Lets start with purpose of each of the units:
Destroyers:
-Counter submarines (somewhat)
Submarines:
-Counter Cruisers
-Counter Battleships
-Counter Aircraft carriers
-Can hunt for transport ships, reinforcements
-Stealth, they can scout for free as long as enemy doesnt have detection
As we can see submarines have "slighly" more uses and are much more universal unit. It might not necessarily be bad but what is actually irrational is that submarines are also cheaper that destroyers. How is that a good idea that unit with a single purpose is more expensive than one size fits all unit.
On top of that they dont even counter them that hard. Destroyers have literally one job and are mediocre at that.
10d vs 10s lvl1 in Comintern results in 50% loss of destroyers.
You also have to keep up with submarines upgrades just to not get rekt by them. 10s lvl2 vs 10d lvl1 (all the way to 4lvl vs 5lvl) results in destroyer defeat?!
You might also not know how many subs enemy have, so you might think 10 destroyers is enough to protect your fleet but you might get rolled over by:
-twice as many subs
-actual fleet or naval bombers which make your destroyers totally usless
Finally you have to rely on naval bombers - actual submarine counter. But then again why multi purpose unit like naval bombers that counter every single ship except cruisers are better than single purpose unit?
Please log in to post a reply.
You called it a bad stack. So, directly, tell me what is the optimum stack.jubjub bird wrote:
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 already did. The best naval stack is 10+ naval bombers.
It's a bad stack because it's easily beaten by very cheap strategies. That you haven't figured that out yet just means you've never played someone with a shred of a clue.
Unnoble. We are talking ships here, regardless of the usefulness of planes. They wouldn’t last very well against interceptors, no? Then you could just bombard an enemies Coast into oblivion. And what of a force that uses cruisers? Counters for this as well. Let’s just restrict this to ships. If you use them, what would you call the best fleet?
If you want a better naval stack, I actually think a 2/2/2 stack would be better than 6/2/2. It's less imbalanced so you won't lose as much when someone brings naval bombers or subs. An obvious answer is 10/10/10 but that's such a resource sink that I wouldn't actually call it a good stack. A genuinely better stack would be something like 10 cruisers and 1 destroyer. Cheaper research, faster units, still capable of bombardment but not vulnerable to naval bombers and still able to defeat subs (or outrun them if needed).
I don’t think you understand what jubjub bird is saying. His point is that you’re wasting a lot of resources on producing slow battleships - he can spend the same amount on naval bombers or subs which will take you out easily.Daniel_Phelps wrote:
You called it a bad stack. So, directly, tell me what is the optimum stack.jubjub bird wrote:
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"
The thread is about balance between ships. Not naval bombers. That's moving goalposts.
No one is moving goalposts. The reason you need to balance the types of ships you produce is that they have different strengths and weaknesses. One weakness of battleship-heavy builds is that they're easily defeated by naval bombers. I don't understand why this is controversial.
Was gonna counter this so hard, but jubjub beat me to itDaniel_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.
Either way, its ludicrous to even think that a 6/2/2 stack is even viable. I'll do the math (numbers are from allies; I only have allied and axis games, too lazy to find the default numbers, but point is still the same
2 DD: 910 * 2 = 1820 MP
2 CC: ~1100 * 2 = 2200 MP
6 BB: ~1400 * 6 = 8400 MP
Total: 12420 MP
1 Sub: 800 MP
12420 / 800 = 15.525 Subs
Rounded to 15 Subs
I don't think I need to do the math for the damage and HP, but if need be I'll do it in a later post.
It makes me sad to see an interesting thread on WW2 subs and destroyers turn into another "perfect stack" thread.
There is no such thing as a perfect stack. The point is to find the weaknesses in your opponent's build and exploit them. That could be 10 subs, or 10 battleships, or 10 naval bombers, but it is never ever a balanced stack unless you're fighting noobs. Just like there is no optimum number of arty in an army stack or an optimum number of attack bombers in an air force stack. The notion is foolish. Stop it.
Meh. Conversations evolve and there isn't enough traffic on the forum to separate topics that cleanly.
On the original topic, I don't think the destroyer/sub balance is broken right now. It seems pretty fair from a gameplay perspective.
I do agree that the destroyers should be better than "mediocre" about taking on subs, but they shouldn't be cheaper than submarines. IT is a shame that destroyers will lose most of their health fighting subs, and therefore I tend to use them just to counter subs.
Submarines maybe are not that broken when we look at doctrines other than Axis. But Axis' subs are totally broken. They trade well against all doctrines' destroyers except for Allies'.
Funnilly enough they trade 1 for 1 with Comitern's and Pan-asian destroyers on the same lvl which is a joke.
To be fair commie subs are MUCH cheaper and easier to produce, but you still have a point.Sewur wrote:
Submarines maybe are not that broken when we look at doctrines other than Axis. But Axis' subs are totally broken. They trade well against all doctrines' destroyers except for Allies'.Funnilly enough they trade 1 for 1 with Comitern's destroyers on the same lvl which is a joke.
But they deal WAY less damage and dont have Pan-asian level of speed. But yeah, im mainly complaining about destroyers being bad.Carking the 6th wrote:
To be fair commie subs are MUCH cheaper and easier to produce, but you still have a point.
That’s true, but they still do have an advantage over axis subs, technically. Obviously not enough, considering their role, though.
As I have found out before, a max level axis sub will beat a max level allied destroyer.Sewur wrote:
Submarines maybe are not that broken when we look at doctrines other than Axis. But Axis' subs are totally broken. They trade well against all doctrines' destroyers except for Allies'.Funnilly enough they trade 1 for 1 with Comitern's and Pan-asian destroyers on the same lvl which is a joke.
Axis subs are great, but that's a good thing. Without them, the 10 cruiser + 1 destroyer stack would be even more dominant. Axis subs make the game more interesting.
I think a part of why 10 cruiser + destroyer stack is that good is because it's too expensive to fight subs melee and battleships simply cant run away from them.
So if you build battleships you cant really rely on a couple of destroyers to protect you because you will lose the fight anyway. (at least economically)
or, a much simpler solution which i always lean towards, outnumber your oponet 5 to 1 and it dosent matter what the unit type is 
(Burns through recources though)
stardragon225 wrote:
or, a much simpler solution which i always lean towards, outnumber your oponet 5 to 1 and it dosent matter what the unit type is(Burns through recources though)
It's a lot more fun to win when outnumbered 5 to 1.
Please log in to post a reply.
