Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

To RO or not to RO?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> To RO or not to RO? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 9:06:26 AM   
doktorblood


Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline 		I have been halting production of all the Jap KS type subs (RO 100 - RO 117) as soon as they start drawing Naval points. TO me they appear to not be worth their 25 point per turn that each one cost. It is now June '42 and I now have 7 halted at 250 days out.

Am I making a mistake? Does anyone find these slow, very short range subs useful? Should I turn them back on or continue to spend the Naval points saved to accelerate CVs and DDs?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 2:21:44 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		I would keep building them - with the recent changes to ASW, they might be more useful now than before. Even a bad weapon is better than no weapon at all, and against Allied air superiority only subs will have a chance to hit back (albeit a very small chance), and they can be used as minelayers. I'm halting all CVEs and all CVs after Taiho instead because after 1943 everything on the surface are just targets for Allied LBA and carrier air.

(in reply to doktorblood)
Post #: 2
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 3:26:46 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		I build all the fleet subs, the 33 and 36 pointers. I halt all the 25 and 26 pointers; I need those naval shipbuilding points for bigger and better things

An RO sub might be of some use, but no way is one worth the points it costs.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to doktorblood)
Post #: 3
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 3:51:39 PM   
hosho


Posts: 128
Joined: 10/21/2005
From: zagreb, croatia
Status: offline 		depends on your situation. i personally use them to attack the ships in the harbor of Gili Gili (sub homebase rabaul). too slow for hunting outside of ports but i don`t have to risk losing "serious" subs for attacks on crowded ports

(in reply to doktorblood)
Post #: 4
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 5:58:33 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Those R)-101/117 subs are pretty weak. 3500 endurance, 4 torpedo tubs with 1 set of reloads.

I might produce them towards the middle/end of the war when the Allies have to come to you, to force the Allies to stay honest about escorting their transport TFS (free up some of the longer range subs to go after the Allied supply/fuel transport routes)

But other than that, these particular subs are not worth it.


(in reply to hosho)
Post #: 5
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 6:39:41 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Based on current state of "ASW" .. I halt all subs ... and place scuttling charges on the ones that are ( semi ) safely moored in port ( so I can blow them up just before the Allies sink them ) ... though WITP_dude is holding out for the HA boats with radar ... he is in early 46 and I'm in mid-43 and the HA aren't on my radar screen yet ( ha ha ). In the few occasions where my subs venture forth - it would be for recon purposes - expecting that the "recon" in question consists of seeing the carrier bombers ( and hence able to report loc of same ) just prior to being sunk ...

With the new ASW .. things may change .. but I have no new ASW yet ... so I go with things as they are ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 6
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 8:43:02 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline 		For me, it depends upon how the new ASW changes pan out. If they make sub surviveability closer to historic, I might build some of them. At this point, I halt everything that doesn't carry a float plane.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 7
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 8:44:07 PM   
doktorblood


Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline 		Ok then. I think I will continue to halt them at 250 days, when they start costing me, and consider turning them back on later.

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 8
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 9:29:33 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would keep building them - with the recent changes to ASW, they might be more useful now than before. Even a bad weapon is better than no weapon at all, and against Allied air superiority only subs will have a chance to hit back (albeit a very small chance), and they can be used as minelayers. I'm halting all CVEs and all CVs after Taiho instead because after 1943 everything on the surface are just targets for Allied LBA and carrier air.


I keep the carriers with airgroups in production personally. Main reason is to get the airgroups.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/21/2005 9:31:06 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 9
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/21/2005 10:03:10 PM   
Mark VII


Posts: 1838
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Brentwood,TN
Status: offline 		When the time comes I will stop RO building and speed up some DD's with radar. But I will later resume RO building once the ship building yards are clearer.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 10
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/22/2005 3:40:31 AM   
PimpYourAFV

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 9/30/2005
From: Japan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I keep the carriers with airgroups in production personally. Main reason is to get the airgroups.


How do you find out which CVs in production have airgroups already attached to them?


_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 11
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/22/2005 3:43:55 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Select a CV on the reinforcement track. It will show its air group on the ship info screen, same as a CV already on the map.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to PimpYourAFV)
Post #: 12
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/22/2005 3:56:01 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		What he said

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 13
RE: To RO or not to RO? - 10/22/2005 4:54:50 AM   
PimpYourAFV

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 9/30/2005
From: Japan
Status: offline 		Coolness. Thanks irrelevant.

< Message edited by TokyoBoyTensai -- 10/22/2005 4:57:33 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> To RO or not to RO? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.795