By the time I get around invading Siberia I tend to have Mot/Mech, really.
Cavalry is only marginally faster than infantry.
Once you get mechanized cavalry they are certainly a lot faster. They are fairly similar to motorized infantry which is odd.
By the time I get around invading Siberia I tend to have Mot/Mech, really.
Cavalry is only marginally faster than infantry.
AFAIK it isn't possible.
But it could do a good idea for 1.03 improvements... select a tech (like Inf 1942) in 1936 and then AI automatically starts to research all that tech path (first Inf 1936, then 1939 and so on) untill finish the selected one!!
I think that a research queue would be a good idea. If done well, you could set up your research queue in 1936 and then forget about it, unless you want to change sth.yeah, i know it can't be done. i was just having a little day dream there haha!
a problem with that would be that AI done the research too quick, say it's 1938 and the AI is already trying to research 1942 infantry making it very slow and inefficient
can i make the computer do research for me instead of researching them myself? i hate having to pause once in a while just to do some research
why should I care for subs and destroyers? they have hardly any range at all
please tell me the pro and cons for each of the units and what do you like to build?
I personally do not see the point of subs, as it's impossible to stop convoys altogether (although they can be a cheap way for Germany to build a massive death-stack to invade places with). However, destroyers are an absolute necessity. Having a navy, as you describe, of only capital ships is suicide, you have to have screens for protection.
I'd argue that destroyers are, in fact, the most important naval unit in the game, as they are required for both battleship and carrier based fleets.
An ideal fleet has 6-8 capital ships (preferably 6 of something with two CVL's) and 10 screens.
As for useless units, battle cruisers and light cruisers are the worst. Battle cruisers are too weak for their cost (you might as well build a battleship), and light cruisers aren't that much better than DD's (and DD's are much cheaper).
you've answered by question well Master Arnold
but that brings me to another question
why build CVLs when you can just build carriers?
I personally do not see the point of subs
Eh? You can rule the waves with nothing but subs.
if you think subs are useless, try playing Japan, it is a big pain hunting down US subs that keep eating my precious convoy production (they can take down a couple dozens of convoy in a week, takes me long to rebuild). I have to convert many of my old cruisers to help ASW by fitting floatplanes on them and have excess amount of NAV to search those annoying buggers for my ASW groups. The usefulness of subs makes having good destroyers important. Your WWI destroyers aren't gonna really hurt the subs.
I have always been content with DDs. They are a workhorse screen and especially good for carrier task forces IMO. Indeed I just build doomstacks of 10CV+20DD that can wipe out pretty much anything. It's cheap, need to research only two kinds of ship and in my experience works just fine.Destroyers are for anti-submarines warfare and they also count as a screen ship which your fleet should be composed of minimum 50%. Price and building time makes them the cheapest screen ship you can deploy. You say you will go for CL but since CL are more expensive, longer to build and are for AA task while you have carriers that's the wrong pick among the 2 options.