|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Sept 28, 2022 9:57:48 GMT -6
Is there any difference between the effect on the enemy of coastal and medium subs? Coastal subs where thought mainly a defensive weapon, against any enemy fleet attacking our bases. While medium range subs where the anti-shipping offensive weapon we all know. Of course all kinds of subs are used for everything in a war but I’d wish Coastal subs had a bigger impact on an enemy making a coastal bombardment/invasion, while Medium range subs should be more effective at attacking enemy commerce. In other words, coastal subs would be mainly a defensive weapon; medium subs an offensive weapon. In any case, it would be good if we get some solid, specific info on how differently the impact of coastal and medium subs is in RTW2 as their action is totally abstracted, so we do not really know.
I guess that the easiest way is that more expensive medium subs have better results in general. But my point is that coastal subs should actually perform better against an enemy fleet attacking our shores. Also, if this were the case, we could then choose to build the subs that better suit the more offensive or defensive navy we want. |
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Sept 28, 2022 14:03:02 GMT -6
To my understanding all of the subs in RTW are principally for commerce raiding. We don't actually know how they work but from cryptic comments Frederik has made they have stats such as "range" and "torpedo load." Coastal subs have less "range" than medium subs, which have more "torpedo load" than minelaying subs, but it's anyone's guess what that means in terms of their likelihood of (1) surviving, (2) sinking merchants, (3) damaging/sinking warships, (4) showing up in battles.
Based on limited experience using them I don't notice a difference in effectiveness between coastal and medium subs, but I'm sure there is one.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 28, 2022 18:12:45 GMT -6
Coastal submarines or littoral submarines, theoretically, are smaller, with shallower drafts so they can proceed up rivers and other limited depth areas. As such, they can be or should be hard to detect. Their size limits the crew and ordinance they can carry along with fuel supplies. They should be faster to build. They are still being built.
I don't use them much except for Germany in the Helgoland Bight and the Baltic. Medium' s are more effective at winning wars by starving the opponent. I beat the British all the time playing the Japanese using that method.
|
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Sept 28, 2022 23:22:27 GMT -6
Coastal submarines or littoral submarines, theoretically, are smaller, with shallower drafts so they can proceed up rivers and other limited depth areas. As such, they can be or should be hard to detect. Their size limits the crew and ordinance they can carry along with fuel supplies. They should be faster to build. They are still being built. I don't use them much except for Germany in the Helgoland Bight and the Baltic. Medium' s are more effective at winning wars by starving the opponent. I beat the British all the time playing the Japanese using that method. It's my experience that if you focus on sub technology and build coastal submarines, you easily win early wars provided you don't take catastrophic battle losses. They sink wildly unrealistic numbers of merchants - like 150 per month if you build 120 of them. (I just tested this as Italy - built nothing at all except a few battleships in foreign yards, and corvettes for TP, put all research on low except torpedoes and submarines, refused to ever buy tech since I'll rarely build ships and never my own, and built 120-180 SSC. Got an alliance with USA, which Germany also joined. Repeatedly drove several other countries to revolution.) In theory their effectiveness should reach saturation much more quickly than later types because they are confined to shallow water with short range, but in the game they behave very similarly to medium range submarines. What do you mean you use them in Helgoland Bight and the Baltic? Are you playing RTW3 where you can assign them to locations? |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 29, 2022 10:13:04 GMT -6
Coastal submarines or littoral submarines, theoretically, are smaller, with shallower drafts so they can proceed up rivers and other limited depth areas. As such, they can be or should be hard to detect. Their size limits the crew and ordinance they can carry along with fuel supplies. They should be faster to build. They are still being built. I don't use them much except for Germany in the Helgoland Bight and the Baltic. Medium' s are more effective at winning wars by starving the opponent. I beat the British all the time playing the Japanese using that method. It's my experience that if you focus on sub technology and build coastal submarines, you easily win early wars provided you don't take catastrophic battle losses. They sink wildly unrealistic numbers of merchants - like 150 per month if you build 120 of them. (I just tested this as Italy - built nothing at all except a few battleships in foreign yards, and corvettes for TP, put all research on low except torpedoes and submarines, refused to ever buy tech since I'll rarely build ships and never my own, and built 120-180 SSC. Got an alliance with USA, which Germany also joined. Repeatedly drove several other countries to revolution.) In theory their effectiveness should reach saturation much more quickly than later types because they are confined to shallow water with short range, but in the game they behave very similarly to medium range submarines. What do you mean you use them in Helgoland Bight and the Baltic? Are you playing RTW3 where you can assign them to locations? Sorry I did not mean to confuse real history with the game. I build them for Germany and they get deployed by the game to that area. I can see the coastal submarines in the area of Helgoland and in the Baltic. I will check my German game and see if I can get in deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Oct 2, 2022 13:46:53 GMT -6
Is there any difference between the effect on the enemy of coastal and medium subs? Coastal subs where thought mainly a defensive weapon, against any enemy fleet attacking our bases. While medium range subs where the anti-shipping offensive weapon we all know. Of course all kinds of subs are used for everything in a war but I’d wish Coastal subs had a bigger impact on an enemy making a coastal bombardment/invasion, while Medium range subs should be more effective at attacking enemy commerce. In other words, coastal subs would be mainly a defensive weapon; medium subs an offensive weapon. In any case, it would be good if we get some solid, specific info on how differently the impact of coastal and medium subs is in RTW2 as their action is totally abstracted, so we do not really know.
