|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 27, 2020 10:21:18 GMT -6
Just some facts about altitude versus horizon. An aircraft flying at 5000 feet can see about 86.5 miles. A ship with a mast occupied, at 120 feet can only see 13.5 feet. The age of aircraft provides much farther search areas and hence ships used as raiders no longer have secrecy and stealth. They can be spotted very easily by land based patrol bombers and floatplanes. I only use submarines although once in a while I will use an older armored cruiser stripped down to gain speed. Just my take on this, again.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 27, 2020 11:04:42 GMT -6
I have been using AV's as raiders. They don't seem to be doing well as my CL or CA raiders, but they're incredibly cheap. Remember that you have to pay upkeep on the AV's seaplanes as well as on the AV itself; at 8/month/aircraft that can roughly double the upkeep of a small AV, and planes - unlike ships - cannot be mothballed between wars.
Also, so far as I am aware, surface raiders do not benefit from seaplanes beyond the first within the game - a small CL or AMC with one seaplane sees the same benefit from aerial scouting as a corvette-scale AV with 3 or a cruiser-scale AV or CV with 5 planes.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 27, 2020 11:46:31 GMT -6
I have been using AV's as raiders. They don't seem to be doing well as my CL or CA raiders, but they're incredibly cheap. Remember that you have to pay upkeep on the AV's seaplanes as well as on the AV itself; at 8/month/aircraft that can roughly double the upkeep of a small AV, and planes - unlike ships - cannot be mothballed between wars.
Also, so far as I am aware, surface raiders do not benefit from seaplanes beyond the first within the game - a small CL or AMC with one seaplane sees the same benefit from aerial scouting as a corvette-scale AV with 3 or a cruiser-scale AV or CV with 5 planes.
I agree with you. It is called in the Navy, cost per performance. how much is the procurement cost, maintenance cost versus its effectiveness. This is why I like the submarine.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jan 27, 2020 12:06:49 GMT -6
I don't have much to add to the debate besides that I use them occasionally to bulk up my raider force if I feel the need to resort to it, but I will add I have lost a B to an enemy AMC that torpedoed it as I was chasing it down with 3 Bs....
So there is that.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 27, 2020 12:09:10 GMT -6
I don't have much to add to the debate besides that I use them occasionally to bulk up my raider force if I feel the need to resort to it, but I will add I have lost a B to an enemy AMC that torpedoed it as I was chasing it down with 3 Bs.... So there is that. Oops! That will happen, that's why I use them sparingly. I will put them into mothballs for awhile, then if no wars occur, scrap them and get the funds.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 27, 2020 13:10:32 GMT -6
I agree with you. It is called in the Navy, cost per performance. how much is the procurement cost, maintenance cost versus its effectiveness. This is why I like the submarine. I find submarines tend to be the most expensive raiding option in the game, myself. I usually expect losses to average about 2 per turn during a war, so if I want to maintain the size of the submarine fleet I need to be commissioning an average of two per turn; with medium range submarines, that works out to a construction bill of about 6,400 per turn to maintain force levels in war time, which isn't exactly inexpensive. They can certainly be very effective, but they're not cheap.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 27, 2020 13:51:17 GMT -6
AMCs are the extreme version of the game's torpedo mechanics - an AI AMC will fire torpedoes at me but my AMC will never, ever fire torpedoes even when the enemy is stopped dead less than 5000 yards away.
With subs, I have found that wartime losses are almost prohibitive. About the only way I can manage around it is to pre-build 2 subs per month and halt construction so that I have 2-per-month for a 16-month run. When war breaks out I can stop other construction and restart 32 subs... only to then lose 2-4 subs per turn. I only use subs and AMCs if I have no way to get my battle-fleet into the enemy's home area. So my experience here matches aeson's - if you can't afford the 32 x 200,000-plus-operating costs, don't use subs. Like AMCs, in my opinion they are an all-in-or-don't-use option.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 27, 2020 14:12:32 GMT -6
I agree with aeson that submarines are quite costly. Even in peace just 3 submarines costs 120k per month, which is same as 2 powerful raiders in reserve fleet. I just build more cruisers, which means they are more general purpose and if I need I sent them to hunt enemy merchants, they are quite effective, especially if they are 5 of them or more. As they are usually more general purpose cruisers they are difficult to hunt them down and if I have port in Northern Europe it is almost impossible for AI to defend against them.
