Subs or carriers?

[creator]

Allright im useless at using seaarch but couldnt find this topic.

What do you consider more important, carriers or subs? They have the same number of nukes but other than that are nearly complete opposites of one another (eg. no radar, maximum radar).

[Ace Rimmer]

While I'm at first tempted to say they're both just as important to the game, I have to honestly say carriers.

Carriers are more dynamic (launching_ferrying of fighters - bombers/reloadable/radar/anitsub) and can allow you to win the game more easily than subs if used properly. In addition to that, when "optimized" by combining their fighting power with battleships, you get an even more potent force.

Subs while powerful are not nearly as dynamic and are limited in their ability.

[torig]

Carriers for the win.

[Bunnet]

I would say Carriers for 1v1, and they're about the same in 6 player games...

[Ace Rimmer]

I would say Carriers for 1v1, and they're about the same in 6 player games...

I would disagree in most cases. If you are simply going for quick points at the expense of losing most/all of your units (for an early win), then yes. However not many people play this way.

[Gen. Ripper]

the only thing I use subs for is positioning them for a quick Counter-Strike to target silo's...

if they survive that, then might as well send them the RTB code and patrol your coast or use as disposable anti-ship weapons.

on the off chance that you can get a few quick kills in the battlelines then I use them, but I try to keep them safe untill their birds are away.

now carrier's....always usefull in any situation..

[Feud]

While they are both vital, between the two I would say subs. I use them heavily to either bulldozer a well defended city, or for silo popping.

[MikeTheWookiee]

Carriers. Mobile airfields are really useful. Plus they have 2 more nukes each than subs.

[mosey]

i usually launch more nukes from subs than carriers. subs are great for exploiting holes in your enemy's abm system. carriers are nice, but take tons of micro-managing to be effective which is a real pain in a two theater war. bomber nukes are also very vulnerable to an alert enemy, so i lose more of them than i use. however, winning the defcon 3 naval battle goes a long way to winning the game and that takes carriers.

[torq]

Don't beat me but whales rule!

[Chimaera]

I have found that if you can locate silos or unprotected cities in defcon 3/4, you can strike with impugnity at them with subs at the stroke of defcon one, with my carriers providing an ample fighter screen to protect them. The way I don't use subs is sending them on a long-distance journey from say, North America to strike at Tokyo. The failure rate is too high to make this an effective tactic when you consider the tim eit takes to get there. I usually avoid moving subs at all, especially at Africa, where you can strike at many major cities and possible silo locations.

[torig]

I have found that if you can locate silos or unprotected cities in defcon 3/4, you can strike with impugnity at them with subs at the stroke of defcon one, with my carriers providing an ample fighter screen to protect them. The way I don't use subs is sending them on a long-distance journey from say, North America to strike at Tokyo. The failure rate is too high to make this an effective tactic when you consider the tim eit takes to get there. I usually avoid moving subs at all, especially at Africa, where you can strike at many major cities and possible silo locations.

Actually, the key to sending your subs deep into enemy waters before they can even respond is to place them at defcon 5.
I do this all the time. You got 3 whole defcon levels for them to move, before they can even be detected, and sank.

Perhaps it's not so common-knowledge as I thought then

[Ace Rimmer]

I have found that if you can locate silos or unprotected cities in defcon 3/4, you can strike with impugnity at them with subs at the stroke of defcon one, with my carriers providing an ample fighter screen to protect them. The way I don't use subs is sending them on a long-distance journey from say, North America to strike at Tokyo. The failure rate is too high to make this an effective tactic when you consider the tim eit takes to get there. I usually avoid moving subs at all, especially at Africa, where you can strike at many major cities and possible silo locations.

Actually, the key to sending your subs deep into enemy waters before they can even respond is to place them at defcon 5.
I do this all the time. You got 3 whole defcon levels for them to move, before they can even be detected, and sank.

Perhaps it's not so common-knowledge as I thought then

Who says you need to get into enemy waters, it's quite easy to hit Tokyo right after Defcon 1 with subs if you're N. America.

[torig]

Ace, that wasn't my point. My point was more general in nature.
You take me for teh n00b?

(actually, the place in your screenies is mostly where the naval battle would be at, if Russia and Asia placed some parts of their fleet in the Pacific, so definitely a lousy spot to surface in at defcon 1 )

[creator]

Except if you used that method russia is likely to beat you to it with bombers, i think i prefer subs overall now i've thought about it, they are just better for those condensed attacks to take out important structures (maily silos)