I guess that the easiest way is that more expensive medium subs have better results in general. But my point is that coastal subs should actually perform better against an enemy fleet attacking our shores. Also, if this were the case, we could then choose to build the subs that better suit the more offensive or defensive navy we want. Actually, I just tried using some early coastal submarines in a Japanese game and found they were not terribly effective at all, very much unlike when I tried using them as Italy. So perhaps the game does indeed take sea zones into account as oldpop2000 was suggesting. This is one of those cases where the lack of documentation is really problematic - unlike with battles where you get a fairly detailed picture of what went on, with all this off-screen stuff you have no idea why what you are doing is or isn't working. Sometimes it makes sense - like coastal submarines perhaps working better in Europe/Mediterranean than the Pacific - and other times not at all - like corvettes losing gun duels to submarines no matter how you arm or armor them. (I guess medium subs are all M-class?) So the game is then not so much strategy as guess-and-check, and even then you may not figure it out. So now I am wondering if it takes into account what possessions you or the enemy has (like the distance from your ports to his, or just how many ports he has in a sea zone where you have a port.) Or just the area where you are operating or where he has is base. Or maybe just what country you are. There's virtually no way for me to test that as it would involve too much data gathering. |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Oct 3, 2022 6:04:23 GMT -6
Is there any difference between the effect on the enemy of coastal and medium subs? Coastal subs where thought mainly a defensive weapon, against any enemy fleet attacking our bases. While medium range subs where the anti-shipping offensive weapon we all know. Of course all kinds of subs are used for everything in a war but I’d wish Coastal subs had a bigger impact on an enemy making a coastal bombardment/invasion, while Medium range subs should be more effective at attacking enemy commerce. In other words, coastal subs would be mainly a defensive weapon; medium subs an offensive weapon. In any case, it would be good if we get some solid, specific info on how differently the impact of coastal and medium subs is in RTW2 as their action is totally abstracted, so we do not really know.
I guess that the easiest way is that more expensive medium subs have better results in general. But my point is that coastal subs should actually perform better against an enemy fleet attacking our shores. Also, if this were the case, we could then choose to build the subs that better suit the more offensive or defensive navy we want. Actually, I just tried using some early coastal submarines in a Japanese game and found they were not terribly effective at all, very much unlike when I tried using them as Italy. So perhaps the game does indeed take sea zones into account as oldpop2000 was suggesting. This is one of those cases where the lack of documentation is really problematic - unlike with battles where you get a fairly detailed picture of what went on, with all this off-screen stuff you have no idea why what you are doing is or isn't working. Sometimes it makes sense - like coastal submarines perhaps working better in Europe/Mediterranean than the Pacific - and other times not at all - like corvettes losing gun duels to submarines no matter how you arm or armor them. (I guess medium subs are all M-class?) So the game is then not so much strategy as guess-and-check, and even then you may not figure it out. So now I am wondering if it takes into account what possessions you or the enemy has (like the distance from your ports to his, or just how many ports he has in a sea zone where you have a port.) Or just the area where you are operating or where he has is base. Or maybe just what country you are. There's virtually no way for me to test that as it would involve too much data gathering.
from my past experience coastal subs can only operate from seazones you control, and you want to have access to the enemy's home seazone for coastal subs to have a chance to do their work
this means USA and Japan shouldn't waste their time building coastal subs, and it wouldn't be completely useless for Italy and A-H to build them, but i wouldn't recommend it
also as far as sub duels go i never build KEs, i only build DDs (preferably with 5"/6" guns) for ASW/TP work and never see sub duel messages
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 7, 2022 16:59:52 GMT -6
Is there any difference between the effect on the enemy of coastal and medium subs? Coastal subs where thought mainly a defensive weapon, against any enemy fleet attacking our bases. While medium range subs where the anti-shipping offensive weapon we all know. Of course all kinds of subs are used for everything in a war but I’d wish Coastal subs had a bigger impact on an enemy making a coastal bombardment/invasion, while Medium range subs should be more effective at attacking enemy commerce. In other words, coastal subs would be mainly a defensive weapon; medium subs an offensive weapon. In any case, it would be good if we get some solid, specific info on how differently the impact of coastal and medium subs is in RTW2 as their action is totally abstracted, so we do not really know.
