CORE2 naval build times?

[Antiochus V]

Basicly I don't like CV's battling subs - that sounds a bit a-historical imho. Carriers consisted out of dive bombers, torpedo planes and dive bombers. But they for sure lack a big stack of naval bombers with depth charges - and equiped with special electronics. Perhaps they have 1 or 2 or 3 big naval bombers - equiped with depth charges - but for sure not an air wing to take on a big sub stack.

Carrier or land based fighters could do a fair bit of damage to a surfaced sub with a strafing run. Crew could be killed, and the sub forced to submerge. Thus a CV could influence a naval battle in this period, especially since subs had to spend much time surfaced in order to move fast and be able to see targets.

Most Subs could not remain submerged for long in WW2, again keeping them on the surface and vulnerable to air attack.

 

[MateDow]

I am looking at reducing the cost of ships in CORE2, but am not going to reduce the time. I am trying to figure out exactly how large the reduction needs to be. This will be something for version 0.12 as opposed to the initial patch (0.11) though. MDow

 

[unmerged(19841)]

I am looking at reducing the cost of ships in CORE2, but am not going to reduce the time. I am trying to figure out exactly how large the reduction needs to be. This will be something for version 0.12 as opposed to the initial patch (0.11) though. MDow

what is the eta on the 0.11 hotfix??,by the way great work :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[MateDow]

what is the eta on the 0.11 hotfix??,by the way great work :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Hopefully within the week. MDow

 

[Caesar_Augustus]

I meant to imply that we would adjust the completion dates for ships in the construction que at the beginning of different scenarios.

I did not mean to imply that the construction time for naval vessels would be changing depending on the scenario being played. All new construction will have the same build times as the 1936 with the only changes being through technology and doctrines. MDow

Ah, all my doubts have been resolved. These longer build times for all scenarios, not to mention new doctrines, make for revised and interesting long-term naval strategies!

 

[unmerged(52999)]

CV's should be the bane of subs

Carrier or land based fighters could do a fair bit of damage to a surfaced sub with a strafing run. Crew could be killed, and the sub forced to submerge. Thus a CV could influence a naval battle in this period, especially since subs had to spend much time surfaced in order to move fast and be able to see targets.

Most Subs could not remain submerged for long in WW2, again keeping them on the surface and vulnerable to air attack.

Most of the sub losses during WWII were due to aircraft. The main reason the USA built so many escort carriers was to hunt subs with them. The reason was what was stated above...subs spent time of the surface charging the batteries. Aircraft are the bane of subs, and CV's could hunt them far away from the radius of land based air.