Once you get mechanized cavalry they are certainly a lot faster. They are fairly similar to motorized infantry which is odd.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Once you get mechanized cavalry they are certainly a lot faster. They are fairly similar to motorized infantry which is odd.
the problem have with Cavalry 1946 is the IC cost. It is better to build mech units for the DEF/TOUGH values and less oil use.
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
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.
Couldn't this just be done by a rather complicated event chain? I'm certainly not suggesting that I'd be able to mod that myself. But I'd think for what whatguts wants, an event at Jan 1st or 2nd that does the years historical techs would be relatively easy, as only a few large events per major, and could an easy minimod. Seems like that would be easier than any alternative I can think of.
If someone was really ambitious the player could get choices of what to focus on, like Army heavy, Airforce Heavy, Navy heavy, or balanced.
so let's get back on topic, there is one thing we haven't talked about
who finds v1 and v2 missiles useful despite the long research chain?
i know i use them to conquer britain as germany
i bomb the infrastructure near the coast, so they can't reinforce the cost in time giving me enough time to get a foothold and then britain is mine to take!
who finds v1 and v2 missiles useful despite the long research chain?
i know i use them to conquer britain as germany
i bomb the infrastructure near the coast, so they can't reinforce the cost in time giving me enough time to get a foothold and then britain is mine to take!
ICBMs make WW3 a whole lot more fun.
They are also a great novelty unit, as they are cheap and one-use. Great for a bit role playing (like bombing Britain with them).
They are also a great novelty unit, as they are cheap and one-use. Great for a bit role playing (like bombing Britain with them).
so let's talk about attachments for the ships
i rarely use the navy to do anything except for amphi, and to block straits
i only build capital ships too
so i like to use anti air, fire control, seaplane if they can, and torpedos
to max out the offensive ability of my capitals
fleets of 30 made up of 9 transports, and the rest are additional capitals i built +starting capitals and screens
outdated screens that limit my range i just put them to convoy
they drain my resources
i rarely use the navy to do anything except for amphi, and to block straits
i only build capital ships too
so i like to use anti air, fire control, seaplane if they can, and torpedos
to max out the offensive ability of my capitals
fleets of 30 made up of 9 transports, and the rest are additional capitals i built +starting capitals and screens
outdated screens that limit my range i just put them to convoy
they drain my resources
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?
The CVL's are a cheap way of adding detection and visibility capabilities to a fleet. Having the two CVL's in a Battleship fleet is a bit more important than in a carrier-based fleet (since a carrier will already have high stats in both), but they still act as damage soaks in the carrier fleet when it is their turn to attack.
You could just use carriers, but it's more expensive. CVL's are basically just used to bump the stats of the fleet they're in, as their combat isn't that impressive itself (and they can't even use CAG's, a fact that has always confused me).
I hate naval combat... never could manage it well.
BBs and other ships take too much time to be build and... well, a CV can handle a BB quite easily. DD's are cheap and fast to build, but without capital ships they're useless in combat.
I prefer build up a huge amount of NAV. Heuaheauah.
BBs and other ships take too much time to be build and... well, a CV can handle a BB quite easily. DD's are cheap and fast to build, but without capital ships they're useless in combat.
I prefer build up a huge amount of NAV. Heuaheauah.
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.
Btw, I use CVL on cruiser squadrons and use those old/cheap/slow CVLs to help ASW. CVLs can occasionally help bombing enemy naval base/airbase.
The problem to use a purely capital-ship navy is that a navy of cheap screens can destroy your precious ships efficiently. If you playing countries like US, of course, feel free to waste MP like that.
Btw, I use CVL on cruiser squadrons and use those old/cheap/slow CVLs to help ASW. CVLs can occasionally help bombing enemy naval base/airbase.
The problem to use a purely capital-ship navy is that a navy of cheap screens can destroy your precious ships efficiently. If you playing countries like US, of course, feel free to waste MP like that.
You can build death-stacks (30-ish) of subs and decimate everything, but by 1942 subs are pointless since ASW is super deadly.
I guess if you can Sealion by the end of '41, subs could be a good investment in countering the British fleet, but then again you could also just use Paratroopers to take Dover and do a massive transport ship run.
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.
BC+CA, what is your baseline reasoning? Do you have any understanding of the naval warfare aspect of this game?
You can make the computer research for you and we will call you AI...
BC+CA, what is your baseline reasoning? Do you have any understanding of the naval warfare aspect of this game?
You can make the computer research for you and we will call you AI...
when i play as japan, i don't attack US, it's a stupid decision to make really, first it's 2 divisions make the landing, and then 30, 50, and 70 divisions pop out of no where!
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.