Each point lost by a convoy is 10PP that won't be delivered, so even if you only reduce the strength of all convoys by half, you'll starve the Entente. The real problem is the damage isn't worth the likelihood of losing submarines and can be a bit of a chore (you're essentially shooting at something that can't shoot back) - either submarines need to be made more expensive but also more effective against convoys (my preferred solution), or cheaper to maintain.impulse101lehr wrote:i feel the biggest issue with naval warfare is the cost to build units. you spend so much just upkeeping the frontlines and there is hardly anything left to give for naval upgrades or new ships, and even if you did, naval warfare is almost pointless. you need three submarines just to sink 1 Entente convoy. come on. it's just not worth it. either Entente convoys need to be weakened so they are more susceptible to submarine ambushes, or the Central Powers need a boost in income so that they can afford a submarine fleet capable of attacking these over powered convoys.
But really, you need a reason to maintain a fleet. I keep mine playing as the CP because I want to keep open the option of invading the UK whenever I want, but as the Entente you can defeat the German fleet in the first few turns and the Austro-Hungarian fleet not long after. If you needed to keep a fleet to ensure the CP stayed under blocade, a blocade that was steadily reducing CP morale, that would be good.