Wodan if you will read that second thread I posted it will explain battlemap. It is pretty much an electronic game board. It doesn’t really “run” or “do” anything. If you can open the maps it sounds like you have it working.
You might want to check out the play by forums section and play some games here to test some of your strategies. I am only around on weekends and already have 7 games in progress at the moment but I probably could get some rounds in against you next weekend.
Ok. I got Battlemap working to the point that I could place and remove units. How do you scroll/zoom in/out?
The + and - keys on the number pad of the keyboard control the zoom. However the unit icons do not change size with the levels of zoom so zooming far out to see the map can create issues.
Scrolling is done by holding the right mouse key and moving the mouse.
In a nutshell, submarines can be good additions to an already strong fleet or they can be a great method of keeping a cleared ocean yours.
However, in BOTH scenarios, you have to have a good surface fleet first. Submarines are an after thought, something to augment your abilities much later.
The + and - keys on the number pad of the keyboard control the zoom.
LOL no jokes, I’ve been playing online for like 4 years and never knew that. Cool
@Cmdr:
In a nutshell, submarines can be good additions to an already strong fleet or they can be a great method of keeping a cleared ocean yours.
However, in BOTH scenarios, you have to have a good surface fleet first. Submarines are an after thought, something to augment your abilities much later.
Jennifer Exact emundo …. Wodan, your instincts are correct, subs do matter, but as jennifer states, one of many tools and tactics you can deploy with a balanced surface fleet.
A sub only strategy, would likely hinder your correct tactical use of subs, as most unbalanced strategies, eventually fail to their internal flaws.
The big way I see subs being used is when the enemy decides to use a large amount of carriers to inexpensively add more offensive punch to your fleet while not worrying about the defensive aspect as carriers are skewed toward the defensive. The only problem with that idea is the subs are absolutely worthless in the defensive aspect against the carrier’s planes unless they bring DDs, or unless you have no surface fleet. I really like purchasing around 3 for the US if i’m going pacific to force Japan to respond with a naval buy or lose control of the seas. The other problem is the destroyer raid where the enemy sends one destroyer plus lots of planes to kill your sub stack. All in all this game really pushes you to use a balanced fleet focusing on destroyers, and subs are part of that concept even if not directly used, all in my opinion of course.
The thing I’m trying to figure out is if there is anyway on earth for Germany to use subs, and I wonder if Italy could get some use out of them. The other problem with subs is of course the DD block, but I’m wondering if later on we may see players in the Atlantic ‘trading’ sea zones because of the sub/DD interaction.
Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s. Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs. Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.
A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).
Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s. Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs. Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.
A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).
The subs would allow Japan to dominate the Pacific. Japan should build 7 or so Subs J2, 6 Subs J3, and 5 Subs a turn thereafter as needed. So long as Japan spreads them out to a density of 1 sub per sea zone, the US will probably have to spend 40 IPCs a turn on Destroyers in order to a punch a decent hole in the Subs, and even that will be slow and take time. If they don’t mass Destroyers, the Subs simply obliterate the American fleet on the counterattack. If they have Super Subs, it will be even worse.
The thing is that Japan doesn’t really need that many reinforcements to secure all the territories they wish, which means that they can afford to waste 30-50 IPCs a turn on Subs. America, in the mean time, needs to organize an invasion force with Transports and either Carrier Groups providing air support or Cruisers/Battleships supplying bombardment, all of which must be purchased on 40-50 IPCs.
First:
Face it, bombers, not subs are the main weapon of naval combat. They have far superiour theatre flexibility and combat range and thats it.
Cut your losses:
You normaly cant afford to lose your limited number of bombers in fleet actions. And thats where the sub comes into play. 2-3 subs together with 2-3 bombers are enough to wreak havoc on most fleets and with a rising number of aircraft this equation gets even better, as you can absolutely afford to lose your subs and then decide to continue the action or to retreat.
Superiour opposing air force:
If the opponents air is too strong, subs can repel small fleets and hunt the lone transport. This tactic has been discussed before.
First:
Face it, bombers, not subs are the main weapon of naval combat. They have far superiour theatre flexibility and combat range and thats it.Cut your losses:
You normaly cant afford to lose your limited number of bombers in fleet actions. And thats where the sub comes into play. 2-3 subs together with 2-3 bombers are enough to wreak havoc on most fleets and with a rising number of aircraft this equation gets even better, as you can absolutely afford to lose your subs and then decide to continue the action or to retreat.Superiour opposing air force:
If the opponents air is too strong, subs can repel small fleets and keep the hunt the lone transport. This tactic has been discussed before.
I agree. The use of subs with aircraft is a gret combo for naval combat (even better if you have super subs). You can even make it cheaper if you have long range aircraft and jet fighter, transforming your fighters in better weapon than the original bomber.
I agree. The use of subs with aircraft is a gret combo for naval combat (even better if you have super subs). You can even make it cheaper if you have long range aircraft and jet fighter, transforming your fighters in better weapon than the original bomber.
I’m sorry to disagree, but long range aircraft benefits bombers so much it would be a waste to switch to fighters. Although saving 2 IPC per unit is nice, being able to bombard any territory or sea zone on the map at will is much too good to give up on - and thats what long range bombers do!
