What is your stance on Port Raiding?

[depthtok33l]

As the title says, do you consider it cheating/dishonorable () or otherwise?

[Hambone307]

If you are desperate for tonnage, I think it is a viable tactic. Although, after a few (failed) attempts to raid a couple of harbors, I will leave that maneuver to the more "bold" captains. I am perfectly content sitting outside a harbor at the sea shelf where I have room to maneuver!

[Crannogman]

It's called unrestricted submarine warfare for a reason. If you can get in, get 'em. Your conscience will tell you when it's time to head for deeper waters. That said, I prefer to catch a merchant on the high seas and sink him (and his cargo) in a thousand fathoms without a trace. There's plenty of ships been sunk in harbor that have been raised and put back in the fight.

As far as cheating, well, it's probably not fair. But neither is knowing where to find and sink the Yamato every day of the war. So do what you want, it's your game

[Cybermat47]

BMA.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by depthtok33l

As the title says, do you consider it cheating/dishonorable () or otherwise?

Cheating is probably too strong a word, but to me it is like going from 100% difficulty level, where you need to have a high order of skill (this is the theory anyway), to 10%, where you're shooting fish in a barrel.

It would be different if port/base defenses were at all realistic.

[Armistead]

I think we all did our share of port raiding in the beginning, but without the proper mods, it's no challenge. Heck, one can sneak into Truk and sink half the IJN fleet...and leave with no response...

[Jolierouge]

Depends on the port....

Is it guarded?

Would it be a challenge to sneak in?

Are there warships docked?

And......history has Scapa Flow.

Definitely not cheating, if you can answer all three questions with yes.

greetings

Jolie

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Jolierouge

And......history has Scapa Flow.

Which was planned in advance by Admiral Dönitz with the aid of aerial photographs and conducted by his hand-picked "golden boy", the best he had. Were there any others like that? If not, then it is indeed cheating as far as history as concerned. But, as was said earlier, it's just a game, so we can do what we want.

[Sniper297]

"Others like that" off the top of my head, USS WAHOO, Wewak harbor. Haven't researched to find if there were others, but I found the jackpot in Kobe from a Pearl Harbor career mission ordering a photo recon of Osaka.

Cheating? Not to me, to me cheating is never operating in less than 300 feet of water. The thermal layers in the stock game are always there, always between 150-250 feet, and always so strong they act like a Klingon cloaking device. Trying to evade a depth charge attack in 100 feet of water without using external camera is much more challenging.

I agree it should be a LOT more challenging - if you're sighted by a merchant while sneaking through the narrows any sub hunter/aircraft within 10 miles will make a beeline for you, but the enemy forgets you exist within 30 minutes of the radio report and you can continue penetrating the harbor as if you were never detected. Sink a gunboat or subchaser patrolling the entrance to Tokyo Bay and it never gets replaced, let alone alerting any of the other defenses. The AI in game sucks, plain and simple, but spending several days creeping around in shallow water to destroy stationary targets isn't exactly like shooting fish in a barrel - since you're a fish in the same barrel.

[Riccardo1975]

Halifax and St Helena are two of my favourites. The only thing I cant stand is hitting large troop ships etc. alongside a harbour wall with keel shots, and they dont even think about sinking. Its a lot easier with acoustic torpedoes as well....