Well the hard-hitting combat effectiveness of Laurence's subs is minimal, to be honest. We had that one lucky strike where they managed to sink a bunch of carriers, but we think that was only because there was a blizzard in the sea province at that time and hence, US carriers were unable to fire allowing the subs to come into range and deal heavy damage. Under normal circumstances, the subs aren't close enough to fire (indicated by the crossed out cannon symbol you see) and hence, they don't deal any damage.
However, and this is why we use them, it is also very hard to damage them for the US. We found out that the more we stack into a province, the more US firepower is dispersed, stalling US fleets and hindering their movements while the subs take minimal damage. This allows us to 'freeze' US fleets in a province temporarily while our Airforce deals death and destruction. In fact, we should give you guys an overview of our most frequently used tactics to help you understand how we play.
CHANNEL PACT STRATEGY
Land:
Laurence:
Anvil/Pierce/Repeat Doctrine : Large groups of armies (10+ div) with high veterancy are used as 'Anvils' to push back all enemies from adjacent provinces without actually moving the army. The hammers bash out all opposing forces, all along the front, after which normal armies occupy the provinces. Afterwards; the hammers move one province and repeat the process. Anvil - Pierce - Repeat
Zero-Defense Doctrine : (As seen in RTCB) Concentrating on several highly mobile Hammer armies (mostly Panzers with SP art), piercing deep into enemy territory, forming pockets and encirclements, and hunting down the VPs.
In this doctrine not much attention is being spent on the defense, hence the name.
Blitzkrieg : Do I need to say more?
Vincent:
Treshold/harassment doctrine : In reality, UK Land forces are greatly inferior to German ones, relying mostly on German tanks and equipment sold to us in exchange for British carriers and battleships. Hence, the Army has little real striking power and is mostly used for defence. Our Royal Marines, however, are heavily researched and technologically superior forces, and were vital to every British conflict from '37 (Indonesian Crisis) onwards. My tactic is to develop a static moving line to hold most of the enemy's forces, while I use my naval superiority to rapidly open up multiple fronts near the coasts of a nation, attack, retreat, use rapid-moving raiders to weaken IC and eventually; break the treshold of the enemy and overrun him.
Naval:
Laurence:
Stall/disperse Doctrine: Our fleets are highly inferior to US fleets, hence, our strategy attempts to avoid direct confrontation ('decisive battle') but rather stall and disperse US fleets, hindering their movements with subs, battleship fleets and other fleet combos that drag the fight on.
Vincent:
Armour Train Doctrine: After the Blitz, it became clear to us that the US would have naval superiority from then on. Hence, I shifted my doctrine from Direct Confrontation to Armour Train. In the first; I try and destroy as much fleets as possible, in the second I try to avoid conflict and use my warfleets to escort vital transports and hunt down subs.
Air:
Total Domination Doctrine: Our air strategy from '45 onwards consists of concentrating heavy resources into developing and maintaining our aerial superiority over the AOF in the wars to come. I focus on STR/INT for carpet bombing, while Laurence uses TAC/INT for army support aviation.
As you can see, our strategies are radically different, yet out potential for world conquest thus the greater
Last edited:
