Interceptor vs Submarine

I agree. Have you confirmed that this is true when the sub is in current view via battle or naval bomber?

I have had a sub parked under 2 interceptors (ai) for two days and they are still 100%

Yea, but they can't see sub. I was wondering if sub would do damage if they could see sub.

That could be the reasoning. Not very realistic but maybe better for gameplay.

It seems like the more important aspect in that situation is that the sub can see the interceptor.

Yea, I wasn't suggesting one way or the other, I was just wondering about actual behavior when subs were in view, since in that case, theoretically, the planes could be bombing but missing. Your idea does have some merit though, but technically, the sub AA is only a defensive stat, which means it only responds to being fired upon. For subs to attack without being fired upon they would need an attack stat against air.

markprice112 wrote:

Not very realistic but maybe better for gameplay.

If we wanted to be realistic, fighters should have a very minimal anti-sub capability (say, 0.3 or thereabouts) and tactical bombers slightly more so. The real problem at present is the ridiculously unbalanced sub-vs-naval patrol bombers capability, whereby a flotilla of 12 stacked sub squadrons can shoot down an entire wing of 12 stacked NPB squadrons. That never happened even in Karl Doenitz's wildest fantasies. Submarines, especially late model U-boats, had decent AA capability and could inflict damage on attacking patrol bombers, maybe even get lucky and shoot one down now and again, but the outcome of NPB vs. sub was going to end with the sub sunk, damaged or diving to escape 9 out of 10 times.

Yeah I was recently in a situation where I was trying to maneuver my naval bombers so as not to patrol the enemies subs and he was trying to move his subs underneath my naval bombers. At that point you wonder why you even built naval bombers.

markprice112 wrote:

. . . you wonder why you even built naval bombers.

But, yes, I'm not the first forum discussion participant to complain of the screwed-up, over-powered AA capability of our in-game submarines. The relative capability of subs and NPBs is exactly the opposite of what it should be. If this is some 20-something game developer's idea of "balance" and "playability," then I will take realism every time.

HEY BYTRO: FIX THIS. DAMN IT.

markprice112 wrote:

Yeah I was recently in a situation where I was trying to maneuver my naval bombers so as not to patrol the enemies subs and he was trying to move his subs underneath my naval bombers. At that point you wonder why you even built naval bombers.

Just no....

Submarines, how could they shot down an inteceptor? and how could an interceptor even damage a sub submerged?

oceanhawk wrote:

Submarines, how could they shot down an inteceptor? and how could an interceptor even damage a sub submerged?

The whole submarine-vs-aircraft combat scenario is screwed up, starting with subs vs. NPBs.

MontanaBB wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Submarines, how could they shot down an inteceptor? and how could an interceptor even damage a sub submerged?

How can submerged submarines shoot down entire squadrons of NPBs?

The whole submarine-vs-aircraft combat scenario is screwed up, starting with subs vs. NPBs.