Submarines: A Love-Hate Relationship

1. Nobody makes a massive fleet of just Destroyers
2. Nobody makes a massive fleet of just Battleships

This is a funny post, but you have a problem if all you build is militia and SS!

oceanhawk wrote:

Nobody makes a massive fleet of just Destroyers

Well, I was in a game several months ago on the 22-player European map, playing Communist Russia and allied with Ukraine. After my ally and I had conquered all of Europe and north Africa, neither of us still had the requisite number of victory points and neither of us was willing to attack the other, so we mounted an invasion of North America to get the VPs to end the game.

The North American player had previously tried to invade Spain, Ireland, Morocco, etc., with a series of unescorted micro invasions of 4 to 6 medium tanks each, which the local AIs crushed in each instance after the NA player took a province or two. Just for fun, I started sinking the NA player's unescorted mini invasion forces as they crossed the Atlantic, and after losing 25+ MT brigades to AIs and about the number to my subs, he withdrew into NA and started creating Fortress Europa on the wrong side of the Atlantic. Every NA province had at least 2 AT units (some had more), and the Atlantic coast was protected by over 90 destroyers in 5-squadron flotillas. (Does 90 DDs qualify as a "massive fleet?"). So I assembled two battle groups of 4 L5 BBs, 4 L5 CCs and 16 L6 DDs each to escort an invasion force of over 100 ground units plus another 30 tactical bombers. My ally put something smaller together, but also built around a similar battle group. In a flying wedge, we hit the center of the Atlantic defensive DD line with our battle groups, and shredded the first 3 or 4 DD flotillas with our big guns from outside the enemy DDs' range, while our invasion force safely landed in Maritime Canada to the north. At some point it became a turkey shoot, because we had enough massed naval firepower to sink 5 DDs on the first pass, so they could never get close enough to make physical contact and then swarm the battle groups. Of course, as they did get closer, the battle groups' firepower got stronger as the guns of the cruisers and then the destroyers were brought to bear on the already bleeding enemy DDs. Had all 90 attacked at once, he might have had a chance, but they were spread up and down the eastern seaboard like a string of pearls.

So, while I can say from experience, in fact, somebody may build a massive fleet of destroyers, I cannot recommend it as a strategy if you're playing against a competent opponent.

That's a good point-cruisers and battleships are wonderfully effective against destroyers.

But of course, if you didn't have the intel that he had just a destroyerswarm, and you assumed he had cruisers instead, and built a bunch of submarines instead of destroyers...

RIPRIP.

Submarines are very much a love-hate relationship.

MontanaBB wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Nobody makes a massive fleet of just Destroyers

@Oceanhawk:

Well, I was in a game several months ago on the 22-player European map, playing Communist Russia and allied with Ukraine. After my ally and I had conquered all of Europe and north Africa, neither of us still had the requisite number of victory points and neither of us was willing to attack the other, so we mounted an invasion of North America to get the VPs to end the game.

The North American player had previously tried to invade Spain, Ireland, Morocco, etc., with a series of unescorted micro invasions of 4 to 6 medium tanks each, which the local AIs crushed in each instance after the NA player took a province or two. Just for fun, I started sinking the NA player's unescorted mini invasion forces as they crossed the Atlantic, and after losing 25+ MT brigades to AIs and about the number to my subs, he withdrew into NA and started creating Fortress Europa on the wrong side of the Atlantic. Every NA province had at least 2 AT units (some had more), and the Atlantic coast was protected by over 90 destroyers in 5-squadron flotillas. (Does 90 DDs qualify as a "massive fleet?"). So I assembled two battle groups of 4 L5 BBs, 4 L5 CCs and 16 L6 DDs each to escort an invasion force of over 100 ground units plus another 30 tactical bombers. My ally put something smaller together, but also built around a similar battle group. In a flying wedge, we hit the center of the Atlantic defensive DD line with our battle groups, and shredded the first 3 or 4 DD flotillas with our big guns from outside the enemy DDs' range, while our invasion force safely landed in Maritime Canada to the north. At some point it became a turkey shoot, because we had enough massed naval firepower to sink 5 DDs on the first pass, so they could never get close enough to make physical contact and then swarm the battle groups. Of course, as they did get closer, the battle groups' firepower got stronger as the guns of the cruisers and then the destroyers were brought to bear on the already bleeding enemy DDs. Had all 90 attacked at once, he might have had a chance, but they were spread up and down the eastern seaboard like a string of pearls.

So, while I can say from experience, in fact, somebody may build a massive fleet of destroyers, I cannot recommend it as a strategy if you're playing against a competent opponent.

as if it isnt a good idea...

its an awful idea to spam destroyers.. Yes it is done, but most good experienced players, wouldnt recommend spamming destroyers