Submarines, destroyers balance

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.

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Battleships are expensive, slow, and recently got a buff because cruisers were superior. Cruisers are still relevant. Also, in my view, you’re getting a bit lucky with the destroyers thing - if someone is smart and builds a wolfpack of 10 subs, your battleships are gone.

Everyone who says or said Cruisers are or were better than Battleships, please, let me know in what scenario would a more even stack of Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships, do worse against a stack of Cruisers and Destroyers. Lets leave subs out of this for now, but im really curious, and everyone who says Cruisers are better eventually say "Oh once my enemies use Battleships i need some" Yeah, cause Battleships are better. and i have a single stack of 10 ships in a HWW that has killed about 100 troops, and this stack has stayed the same since day 1, half of the units it killed were naval, and axis, and the player wasn't AFK they were actively fighting back, if i used Cruisers, even 2 levels higher than their Battleships, i would have lost every encounter. And i dont mean using 500 Cruisers for overwhelming health, i mean 10 stacks, Even 2 years ago i would have favored 1 Battleship over 2 Cruisers for one reason, Range and Damage. And yes, i get it "Oh, but Cruisers rule the sea, they're better at destroying Submarines and Airplanes" My g, use Destroyers and Cruisers in your Battleship stacks, like i'm honestly confused as to how Cruisers ever were or are better.

Bytro has been pretty firm in its stance about making ways to repair units.

Naval battles tended to be stand-offish affairs. This was demonstrated in reality, which gave birth to the HMS Dreadnaught and the naval design revolution that spawned. As long as cruisers don't have battleship range, they won't contribute to the fight. Simple as.

If we look at real life for inspiration, however, we see the heavier types of cruisers slugging it out with battleships. In fact, let's take a look at some ranges. I'm just going to use the U.S. here as an example, but you get the same sorts of ratios between nations.

U.S. Battleships

New York-class: Primary armament 14"/45, effective range of 11.88 kilometers

Iowa-class: Primary armament 16"/50, effective range of roughly 39 kilometers

New Mexico-class: Primary armament 14"/50, effective range 22 kilometers

U.S. Heavy Cruisers

Alaska-Class: Primary armament 12"/50, effective range 35.27 kilometers

Baltimore-class: Primary armament 8"/55, 27.4 kilometers

Des Moines-class: Primary armament 8"/55, 27.4 kilometers

I can keep going, but I'm just going to cut to the chase. The smallest weapons we usually associate with U.S. destroyers are things like the 5"/38, which still boast a range of about 16 kilometers. These are the smallest weapons, and they still reach out to half the distance or more of these larger ships. The gap between heavy cruisers and battleships, in terms of gun range, isn't particularly huge with the exception of the Iowa.

I argue that using realism as our inspiration, cruisers can afford to have comparable range to battleships. They still wouldn't be as good since they aren't as tough. But that's okay - that was the entire point.

Fox-Company wrote:

Everyone who says or said Cruisers are or were better than Battleships, please, let me know in what scenario would a more even stack of Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships, do worse against a stack of Cruisers and Destroyers. Lets leave subs out of this for now, but im really curious, and everyone who says Cruisers are better eventually say "Oh once my enemies use Battleships i need some" Yeah, cause Battleships are better. and i have a single stack of 10 ships in a HWW that has killed about 100 troops, and this stack has stayed the same since day 1, half of the units it killed were naval, and axis, and the player wasn't AFK they were actively fighting back, if i used Cruisers, even 2 levels higher than their Battleships, i would have lost every encounter. And i dont mean using 500 Cruisers for overwhelming health, i mean 10 stacks, Even 2 years ago i would have favored 1 Battleship over 2 Cruisers for one reason, Range and Damage. And yes, i get it "Oh, but Cruisers rule the sea, they're better at destroying Submarines and Airplanes" My g, use Destroyers and Cruisers in your Battleship stacks, like i'm honestly confused as to how Cruisers ever were or are better.

This made me realise how annoying weights and measures in the military are, sometimes rounds and munitions are in inches, othertimes millimetres, bombs are measured in pounds, same for artillery shells, however, their range is measured in metres, planes travel in knots, but their height is in feet...

If you're using battleships a lot more than destroyers and cruisers you're probably playing against bad players (or are one yourself). Nothing makes me happier than seeing lopsided navies full of battleships.

jubjub bird wrote:

If you're using battleships a lot more than destroyers and cruisers you're probably playing against bad players (or are one yourself). Nothing makes me happier than seeing lopsided navies full of battleships.

Very rarely have I ever seen my typical stack of 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 6 battleships struggle against anything. In fact, the only thing it regularly loses to is a group with a higher ratio of battleships.

I mean I guess if they run into 10 naval bombers they'll be in trouble. But I've never had it happen that someone just builds a 10 stack of naval bombers unprompted.

The Brando Dilla stack of 4 Battleships, 3 destroyers, and 3 cruisers works very well, but I will shush now, because otherwise, Carking will know too much...

Hey, that dangerous stack near florida in our game is a worthy ship stack.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Very rarely have I ever seen my typical stack of 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 6 battleships struggle against anything. In fact, the only thing it regularly loses to is a group with a higher ratio of battleships.

I mean I guess if they run into 10 naval bombers they'll be in trouble. But I've never had it happen that someone just builds a 10 stack of naval bombers unprompted.

Zaktty wrote:

The Brando Dilla stack of 4 Battleships, 3 destroyers, and 3 cruisers works very well, but I will shush now, because otherwise, Carking will know too much...

Carking the 6th wrote:

Zaktty wrote:

The Brando Dilla stack of 4 Battleships, 3 destroyers, and 3 cruisers works very well, but I will shush now, because otherwise, Carking will know too much...

Yes I know you have like 30-40 of those ships don’t you? Americans.

I may already know.

jubjub bird wrote:

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Very rarely have I ever seen my typical stack of 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 6 battleships struggle against anything. In fact, the only thing it regularly loses to is a group with a higher ratio of battleships.

I mean I guess if they run into 10 naval bombers they'll be in trouble. But I've never had it happen that someone just builds a 10 stack of naval bombers unprompted.

Then you're playing bad players. That's fine, if it works it works. Just don't extrapolate that stack's effectiveness out to mean that it's actually a good stack. It's a bad stack that takes advantage of bad players.

Naval bombers, subs, or I just ignore navy and beat you on land so that you've wasted resources

So you don't have a direct answer then. Okay.

Hahaha so you want me to say "10 naval bombers" instead? Is that direct enough? How about "as many naval bombers as I can produce for the same manpower without wasting resources on 3 lines of naval research like you did"

I believe he means what’s would be a better naval stack? Like 4 BB 3 CC and DD?