Forum Memes

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriers

Ints (counting them for dmg against NBs)

Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP

1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HP

Sounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

NEPTUNE the great wrote:

Where are ze memes?

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriersInts (counting them for dmg against NBs)

Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HP

Sounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

What if you are simply not on? You will have to take breaks, you know. In that time your entire feet can be sunk before your ever get the chance to react. You can’t constantly patrol everywhere, especially when you are on the move. If you can constantly micro and be on the attack, then this could work. But if you ever sleep, a person smart enough to study your sleep schedule will kill you. You also under estimate that potential of that ranged damage over time. I’ve heavily damaged stacks with health in the hundreds using these alone, and interceptors along with naval bombers can’t replace that. Since all that time spent making extra battleships would be instead spend on Carriers, I doubt you’d have much more to make up for it either. And if your enemy uses more ints themselves? Then you’re doomed. Naval bombers are good and all but it’s foolish to rely on them alone. There are just too many situations that they will falter in.

And surprisingly this strat doesn't require nearly as much microing as most think, due to the speed at which planes deal damage. And sure, BBs will destroy the CVs if they are within range, but you just gotta be smart and never let your CVs get anywhere close to the ships. Doesn't help that BBs are vulnerable to NBs and subs, necessitating both DDs and CCs. Strat bombers are also a good complimentary tool, no need for naval bombardment of costal cities when you can use strat bombers (combined with tacs/ABs/ints from the carriers ofc).

Dunno if I mentioned earlier but since NBs use goods, oil and RMs and CVs (+subs ig) use food, steel and oil, only overlap is oil and very good rss distribution. And for your point if enemy just spams ints? How are they going to fly them in, if not from the coast? Def not enough rss to make CVs, BBs, CCs and DDs

Ofc the argument changes if located near the coast but that wasn't the argument, NB+CV+subs are definitely more multipurpose and efficient, at the cost of having a sleep schedule

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriersInts (counting them for dmg against NBs)Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HP

Sounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

What if you are simply not on? You will have to take breaks, you know. In that time your entire feet can be sunk before your ever get the chance to react. You can’t constantly patrol everywhere, especially when you are on the move. If you can constantly micro and be on the attack, then this could work. But if you ever sleep, a person smart enough to study your sleep schedule will kill you. You also under estimate that potential of that ranged damage over time. I’ve heavily damaged stacks with health in the hundreds using these alone, and interceptors along with naval bombers can’t replace that. Since all that time spent making extra battleships would be instead spend on Carriers, I doubt you’d have much more to make up for it either. And if your enemy uses more ints themselves? Then you’re doomed. Naval bombers are good and all but it’s foolish to rely on them alone. There are just too many situations that they will falter in.

Yea it's a very activity-dependent strategy but def worth it. Point is that NB/CV/Sub strats are much more efficient than having to research high levels of DD/CC/BB, whilst level 3 CVs are enough for this strat (especially with allied or pan-asian, you can get away with lvl 2). Even better, you can forced march CVs for extra speed in a pinch since they aren't going to be fighting anyways, and their planes can always catch up to a threat before the threat reaches the carrier. CVs are also tanky enough to take a few hits, and you could always just use convoy strats or group them with subs to mitigate damage.

And surprisingly this strat doesn't require nearly as much microing as most think, due to the speed at which planes deal damage. And sure, BBs will destroy the CVs if they are within range, but you just gotta be smart and never let your CVs get anywhere close to the ships. Doesn't help that BBs are vulnerable to NBs and subs, necessitating both DDs and CCs. Strat bombers are also a good complimentary tool, no need for naval bombardment of costal cities when you can use strat bombers (combined with tacs/ABs/ints from the carriers ofc).

