Submarines, destroyers balance

You’re neglecting that fact that your ships will work together-you’ll have battleships and cruisers in your fleet as well. While that fleet would fight more subs than destroyers, it would have a huge range advantage and since it can stop the enemy, would be able to shoot from afar, and scoot if needed. While the stack would eventually be caught in melee by the subs, it would still do considerable damage and most likely win in an engagement with a sub.

Carking the 6th wrote:

You’re neglecting that fact that your ships will work together-you’ll have battleships and cruisers in your fleet as well. While that fleet would fight more subs than destroyers, it would have a huge range advantage and since it can stop the enemy, would be able to shoot from afar, and scoot if needed. While the stack would eventually be caught in melee by the subs, it would still do considerable damage and most likely win in an engagement with a sub.

-Ranged ships deal mediocre damage to subs

-Subs can always disengage and hunt for reinforcements, do some scouting, they are hella cheap after all.

Meanwhile destoyers need to hug the fleet or big, bad stack of subs will kill them the moment they leave. Subs can also engage in such stack, suck the damage while ranged ships attack the fleet, destroyers cant do that, they will evaporate under battleships' fire the moment they leave the group.

In my opinion numbers arent right there. Subs have all the initiative and variety of uses meanwhile MORE EXPENSIVE destroyers are just escorts against single threat that might never ever engage into them.

Incorrect assessment there. Mediocre damage, but you take none back, you can shoot as long as you want. Destroyers 1v1 subs and are still stronger, ignoring cost. Subs can run away but all you have is subs then you can just chase and shoot them, running away while dealing damage if needed. If not, then you just bombard their naval bases yards, no more subs. Unless the sub player is hyper active they may have to sleep, and during that time you can simply blow them up as well…

Don't forget Subs are really slow, so catching them with faster units such as Destroyers as ranged units bombard is an effective way to destroy them if they decide to run. Ranged units are providing your "Mediocre" damage that lets the destroyers leave with alot more health

But tbh i do think Destoryers need a 0.5 dmg buff to subs at the least for all doctrines

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for raising it Sewur.

DD versus SS strength is a rare instance where the game reflects a historical reality. WW2 era destroyers had a difficult time finding subs until torpedoes were in the water. Subs did enormous damage, especially to transports.

In anything, I would advocate for making subs stronger, and much more expensive. They should also lose their stealth if they start to Fast March. Also, subs should not be stackable with ships. CoW encourages players to stack subs as "damage soakers". This feels completely wrong. Subs should operate on their own, in silence. They had no ability to coordinate with surface vessels during a battle, though they were used to scout and send reports back to fleet HQ.

These changes would reflect both the power of subs, and the relatively greater difficulty in building, stationing, and using them effectively.

z00mz00m wrote:

They had no ability to coordinate with surface vessels during a battle, though they were used to scout and send reports back to fleet HQ.

z00mz00m wrote:

This is an interesting discussion, thanks for raising it Sewur.

DD versus SS strength is a rare instance where the game reflects a historical reality. WW2 era destroyers had a difficult time finding subs until torpedoes were in the water. Subs did enormous damage, especially to transports.

In anything, I would advocate for making subs stronger, and much more expensive. They should also lose their stealth if they start to Fast March. Also, subs should not be stackable with ships. CoW encourages players to stack subs as "damage soakers". This feels completely wrong. Subs should operate on their own, in silence. They had no ability to coordinate with surface vessels during a battle, though they were used to scout and send reports back to fleet HQ.

These changes would reflect both the power of subs, and the relatively greater difficulty in building, stationing, and using them effectively.

Fox-Company wrote:

But tbh i do think Destoryers need a 0.5 dmg buff to subs at the least for all doctrines

Regardless, I can remember levelling up my allied destroyers as America, and then realising that a max-level axis sub could beat it - or something like that.

On the bright side, Subs are basically useless on land and can’t bombard anything. If you start on the mainland of an area they are basically a non-issue lol.

