Submarines are still garbage

[Wasted Shampoo]

9 in a fleet might be too many, and what are your doctrines?

I don’t understand. Should itbe smaller? How small? Should I assign a very good admiral to a small fleet? Seems a waste of good admirals.
How can I manage the losses?
Should I have more than 1 fleet executing a mission, let’s say search and destroy, on the same sea region?

 

[Redz28]

Unfortunately the best use of subs in this game is to disband what you start with to recover the manpower and not build any. It's a shame such an important aspect of the war is utterly broken.

 

[Meglok]

I don’t understand. Should itbe smaller? How small? Should I assign a very good admiral to a small fleet? Seems a waste of good admirals.
How can I manage the losses?
Should I have more than 1 fleet executing a mission, let’s say search and destroy, on the same sea region?

I run no more than 4 subs in a fleet, and with admirals. As soon as I have xp boost stealth. Set them on split off for repair and repair at minimal damage. Only one to a sea region, any engagement sucks all fleets in.

Avoid the Channel. Only use subs where you can patrol with your own fleets and or aircraft with NAV strike. In 1.5, the damage that subs can do to convoys is better, and the damage planes can do to convoys when supporting a surface combat is much better. You may lose the subs, but they are cheap to replace compared to transported divisions. At worst you are crippling resource efficiency, at best you are sinking loaded transports.

 

[iBlessTheRains]

It wasn't until reading this thread that I realized putting all my subs in a giant fleet isn't the best idea.

Which fleet do you deploy them to though? Just to a port?


Also more of a general fleets question: where do you deploy your boats if you have multiple fleets? I just put them all in one big fleet, but I've since learned that might not be the most effective way to handle it?

 

[Secret Master]

You may lose the subs, but they are cheap to replace compared to transported divisions.

I want to emphasize Meglok's words here.

Subs will die. It's going to happen. They may not die all the time, but they will die. Don't get caught up in the moment mourning their deaths. They aren't BBs or CVs. Keep up a steady production and stay focused, and you will be fine.

If a sub dies after sinking 10 convoys, or dragging capital ships into a fight where they die from bombing, they still win even after they are sunk.

 

[Riekopo]

Sub fleets don't work in a logical way still. You basically have to hack it to get results from them.

 

[Fast00000000000]

My advice is don't send subs out alone. I normally build two large fleets of as many ships as I can build, I then have a production line for destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battleships and subs. I then add one dockyard to each and let it fill up and when they all have one dockyard working on them I add a second dockyard and so on. I have found this creates a nice ratio of all the ships and combined makes an awesome fleet.

 

[Agiknight]

My advice is don't send subs out alone. I normally build two large fleets of as many ships as I can build, I then have a production line for destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battleships and subs. I then add one dockyard to each and let it fill up and when they all have one dockyard working on them I add a second dockyard and so on. I have found this creates a nice ratio of all the ships and combined makes an awesome fleet.

A mixed fleet will always lose to equivalent IC of an all BB+Carrier fleet. (assuming equivalent tech etc)

 

[PhillyPhan321]

I've inflicted over 2 million casualties to the USA and UK combined in my historic Germany play through so far in 1944 with 4500 convoys sunk. I'm using large sub fleets of over 30 subs each and leaving them in one zone only each. I then have full sub lines set to pre spawn each new sub to the sub fleet replenishing any of my loses. My subs didn't start as doing good in the campaign until I took out France and had the ability to split of damaged subs and send the subs there to repair. The casualties really start to pick-up when the US joined the war. I had level 3 subs by then with all the sub doctrines researched (used the national focuses and Italy tech sharing to get them all by 1941). I was leaving the subs in the Mid-Atlantic and then between S America and Africa when Spain joined the war and took out Gibraltar). Of those casualties prob 90% of them are from the subs as I have seen few US and UK divisions land on main land Europe so far.

 

[Dalnar]

Submarines I and II without doctrines are crap, but in my last venezuelan campaign, I had submarines IV + doctrines and they weren't that horrible, even sunk few destroyer I )))

 

[grandad1982]

My main complaint with subs is the hassle of reinforcing them. If we had a fleet template system where when a unit is lost it would set the next sub in the line to go to the fleet with missing boats. Actually that would be nice for all fleet types.

Edit: Man, early morning typo city

 

[ruzen]

Grey wolfs are indeed in a dire situation but no intress from devs since launch.

 

[Alex_brunius]

A mixed fleet will always lose to equivalent IC of an all BB+Carrier fleet. (assuming equivalent tech etc)

No it won't.

A mixed fleet supported by Naval bombers can defeat a pure BB fleet ( even if the cost of naval bombers is removed from the mixed fleet).

A mixed fleet also can defeat a pure BB fleet in terms of IC damage inflicted and chase them away to repair ( but will not be able to sink BBs without them having low repair setting or getting bombed later on in port ).

A mixed fleet under fighter cover or during arctic night will crush a pure CV fleet without taking any damage at all.

 

[halvorni]

My main complaint with subs is the hassle of reinforcing them. If we had a fleet template system where when a unit is lost it would set the next sub in the line to go to the fleet with missing boats. Actually that would be nice for all fleet types.

It could actually work similar to land forces now. In addition to division templates you could set up fleet templates and handle ships/boats like equipment. So when your 4-sub fleet loses one, it will automatically be reinforces from the pool.

 

[Agiknight]

No it won't.

A mixed fleet supported by Naval bombers can defeat a pure BB fleet ( even if the cost of naval bombers is removed from the mixed fleet).

A mixed fleet also can defeat a pure BB fleet in terms of IC damage inflicted and chase them away to repair ( but will not be able to sink BBs without them having low repair setting or getting bombed later on in port ).

A mixed fleet under fighter cover or during arctic night will crush a pure CV fleet without taking any damage at all.

The naval bombers are what is making the difference there, not the mixed fleet. Naval bombers beat all boats.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The naval bombers are what is making the difference there, not the mixed fleet. Naval bombers beat all boats.

So will you edit your post and change the statement that it will "Always lose" to "lose if not supported by Naval bombers and if enemy not set to Repair Priority low" then?

Otherwise your statement still is wrong, since always includes all possibilities ( including naval bombers and repair priority settings ).

And if you think Naval bombers beat all boats you clearly didn't try fighting anyone that put good fighters on their Carriers and send damaged ships home to repair. This causes Naval bombers to drop by the hundreds for little gain.

 

[Agiknight]

So will you edit your post and change the statement that it will "Always lose" to "lose if not supported by Naval bombers and if enemy not set to Repair Priority low" then?

Otherwise your statement still is wrong, since always includes all possibilities ( including naval bombers and repair priority settings ).

And if you think Naval bombers beat all boats you clearly didn't try fighting anyone that put good fighters on their Carriers and send damaged ships home to repair. This causes Naval bombers to drop by the hundreds for little gain.

I posted earlier in the thread. You use your own Carriers and Land based fighters & naval bombers. I never said anything about not using planes, I don't know why you are trying to say I did. My point is that all ships smaller than BBs and Carriers will lose to BBs and Carriers, given comparable tech and assuming you don't lose air superiorty. There is no rock-paper-scissors in ship combat like there is supposed to be. Bigger is better, and planes are best.

The naval situation hasn't changed at all, as others have pointed out. There were no changes to anything navy related this patch, but hopefully that will change in the next patch. ( hopefully not another 8 months)

For now, subs are utterly useless. Requires way too much micro to get minimal gain, and if you don't micro them to groups of 1-2 they do nothing but die.

In addition, Battleships and Carriers are OP and screens are useless. Don't bother building anything smaller than a BB if you can afford to.

However, Naval Bombers are the true kings of the sea. All important strategic naval zones are easily accessed by land based fighters and bombers. If you have air superiority over a sea zone it prevents enemy carriers form being able to launch planes at all.

So the best strategy is to spam BBs and cover all of your sea zones with fighters and naval bombers.

 

[Alex_brunius]

My point is that all ships smaller than BBs and Carriers will lose to BBs and Carriers. There is no rock-paper-scissors in ship combat like there is supposed to be. Bigger is better, and planes are best.

My point is don't use silly statements like "always".

The AI for example quite often lose with their pure BB+CV fleets that lost all their screens since they also have no planes ( or too few/too bad planes ) on the CVs and since they put their fleets on low repair priority.

 

[Agiknight]

My point is don't use silly statements like "always".

The AI for example quite often lose with their pure BB+CV fleets that lost all their screens since they also have no planes ( or too few/too bad planes ) on the CVs and since they put their fleets on low repair priority.

Sure, "always" is a bad word to use, I was assuming the context of my previous post in this thread where I explained that fighters and air superiority are very important. Obviously Carriers with no planes are bad. I didn't think I'd have to explicitly say that.

 

[Cymsdale]

I don’t understand. Should itbe smaller? How small? Should I assign a very good admiral to a small fleet? Seems a waste of good admirals.
How can I manage the losses?
Should I have more than 1 fleet executing a mission, let’s say search and destroy, on the same sea region?

Seems similar to the issues air used to have where you used to want to have many groups of small numbers for whatever reason because they did the math weird.

The whole navy aspect of this game needs an overhaul.