Dunno if I mentioned earlier but since NBs use goods, oil and RMs and CVs (+subs ig) use food, steel and oil, only overlap is oil and very good rss distribution. And for your point if enemy just spams ints? How are they going to fly them in, if not from the coast? Def not enough rss to make CVs, BBs, CCs and DDs

Ofc the argument changes if located near the coast but that wasn't the argument, NB+CV+subs are definitely more multipurpose and efficient, at the cost of having a sleep schedule

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriers

Ints (counting them for dmg against NBs)

Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP

1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HP

Sounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriersInts (counting them for dmg against NBs)Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HP

Sounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

What if you are simply not on? You will have to take breaks, you know. In that time your entire feet can be sunk before your ever get the chance to react. You can’t constantly patrol everywhere, especially when you are on the move. If you can constantly micro and be on the attack, then this could work. But if you ever sleep, a person smart enough to study your sleep schedule will kill you. You also under estimate that potential of that ranged damage over time. I’ve heavily damaged stacks with health in the hundreds using these alone, and interceptors along with naval bombers can’t replace that. Since all that time spent making extra battleships would be instead spend on Carriers, I doubt you’d have much more to make up for it either. And if your enemy uses more ints themselves? Then you’re doomed. Naval bombers are good and all but it’s foolish to rely on them alone. There are just too many situations that they will falter in.

Yea it's a very activity-dependent strategy but def worth it. Point is that NB/CV/Sub strats are much more efficient than having to research high levels of DD/CC/BB, whilst level 3 CVs are enough for this strat (especially with allied or pan-asian, you can get away with lvl 2). Even better, you can forced march CVs for extra speed in a pinch since they aren't going to be fighting anyways, and their planes can always catch up to a threat before the threat reaches the carrier. CVs are also tanky enough to take a few hits, and you could always just use convoy strats or group them with subs to mitigate damage.

And surprisingly this strat doesn't require nearly as much microing as most think, due to the speed at which planes deal damage. And sure, BBs will destroy the CVs if they are within range, but you just gotta be smart and never let your CVs get anywhere close to the ships. Doesn't help that BBs are vulnerable to NBs and subs, necessitating both DDs and CCs. Strat bombers are also a good complimentary tool, no need for naval bombardment of costal cities when you can use strat bombers (combined with tacs/ABs/ints from the carriers ofc).

Dunno if I mentioned earlier but since NBs use goods, oil and RMs and CVs (+subs ig) use food, steel and oil, only overlap is oil and very good rss distribution. And for your point if enemy just spams ints? How are they going to fly them in, if not from the coast? Def not enough rss to make CVs, BBs, CCs and DDs

Ofc the argument changes if located near the coast but that wasn't the argument, NB+CV+subs are definitely more multipurpose and efficient, at the cost of having a sleep schedule

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriersInts (counting them for dmg against NBs)Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HPSounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

What if you are simply not on? You will have to take breaks, you know. In that time your entire feet can be sunk before your ever get the chance to react. You can’t constantly patrol everywhere, especially when you are on the move. If you can constantly micro and be on the attack, then this could work. But if you ever sleep, a person smart enough to study your sleep schedule will kill you. You also under estimate that potential of that ranged damage over time. I’ve heavily damaged stacks with health in the hundreds using these alone, and interceptors along with naval bombers can’t replace that. Since all that time spent making extra battleships would be instead spend on Carriers, I doubt you’d have much more to make up for it either. And if your enemy uses more ints themselves? Then you’re doomed. Naval bombers are good and all but it’s foolish to rely on them alone. There are just too many situations that they will falter in.

Yea it's a very activity-dependent strategy but def worth it. Point is that NB/CV/Sub strats are much more efficient than having to research high levels of DD/CC/BB, whilst level 3 CVs are enough for this strat (especially with allied or pan-asian, you can get away with lvl 2). Even better, you can forced march CVs for extra speed in a pinch since they aren't going to be fighting anyways, and their planes can always catch up to a threat before the threat reaches the carrier. CVs are also tanky enough to take a few hits, and you could always just use convoy strats or group them with subs to mitigate damage.And surprisingly this strat doesn't require nearly as much microing as most think, due to the speed at which planes deal damage. And sure, BBs will destroy the CVs if they are within range, but you just gotta be smart and never let your CVs get anywhere close to the ships. Doesn't help that BBs are vulnerable to NBs and subs, necessitating both DDs and CCs. Strat bombers are also a good complimentary tool, no need for naval bombardment of costal cities when you can use strat bombers (combined with tacs/ABs/ints from the carriers ofc).

Dunno if I mentioned earlier but since NBs use goods, oil and RMs and CVs (+subs ig) use food, steel and oil, only overlap is oil and very good rss distribution. And for your point if enemy just spams ints? How are they going to fly them in, if not from the coast? Def not enough rss to make CVs, BBs, CCs and DDs

Ofc the argument changes if located near the coast but that wasn't the argument, NB+CV+subs are definitely more multipurpose and efficient, at the cost of having a sleep schedule

Fair enough, though I’m still not sure about the activity argument. Even if they deal fast damage, they won’t down a huge stack before it moves out of range, and if you are sleeping, then you still are in trouble.. Strategic bombers also can’t be used on carriers, along with nukes and rocket artillery. Their refueling time it also always 30 minutes, so if an enemy fleet moves over to another quadrant you may not have enough time before they start hitting you.

I meant fighters, typo

SKOLL EMOTE HAS ENTERED THE CHAT

Replying to Car's reply (quote chains are annoying

I mean, if are sleeping with either strategy, you're in big trouble. It ain't just NB strats, it applies to all combat lol

Also, who needs carriable strats? They have crazy range, and islands exist in the oceans that can hold the strats and provide long range support. And why the hell do you want nuclear bombers on carriers? They already have crazy range. RFs should only be used defensively, their opportunity cost ain't worth.

And for refueling time, you should almost never need to directly attack, and the way the triangle shape is calculated for carrier planes is strange enough that you can actually get the triangle to go exactly where you want, meaning 99% of the time you don't even need to refuel. And either way you should be patrolling, not direct attacking.

You said that you could place them on carriers, or the way it was written seems that way. But for attacking, Sometimes an attack can be the quick damage you need, you never know. Patrolling is usually the way 99% of the time. Either way when you are sleeping at least the other stack can fire back and defend against anything. If you forgot to patrol your planes on the right place over your carriers…

Carking the 6th wrote:

You said that you could place them on carriers, or the way it was written seems that way. But for attacking, Sometimes an attack can be the quick damage you need, you never know. Patrolling is usually the way 99% of the time. Either way when you are sleeping at least the other stack can fire back and defend against anything. If you forgot to patrol your planes on the right place over your carriers…

Still, overall you’re more likely to be safer with the B-C stack over the carrier force. You have bigger room for error and mistakes.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Still, overall you’re more likely to be safer with the B-C stack over the carrier force. You have bigger room for error and mistakes.

Same argument goes for anything: mech inf is "safer" because it has better stats but doesn't mean it's the best. I still wouldn't recommend NB/CV strats (mostly cause I'm evil and want it so that only I use it) to beginners or even intermediates, you need at the very minimum decently high activity and a very good grasp of tactics.

Still very debatable, looks to have many weaknesses. Your fault though. It’s simply not laser shark proof. But do what you will, the laser sharks will do the job

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

And for refueling time, you should almost never need to directly attack, and the way the triangle shape is calculated for carrier planes is strange enough that you can actually get the triangle to go exactly where you want, meaning 99% of the time you don't even need to refuel. And either way you should be patrolling, not direct attacking.

You might suspect that when you set it "before" your main saling course, it would stay "before" it, but it doesn't work like that. When you set your first patrol from the carrier, the exact click spot you used to create your "cone" is stored, and that point keeps being considered the centre of your "cone" even after the carrier means on. This means that when you set your point "before" your fleet, but when you actually sail past that point so the original point is "behind you" now, the cone suddenly rotates 180 degrees and it is "behind" you now... even if the actual patrol point of your PLANES is still before it (because you changed the patrol loc after setting the initial cone). In fact the planes are no longer patrolling inside the cone at all. You cannot readjust your patrol spot to close where your planes are anymore; on the other hand, you CAN adjust it to any spot in the "new cone" you have created by sailing the carrier. This also means that setting the initial cone creating point "closeby" or "further away" actually makes a big difference now... even though they create the same cone NOW, it will make a huge difference when the carrier sails: when it was initially closeby, the 180 degree "flip" occurs much sooner than it would if you had set it further away.