Than if you build several AMC and sent them around the globe to make your tradewarfare force more powerful, it is even more difficult for AI.
|
|
|
Post by coyote on Jan 27, 2020 19:59:58 GMT -6
I have been using AV's as raiders. They don't seem to be doing well as my CL or CA raiders, but they're incredibly cheap. Remember that you have to pay upkeep on the AV's seaplanes as well as on the AV itself; at 8/month/aircraft that can roughly double the upkeep of a small AV, and planes - unlike ships - cannot be mothballed between wars.
Also, so far as I am aware, surface raiders do not benefit from seaplanes beyond the first within the game - a small CL or AMC with one seaplane sees the same benefit from aerial scouting as a corvette-scale AV with 3 or a cruiser-scale AV or CV with 5 planes.
That's good to know. I was hoping the AV's would be better with a mix of spotting and bomb equipped planes.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 27, 2020 22:24:39 GMT -6
My issue with using cruisers for commerce raiding is that the AI sends out blindingly fast BCs and kills them. Cruisers are more expensive per-item and take longer to build.
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Jan 27, 2020 23:16:35 GMT -6
My issue with using cruisers for commerce raiding is that the AI sends out blindingly fast BCs and kills them. Cruisers are more expensive per-item and take longer to build. That's why I only use cheap CLs for raiding. Build them cheap enough and I don't care that they're interdicted and they might even lure those BCs to another sea zone, potentially giving me a local advantage.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 28, 2020 0:19:56 GMT -6
My issue with using cruisers for commerce raiding is that the AI sends out blindingly fast BCs and kills them. Cruisers are more expensive per-item and take longer to build. Cruisers are usually much faster, from midle of 10s you can build 28 knots ctuisers and it takes a while till AI builds 29 knots battlecruisers.
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 31, 2020 7:10:22 GMT -6
Just some facts about altitude versus horizon. An aircraft flying at 5000 feet can see about 86.5 miles. A ship with a mast occupied, at 120 feet can only see 13.5 feet. The age of aircraft provides much farther search areas and hence ships used as raiders no longer have secrecy and stealth. They can be spotted very easily by land based patrol bombers and floatplanes. I only use submarines although once in a while I will use an older armored cruiser stripped down to gain speed. Just my take on this, again. You mean "13.5" miles view distance for eyeballs at 120 feet above sea level, right?
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jan 31, 2020 9:40:41 GMT -6
AMCs are the extreme version of the game's torpedo mechanics - an AI AMC will fire torpedoes at me but my AMC will never, ever fire torpedoes even when the enemy is stopped dead less than 5000 yards away. With subs, I have found that wartime losses are almost prohibitive. About the only way I can manage around it is to pre-build 2 subs per month and halt construction so that I have 2-per-month for a 16-month run. When war breaks out I can stop other construction and restart 32 subs... only to then lose 2-4 subs per turn. I only use subs and AMCs if I have no way to get my battle-fleet into the enemy's home area. So my experience here matches aeson's - if you can't afford the 32 x 200,000-plus-operating costs, don't use subs. Like AMCs, in my opinion they are an all-in-or-don't-use option. Honestly from my experience it is quite the opposite, in that subs will practically win any war by themselves if you stock enough of then pre-war. Nothing like getting 875 VP from sinking convoys. The real problem comes with their success - on unrestricted, if you are doing damage to the enemy you will be risking getting in war with others powers due to the neutral convoy sinking event (that will also hurt your prestige although that's something minor). Considering that if you use subs is due to being unable to blockage the enemy, getting to figth multiple enemies may lead to an uphill battle.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 31, 2020 17:07:25 GMT -6
I have won wars with subs. I have won wars by flooding sea zones with AMCs. But what I really like is building battleships, cruisers and destroyers and treating the enemy to a rain of explosive ordinance.
In my experience, most nations can't afford both - the US can, in late game, but only because they don't need the biggest surface fleet. Even in a war with Great Britain, it is unlikely that the AI will move enough ships to North American waters to seriously threaten the US. So going 'full submarine' means deciding not to build up the surface fleet. It's a viable strategy - but not for me, thanks.
There are a lot of ways to win this game - almost an endless variety, I think. Piling up masses of subs and watching them attrit every turn can succeed - but that's not what I enjoy.
|
|