I guess that the easiest way is that more expensive medium subs have better results in general. But my point is that coastal subs should actually perform better against an enemy fleet attacking our shores. Also, if this were the case, we could then choose to build the subs that better suit the more offensive or defensive navy we want. Actually, I just tried using some early coastal submarines in a Japanese game and found they were not terribly effective at all, very much unlike when I tried using them as Italy. So perhaps the game does indeed take sea zones into account as oldpop2000 was suggesting. This is one of those cases where the lack of documentation is really problematic - unlike with battles where you get a fairly detailed picture of what went on, with all this off-screen stuff you have no idea why what you are doing is or isn't working. Sometimes it makes sense - like coastal submarines perhaps working better in Europe/Mediterranean than the Pacific - and other times not at all - like corvettes losing gun duels to submarines no matter how you arm or armor them. (I guess medium subs are all M-class?) So the game is then not so much strategy as guess-and-check, and even then you may not figure it out. So now I am wondering if it takes into account what possessions you or the enemy has (like the distance from your ports to his, or just how many ports he has in a sea zone where you have a port.) Or just the area where you are operating or where he has is base. Or maybe just what country you are. There's virtually no way for me to test that as it would involve too much data gathering. Coastal submarines are designed for the littoral zone of continents. They are cheaper and faster to build, which makes them the best coastal defense vessels to build, within the budget. Here is a picture of the littoral zone. All nations have littoral zones that are on the edge of a continent. Not all nations require coastal submarines but they generally build them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_zone#/media/File:Littoral_Zones.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Oct 7, 2022 19:22:31 GMT -6
Actually, I just tried using some early coastal submarines in a Japanese game and found they were not terribly effective at all, very much unlike when I tried using them as Italy. So perhaps the game does indeed take sea zones into account as oldpop2000 was suggesting. This is one of those cases where the lack of documentation is really problematic - unlike with battles where you get a fairly detailed picture of what went on, with all this off-screen stuff you have no idea why what you are doing is or isn't working. Sometimes it makes sense - like coastal submarines perhaps working better in Europe/Mediterranean than the Pacific - and other times not at all - like corvettes losing gun duels to submarines no matter how you arm or armor them. (I guess medium subs are all M-class?) So the game is then not so much strategy as guess-and-check, and even then you may not figure it out. So now I am wondering if it takes into account what possessions you or the enemy has (like the distance from your ports to his, or just how many ports he has in a sea zone where you have a port.) Or just the area where you are operating or where he has is base. Or maybe just what country you are. There's virtually no way for me to test that as it would involve too much data gathering. Coastal submarines are designed for the littoral zone of continents. They are cheaper and faster to build, which makes them the best coastal defense vessels to build, within the budget. Here is a picture of the littoral zone. All nations have littoral zones that are on the edge of a continent. Not all nations require coastal submarines but they generally build them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_zone#/media/File:Littoral_Zones.jpgNo argument, though of course in the game they are not really coastal defense vessels at all. Rather, they are godzilla monsters:  |
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Oct 7, 2022 21:42:57 GMT -6
No argument, though of course in the game they are not really coastal defense vessels at all. Rather, they are godzilla monsters: Jiminy freaking Christmas, do you build any ships? That's one solution to subspam I suppose.... spam em right back!!! |
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Oct 8, 2022 6:57:59 GMT -6
No argument, though of course in the game they are not really coastal defense vessels at all. Rather, they are godzilla monsters: Jiminy freaking Christmas, do you build any ships? That's one solution to subspam I suppose.... spam em right back!!! Yes, I do. I build armored cruisers, and also corvettes for minesweeping and ASW. My cruisers are all built to this design, which is destined to be converted into a 21 knot CVL with bulges:  Once 900t destroyers became available in 1913, I also started building those, even though the all-CA navy had proven perfectly capable of winning battles without them. Additionally I built a large number of coastal batteries in invasion-prone areas (mix of 6" and 14") with a mind that they might delay occupation of those possessions for the few months necessary before my enemy's inevitable collapse in revolution, but this theory has yet to be tested.  As you can see, my resources are about 3000 higher than the French should have at this point, because of all the heavy reparations, so the submarines more than pay for themselves in the long run. The only real downside so far has been the repeated loss of prestige when I am called on to build "battleships" or somesuch nonsense. But shortly after the third German revolution in 1914 (in which Germany re-established communism after having overthrown the previous communist regime a few years earlier) my new "naval secretary" started to see things my way. This game was inspired by this thread, by the way - particularly by JagdFlanker 's comment that the mechanic is based on having access to a home sea zone of the enemy. I figured France has access to a home sea zone of every potential enemy except Japan. |
|