Of course this "flip" is an extreme case, and there are many alternative cases where the cone is set (a bit) to the side of the sailing course, and it would go too far to discuss all the scenario's and opportunities created by setting cones when launching from the carrier... just be aware that you can play with them, and how understanding how the mechanics of cone-setting work can help you take more value out of your carrier and its planes!

Heh, I just did a great job safely hiding this valuable information on page 34 of a meme thread, eh?

THIS IS MEMES SHUSH UP

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

What about cruisers? Naval bombers are infinitely more useful than submarines and cruiser actually deal damage. They are way better, INHO.

Cruisers are useless. Only good naval related units are:NBsCarriersInts (counting them for dmg against NBs)Perhaps subs early/mid game

Battleships can be argued for due to bombardment, but since your making carriers anyways, tacs are better.

That may be the worst take I have ever seen from you… a player using their own naval bombers and interceptors would be very happy to meet you, though. Especially when their cruisers can stave off your planes.

Look at it this way:1 CC does 6 dmg against air with 35 HP1 NB does 7 dmg against ships with 20 HPSounds like a clear win for the cruisers, right?

Total rss for CC: 630 + 950 + 630 = 2210

Total rss for NB: 500 + 500 + 760 = 1760

1 NB is 79% the cost of 1 CC

But you're gonna say "what about carrier cost?" Of course, how could I forget? (sarcasm intended)

Think about it like this: a cruiser is only capable of dealing air dmg. Its naval damage isn't noteworthy (4, if you really wanted to know) and definitely is jackshit against ground units. If you were to spam cruisers, to what avail? NBs research faster than CCs and are wayyy more multipurpose: they sink anything that floats (convoy hunting, sub hunting, killing stray BBs and even being able to kill fleets). And not to mention, if cruisers are than much of a problem, then I've got your answer: subs. Either way, they will need to be produced early game to kill surface threats, and are much cheaper than cruisers 1:1. If you're worried about CC + DD spam, don't fret; you'll have enough flexibility to produce NBs to counter the threat. Not to mention how flexible carriers are: they can essentially do whatever you want, aerial supremacy with ints, ground interdiction with tacs/ABs, naval dominance with NBs or a mix of all. One CV level 3 carries 6(!) planes; 3 CV is enough for a 6/6/6 stack for fighting ground battles and a 8/10 int/NB stack for fighting naval battles (but obv you need more)

I'd explain more but don't have the time, in the meantime General K made an amazing post about the usefulness of CVs, it's what changed my mind and essentially won me an ACAI (ask Sam, he prolly wasn't paying too much attention to my battles but I sunk all of the ships of one of the top global players using this strat as US; not naming him for now for his dignity)

What if you are simply not on? You will have to take breaks, you know. In that time your entire feet can be sunk before your ever get the chance to react. You can’t constantly patrol everywhere, especially when you are on the move. If you can constantly micro and be on the attack, then this could work. But if you ever sleep, a person smart enough to study your sleep schedule will kill you. You also under estimate that potential of that ranged damage over time. I’ve heavily damaged stacks with health in the hundreds using these alone, and interceptors along with naval bombers can’t replace that. Since all that time spent making extra battleships would be instead spend on Carriers, I doubt you’d have much more to make up for it either. And if your enemy uses more ints themselves? Then you’re doomed. Naval bombers are good and all but it’s foolish to rely on them alone. There are just too many situations that they will falter in.

