Naval warfare needs reworking

I didnt think it was anything to do with the transport. It is the speed of embarking/disembarking.

Wy cant you hold fire with submarines?

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 !

Also if you look at the sub info when you click on it, it will tell you everything you need to know what it can do and what other things can do against it.

BladeFisher wrote:

Wy cant you hold fire with submarines?

I'll agree the attack/defense values are a little strange. Convoys probably should have lower attack and defense values against submarines. But submarines own attack and defense values are probably too high in some areas. For example, in the last AWC game I was in, there was a group of 8 lvl 2 subs that I wanted to take out. All I had to work with were three lvl 3 naval bombers. I set my red cone so they couldn't get away and set out patrolling over them. The defense values of 8 lvl 2 subs were such that by the time the subs died, my bombers are at half health. That doesn't make a lot of sense either as I don't understand subs to have a lot of AA value. This is just one example of CoW adage everything counts in large amounts.

Or how about you have to embark in a city that has an actual port, and you can embark different units depending on the level of the port. Unarmored, level 1. Light armor, level 2. Heavy armor, you need a level 3 port.

This is for transports that are transporting units over water.

If you want an amphibious landing, you should only be able to do it with unarmored units. Maybe light armor, if you have higher level transport research. Definitely not heavy armor or artillery, though.

The fact that every random idjit can drive a heavy tank across the Red Sea is deeply upsetting. Unless the player is Moses, in which case have at it, big guy.

You know that they DID land DD Shermans at the D-Day beaches, right?

It seems way too complicated though. Having complicated facilities at the source side, then restrictions on the target side... it is already pretty cumbersome to cross water, do you really want to make it more so?

They did but not across the channel. some up to 1 mile away but most within 500 yards and only a few sank

K.Rokossovski wrote:

You know that they DID land DD Shermans at the D-Day beaches, right?

It seems way too complicated though. Having complicated facilities at the source side, then restrictions on the target side... it is already pretty cumbersome to cross water, do you really want to make it more so?

Yes. An amphibious invasion should be difficult. It should require planning. It should feel like a big event.

Why did the Allies have to work so hard to capture Antwerp? They had to capture a port to get supplies flowing. It was a big deal. They didn't just drive armored divisions onto the beach.

Yeah, the Allies a few tanks in D-Day, getting them into the beach was a major hassle, and they were totally inadequate. That's not what we're talking about here. An armored division should but be able to drive across the ocean, embarking and disembarking in random mountains and jungles. It's wrong and it cheapens the game.

That's what makes me laugh about the amphibious tanks. Have had them set off on an ocean voyage before now!

I thought it was daft at first but now assume they in effect become transports when at sea.

In reply to the hold fire I disagree or unless my computer is set up incorrectly. You can hold fire with a BS (blue icon IIRC) but not subs they start at fire at will. No hold fire allowed.

BladeFisher wrote:

In reply to the hold fire I disagree or unless my computer is set up incorrectly. You can hold fire with a BS (blue icon IIRC) but not subs they start at fire at will. No hold fire allowed.

It is interesting if you think about the resources used (or not used) for embarking troops. Those transport ships had to come from somewhere! If you have to use resources to convert paratroopers between types, doing something similar for units putting to sea should be similar.

Yes thanks 6thD. No I use them quite often being an ex naval wargamer. I dont understand why you cant hold fire with them and other units. It is an obvious mechanism for retreat which I saw a post on a month or so ago. Dont know why Bytro dont offer it. I mean if your enemy is so powerful they'll destroy you anyway.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

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

z00mz00m wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

You know that they DID land DD Shermans at the D-Day beaches, right?

It seems way too complicated though. Having complicated facilities at the source side, then restrictions on the target side... it is already pretty cumbersome to cross water, do you really want to make it more so?

Yes. An amphibious invasion should be difficult. It should require planning. It should feel like a big event.

Why did the Allies have to work so hard to capture Antwerp? They had to capture a port to get supplies flowing. It was a big deal. They didn't just drive armored divisions onto the beach.

Yeah, the Allies a few tanks in D-Day, getting them into the beach was a major hassle, and they were totally inadequate. That's not what we're talking about here. An armored division should but be able to drive across the ocean, embarking and disembarking in random mountains and jungles. It's wrong and it cheapens the game.

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?

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.

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.

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.

you need to read naval history before spewing out what you do not know. ok I did talk to someone that was there. My uncle was a sub mariner along with one in south pacific as a marine and another in the atlantic as a tank commander

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.

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.