Do You Research/Build Submarines?

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

    • Im On Smoko wrote:

      In smaller maps I do not build attack subs.

      In larger maps, yes I do build attack subs. The maps have more deep ocean to use.
      They are an inexpensive way to augment my navy and patrol / picket hot spot.
      Oh man, you are missing out on the fun Elite AIP subs can be as a surprise on BG USA
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      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

    • Dracula wrote:

      1. No ,
      2. They cost less components than other naval units so if you are short of components but have enough electronics you can go for them
      3. No. They are useless in coastal water, can be destroyed by naval patrol aircraft without fighting back, can't attack land units.Instead I build few level 1 destroyer and then level 3 cruisers. Together with my artillery they can defend my coast. For offense I rely on strike fighter ,MRL and elite bomber.
      They are a hardcounter to any ship; and even destroyers dont do well enough against them to be considered a counter to submarines.
      In general they are pretty neat if you dont want to invest much into navy.

      The weakness to air is something they share with some surface vessels, but on the upside they cant be targeted by cruise missiles.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Mother Hen wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      hey, just pointing out that there’s lot of missing information cuz some refusing to do a search.
      What kind of information?Mis-information?
      This my attempt to paraphrase/clarify what @playbabe wrote: There is a lot of useful information "missed" because some [forum-users] refuse to do a search.
      =================================================

      In the meta-topic discussion that Playbabe raises . . . In my opinion, all over the Internet, some folks confuse laziness, rudeness, and/or being proud of triggering silly chit-chat, with "engagement".

      In the semi-recent Internet era, engagement has taken on a connotation of - Anything that lets me or someone else trying to profit off of site-users put an ad in front of a set of eyeballs, no matter how otherwise useless that user's activity might be.

      This leads to inane "engagement-promotion" arguments such as claiming that reading and possibly adding something to an existing discussion is somehow worse than repeating that discussion, including all of that original discussion's bad logic, opinions masquerading as facts, self-proclaimed (but hopelessly wrong) experts, side trips into off-topic foolishness, and other dead ends, before reaching the exact same (hopefully) correct conclusion that was reached before.

      =================================================

      I'm not a blog (or other sort of web site producer) owner who wants to ad revenue, so I'm not going to advocate that everything lazily splattered on the forum screens is "engagement" or is in some other way useful.

      Instead, I'm going to be fully-engaged as I quickly search through and learn from what has been written before (instead of wanting other people to do it for me), and I'm going to be fully engaged in adding to (not repeating) what's been written before, when I have something useful to add.

      I'll assert that people who spend 30 seconds to discover an answer for themselves are MORE engaged in playing CoN, not less than people who blast out new threads because a question pops into their heads, or because they are bored, or because they want to increase their forum "rank".

      ====================================================

      This has been my side-topic contribution to (rehashing) the topic of whether submarines are "worth it".
      TLDR

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Mother Hen wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      hey, just pointing out that there’s lot of missing information cuz some refusing to do a search.
      What kind of information?Mis-information?
      This my attempt to paraphrase/clarify what @playbabe wrote: There is a lot of useful information "missed" because some [forum-users] refuse to do a search.
      =================================================

      In the meta-topic discussion that Playbabe raises . . . In my opinion, all over the Internet, some folks confuse laziness, rudeness, and/or being proud of triggering silly chit-chat, with "engagement".

      In the semi-recent Internet era, engagement has taken on a connotation of - Anything that lets me or someone else trying to profit off of site-users put an ad in front of a set of eyeballs, no matter how otherwise useless that user's activity might be.

      This leads to inane "engagement-promotion" arguments such as claiming that reading and possibly adding something to an existing discussion is somehow worse than repeating that discussion, including all of that original discussion's bad logic, opinions masquerading as facts, self-proclaimed (but hopelessly wrong) experts, side trips into off-topic foolishness, and other dead ends, before reaching the exact same (hopefully) correct conclusion that was reached before.

      =================================================

      I'm not a blog (or other sort of web site producer) owner who wants to earn ad revenue, so I'm not going to advocate that everything lazily splattered on the forum screens is "engagement" or is in some other way useful.

      Instead, I'm going to be fully-engaged as I quickly search through and learn from what has been written before (instead of wanting other people to do it for me), and I'm going to be fully engaged in adding to (not repeating) what's been written before, when I have something useful to add.

      I'll assert that people who spend 30 seconds to discover an answer for themselves are MORE engaged in playing CoN, not less than people who blast out new threads because a question pops into their heads, or because they are bored, or because they want to increase their forum "rank".

      ====================================================

      This has been my side-topic contribution to (rehashing) the topic of whether submarines are "worth it".
      Wow, bro, ... your underwear are WAY too tight.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Mother Hen wrote:

      TLDR
      At this point it's useful to remember what Dean Wormer told Dorfman when Wormer was expelling Dorfman from Faber College.
      Wait a minute, ... wait a minute, ... we don't KNOW that he's fat, A-N-D can't PROVE that he's drunk, and, ... well, that's all.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      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

    • Mother Hen wrote:

      ...

      1. Do you research/build submarines? If so, how often?
      2. What are the advantages of submarines, in your opinion?
      3. Do you prefer submarines over certain naval units? Why or why not?

      1. As some stated earlier in this thread, I only research/produce subs on big maps, where there’s lots of open sea. They’re not really useful in the smaller maps. Even in the bigger ones, I only make about 4-5 per game. I never bother with the sub officer BTW.

      2. They’re obviously stealth, which can surprise enemies’ convoys and, when in large numbers, can even sink entire naval stacks. However, this doesn’t happen as often with me, as destroyers and NPA are becoming more popular.

      3. It’s not that subs are awful, it’s just most naval units are better. BM subs are great for launching missiles from an unexpected area, but some ships can also do that. Also, subs require RMs, which you usually don’t have a surplus of until at least day 10. Here’s my order of all naval and sub units, best to worst:
      1. Cruiser (guarded)
      2. Frigate
      3. Destroyer
      4. E-Frigate
      5. Attack Sub
      6. BM sub
      7. Corvette
      Hope your question is answered.
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Im On Smoko wrote:

      In smaller maps I do not build attack subs.

      In larger maps, yes I do build attack subs. The maps have more deep ocean to use.
      They are an inexpensive way to augment my navy and patrol / picket hot spot.
      Oh man, you are missing out on the fun Elite AIP subs can be as a surprise on BG USA
      The elite AIP subs do seem to be one of the better Elite units.
      Heck, any map they would be a surprise.

    • Hakville wrote:

      Ignoring the offtopic posts, this is kinda a general Naval question.
      I usually skip attack subs and go straight to BMSubs, late game tho.
      Ever since Elite Bombers, never built a single BM sub.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      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

    • Mother Hen wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Hakville wrote:

      Ignoring the offtopic posts, this is kinda a general Naval question.
      I usually skip attack subs and go straight to BMSubs, late game tho.
      Ever since Elite Bombers, never built a single BM sub.
      I think BM subs are useless.
      Me too, as well as the Submarine Commander officer.

      Hopefully the Season 10 unit won't be an Elite Sub...
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup: