Seriously, does anyone EVER build Naval AWACS?

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

    • Seriously, does anyone EVER build Naval AWACS?

      I ask because, well, I never have. Even in a game where I'm in a runaway win situation, I have never found it to be cost effective when I could park a Destroyer, Frigate or stack where I would deploy it. Plus add in their laughable hit points, I just can't figure out why someone would use up the resources, waste the time, and occupy a research slot to get them.

      I would love to hear from someone who has used them and how/why they did and how helpful they were.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • I used them few times in my 'career'. :)

      My motivation was : they are safer aboard of a carrier(no sabotage), and there are some savings in resources and time due to airfields not needed.

      I think tech dependency (AWACS) kills this unit. Probably the same situation is with amphibious vehicle(I saw them only once). Funny why AFV not depends on tanks or vice versa. :)
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      I find most Heavies not worth the cost and base requirements given single purpose. Not too mention that they are easy to shoot down.

      if concerned about subs or navy attack will build some navy choppers and cover shipping lanes. can have 2 - 3 patrol the junction points 400 miles of cost and at least they have some fire power
      This is generally true. I think the heavy bomber is somewhat sunk by these features and particularly its specialization; e.g. ground radar is cheaper than AWACS. However, AWACS does show some utility especially on smaller maps in its flexibility of positioning and integrates excellently with air-focused builds. I counter the problem of them being easy to shoot down by stacking them with some other aircraft that has solid hp, along with spec ops or intel in back of the enemy to take out well defended AA close enough to the AWACS to threaten it.
    • I build them once in combination with a carrier, kinda chill that you dont have to build airbases on lone islands just for radar and its also easier to scout for naval invasions; but as it is right now normal awacs range is way to good to even consider carrier based awacs cuz normal ones can already get everywhere
      I am the basline for opinions
    • I recently started to use them on the rare occasion I have a large navy with an aircraft carrier against another large navy--in general the carrier i find less useful because its limited air numbers and how easily FF counters it. An E2 or 2 on a carrier is is very helpful for locating the enemy and setting up your attacks. The radar range is just beyond the FF anti-air envelope, so I can find, fix and then destroy the enemy fleets using subs and surface fleets.
    • I always use awacs when i have a large airforce and naval awacs or naval patrol aircraft when I play as an island nation, awacs are usefull because you can see the enemy from distance shoot them with airforce and then move forward,if you have a good army then awacs are not needed,naval awacs have one benefit that they can detect submarine too and can give advantage over enemy in naval warfare as well as using airforce against ground and air units.Once I had 10 ships and I destroyed 22 ships of enemy with my tactics supported by awacs.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      The enemy cannot be strong everywhere;...
      False. I am the enemy, and I am strong everywhere.
      I'm kidding, of course. My entire game is more "holes" than "substance". I struggle to be strong in even one "where".
      Indeed. We all have weak points; the secret is to negate them with strength application and reinforcements in critical areas, utilizing resilience and intelligence to make the weak areas strong. This is the purpose of intelligence; it's as close as possible to being strong everywhere because the only where that matters is the decisive point. Intelligence allows that point to be identified, and when the decisive point is identified, it matters not with whom more strength lies, but who lies down more strength at the point.
    • yeb it also needs some luck u might not have info u need to make expectations . I remember I was one at a disadvantage I had some little motorized many national and little mechanized as germany. I knew itally is coming with tank divisions and infantry divisions but I can't know his routes. I had to guess and put the mechanized on the expected tank cities and went to sleep. I was lucky and got good statistics (1 : 2) losses while mine mostly are ngs.
      not only the guess did the work but also some luck.
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      yeb it also needs some luck u might not have info u need to make expectations . I remember I was one at a disadvantage I had some little motorized many national and little mechanized as germany. I knew itally is coming with tank divisions and infantry divisions but I can't know his routes. I had to guess and put the mechanized on the expected tank cities and went to sleep. I was lucky and got good statistics (1 : 2) losses while mine mostly are ngs.
      not only the guess did the work but also some luck.
      Somewhat accurate indeed, although as a great general once said, you only need about 50% of the datapoints to make a decision. This is where the second part of intelligence comes in, analysis and extrapolation to arrive at the information needed, then decision. Intelligence is nothing without analysis.
    • I think it currently in the limbo due to the last time before it got nerf It was a very op unit to deals with navy so it got nerf and the Navy patrol got buff.

      I think maybe it need a new balance / overhaul. Which I believe it already did. It got low radar signature. Gotta wait how it play out
      no meta, I do what meta don't do and YEET them with ridiculous tactic. - IT YEET OR BE YEETED