Subs

[Leonid Brezhnev]

Sometimes Iwill see subs on inactive sonar firing at other ships. Does anyone know what circumstances trigger an inactive sub to attack?

[Why?]

Many people miss this... I think I discovered it by accident.

Passive subs can fire on ships/subs, as long as there is radar/sonar support from another unit. It's faster than switching to active mode. Only takes 15-20 seconds to start firing.

[Forrest Krunk]

shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pwnbroker]

Be careful. Nukes launched from passive subs are easier for fighters to shoot down...

[Ace Rimmer]

Rule of Sub #1: In general terms, attacking in passive mode results in death of sub crew.

If you start firing on me with passive subs (and I will see it), and I have subs, carriers, or loaded bombers around, expect that/those sub/s to die a meaningless death.

Active > Passive.

[Leonid Brezhnev]

My point of asking was deciphering whether or not it would be feasible to lay ambush with passive subs. In general most guys protect their subs using them last or lead with subs to aid in naval battles against surface ships or to ambush other subs. So point taken.

[Ace Rimmer]

If you break it down in terms of effectiveness and numbers, using passive subs is almost always pointless.

Note: There are exceptions to every rule.

Effectiveness: Passive and Active subs aren't very good at killing other units even though the attack odds are "High". Subs have a very limited target range, making the likelihood of proximity death too high to justify losing five nukes (especially to kill a BB, that has none). Bombers and/or Fighters can do the same job with less risk.

Numbers: This is a game wide principle: Don't spend more nukes than the number you're trying to remove from the enemy's arsenal.

Examples:

• Sub vs Battleship = Nukes 5 vs Nukes 0, There is no gain here. In fact, if you lose the sub, you just gave the enemy five of your nukes in exchange for zero of his. Gain = 0 to -5.
• Full Silos vs Full Silos = Nukes 36 vs Nukes 60, You spend 36 nukes to remove 60. Gain = +24
• Full Silos vs Empty Silos = Nukes 60 vs Nukes 0, You spend 36 nukes to remove 0. Gain =
  • If Empty Silos provide AA for enemy cities) At least +24 (all subsequent nukes fired are guaranteed to land, excluding adjacent Silos from different enemy)
  • If Empty Silos do NOT provide (enough) AA for enemy cities, -36
• Five Armed Bombers vs One BB. = Nukes 5 vs Nukes 0. Gain = -5

Anyway, the point is you wouldn't go to the bank with $100, hand it to the teller and ask for change, then be happy getting only $50 back.

[ynbniar]

Note: There are exceptions to every rule.

Would that be your naughty habit of using passive subs against your "allies" in diplo

[Ace Rimmer]

Note: There are exceptions to every rule.

Would that be your naughty habit of using passive subs against your "allies" in diplo

Heh, I haven't done that in a long time. Premium diplomacy makes it a bit less attractive.

[trickser]

Examples:

• Sub vs Battleship = Nukes 5 vs Nukes 0, There is no gain here. In fact, if you lose the sub, you just gave the enemy five of your nukes in exchange for zero of his. Gain = 0 to -5.
• Full Silos vs Full Silos = Nukes 36 vs Nukes 60, You spend 36 nukes to remove 60. Gain = +24
• Full Silos vs Empty Silos = Nukes 60 vs Nukes 0, You spend 36 nukes to remove 0. Gain =
  • If Empty Silos provide AA for enemy cities) At least +24 (all subsequent nukes fired are guaranteed to land, excluding adjacent Silos from different enemy)
  • If Empty Silos do NOT provide (enough) AA for enemy cities, -36
• Five Armed Bombers vs One BB. = Nukes 5 vs Nukes 0. Gain = -5

While its a good rule of thumb, situations can be quite complex. For the empty silos example: if the enemy just has ten cities left you need to hit in order to win, you can make packs and overwhelm the silos defence with this. But if you need to hit alot of cities even (or better especially) if they are tiny, you are often in a better situation if you manage to destroy the defending silos.

And if risking my subs gives me upper hand in the naval, its often worth it, I wonder what the otherone will do with 12 subs without cover.

[Pwnbroker]

If you break it down in terms of effectiveness and numbers, using passive subs is almost always pointless.

Note: There are exceptions to every rule.

Effectiveness: Passive and Active subs aren't very good at killing other units even though the attack odds are "High". Subs have a very limited target range, making the likelihood of proximity death too high to justify losing five nukes (especially to kill a BB, that has none). Bombers and/or Fighters can do the same job with less risk.

Numbers: This is a game wide principle: Don't spend more nukes than the number you're trying to remove from the enemy's arsenal.

Examples:

• Sub vs Battleship = Nukes 5 vs Nukes 0, There is no gain here. In fact, if you lose the sub, you just gave the enemy five of your nukes in exchange for zero of his. Gain = 0 to -5.
• Full Silos vs Full Silos = Nukes 36 vs Nukes 60, You spend 36 nukes to remove 60. Gain = +24
• Full Silos vs Empty Silos = Nukes 60 vs Nukes 0, You spend 36 nukes to remove 0. Gain =
  • If Empty Silos provide AA for enemy cities) At least +24 (all subsequent nukes fired are guaranteed to land, excluding adjacent Silos from different enemy)
  • If Empty Silos do NOT provide (enough) AA for enemy cities, -36
• Five Armed Bombers vs One BB. = Nukes 5 vs Nukes 0. Gain = -5

Anyway, the point is you wouldn't go to the bank with $100, hand it to the teller and ask for change, then be happy getting only $50 back.

^^^^^^^^ File under "Sage Wisdom"^^^^^^

I would point out, Ace, that I would feel quite lucky to get $50 back from $100 I handed to a banker these days. I just presume they put my cash in their pocket and not the vault.

[Ace Rimmer]

While its a good rule of thumb, situations can be quite complex. For the empty silos example: if the enemy just has ten cities left you need to hit in order to win, you can make packs and overwhelm the silos defence with this. But if you need to hit alot of cities even (or better especially) if they are tiny, you are often in a better situation if you manage to destroy the defending silos.

And if risking my subs gives me upper hand in the naval, its often worth it, I wonder what the otherone will do with 12 subs without cover.

I did say "in general" and "there are exceptions".

They key is to know the rule of thumb, and then best apply it to your situation.

[Why?]

Thinking about the nuke trade-off, and conserving resources, is a good frame of mind to be in.

I feel the best way to use passive subs, is right at defcon 3, on the front line. Put them near enemy battleships, with some of your own ships in range. They can help your battleships with a shot or two, but then you better switch to active, and keep it moving.

[Eral]

MMM well. It's exact. But in exceptionnal situations subs can give a real supply to the first fights, especially against battleships. (example: subs in north Atl in a fight EU vs NA). That's dangerous for them because they are very fragile and slow. But it can be too a good bait - "come little cuty carrier, come to me i will be sweet...." (especially with the ping). When you use them in a fight you have to be sure it gives you an advantage resulting after the fight and be prepared to sacrify them.

Anyway if they are potentially usefull for attacking, it is totally mad to use them in defense except if there is no more carrier in the ennemy fleet and not sure....

[_human_]

As a beginner and a man, who played Silent Hunter III , I prefer "wolf pack" tactics: 6 subs attack a fleet. If there's few (1-2) carriers in the fleet, subs eliminate it. If more... Bad luck)