Battleships are too Expensive

Battleships get a free hit thats infinitely repairable, the other ships don’t have that luxury. Technically the BB is a decent buy since it also SB @4, which is huge

Dunno what SB is, but the battleship stays at 4 even with 1 hit.

SB is the shore bombardment.

I hate staring down a navy with a few 2-hit capital ships.  I’m just thinking in my head how much it sucks that I need 4 hits before I start taking ships out.  If you have that you will never get naval strafed.

I agree, the psychological effect of adding ablative wounds to your fleet can mean you don’t even get attacked.  Now that carriers come with 1 ablative wound it becomes easier to have a fleet where technically the first 4+ hits can be nullified.

I actually never see CA’s get produced.  For 8 bucks more you get a solid bb, usually they are only built by UK to buff their fleet.

That being said, dd’s still have their role as cheap fodder and ASW duties.

It has a role
I think a UK NO could have been

5 IPCs if you have more battleships than any other power

@JimmyHat:

I actually never see CA’s get produced.  For 8 bucks more you get a solid bb, usually they are only built by UK to buff their fleet.

That being said, dd’s still have their role as cheap fodder and ASW duties.

But planes don’t land well on BB’s.

edit: oops, you meants cruisers, not carriers. CA / AC, still confuses me. Never mind  :-D

@taschuler:

<snip>Battleship has a 67% chance to score a single hit in a given round.
A Destroyer+Cruiser combo has ~70% chance for either to score a hit, and ~13% chance for both to hit.
Advantage Destroyer+Cruiser</snip>

But after the Battleship have been hit once, it retains the same chance, whereas the Destroyer+Cruiser does not.

Plus the one hit the Battleship takes, can spare a escort ship from sinking, whereas the Destroyer+Cruiser cannot.

@JimmyHat:

I actually never see CA’s get produced.  For 8 bucks more you get a solid bb, usually they are only built by UK to buff their fleet.

In our games, Japan and USA will often end up buying new cruisers, although it is usually a last item buy after delegating all the rest of the money and just having around 12 - 15 IPCs left.

I think the battleships are a great investment, especially when you have 2 or 3 or so as the core of your fleet. Subsiding them as fodder instead of sinking ships, keeps the your fleet alive near the frontline (instead of rebuilding it at your often distant IC).

in my games people build every type of naval unit except subs, rarely do i see a sub buy for any player, they would rather buy a tank or something else. besides convoys, we dont see a good use of subs. my friend buys lots of cruisers/carriers with a few destroyers sprinkled in. another friend buys like 3 battleships when he wants to make a bid for the seas.

Subs are suprisingly useful….  As someone who’s always believed they were relatively useless, i’ve been learning to respect them alot more lately in my games of Global.

There’s a time and place for them, that’s for sure.

@Gargantua:

Subs are suprisingly useful….  As someone who’s always believed they were relatively useless, i’ve been learning to respect them alot more lately in my games of Global.

There’s a time and place for them, that’s for sure.

Sure is, and the convoy disrupting capabilities increased their usefulness as well

Personally i like to send out some subs in the atlantic as USA (especially if Axis keep USA out of the war for a few turns), they can deploy, sitting there, ready to take out something, or start stealing ipc’s right away, later to be joined by larger fleets, but that is more a Europe than a Global thing

Can us subs leave the east coast?  Other than that worthless sz in the middle of the atlantic?

@JimmyHat:

Can us subs leave the east coast?  Other than that worthless sz in the middle of the atlantic?

Not worthless, SZ 103 for example has a good reach.

Subs are great I view them as inf of the sea.  Cheap fodder with the added bonus of convoy disruption.  3 Japaneese subs around Anzac cut their income down to next to nothing,  6US subs in the med kills Italys income.

Subs can be a real tactical blessing at times. After Japan’s first couple of turns I like to buy two or three each preceding turn. Three subs statistically ensures at least one hit, and the “koi pack” costs less than a battleship.

Subs can be especially useful for the U.S. if it wants to skimp on, but not abandon, the Pacific Theater. Large, cheap sub fleets in the Pacific, along with a growing ANZAC surface fleet/air force, would force the Japanese player to think twice about splitting his/her own fleet (denying great tactical advantages), and at the very least force the Japanese to take one DEI at a time or lose some precious transports.

Furthermore, since subs are immune to enemy airpower without accompanying destroyers, subs can be very effective at defeating the remnants of the Japanese Navy and hitting convoys during the later rounds when Japan is being bottled up, but still possesses a powerful air force.

@Peck:

6 US subs in the med kills Italys income.

And in case Italy buy a destroyer, you need some bombers in range to sink the Italian destroyer before it sink all your subs, man.

@Razor:

@Peck:

6 US subs in the med kills Italys income.

And in case Italy buy a destroyer, you need some bombers in range to sink the Italian destroyer before it sink all your subs, man.

Right, the Italy move is best to do as soon as possible with US, but first you have to dominate the Med.  Med first, Pacific second, Germany third is my preferred allied strategy–I just have yet to be able to execute it in my limited game experience.  I will have to look into the 3 Japanese subs off ANZAC move, its worked well against me.  3 rounds of that and the subs have paid for themselves.

Subs can be great when you can do 3 a round for a few rounds esspecialy when capital ship go down because they need to keep a destroyer to detect your subs, or your making your oppenent have to buy dd’s to counter wolf packs