also engage in close combat, but this is not a tough unit. Unlike the cruiser, which is both tough and can hold its own against ranged attacks as well as doing its main job of providing AA cover to fleets.

Destroyers were used extensively in WW2. They didn't just serve as ASW screens to battleship and carrier fleets. They engaged capital ships with torpedoes, provided fire support along the shore, carrier ground units and supplies. They decided many important battles of the war, especially in the Pacific and the Baltic. These were the workhorses of the fleet.

In my opinion, destroyers need to get more love in CoW. They need far better surface attack values, and either better speed or defense or HP. They also need to be able to carry unarmored units.

z00mz00m wrote:

The point of the game is rock paper scissors, with more units.

There's a counter for everything, and activity can make up even for bad unit matchups.

Anyway, one unit I've been thinking about is the destroyer. Its primary role in CoW is to detect subs from a distance, so ranged units can take it out. It can also engage in close combat, but this is not a tough unit. Unlike the cruiser, which is both tough and can hold its own against ranged attacks as well as doing its main job of providing AA cover to fleets.

Destroyers were used extensively in WW2. They didn't just serve as ASW screens to battleship and carrier fleets. They engaged capital ships with torpedoes, provided fire support along the shore, carrier ground units and supplies. They decided many important battles of the war, especially in the Pacific and the Baltic. These were the workhorses of the fleet.

In my opinion, destroyers need to get more love in CoW. They need far better surface attack values, and either better speed or defense or HP. They also need to be able to carry unarmored units.

I came here expecting an interesting thread about reworking the naval mechanics of the game, and agreed with what @BladeFisher said about it being too similar to land combat but I lost interest in his debate after he began to insult people.

I think the most pressing issue with naval warfare is the battleship. In the late game, a big stack of battleships just beats everything, they are not, in my humble opinion expensive enough, and are much more common than they should be, perhaps what would encourage away from them is a new naval unit, such as Corvettes, to share and split the tasks of Antisubmarine and mini battleship properties with the destroyer unit.

BladeFisher wrote:

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

the biggest failing of naval warfare in CoW is that ships cannot fire while moving. When is a ship at sea not moving?

Zaktty wrote:

z00mz00m wrote:

The point of the game is rock paper scissors, with more units.

There's a counter for everything, and activity can make up even for bad unit matchups.

Anyway, one unit I've been thinking about is the destroyer. Its primary role in CoW is to detect subs from a distance, so ranged units can take it out. It can also engage in close combat, but this is not a tough unit. Unlike the cruiser, which is both tough and can hold its own against ranged attacks as well as doing its main job of providing AA cover to fleets.

Destroyers were used extensively in WW2. They didn't just serve as ASW screens to battleship and carrier fleets. They engaged capital ships with torpedoes, provided fire support along the shore, carrier ground units and supplies. They decided many important battles of the war, especially in the Pacific and the Baltic. These were the workhorses of the fleet.

In my opinion, destroyers need to get more love in CoW. They need far better surface attack values, and either better speed or defense or HP. They also need to be able to carry unarmored units.

I think carrying unarmoured units would be a bit too much when you think that 1 unit could be representing 5000+ men and their equipment, especially since we don't know if 1 destroyer unit represents a single ship or a squadron. However, I agree they should have better attack values for surface ships.

I came here expecting an interesting thread about reworking the naval mechanics of the game, and agreed with what @BladeFisher said about it being too similar to land combat but I lost interest in his debate after he began to insult people.

I think the most pressing issue with naval warfare is the battleship. In the late game, a big stack of battleships just beats everything, they are not, in my humble opinion expensive enough, and are much more common than they should be, perhaps what would encourage away from them is a new naval unit, such as Corvettes, to share and split the tasks of Antisubmarine and mini battleship properties with the destroyer unit.

cycle9 wrote:

BladeFisher wrote:

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

the transports are armed, albeit only a couple of 3 inch fifties, but if there are many of them, they have a chance against destroyers, at least, but not likely against cruisers and BB..

the biggest failing of naval warfare in CoW is that ships cannot fire while moving. When is a ship at sea not moving?

Also keep in mind that just like an "infantry" unit is not just some guys with rifles, but includes some support weapons like mortars and machine guns... otherwise their AA value would also have to be zero. Similarly, a "convoy" also includes some support ships like frigates and corvettes. I'm not saying a single one of them could defeat a battleship, but OP seems to have found a huge convoy to get his BB damaged (because indeed, a BB against a single transport is easy pickings for the BB in current mechanics)... in those circumstances, it would be a single BB against a significant fleet of frigates/corvettes. Still the BB "wins" in terms of damage inflicted (which I'm sure OP will confirm; he inflicted more HP damage to a 20+ convoy than the destroyed BB worth), but he finally gets defeated by the huge fleet of support ships even if they only have 3'' guns max.

As for the sub idea, it would also need to include a mechanism for the fleets to withdraw from combat (against a CA or BB the sub would struggle to even get a single torpedo shot in from a submerged position, let alone force them to a "to death" battle like current game mechanics), which doesn't exactly make it easy to implement. It basically says "rework your combat engine" which I'm sure Bytro would LOVE to do, but isn't feasible in terms of the investment needed. So long as that isn't there, it would be completely overpowered to allow subs to engage big warships and just quietly kill them off one by one without taking any damage back.

The best thing you could do is to not get locked up in Melee combat your battle ship can fire at a convoy all day and not take any damage save your sub for any ships that try and get away if they scatter or use your sub to lock up the convoy to prevent them from moving

1101Pathfinder wrote:

The best thing you could do is to not get locked up in Melee combat your battle ship can fire at a convoy all day and not take any damage save your sub for any ships that try and get away if they scatter or use your sub to lock up the convoy to prevent them from moving

It is the king of land artillery combat as well.

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 possi

Also back then if there was a cruiser attached to any convoy they had their own protection of 6 destroyers and two subs attached so yes they can sink subs and two PBYs which carry depth charges. They just do not show it on this game. Last Subs could only be submerged from 8 to 10 hours and ran batteries and then had to resurface to recharge batteries and get rid of the diesel exhaust while on the surface. 1/3 of sub kills were when they were caught on the surface.

Aaaaaaanyway.....

We're not going to fix subs. It's too complicated.

I'm suggesting a much smaller, isolated change to make destroyers more relevant. They should have more of an impact in surface warfare. Right now they're just glorified sonobuoys. They need to get more respect.

Agreed, destroyers need more love. Give the sight range cruisers have to destroyers, and slight boosts to HP and speed.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Also keep in mind that just like an "infantry" unit is not just some guys with rifles, but includes some support weapons like mortars and machine guns... otherwise their AA value would also have to be zero. Similarly, a "convoy" also includes some support ships like frigates and corvettes. I'm not saying a single one of them could defeat a battleship, but OP seems to have found a huge convoy to get his BB damaged (because indeed, a BB against a single transport is easy pickings for the BB in current mechanics)... in those circumstances, it would be a single BB against a significant fleet of frigates/corvettes. Still the BB "wins" in terms of damage inflicted (which I'm sure OP will confirm; he inflicted more HP damage to a 20+ convoy than the destroyed BB worth), but he finally gets defeated by the huge fleet of support ships even if they only have 3'' guns max.

As for the sub idea, it would also need to include a mechanism for the fleets to withdraw from combat (against a CA or BB the sub would struggle to even get a single torpedo shot in from a submerged position, let alone force them to a "to death" battle like current game mechanics), which doesn't exactly make it easy to implement. It basically says "rework your combat engine" which I'm sure Bytro would LOVE to do, but isn't feasible in terms of the investment needed. So long as that isn't there, it would be completely overpowered to allow subs to engage big warships and just quietly kill them off one by one without taking any damage back.

I am pretty sure in WWII if the Bismarck and a top rated U boat came across a convoy with 33 units in it as a 'one er' the convoy would be lying at the bottom of the sea. If the convoy was 33 x 1 units then yes some would get away.

I'm cool with the armed convoy idea. It does simplify the game. But not at zero cost and with zero effort.

Oh, you want to drive a heavy tank into the ocean from this random rocky cliff? Sure, let's dig a magical deep water port, and bring magical cranes, and create magical armed transports, and throw in some magical escorts because why not!

No, sorry. That's just wrong.

Not sure what you are arguing here? I never suggested that a convoy had no offensive capability. Just that not against a submarine. Look nearly all subs attack submerged. Early in the war and no doubt for the US later in the war Axis/US subs would attack on the surface if they were sure there was either no enemy ships or aircraft around. But these were against single vessels not a convoy of say 20 ships !

Maybe it is just my life long interest but I am amazed at the ignorance shown on this thread about this. The whole sub thing in CoW is rubbish. It does not give the sub the 'mamba' threat it had. Against a BS or Cruiser the sub was pretty deadly. But it would be rare to catch either a BS or Cruiser with no other escort. It did happen, but unusual.

The disadvantage of the sub was its speed. On the surface, good versus convoys and sometimes naval vessels so long as it was not discovered. If the sub was behind its target, say target at 11, 12 o clock the sub would do a 180 and depending on the sun, moon, wind do a go right around manoeuvre like around a circumference to get ahead of the target. But it could only do this if it had speed.

Now in CoW it would be silly to start having different detailed characteristics. So just make it simple, simples !

z00mz00m wrote:

I'm cool with the armed convoy idea. It does simplify the game. But not at zero cost and with zero effort.

Oh, you want to drive a heavy tank into the ocean from this random rocky cliff? Sure, let's dig a magical deep water port, and bring magical cranes, and create magical armed transports, and throw in some magical escorts because why not!

No, sorry. That's just wrong.

BladeFisher wrote:

Not sure what you are arguing here? I never suggested that a convoy had no offensive capability. Just that not against a submarine. Look nearly all subs attack submerged. Early in the war and no doubt for the US later in the war Axis/US subs would attack on the surface if they were sure there was either no enemy ships or aircraft around. But these were against single vessels not a convoy of say 20 ships !

Maybe it is just my life long interest but I am amazed at the ignorance shown on this thread about this. The whole sub thing in CoW is rubbish. It does not give the sub the 'mamba' threat it had. Against a BS or Cruiser the sub was pretty deadly. But it would be rare to catch either a BS or Cruiser with no other escort. It did happen, but unusual.

The disadvantage of the sub was its speed. On the surface, good versus convoys and sometimes naval vessels so long as it was not discovered. If the sub was behind its target, say target at 11, 12 o clock the sub would do a 180 and depending on the sun, moon, wind do a go right around manoeuvre like around a circumference to get ahead of the target. But it could only do this if it had speed.

Now in CoW it would be silly to start having different detailed characteristics. So just make it simple, simples !

Merchant shipping is much easier, cargo ships only sail at 8-10 knots so the sub has the time for maneuver. If the sub feels safe enough to surface, he can even get the speed advantage.

All this cannot be simulated in current combat mechanics. As it is, when two groups melee, one of those groups is going to die; there are no "ties". It would be completely unfair if the sub always won that kind of engagement, leisurely killing the cruisers without taking any damage back. So just as bombers have to take damage from ground troops without any AA, subs have to take damage from surface ships...