Fleet Tactics

In-depth tactical discussion on how to lose the least

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Peace and Love
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
Location: la la land
Contact:

Fleet Tactics

Postby Peace and Love » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:46 am

Just discussion and sharing :D

My formation which I have named the Peace n Love since I haven't seen another player do what I do so far...

Image
This screenshot doesn't do the formation justice because I tend to move and bend this formation rapidly during battle. For example depending on what's hitting this formation, it will look differently. (for example) If there's a mass of enemy fighters, I might pull my subs aside to minimize collateral.

Advantages:
-Flexibility
-Single carriers are great for transporting fighters from airbases to frontline in long-distance campaigns.
-Because carriers are not mixed in with battleships, if the going gets rough, I get to run away to fight another day >_<
-Able to spread out to either hide or reduce the strength of enemy's naval nuking
-Amazing for defense and anti-scout/bombers

Disadvantages:
-Takes away attention from other things. I found personally that it becomes very very difficult to manage two seperate fleets in this formation. It is not recommended for 6 player unless you have extreme love for detail like me.
- Exponentially less effective in tight quarters. Not recommended for Arctic Sea, or cluttered Atlantic battles.
-Difficult to manage over long distances

I like to see other people's tactics too :D

Especially people who use mixed fleets (like Feud) and use them effectively. This concept has always escaped me :(
C/Airman_Curtis
level1
level1
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 10:15 pm

Postby C/Airman_Curtis » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:00 am

In a 1 on 1 i just send 4 mixed fleets to over run the enemy. but on a big match i go on the defensive with small coastal defense fleets. Fleet nuking kills my big rush after a victory though.,,
User avatar
Peace and Love
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
Location: la la land
Contact:

Postby Peace and Love » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:03 am

C/Airman_Curtis wrote:In a 1 on 1 i just send 4 mixed fleets to over run the enemy. but on a big match i go on the defensive with small coastal defense fleets. Fleet nuking kills my big rush after a victory though.,,


But that's so risky though O__O

If you lose that beginning rush, you got no fleet >_<
C/Airman_Curtis
level1
level1
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 10:15 pm

Postby C/Airman_Curtis » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:08 am

Theres still 12 subs though : p

But both fleets are decimated, since i tend to focus on taking carriers first. The only non naval things b-ships do is sit on your coast to be radar and shoot outgoing bombers.

(sorry about short posts, im on a wii)
User avatar
caranthir.pkk
level3
level3
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Fleet Tactics

Postby caranthir.pkk » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:13 am

Peace and Love wrote:Just discussion and sharing :D

My formation which I have named the Peace n Love since I haven't seen another player do what I do so far...

Image
This screenshot doesn't do the formation justice because I tend to move and bend this formation rapidly during battle. For example depending on what's hitting this formation, it will look differently. (for example) If there's a mass of enemy fighters, I might pull my subs aside to minimize collateral.

Advantages:
-Flexibility
-Single carriers are great for transporting fighters from airbases to frontline in long-distance campaigns.
-Because carriers are not mixed in with battleships, if the going gets rough, I get to run away to fight another day >_<
-Able to spread out to either hide or reduce the strength of enemy's naval nuking
-Amazing for defense and anti-scout/bombers

Disadvantages:
-Takes away attention from other things. I found personally that it becomes very very difficult to manage two seperate fleets in this formation. It is not recommended for 6 player unless you have extreme love for detail like me.
- Exponentially less effective in tight quarters. Not recommended for Arctic Sea, or cluttered Atlantic battles.
-Difficult to manage over long distances

I like to see other people's tactics too :D

Especially people who use mixed fleets (like Feud) and use them effectively. This concept has always escaped me :(


As good as the setup may be, it requires way too much management. Also, people like xander who play parallel bomber flights to the extreme might pick some big holes in your defense, without your subs coming into play. Its a nice setup but I've learned that setups usually don't last very long, its keeping control of the chaos which becomes the real challenge :)
User avatar
Peace and Love
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
Location: la la land
Contact:

Postby Peace and Love » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:37 am

That's what setting things to extra-slow is for ;)
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:15 am

I'll be honest, I really don't have much of a micro stratagy. Depending on where I am I'm have certain macro goals (hold this choke point, get fleet from point A to point B, etc.), but I really don't worry to much about the micro.

As for carriers, if I'm holding a choke point I'll have 1 or 2 set to sonar, the rest set to bombers. The idea being that if a sub surfaces outside of my radar, I'll have to send bombers anyway if I want to catch them. If an enemy fleet shows up I want to have as much firepower shooting as soon as possible, and if I can keep them barely in radar range I can hopefully shoot down most of their interceptors with battleships.

I'm almost embarrassed about how simple my strategy is, but it seems to work for me.
User avatar
torq
level3
level3
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia

Postby torq » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:09 am

This formation is good for defense, but not for offense. And concentration on defense will get you nowhere anyway. You will line up your battleships along your coast but other players will take points from major targets by the time.
Trying to maneuver and to keep this formation is hell. It's good only when you are close to your coast, in the middle of the Pacific you'll be easily outmaneuvered. The major disadvantage is vulnerability from its flanks, and any attempt to turn it will break it and thus all advantages will be lost. And the most disasterous thing is when your line gets attacked from behind.

As for me, I prefer 2 or 4 ship unmixed fleets in a loose order. This gives you the same flexibility but doesn't require so much of a micromanagement.
And I keep carriers away from battleships (usually slightly less than a fighter's range). The presense of carriers in the middle of battle doesn't accomplish anything except giving the enemy a chance to destroy them. I prefer to sacrifice battleships to pin down the enemy fleet while carriers will go against unprotected enemy coast or for giving time for the bombers to attack its flanks where they are unexpected. Defcon is a game where attacker usually wins (except the survivor mode). When you're plowing your way slowly across the Pacific ocean there's a fair chance that by the time you get to your destination all major cities would be hit several times. And what will you do? Waste nukes, subs and bombers to collect 1-2 points from your half-dead enemy?
NMO
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:10 pm

I do something similar, but with larger fleets - the macro on the above is just too much.

Bships in 2 / 3 ship formations, in front of two 3-ships carrier fleets, two 2-ship carrier fleets and two one ship carrier fleets. This allows fighter relaying like above, but means I don't have to spend long worrying about bships (which are generally expendable, I only use them for mauling bombers or carriers which get too close...)

Submarines I always use as singles when I can - but I try to avoid adding them to a naval battle before launch - unless I know I'm facing someone heavy...
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
<Demosthenes>
level1
level1
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 7:26 pm

Postby <Demosthenes> » Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:48 pm

My fire line is almost identical, but with battleships and carriers in clusters of three. And I usually only have 3 carriers behind the battleships, with another carrier group in reserve.
Avatar
Panther Unit
User avatar
Peace and Love
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
Location: la la land
Contact:

Postby Peace and Love » Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:42 pm

I guess a lot of criticism is directed at 6-player play.

This is probrably because now I play more 1 v 1 than 6 player, so this formation works very well for me. In terms of 6 player, I assure you that I can move this formation (though made smaller to cover multiple flanks) as fast as any. And I always enjoy the flexibility of moving a single battleship to my coast for anti-sub when I want to. :D
User avatar
Tripper
level4
level4
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:05 am
Location: Freeeeeeee

Ranges

Postby Tripper » Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:29 am

I agree, Peace's setup is about as good a defensive line as you could get. (although it seems a bit vulnerable sitting in the middle of the pacific like that :wink: I measured the ranges of different ships and aircraft the other day, and the following is a range-based setup which should be able to chew through any less disciplined fleet.

Disclaimer - this is just based on the parallel bomber run theory, and no-one (apart from P&L) will be able to micro their fleet into the exact ranges anyway !

I also haven't taken subs into account, I don't think it needs any. If one ore more carriers were in antisub mode, a frontal assault with subs would be very costly.

Code: Select all

Range lines - facing south!

0 - - Bomber Patrol Line (Range = 12+, Radar = 8) - - - - - - -
¦
1 - - Carrier Line (Radar = 10) - - - - - - - -
¦
2 - - Battleship Line (Range = 8, Radar = 8) - - - - - - -
¦
3 - - Fighter Patrol Line (Range = 8, Radar = 4) - - - - -
¦
4 (Enemy fighters would have to get here to see your bombers)
¦
5
¦
6
¦
7
¦
8 (Fighters would have to be this far out to contribute to radar)
¦
9
¦
10 - - Limit of Battleship range
¦ // Zone where your planes can hit enemy ships without them being able to hit you //
11 - - Limit of Carrier Radar &  Fighter range from Patrol line
¦
12 - Bomber naval combat range (at least)



/munchkin

Cheers Tripper
User avatar
Peace and Love
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
Location: la la land
Contact:

Postby Peace and Love » Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:27 pm

Wow thanks O_O amazing research n stuff


I think I stopped putting all my subs infront of my formation now, ussually just two or three. I find this necissary because I've been completely caught offguard by large groups of ambush subs that were able to rip apart my formation. Just precautionary steps :D
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:00 pm

Peace and Love wrote:Wow thanks O_O amazing research n stuff


I think I stopped putting all my subs infront of my formation now, ussually just two or three. I find this necissary because I've been completely caught offguard by large groups of ambush subs that were able to rip apart my formation. Just precautionary steps :D


Ambush subs you say? :lol: :D
User avatar
Peace and Love
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am
Location: la la land
Contact:

Postby Peace and Love » Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:27 pm

torig wrote:
Peace and Love wrote:Wow thanks O_O amazing research n stuff


I think I stopped putting all my subs infront of my formation now, ussually just two or three. I find this necissary because I've been completely caught offguard by large groups of ambush subs that were able to rip apart my formation. Just precautionary steps :D


Ambush subs you say? :lol: :D


lol very risky and hard to pull off. Feud did it to me once and was able to kill three battleships and four carriers, thus crippling my pacific fleet (Russia/me vs. Asia/him). But it was still risky because he lost all six subs. But with the fact that my Actic fleet was too far away and my Pacific fleet was crippled, I couldn't carry out an effective offense.

I guess it also comes with knowing where your enemy will be :D
I was really predictable >___<

Return to “Strategic Air Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest