-
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.
Starfox Strategy
I noticed the same phenomenon of subs engaging in long battles and tying down a surface fleet but did not have the need or insight to realize how it could be used to revive the super sub stack strategy. All I can say to Starfox is brilliant, I am glad I was not playing the UK against you when you first used it; but I look forward to a patch that "fixes" it someday. Meanwhile, if you play by a house rule of only six subs to a stack the phenomenon just means they all get sunk if found by a sizable surface fleet (albeit giving you the opportunity to crush the enemy surface fleet with whatever is in range).
In answer to the earlier query about subs in the actual war sinking warships:
That was how the Japanese used them and they proved nearly useless. It was not that they never scored, it was just too infrequent to be of any consequence. Meanwhile, the US pursued an agressive convoy raiding strategy with excellent results, as did the Germans with less long-term success but only due to the overwhelming capacity of the US to respond with air and sea power. Just as WWII proved that airpower was decisive in the seas, it also proved that WWII era subs were not very useful in surface engagements but extremely useful as raiders.
More modern stealthier subs on the other hand should be able to pick off a capital ship more easily, especially when operating alone or in a very small group. Has anyone played DD to the early fifties to see if the best subs might have this capacity? It might be useful to know when planning a long term USSR strategy.
I noticed the same phenomenon of subs engaging in long battles and tying down a surface fleet but did not have the need or insight to realize how it could be used to revive the super sub stack strategy. All I can say to Starfox is brilliant, I am glad I was not playing the UK against you when you first used it; but I look forward to a patch that "fixes" it someday. Meanwhile, if you play by a house rule of only six subs to a stack the phenomenon just means they all get sunk if found by a sizable surface fleet (albeit giving you the opportunity to crush the enemy surface fleet with whatever is in range).
In answer to the earlier query about subs in the actual war sinking warships:
That was how the Japanese used them and they proved nearly useless. It was not that they never scored, it was just too infrequent to be of any consequence. Meanwhile, the US pursued an agressive convoy raiding strategy with excellent results, as did the Germans with less long-term success but only due to the overwhelming capacity of the US to respond with air and sea power. Just as WWII proved that airpower was decisive in the seas, it also proved that WWII era subs were not very useful in surface engagements but extremely useful as raiders.
More modern stealthier subs on the other hand should be able to pick off a capital ship more easily, especially when operating alone or in a very small group. Has anyone played DD to the early fifties to see if the best subs might have this capacity? It might be useful to know when planning a long term USSR strategy.
I like it is the way subs were nerfed now but the naval bomber strategy sounds to gamey for me. But its your choice 
.
.
I think the subs have been changed for the better - mass engagements of submarines cannot destroy an entire opposed naval fleet.
Crippled targets (limping home), lucky shots, sneaking into a harbour yes, but a carrier in the middle of a battle group surrounded by DD and CL and with patrol planes flying all around? No way.
Now subs have their uses - convoy raiding and interdiction for limping fleets, but they cannot win in a stand up fight against a carrier fleet - just like it should be.
Crippled targets (limping home), lucky shots, sneaking into a harbour yes, but a carrier in the middle of a battle group surrounded by DD and CL and with patrol planes flying all around? No way.
Now subs have their uses - convoy raiding and interdiction for limping fleets, but they cannot win in a stand up fight against a carrier fleet - just like it should be.
The thing with those endless naval battles must be a bug. I can't explain it otherwise. Does one know if this may be WAD?
Subs have been nerfed too much and the naval bombers - submarine co - work tactic explained before shows that this nerfing maybe was not for the better.
I liked the HOI2 approach more. I didn't usually do the 30 Sub Stack wiping out the enemy fleet since that wasn't really interesting but in some of my more gamey games (when being tired of mega - serious play ) I liked it. Since I can go back to original HoI anytime I like that's not too much of a problem, I will wait for some patches for DD anyways.
Subs have been nerfed too much and the naval bombers - submarine co - work tactic explained before shows that this nerfing maybe was not for the better.
I liked the HOI2 approach more. I didn't usually do the 30 Sub Stack wiping out the enemy fleet since that wasn't really interesting but in some of my more gamey games (when being tired of mega - serious play
) I liked it. Since I can go back to original HoI anytime I like that's not too much of a problem, I will wait for some patches for DD anyways.