Submarine change

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Are subs good at taking out cruisers?
      Not without cruise missiles.
      Not without 100 range.
      Not if the cruisers are stacked with anything like a frigate or destroyer.


      Are CM good for anything with anti-air?
      Not unless they're leveled to 15HP+.

      Do frigates defend against 15HP missiles reasonably well?
      sure do.

      One single 15HP CM cost two warheads.
      2 slots per sub.

      Attack subs are even worse than destroyers in their own realm... against other subs.

      If you have a sub stack it's either all attack or weaker yet with a ballistic sub that really shouldn't be engaging other vessels.



      Seems like they don't pack enough punch to do the job against anything particularly well.
      Seems like for the sake of keeping the destroyer useful the attack sub is rendered irrelevant.

      Unless of course you max out all your research on attack subs and CM and can find a 5 stack of cruisers all by itself.

      Either the CM act like torpedos (not affected by anti air)
      or put the attack back in the attack sub attack stat.

      I want to hit and hide with a sub.
      I want it to excel at something.
      I wouldn't mind it having a lower HP in exchange for a significant offensive capability... especially if it could hide in a meaningful way...

      You can attack a sonar signature with surface vessels of any sort.
      I suppose if destroyers/corvettes were the only surface ships that could harm it at all... and only through melee... it would be better.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Are subs good at taking out cruisers?
      Not without cruise missiles.
      Not without 100 range.
      Not if the cruisers are stacked with anything like a frigate or destroyer.
      You're wrong tho?
      without destroyers they wont even be able to detect the subs which means their range does not really matter that much before destroyers enter the equation
      cruisers and frigates have abysmal stats against subs
      and even then a 5stack of subs can easily deal about a hundred damage to ships at max lvl

      but hey, keep building your strawman
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Are subs good at taking out cruisers?
      Not without cruise missiles.
      Not without 100 range.
      Not if the cruisers are stacked with anything like a frigate or destroyer.


      Are CM good for anything with anti-air?
      Not unless they're leveled to 15HP+.

      Do frigates defend against 15HP missiles reasonably well?
      sure do.

      One single 15HP CM cost two warheads.
      2 slots per sub.

      Attack subs are even worse than destroyers in their own realm... against other subs.

      If you have a sub stack it's either all attack or weaker yet with a ballistic sub that really shouldn't be engaging other vessels.

      Just because something now needs 2 warheads it does not take 2 slots to use, maybe you should first finish studying the basics.

      And yes CM can be very good against units with anti-missile, it depends how 'much' anti-missile there is.
      One lonely frig will not disable all CMs from the start. also it matters are the frigs inside the stack or in different stack, if they are in a different stack point-defense is already out of consideration.
      are the frigs inside the stack, the stack is stronger against missile, but weak in combat in general

      Ballistic subs are not supposed to fight anyway, they have a different purpose. But you know, maybe think outside the box and tryout a submarine officer...


      Also what Teburu pointed out in regards of Cruisers.

      I once killed a cruiser with a single AIP, just sitting 50 points behind it.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      ... but it's naval warfare history 101

      ...
      I hope this doesn't feel like me piling on.

      "naval warfare history 101" is not the same as WW3 Naval Warfare 101. You're referring to the WW2 demise of the big-gun battleship at-sea engagements. That demise was brought on by Aircraft Carriers, not subs. And it happened 80 years ago.

      I'm not an expert - However, I do know enough to know that I'm not an expert. Consequently, I try to stay in my lane.

      Doing a fun job of depicting subs in a game that allows Chad to build them in an annexed city is so divorced from reality that *any* appeal to how things "really" work (whether that appeal is accurate or inaccurate) is like fingernails on a chalkboard for many readers.

      So, my advice is: Read the room. Drop the pitfall-laden, risky appeals to "reality". And continue proposing suggestions.
    • Maybe I am.

      When is a destroyer not in the mix, though?

      I know I don't make them.


      I build frigates, a naval officer, a corvette or two... and if I'm really expecting subs, a couple naval patrol.
      Subs should be my typical build's Achille's heel... but they never really become a threat even with such limited detection/defense against them.
      So that's what makes me think there is something wrong with them.
      My build is basically built for them to have the advantage and they don't become a factor.
      They're too limited in what they can do and aren't exceptional even at that... so they aren't popular.
      Cruisers and destroyers give me way more trouble and are way more common (in my experience).
      I would build subs in my core navy if they had the pull... but the damn frigates do better!


      Maybe there's a navy strategy with attack subs at the center that I've not explored...
      I guess I think they should be more prolific in any game... I think they should be apex predators.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Maybe I am.

