Submarines, destroyers balance

Isn't summoning the Cluthu from the underworld necessary as well? Unless my memory fails me, of course...

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Isn't summoning the Cluthu from the underworld necessary as well? Unless my memory fails me, of course...

SamPGS_17 wrote:

z00mz00m wrote:

How do we summon Freezy?

Well, first we need a full moon, then comes the ritual chanting, then we need the sacrificial lamb to bleat four times before the clouds pass over the moon silencing the animal, then the ritual slaughter of the sacrificial lamb before it is ritually roasted and sacrificed to Freezy, then all of it must be eaten before the sunrise or His wrath will come upon us all

Carking the 6th wrote:

You forgot a few things. For one, its bones must be used to create an incense that will be spread across the land. The ritual slaughter must be done with an adult male Grey Eurasian wolf’s jaw. Parts that won’t be eaten must be burned.

I don't think that we will change unit roles completely (e.g. making subs super expensive and super strong) or introduce harder to use controls (e.g. subs not merging with other ships, users would still try to move them together, just that it becomes annoyingly cumbersome). But we could tweak values a bit, e.g. make destroyers stronger vs subs. I will bring it up in the team at least.

Btw there is one more use of Destroyers in the game that was not mentioned but which I have seen multiple times in the past:

Destroyers are the fastest ship. In desperate situations they can be used in a suicide attack to pin down the enemy fleet so it cannot get away. Just ram your destroyers into them, send slower subs or your battleships afterwards.

Due to their high speed they are actually also good at scouting or intercepting unprotected convoys, even tho its not their main job.

All hail, the wolf god arrives!

I love it when Freezy appears, smartest person on the Forum, i was even graced with 5 likes from Freezy before, thats when you know you're right.

Fox-Company wrote:

I love it when Freezy appears, smartest person on the Forum, i was even graced with 5 likes from Freezy before, thats when you know you're right.

Zaktty wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

I love it when Freezy appears, smartest person on the Forum, i was even graced with 5 likes from Freezy before, thats when you know you're right.

Exactly, this guy gets like 10 likes on every post he makes.

freezy wrote:

*yawn* this together did the trick.

I don't think that we will change unit roles completely (e.g. making subs super expensive and super strong) or introduce harder to use controls (e.g. subs not merging with other ships, users would still try to move them together, just that it becomes annoyingly cumbersome). But we could tweak values a bit, e.g. make destroyers stronger vs subs. I will bring it up in the team at least.

Btw there is one more use of Destroyers in the game that was not mentioned but which I have seen multiple times in the past:

Destroyers are the fastest ship. In desperate situations they can be used in a suicide attack to pin down the enemy fleet so it cannot get away. Just ram your destroyers into them, send slower subs or your battleships afterwards.

Due to their high speed they are actually also good at scouting or intercepting unprotected convoys, even tho its not their main job.

Not a huge fan of slamming fast, fragile units into big stacks. But yes, they can be useful that way, occasionally.

Historically, destroyers could attack slow moving capital ships with torpedoes. Translated to CoW, they might be a lot more interesting if their AD was lopsided in the attack direction, and if they had 5 to 10km or so of shooting range. They would be like a motorized infantry on water. Fragile but deadly.

They are called destroyers for a reason, after all… I do wish ships would have some sort of update. Right now all you really need is like one destroyer to spot subs and blow them up, cruises for naval bombers and then a HUGE force of battleships. Whoever has the most ships wins. Not sure where I am getting to to be honest, but adding a little more complexity to naval battles would be nice in general.

Carking the 6th wrote:

They are called destroyers for a reason, after all… I do wish ships would have some sort of update. Right now all you really need is like one destroyer to spot subs and blow them up, cruises for naval bombers and then a HUGE force of battleships. Whoever has the most ships wins. Not sure where I am getting to to be honest, but adding a little more complexity to naval battles would be nice in general.

IO1919 Naval Combat in a nutshell.

I used to play it, when it was sane.

Claudio NVKP wrote:

I used to play it, when it was sane.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Claudio NVKP wrote:

I used to play it, when it was sane.

Same here. I lost so many brain cells, I started becoming more active on the forums

Claudio NVKP wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Claudio NVKP wrote:

I used to play it, when it was sane.

Same here. I lost so many brain cells, I started becoming more active on the forums

it was so good, flamethrowers and stuff. Now i do not understand the language

I know this is kind of an out-there suggestion, but I'm just gonna blurt it out for the hell of it.

Destroyers and Cruisers are, by far, my least built ships. Destroyers I just put in stacks to see subs. Cruisers I just put in stacks to shield against naval bombers. Battleships by far outnumber them in fleet stacks, and I tend to use submarines for all of my scouting needs.

I personally think cruisers would be more useful if they had the same gun range as battleships. They still wouldn't be as good of fleet combatants, but it gives them some use in fleet battles where everyone just stands off at max range, which is usually dictated by battleships.

Destroyers would find a lot more use with me, personally, if their guns had current cruiser range. Because not only could they then scout, but they could also assist with shore bombardments to a limited degree.

Battleships would remain the undisputed masters of the waves. They might just be built slightly less which in my eye would be an improvement. Really, they should be the least common gun-ship. Submarines would remain the most potent stealthy ship-killers.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

I know this is kind of an out-there suggestion, but I'm just gonna blurt it out for the hell of it.

Destroyers and Cruisers are, by far, my least built ships. Destroyers I just put in stacks to see subs. Cruisers I just put in stacks to shield against naval bombers. Battleships by far outnumber them in fleet stacks, and I tend to use submarines for all of my scouting needs.

I personally think cruisers would be more useful if they had the same gun range as battleships. They still wouldn't be as good of fleet combatants, but it gives them some use in fleet battles where everyone just stands off at max range, which is usually dictated by battleships.

Destroyers would find a lot more use with me, personally, if their guns had current cruiser range. Because not only could they then scout, but they could also assist with shore bombardments to a limited degree.

Battleships would remain the undisputed masters of the waves. They might just be built slightly less which in my eye would be an improvement. Really, they should be the least common gun-ship. Submarines would remain the most potent stealthy ship-killers.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

I personally think cruisers would be more useful if they had the same gun range as battleships. They still wouldn't be as good of fleet combatants, but it gives them some use in fleet battles where everyone just stands off at max range, which is usually dictated by battleships.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Destroyers would find a lot more use with me, personally, if their guns had current cruiser range. Because not only could they then scout, but they could also assist with shore bombardments to a limited degree.

Also destroyers use torpedoes, how do they suddenly get the range of artillery?

I'm just waiting for @Claudio NVKP's rating

To be fair IRL destroyers did have some level of range and guns that could shoot at enemy ships…

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

I personally think cruisers would be more useful if they had the same gun range as battleships. They still wouldn't be as good of fleet combatants, but it gives them some use in fleet battles where everyone just stands off at max range, which is usually dictated by battleships.

Artillery would cry from coastal bombardment. Also, the whole point of battleships is that they outrange smaller ships...

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Destroyers would find a lot more use with me, personally, if their guns had current cruiser range. Because not only could they then scout, but they could also assist with shore bombardments to a limited degree.

You clearly haven't lived in the age where destroyers had their range lolAlso destroyers use torpedoes, how do they suddenly get the range of artillery?

I'm just waiting for @Claudio NVKP's rating

Yes, I was playing when destroyers had their range. Artillery wouldn't "cry" from coastal bombardment any more than they do now.

Destroyers had torpedoes, yes. But they also had guns. Any picture of a destroyer makes this abundantly clear. In fact, destroyers frequently provided local shore bombardment.

4⅞/10