They are making carriers, subs are fine and the BB names is a bug.
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
We need aircraft carriers, submarines that do more damage, names to stay on battleships
Please log in to post a reply.
They are making carriers, subs are fine and the BB names is a bug.
Well, that was nice and quick.
Yes to what Bill said, subs also do more damage when levelled up but are countered with destroyers. The other naval units can't fight subs unsupported to any great degree.
I wish that submarines when attacking unescorted convoy's remained hidden, to simulate them using their torpedoes. Also if a Naval Bomber where to happen across a enemy submarine. Let's their is a 10% chance that the enemy submarine will perform a successful crash dive and escape unharmed.
A sub has to come up to use it's torpedoes, they are in the nose of the sub.
I don't think so. The whole purpose of subs is to attack using torpedoes so the enemy doesn't know what hit them and the enemy doesn't know where you are. Subs don't need to come up. Trust me, I've read books about the Atlantic War and convoys.
I stand corrected.
Yes submarines usually launched torpedoes from a depth of about 20 meters below the surface.
Cri cri y u do tis 2 meh?
- I think Subs need to withdraw from a battle.
- Transport ships and other vessels need to stay on course, it's crazy that they stop they engines to make it the subs
easier to kill them. 
Subs were able to withdraw from battle easily. And convoys never stopped. Some sub battles lasted for so long that convoys arrived in harbour after 20 days or so of continued sub attack. I recommend a book called 'The Battle of the Atlantic' by Marc Milner. Great book about subs versus convoys battles, Allied technological improvements for catching U-Boats and how Britain was about to lose the war because of the subs. BTW; read this story. Beautiful example of commitment to duty and patriotism: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/the-fearless-near-forgotten-story-of-hms-jervis-bay-1.1288803
So what you're saying is, once engaged, the sub attaches itself to the enemy stack, following it on its travels? with the option of disengaging.
More or less, yes.
I think the subs needs a special order like: "follow & attack". In this way the subs will attack every hour the target if the sub is fast enough to follow.
I think the navy is pretty decent in this game, i've only ever seen one large scale naval engagement, and it seemed pretty fair
The Navy is great. Whoever gets a navy first has the best navy usually.
I play as Spain and I'm telling you, you can control what goes in and out of the Mediterranean when you have a good navy.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
The Navy is great. Whoever gets a navy first has the best navy usually.
I know, I can do that as America too, or Russia, Italy etc. It is very fun.
I enjoy using the navy, it's fun especially a large scale naval confrontation in the Atlantic, it's glorius.
Can't wait to see what the navy's like in the PacificV1nd1cat0r wrote:
I enjoy using the navy, it's fun especially a large scale naval confrontation in the Atlantic, it's glorius.
Oh god me too! Pearl Harbor raid anyone?
Please log in to post a reply.