      When is a destroyer not in the mix, though?

      I know I don't make them.


      I build frigates, a naval officer, a corvette or two... and if I'm really expecting subs, a couple naval patrol.
      Subs should be my typical build's Achille's heel... but they never really become a threat even with such limited detection/defense against them.
      So that's what makes me think there is something wrong with them.
      My build is basically built for them to have the advantage and they don't become a factor.
      They're too limited in what they can do and aren't exceptional even at that... so they aren't popular.
      Cruisers and destroyers give me way more trouble and are way more common (in my experience).
      I would build subs in my core navy if they had the pull... but the damn frigates do better!


      Maybe there's a navy strategy with attack subs at the center that I've not explored...
      I guess I think they should be more prolific in any game... I think they should be apex predators.
      You are looking on the wrong battle field.
      You expect high in depth naval warfare tactics on publics map where 60-70% of players do not play beyond the first week and 80-90% of the remaining players tend to go for the typical triforce of mot inf, MBT and strikers
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      ... but it's naval warfare history 101

      ...
      I hope this doesn't feel like me piling on.
      "naval warfare history 101" is not the same as WW3 Naval Warfare 101. You're referring to the WW2 demise of the big-gun battleship at-sea engagements. That demise was brought on by Aircraft Carriers, not subs. And it happened 80 years ago.

      I'm not an expert - However, I do know enough to know that I'm not an expert. Consequently, I try to stay in my lane.

      Doing a fun job of depicting subs in a game that allows Chad to build them in an annexed city is so divorced from reality that *any* appeal to how things "really" work (whether that appeal is accurate or inaccurate) is like fingernails on a chalkboard for many readers.

      So, my advice is: Read the room. Drop the pitfall-laden, risky appeals to "reality". And continue proposing suggestions.
      It doesn't feel that way.
      I hope the same.

      The torpedo ended the big ship era...even kamakazi wasn't as effective.
      I'm no expert... but there are experts... and they publish things...

      You are here: Home / Article topics / Publications / Naval Historical Review / The Effectiveness of Torpedoes and Mines in World War II

      The Effectiveness of Torpedoes and Mines in World War II

      AuthorTurner, MikeSubjectsHistory - WW2TagsTorpedo, Ship losses, MinesRAN ShipsNone noted.PublicationMarch 2014 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)By Mike Turner
      Mike Turner graduated from Sydney University with a degree in Science and an Honours degree in Aeronautical Engineering. After qualifying as a Ships Diver in 1957 he joined the RAN Mine Countermeasures Development Unit (MCDU) at HMAS Rushcutter to develop a towed diver search system. Transferring to the RAN Experimental Laboratory (RANEL) he was involved in mine identification and the ‘half-necklace’ ship’s bottom search for Ships Divers. Working in just about all areas of mine countermeasures (MCM) included the observation and analysis of multi-national MCM exercises. The final project before retiring in 1990 was the development of MCM equipment, particularly ‘Dyad’ magnetic sweeps, to enable the RAN to use ‘Craft of Opportunity’ as minesweepers.

      Submarine Torpedoes and Aerial Mines
      Submarine torpedoes and aerial mines were the two major weapons used against warships and merchant ships in World War II, and were used to good effect by America, Britain and Germany. In contrast Japanese submarines sank very few Allied ships, and Japan lacked an aerial mine for mining in Allied held waters (offensive mining).
      All losses stated in this article must be treated with due caution, and generally refer to ships over 500 tons.
      Ships sunk by torpedoes
      The torpedo is the ‘weapon of choice’ for submarines attacking ships. Japanese submarines sank 18 ships over 500 tons in Australian waters, and they were all sunk by torpedoes.1 In a listing of 1,242 Merchant Navy ships sunk by U-boats 1,141 (92%) were sunk by torpedoes and only 101 (8%) were sunk by gunfire or the combination of torpedoes and gunfire.2
      The major submarine offensive by the German U-boats in the ‘Battle of the Atlantic’ sank 2,788 ships and, assuming that 92% were sunk by torpedoes, 2,561 ships were sunk by German torpedoes.3

      I know it's someone on the internet and all but this guy seems like he's in his lane... I guess you might say he should stick to mines or something... You're the expert on experts after all ;)
    • Smallsword wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      ... but it's naval warfare history 101

      ...
      I hope this doesn't feel like me piling on."naval warfare history 101" is not the same as WW3 Naval Warfare 101. You're referring to the WW2 demise of the big-gun battleship at-sea engagements. That demise was brought on by Aircraft Carriers, not subs. And it happened 80 years ago.

