Submarines

[JackBauer85]

Couple of questions:

1. Do you build submarines?
2. How do you use them?

I always build too large a navy and throw some submarines in for variety, I guess. I sent six regular subs out in a wolfpack and sunk a carrier in exchange for one of the boats. I lost a sub trying to sink the carrier, so I had to use a second sub to finish it off. That sub was redlined, but killed the carrier. For some reason the destroyer escorts turned and ran instead of easily killing my redlined sub. The sub had to limp three turns back to port for repairs so really it was out of the fight either way.

Later in the same game I sent three nuclear submarines out to intercept another 3-destroyer, 1-transport invasion group that was headed for the coast. The result: I sank the transport and lost all three subs to the escorts when I tried to finish them off.

I decided I'm not going to build them anymore, other than for novelty. I should have lost more regular subs but the AI apparently felt merciful and didn't finish them off. They seem to have too many drawbacks: low movement speed, defensive bombardment always seems to knock 1/4 of their health off before they attack, and they can't reliably sink anything bigger than a transport.

So, they're not very good attack submarines. They're not very good nuke-delivery platforms either, considering they only hold one. The sub from Civ2 ruled...the ability to carry 8 missiles of any kind made them deadly. In my current game I'm going to have the remaining subs sail with my carrier group and deliver the killing blow against enemy surface ships I redline with either planes or other destroyers.

Like I mentioned, I've concluded they're a massive waste of time and shields so from now on I'm going to build destroyers instead. Destroyers can serve as pickets, as better wolfpacks, as bombardment units in a pinch, etc. Thoughts?

 

[TheOverseer714]

They are useful for one thing: starting wars. The sub bug will cause a war if any ship tries to cross a tile occupied by a sub.

 

[JackBauer85]

They are useful for one thing: starting wars. The sub bug will cause a war if any ship tries to cross a tile occupied by a sub.

Yeah, had that happen just once, and that was enough to be very careful with them from that point on.

 

[EvilConqueror]

I don't find them very useful. Only things I've ever really used them for is carrying tactical nukes and spying.

 

[Arexander]

I haven't used subs much. But I play more with Continents and Pangaea so that's why.

For some reason the destroyer escorts turned and ran instead of easily killing my redlined sub.

I should have lost more regular subs but the AI apparently felt merciful and didn't finish them off.

The AI will not attack units it cannot see. Subs are invisible before getting AEGIS Cruiser.

 

[JackBauer85]

The AI will not attack units it cannot see. Subs are invisible before getting AEGIS Cruiser.

But destroyers can see subs, at least in Conquests.

 

[Arexander]

Whoops, you are right. I haven't played enough Conquest to know that. Then I don't know why they didn't attack. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[CivAgamemnon]

The regular sub does well enough on it's own, but I find some serious flaws in Firaxis' thinking regarding the Nuclear Sub.

In the real world, nuke subs are of two types: Attack submarines (like the USN's Seawolf-class or the Russian Akula-class); or Ballistic Missile subs (Like the USN's Ohio-class SSBNs or the British Vanguard-class SSBN).

What I've done in the past is use the Nuclear Sub as an attack submarine (SSN), and add in another submarine unit (Typhoon SSBN) to act as an SSBN, modified to carry 4 Tac Nukes.

Tad overpowered? Maybe. But it does a good job reflecting the real-world as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

modified to carry 4 ICBM's.

Aren't ICBMs already capable of hitting anything on the map from their launch site, and/or are incapable of moving?

 

[CivAgamemnon]

Aren't ICBMs already capable of hitting anything on the map from their launch site, and/or are incapable of moving?

That should have read as tactical nuke. Been a long time since I've played using nukes (only play AoI these days, and my epic games rarely get past the middle ages anyhow). *shrug* Earlier post corrected.

Edit: Now I remember why I thought of ICBM's - I had tripled the Tac Nuke's range to 18.

 

[Eidolon]

Personally, I've beefed up their attack and movement, so in my scenarios subs are 14/4/6 and nuclear submarines 18/4/9. To my mind this reflects much more how a real submarine works: it's fast, if undetected can lay some serious waste, and if it's spotted it's pretty much screwed. Just my two cents.

Yay, first post on CFC!

 

[timerover51]

Personally, I've beefed up their attack and movement, so in my scenarios subs are 14/4/6 and nuclear submarines 18/4/9. To my mind this reflects much more how a real submarine works: it's fast, if undetected can lay some serious waste, and if it's spotted it's pretty much screwed. Just my two cents.

Yay, first post on CFC!

Welcome to the Forum, Eidolon. You are correct that the subs in Civ3 need to beefed up a bit. I have boosted the attack and defense ratings, and added a hit point bonus to reflect the difficulty in killing them. However, conventional submarines are not that fast over an extended distance, so I use a movement of 4 for conventional, and 8 for nuclear submarines. A nuclear submarine running at high speed is not particularly quiet. I like the idea of separate Attack and Fleet Ballistic Missile boats. I had one brother serve on a "Boomer" (ballistic missile sub), and one brother serve on a Nuke Attack boat.