Yea it's a very activity-dependent strategy but def worth it. Point is that NB/CV/Sub strats are much more efficient than having to research high levels of DD/CC/BB, whilst level 3 CVs are enough for this strat (especially with allied or pan-asian, you can get away with lvl 2). Even better, you can forced march CVs for extra speed in a pinch since they aren't going to be fighting anyways, and their planes can always catch up to a threat before the threat reaches the carrier. CVs are also tanky enough to take a few hits, and you could always just use convoy strats or group them with subs to mitigate damage.And surprisingly this strat doesn't require nearly as much microing as most think, due to the speed at which planes deal damage. And sure, BBs will destroy the CVs if they are within range, but you just gotta be smart and never let your CVs get anywhere close to the ships. Doesn't help that BBs are vulnerable to NBs and subs, necessitating both DDs and CCs. Strat bombers are also a good complimentary tool, no need for naval bombardment of costal cities when you can use strat bombers (combined with tacs/ABs/ints from the carriers ofc).

Dunno if I mentioned earlier but since NBs use goods, oil and RMs and CVs (+subs ig) use food, steel and oil, only overlap is oil and very good rss distribution. And for your point if enemy just spams ints? How are they going to fly them in, if not from the coast? Def not enough rss to make CVs, BBs, CCs and DDs

Ofc the argument changes if located near the coast but that wasn't the argument, NB+CV+subs are definitely more multipurpose and efficient, at the cost of having a sleep schedule

Fair enough, though I’m still not sure about the activity argument. Even if they deal fast damage, they won’t down a huge stack before it moves out of range, and if you are sleeping, then you still are in trouble.. Strategic bombers also can’t be used on carriers, along with nukes and rocket fighters. Their refueling time it also always 30 minutes, so if an enemy fleet moves over to another quadrant you may not have enough time before they start hitting you.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

You said that you could place them on carriers, or the way it was written seems that way. But for attacking, Sometimes an attack can be the quick damage you need, you never know. Patrolling is usually the way 99% of the time. Either way when you are sleeping at least the other stack can fire back and defend against anything. If you forgot to patrol your planes on the right place over your carriers…

Well yea crux of the matter: activity. But then again, if you mindlessly set your BB/CC/DD stack to attack the enemy fleet, they will just set an ambush and sink your fleet. Inactivity is bad in any case, not just limited to this.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

And for refueling time, you should almost never need to directly attack, and the way the triangle shape is calculated for carrier planes is strange enough that you can actually get the triangle to go exactly where you want, meaning 99% of the time you don't even need to refuel. And either way you should be patrolling, not direct attacking.

Interesting sunject... actually it confused me for a while until I found out how it worked. It is a bit counter-inyuitive, even though strcitly speaking it is perfectly logical.

You might suspect that when you set it "before" your main saling course, it would stay "before" it, but it doesn't work like that. When you set your first patrol from the carrier, the exact click spot you used to create your "cone" is stored, and that point keeps being considered the centre of your "cone" even after the carrier means on. This means that when you set your point "before" your fleet, but when you actually sail past that point so the original point is "behind you" now, the cone suddenly rotates 180 degrees and it is "behind" you now... even if the actual patrol point of your PLANES is still before it (because you changed the patrol loc after setting the initial cone). In fact the planes are no longer patrolling inside the cone at all. You cannot readjust your patrol spot to close where your planes are anymore; on the other hand, you CAN adjust it to any spot in the "new cone" you have created by sailing the carrier. This also means that setting the initial cone creating point "closeby" or "further away" actually makes a big difference now... even though they create the same cone NOW, it will make a huge difference when the carrier sails: when it was initially closeby, the 180 degree "flip" occurs much sooner than it would if you had set it further away.

Of course this "flip" is an extreme case, and there are many alternative cases where the cone is set (a bit) to the side of the sailing course, and it would go too far to discuss all the scenario's and opportunities created by setting cones when launching from the carrier... just be aware that you can play with them, and how understanding how the mechanics of cone-setting work can help you take more value out of your carrier and its planes!

Heh, I just did a great job safely hiding this valuable information on page 34 of a meme thread, eh?

what are you guys trying to prove?

The existence of the multiverse, obviously