I feel like the possibility of bombardment is very expensive. If you defend you need subs, naval bombers and interceptors. All the cheapest units in their branches. Easy to keep them all upgraded.

You cant go wrong with that. Opponent will always have to spend uproportionally large amounts of resources to attack.

If you attack you need basicly every single ship. Theoritically you could play only cruisers and destroyers but then you invest quite a lot into them and you cant afford meeting battleships. If you play subs against enemy battleships then you need carriers with interceptors to protect them from naval bombers... and thats how you end up with way more expensive army just so you can bombard some cities.

Also that kind of well around army is vulnerable to amassed single type threat like 30 subs.

Subs are slow, you can out run them with most ships. If the player is asleep, you just blow them up and they can’t do anything. Submarine only fleet also can’t support naval landings. Get some artillery and it’s basically over for any attempt to land on another continent. You need a surface fleet to actually project naval power, just are just to weaken it. 30 subs against say 20 ships seems like an unfavorable match up, but using the at ranged bonus you can shoot and scoot your way around, using a bit of forced march if needed with battleships. That doesn’t make subs useless, but the fact is you can get plenty of damage on them without taking any back, and using your already higher and now significantly higher amounts of health you can easily destroy them.

That's how it is in theory. Subs are faster than battleships but it might get doctrine specific...

To respond to attack of stealth units with shooting and scooting is setting up a quite high standard, doesnt it? You need to be active enough to respond to subs appearing in 54 view range of destroyers (pan-asians). And then countinue such manevour for prolonged time since bombardment units deal a little damage to subs.

"You need a surface fleet to actually project naval power".

Yes as i said you need unproportionally large and diverse fleet to earn privilege to shoot at some coastal city.

Sewur wrote:

I feel like the possibility of bombardment is very expensive. If you defend you need subs, naval bombers and interceptors. All the cheapest units in their branches. Easy to keep them all upgraded.

You cant go wrong with that. Opponent will always have to spend uproportionally large amounts of resources to attack.

Sewur wrote:

Also that kind of well around army is vulnerable to amassed single type threat like 30 subs.

Aircraft Carriers are a strange thing themselves. An argument about their usefulness could be made…

It was there

Carking the 6th wrote:

Aircraft Carriers are a strange thing themselves. An argument about their usefulness could be made…

Im pretty sure its numbers game:

30bb get smoked by 10 subs

30 cruisers get smoked by 10 battleships

30 destoyers get smoked by anything other that subs

30NB get smoked by 10 interceptors/ 10 cruisers in stack with other ships

30 subs dont get smoked by 10 dd (20 to 10 is pretty even trade) <- that is unproportional to comparisons above

The thing is nobody will amass dd otherwise than to counter subs.

You can play Cruisers to bombard cities, air defense, some shooting scooting potential.

You play dds and there are no subs? You wasted crap ton of resources on cannon fodder.

I mean DD are a nice and cheap but of extra health if needed.

Sure nothing can smoke them melee, but 1 destroyer and 9 cruisers can outrun and smoke you that way!

Carking the 6th wrote:

I mean DD are a nice and cheap but of extra health if needed.

Sure nothing can smoke them melee, but 1 destroyer and 9 cruisers can outrun and smoke you that way!

It's like destroyers dont even have 1 job they have 1/2 of a job?

But are we seriously forced to research and build dd just to scout for subs?

I can blindy build subs every game and always make use of them.

If i build dd i need not only use them against potential subs but also need them in right proportion.

The try hard version is i guess just building one dd per fleet and then kill them with NB, but it requires a lot of activity. I dont see same standard to other units. I hard counter cruisers with battleships and you can micro all day long and you will still lose them to my battleships. Thats what i would expect with subs - destroyers relations.

You have a point there, destroyers should have a decent 1v1 use against subs, and stealth in general is a strange thing in the game, but still, subs aren’t the hardest thing to counter provided you can be active enough to tango with them.