Battleships

I use a mix of subs and battleships. I use subs for scouting and attacking unescorted ships. @Thomas Edward who I played a game with witnessed my strategy of sub hunting. I used espionage to reveal my enemies unescorted capital ships and I sank them with sub. I once got 3 AC, 2 BB, and the numerous bombers that were on the carriers using a small group of subs.

My battleships are primarily used for:

1. Bombarding the coast

2. Protecting the carriers

3. Stopping enemy naval fleets.

Battleships are useless without destroyers and cruisers.

To have strong navy, you need battleships(to fight other warships and units on coastline), cruisers(to defend navy from naval bombers) and destroyers(to protect navy from submarines).

You cant achive naval superiority with subs. Submarines are good for intercepting enemy convoys, attack unprotected cruisers and battleships and spie enemy coastline.

Submarines are best to be by themselfs in "wolf packs".

Suna232 wrote:

Battleships are useless without destroyers and cruisers.

To have strong navy, you need battleships(to fight other warships and units on coastline), cruisers(to defend navy from naval bombers) and destroyers(to protect navy from submarines).

You cant achive naval superiority with subs. Submarines are good for intercepting enemy convoys, attack unprotected cruisers and battleships and spie enemy coastline.

Submarines are best to be by themselfs in "wolf packs".

And even outdated submarines in huge number can be used well.

I would say that it depends on whether you use destroyers and cruisers or not. If you pair them with battleships, you can easily dominate on the sea. And in that case, submarines are unnecessary. I prefer to use submarines as defensive troops, lining your coastline, ready to knock out any convoys heading for your coast.

Depends on doctrine of course too. A good set up I have for each doctrine:

But overall, just like we saw in the middle of WW2, battleships become irrelevant with air superiority.

Air superiority > naval superiority.

Allies: Heavy on destroyers and then mix in a couple of battleships and CVs with air superiority.

Axis: Heavy on subs, mix in low level destroyers and cruisers, maybe a couple of battleships, CVs with air superiority.

Comintern: Spamming cruisers. Cruisers have enough hit points really to deal with subs. If you can focus down on this and maybe sprinkle in some DDs you may not need to make the expensive battleships at all. (let alone research)

PanAsian: DDs, BBs and then all out air. With enough air power you won't need hardly any ships.

Notice: Downside to relying on air (gotta have carriers everywhere) PLUS you need to micro-manage this. If you are going to be active this pays off huge dividends. If not so active -> opt for a more passive approach with same level mixture of ships.

Navy is useless and only steals resources and research time. All you need are subs and naval bombers.

10 battleships appear on your shore, escorted by 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers. Your core provinces are connected to the shore. If you only have subs and naval bombers, what do you do?

And when I played with @Spite is Right, I learned that cruisers and destroyers were almost unbeatable.

So you need 30 ships to bomb

my shore? Lol, and then what? You lose your home provinces bcs you dond have ground troops?

BrutusTrump wrote:

10 battleships appear on your shore, escorted by 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers. Your core provinces are connected to the shore. If you only have subs and naval bombers, what do you do?

Then..

Subs are cheap. Spam Subs like crazy to lock down the stack then have multiple patrols of naval bombers.

I'm just making the point that having a navy is important.

Its funny until you have to attack some island nation and hundreds of your convoys are sunk by his battleships, cruisers, carriers, submarines, and naval bombers.

Tribunate wrote:

BrutusTrump wrote:

10 battleships appear on your shore, escorted by 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers. Your core provinces are connected to the shore. If you only have subs and naval bombers, what do you do?

Move your artillery (or rail guns if you have some) in range and rain hell on them - super stack infantry in their to soak damage.

Then..

Subs are cheap. Spam Subs like crazy to lock down the stack then have multiple patrols of naval bombers.

You dont need to attack island to win. So no need fir navy. Naval bombers can be used vs ground troops, so they ate not a waste to invest in. But navy cant conquer anything, and its slow compared to air

vietcong2005 wrote:

Tribunate wrote:

BrutusTrump wrote:

10 battleships appear on your shore, escorted by 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers. Your core provinces are connected to the shore. If you only have subs and naval bombers, what do you do?

Move your artillery (or rail guns if you have some) in range and rain hell on them - super stack infantry in their to soak damage.Then..

Subs are cheap. Spam Subs like crazy to lock down the stack then have multiple patrols of naval bombers.

How about naval invasion of an island nation. How are you going to do that when the enemy has a combination of subs, battleships, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and naval bombers. I could imagine hundreds of convoys getting sunk.

- What do I have

- Doctrine I'm playing as

- Where are most of my units

- Where are most of the enemy units

- what does he have most research invested in

and more!

Tribunate wrote:

vietcong2005 wrote:

Tribunate wrote:

BrutusTrump wrote:

10 battleships appear on your shore, escorted by 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers. Your core provinces are connected to the shore. If you only have subs and naval bombers, what do you do?

Move your artillery (or rail guns if you have some) in range and rain hell on them - super stack infantry in their to soak damage.Then..Subs are cheap. Spam Subs like crazy to lock down the stack then have multiple patrols of naval bombers.

How about naval invasion of an island nation. How are you going to do that when the enemy has a combination of subs, battleships, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and naval bombers. I could imagine hundreds of convoys getting sunk.

Depends on a number of factors:- What do I have

- Doctrine I'm playing as

- Where are most of my units

- Where are most of the enemy units

- what does he have most research invested in

and more!

Tribunate wrote:

artillery

interceptors and naval bombers it is then.

In my experience, 1% of players here actually hold up against a strong air defense, or offense. You can wipe out that whole fleet and some with enough naval bombers with interceptors flying escort.

Interesting. That is why I force most players to challenge me in the open seas far away from coast, where not many of their naval bombers can get into the ocean. I usually lure the opponent into a deadly trap where I will have the advantage. I also utilize carriers and naval bombers. Additionally I use submarines to attack the carriers. I will also utilize the method of splitting my fleet into smaller stacks in order to make the enemy decide which battleship or carrier they want to bomb.

Thank you for all the replies guys helps alot.