To RO or not to RO? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room



Message

doktorblood -> To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 9:06:26 AM)

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?



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 2:21:44 PM)

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.



tsimmonds -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 3:26:46 PM)

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.



hosho -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 3:51:39 PM)

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 [:D]



esteban -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 5:58:33 PM)

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.




jwilkerson -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 6:39:41 PM)

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 ...




Oznoyng -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 8:43:02 PM)

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.



doktorblood -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 8:44:07 PM)

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.



Yamato hugger -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 9:29:33 PM)

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.



Mark VII -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/21/2005 10:03:10 PM)

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.



PimpYourAFV -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/22/2005 3:40:31 AM)


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?



tsimmonds -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/22/2005 3:43:55 AM)

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.



Yamato hugger -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/22/2005 3:56:01 AM)

What he said [;)]



PimpYourAFV -> RE: To RO or not to RO? (10/22/2005 4:54:50 AM)

Coolness. Thanks irrelevant. [:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125