-
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.
have a look at their stats.
you could do this ingame by pausing, put a normal and heavy sub in your build queue, and comparing them.
heavy subs are probably shorter range/longer buildtime but more guns or something, you know, because they have the word heavy in front, and heavy usually means more armor and stuff.
They have longer range, are a bit tougher, and usually can mount a seaplane. They are pretty good at first but are soon outstripped by the regular subs.
Also they're twice as visible to fleets hunting them (2 vs 1.) I don't know if this applies to any in-battle targeting / positioning mechanics or just spotting the fleet to begin with.
Heavy subs are in the game to model some strange prototypes built by Britain and France and possibly others, for subs mounting cruiser (and in at least one case battleship) guns to use as their main armament instead of torpedoes. I don't think there's any purely gameplay reason to build them.
Does equipping them with floatplanes make them useful for reconnaissance?
Well, in reality 1930's subs with floatplanes were not an effective weapon system.
They took a lot longer to submerge - critical in a "warzone"
The plane could not be operated in anything more than a "flat calm" sea state
Yes, but that's reality. I was asking about the game. Or do I need to go read the "Whatever happened to reality?" thread again?
A full fleet of 30 heavy subs can wipe a carrier task force, if you're okay with tossing realism and sanity out the window. I did a sub-only Japan game, and wiped out the USN in two months, before setting up a blockade on the West Coast and in the Red Sea. The convoy losses the Allies suffered were horrific.
In DH you are better off attaching floatplanes on everything, since they give longer firing range (which is ridiculous). Your older ships can then have same range as newer ones, if not even outgun them. Floatplanes can be gamey, but hey, AI does it too so this one's ok.
That has more to do with all HOIs AIs being dumb and not reactive. If the AI reacted to players building a crapton of subs with a crapton of destroyers with ASW and escort carriers, you would be hilariously spanked
That has more to do with all HOIs AIs being dumb and not reactive. If the AI reacted to players building a crapton of subs with a crapton of destroyers with ASW and escort carriers, you would be hilariously spanked
Doesn't change the fact that it works!
Works, as I said, because the current AI isn´t reactive.
The UK BTW don´t even need to build more destroyers as it starts with a crapton, all it needed would be to upgrade with ASW and make a similar 30 destroyers doomstack.
The UK BTW don´t even need to build more destroyers as it starts with a crapton, all it needed would be to upgrade with ASW and make a similar 30 destroyers doomstack.
for the record i've done some sub vs. DD testing, i.e. 12 vs 12 stacks with torpedo on subs and asw on DDs, both side will come out of the battle with heavy damage. so the best strategy against subs to me is still putting fire control on DDs to get them out of torpedo range while firing on them with impunity. against heavy subs with FP attached you'll need CL as screens but this is still easily doable.
Wow. I apologize for a dumb question, but giving the DDs fire control actually works better than giving them ASW?
lol i didn't explain it well it seems. let's just imagine 2 scenarios, one is DD+asw vs regular subs, another is DD+FC vs regular subs, with DD being the 41 model and SS 40 model. also make FC the 42 model (giving more firing distance). assuming there's no huge difference in admiral skills, DD will always get to fire at is optimal range since it is twice as fast as subs.
in the first case, DD has an optimal firing distance of 20*0.9=18, which just happens the maximum range for subs, so they will fire upon each other in a given battle. and from my experience, both sides will suffer heavy damage.
now onto the 2nd scenario, because of the FC, DD's maximum firing distance is bumped to 24, and as a result they will prefer firing at a distance of 24*0.9=21.6, beyond sub's reach. you will inflict less damage on the subs per hour, but subs will not hit you at all. and because DD has a huge sub attack to begin with and will wreck the sub stack one way or another, i find the tradeoff quite advantageous.
for heavy subs with FP attached, this kind of turkey shoot won't work for DD (Hsub has a max firing distance of 25) but you can still use CL attached with FC and FP to fight this kind of one-sided battle. this is also the reason that i always escort my carriers with CA: CV can massacre anything floating on the sea but they are sitting ducks against subs, so CA with their long firing range and superior speed will do well to protect carriers from sub attacks.
Using heavy cruisers as sub deterrant is both ahistorical and silly, however - specially without ASW. Depends on what you think it´s acceptable or not.
CA isn't going to hunt down subs, they have horrible sub attacks anyway. their job in a carrier fleet is to find subs while they're still far away and make sure they don't sneak up on the carriers. and i care more about combat mechanism more about historical accuracy, knowing the mechanism is like understanding rules of a game, i play by the rules and determine my best course of action, that's all.