      I'm not an expert - However, I do know enough to know that I'm not an expert. Consequently, I try to stay in my lane.

      Doing a fun job of depicting subs in a game that allows Chad to build them in an annexed city is so divorced from reality that *any* appeal to how things "really" work (whether that appeal is accurate or inaccurate) is like fingernails on a chalkboard for many readers.

      So, my advice is: Read the room. Drop the pitfall-laden, risky appeals to "reality". And continue proposing suggestions.
      It doesn't feel that way.I hope the same.

      The torpedo ended the big ship era...even kamakazi wasn't as effective.
      I'm no expert... but there are experts... and they publish things...

      ...

      I know it's someone on the internet and all but this guy seems like he's in his lane... I guess you might say he should stick to mines or something... You're the expert on experts after all ;)
      No.

      That article describes the weapons that were used, it doesn't describe the reason that the Battle of Midway marked the Naval turning point of the WW2 Pacific theater.

      It was the turning point because we sank Japanese carriers, and they didn't get ours. Those carriers (the same ones the Japanese failed to sink when they hit Pearl) were the most important ships on the water - It was not *the* turning-point because US subs saddled with defective torpedoes were operating at that time.

      After WW2, and particularly during cold war cat-and-mouse games, quiet subs remained *enormously* important, but sub-launched torpedoes didn't end the era of big-gun Battleship dominance. Useful torpedoes had existed since WW1, at least.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      And carriers ended the submarine era? There is no ship big then a carrier and they seem to be still all over the place.

      How ever in this game hardly anyone even considers building carriers. :)
      Just in case you're asking me - Nah, Carriers didn't end the Submarine era - IRL both of those eras are still going strong, but there are legitimate concerns that carriers might be dead-men-walking if the balloon goes up on a new superpower war.

      And you're obviously right about carriers being largely ignored (for many reasons) in CoN.
    • Midway was the turning point in the Pacific Theatre in WW2... not the turning point from centuries of a naval dominance strategy that built the British empire.
      Remember the US didn't have much of a navy until T. Roosevelt...Naval warfare is a bit older by a few thousand years.
      Aircraft carriers existed before WW2 as well...

      Midway was carrier vs. carrier.
      A large factor in the battle of Midway was the Japanese fleet of planes that was armed to bomb (and indeed release torpedos like at pearl harbor) had to be recalled to refit for air to air combat...

      Torpedo technology was far more developed in WW2 ... similar to how anti-air shells were far more developed in WW2.
      How to deploy torpedos effectively was a tactical revolution... Radio and wolfpacks all factored into their effectiveness... aerial deployment, too.

      The big change again is that something small now had the firepower to sink something big.

      So, the biggest battle ship ever: "Weighing 72,800 tons and outfitted with nine 18.1-inch guns, the battleship Yamato was Japan's only hope of destroying the Allied fleet off the coast of Okinawa. But insufficient air cover and fuel cursed the endeavor as a suicide mission. Struck by 19 American aerial torpedoes, it was sunk, drowning 2,498 of its crew."

      Would carriers be effective without planes that delivered torpedoes? Certainly not as effective to say the least.
    • Smallsword wrote:



      Would carriers be effective without planes that delivered torpedoes? Certainly not as effective to say the least.
      So your point is what? The torpedo is effective but not the submarine itself, because it does not matter if air crafts or subs deliver torpedoes?

      How does that help your case?

      Everything that can put a big enough hole into a ship or sub can sink it, that is kind of the danger of naval warfare, the sea is pretty unforgiving.


      How ever CON is a game first, no unit is supposed to be unbeatable super predator just by itself.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Again, the quintessential characteristics of a submarine are that they are stealthy and can sink ships.... the game subs have neither.
      At level 6, top lvl, they reach their potential but it's only because of the 100 attack range. The only ships that automatically engage back are cruisers at lvl 4+. So you can just send a block of 5 on patrol and they'll wreck everything and, in my experience, take minimal dmg.

      The sub officer gets 100 range at lvl 4 so u could potentially get this lethality sooner but its a big bite in resources and time for just one unit.

      It would make there very lethal all the time if we started subs at 75 range, then at tier 6 they'd go to 100. Then building subs early would be very dangerous without lvl 4+ destroyers around
    • That was my case.
      Torpedoes were the catalyst to battleships fall from being the supreme naval vessel.
      It wasn't a U-boat surfacing to use a cannon.
      It wasn't an aircraft carrier with planes that shot bullets, or dropped bombs, or even kamakazi.

      Torpedoes became the premier naval weapon and they could be deployed by either aircraft (which is the extended concept of range) or submarines (which negated the need for outranging with stealth).
      Thus, the battleship with the big guns to combat other big ships with big guns is no longer the state of naval warfare.


      The premise of this thread was what would you change about Submarines.

      So, back to the game.
      Torpedoes aren't there.
      Cruise missiles are.
      Mines will be.
      Why not torpedoes?... because the game needs a counter balance?
      Because too many people are so opposed to changing anything?
      Fearful of their strategies that they've been following for years becoming obsolete?
      The comparison to battleships being phased out do to the advent of torpedoes is more than relevant here in the game... here on this thread.

      It's like this thread is full of British Admirals in 1935 all saying " No, we don't want submarines with torpedoes!... It's not a simulation! This is how warfare is!... We use battleships and we speak the Queen's!"
      I've heard excuses for the game as "well that's how warfare is" and then practically in the same sentence "well it's not a simulation" a plethora of times in my short time on this forum.
      It's like everyone is afraid of rocking the boat... Afraid of a powerful unit... Afraid to meet the challenge or seize the opportunity there in.
      It's like however it is must be perfect because that's how it is and you're all wrapped up in a security blanket in your safe spaces with glowing little pixels of the units you know front and back as "not a simulation" and so "that's how warfare is."
      "It's balanced"

      Warfare changes.
      A war game should change.
      Warfare is imbalanced.
      It's ok for the game to be unbalanced while players create strategies to adapt and conquer.


      They add seasonal units I'm guessing for this reason...to keep people interested... upset strategies and tactics that players have mastered.

      But they're failing to upset the sacred "balance"


      People talk about gameplay and balance but don't want to see the path of least resistance go away.... set in their ways... that is "the state of the game" or "the meta"

      There isn't enough balance of "new" and "old"

      So would a damn torpedo make everyone go bitch-it-up in another thread?

      Or will you be stoked, Screaming "DAMN THE TORPEDOES!!!"
    • Smallsword wrote:

      So, back to the game.
      Torpedoes aren't there.
      Cruise missiles are.
      Mines will be.
      Why not torpedoes?... because the game needs a counter balance?
      Because too many people are so opposed to changing anything?
      Fearful of their strategies that they've been following for years becoming obsolete?
      uhm
      what exactly do you think submarines currently use to deal dmg to ships?
      really want your subs to deal zero dmg but in exchange they can use a new consumable ?

      also: seems like it would just be a less versatile cruise missile

      seems kinda silly to me


      and well, people bringing up whatever arguments currently suit them to support their opinion really is nothing new
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Smallsword wrote:

      That was my case.
      Torpedoes were the catalyst to battleships fall from being the supreme naval vessel.
      It wasn't a U-boat surfacing to use a cannon.
      It wasn't an aircraft carrier with planes that shot bullets, or dropped bombs, or even kamakazi.

      Torpedoes became the premier naval weapon and they could be deployed by either aircraft (which is the extended concept of range) or submarines (which negated the need for outranging with stealth).
      Thus, the battleship with the big guns to combat other big ships with big guns is no longer the state of naval warfare.

      ...
      Oh good grief - I give up - Clearly your contradiction of essentially every modern/WW2 Naval analyst/historian is correct.

      What color is the sun your planet orbits? Ours appears yellow.
    • Smallsword wrote:



      ...

      It's like this thread is full of British Admirals in 1935 all saying " No, we don't want submarines with torpedoes!... It's not a simulation! This is how warfare is!... We use battleships and we speak the Queen's!"
      I've heard excuses for the game as "well that's how warfare is" and then practically in the same sentence "well it's not a simulation" a plethora of times in my short time on this forum.
      It's like everyone is afraid of rocking the boat... Afraid of a powerful unit... Afraid to meet the challenge or seize the opportunity there in.
      It's like however it is must be perfect because that's how it is and you're all wrapped up in a security blanket in your safe spaces with glowing little pixels of the units you know front and back as "not a simulation" and so "that's how warfare is."
      "It's balanced"



      ...
      Maybe it's just that some people like the game. They like playing the game. They aren't tweaked out ADHD victims who look at chess and go, "well, we should get rid of one of the bishops and replace it with a longbowman." Because it's a game. And people try to get good at a game, not have the rules change every month because someone with no commitment to the game can't be bothered to get good so wants to shake things up.

      Here's an idea, dissatisfied with the game? Go play something else.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***

      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD