Figment

Aww. Cute anecdote. And ignorance and mistakes made and scapegoating on WG for own errors and hypocrisy. Thanks. Needed more BS. EDIT: no that BB didn’t work for anything. Someone scouted for it, it fired from out of your detection range, got lucky with rng. All you could do is angle if you had known it had an angle. You do that with DDs too. It is called anticipation. You told me before you explicitly refuse to adapt to a situation involving a sub, then refuse to take any tips how to be more prepared and then whine there is no counterplay, because you don’t want to accept subs. You don’t want to admit there is. Admitting that would ruin your argument for removal. Your argument is too weak and you know it, therefore you will try to tar any dissent from your willfully ignorant views and actions with a huge brush. You will try to bury any arguments. Deny any counter arguments and just act as a plain bully. Pathetic.

The problem is more that the players in question have conditioned themselves to take anything, make it their next biggest grieving fear (Dutch cruisers will ruin the game forever1!1!1!1!!!) and exaggerate everything just because they have been upset for years. They can’t give credit to anything the “enemy” is doing, they can’t critique anymore (if they ever could) with nuance. They can only cry about how much worse the next thing is to roll with the bandwagon. That has never worked and will never work as a strategy to motivate because they know to doesn’t matter what they’ll do, people are going to cry that it is the worst thing ever with “no counterplay!2!1!1!1!1!1!2!2!2” and “the game is dieink for the fiftieth timezors! The end is nigh this time I will almost quit!” Devs will look at it and go “oh another whiner who has been doing that for ten years, tune out please”. Nobody is and nobody should take you serious if you do that. Just like on any other fan forum on the internet. It is pathetic. As usual. Say something that disagrees with the whiners in any way and they’ll paint you into a corner because their tiny minds and fragile cannot handle dissent. I state there are forms of counterplay to contrast the ruling willful ignorance argument or expose hypocrisy arguments in hopes they will up their game and actually scrutinize and come up with something more creative. And what do you get? Stigmatization, whataboutism, “no you” and scapegoating. I’m suddenly the bad guy who loves subs as implemented by WG. I even dared play some to verify if the exaggerations are true. Egads how evil. People who think this way are just so dumb, and plentiful due to being partisan hacks hoping to get their bandwagon buddies to do the thinking for them. I really can’t respect that. :/

Why are you and other people not able to read? There is a difference between what partisan people think is a debate (supporting everything your side says no matter how dumb and ignorant it is, basically 90% of the world and also this forum population does that). Then there is looking at things more nuanced and not being able to stand liars and frauds, even if they’re supposedly on the same team. Unlike some people, no, I don’t explode with baby tears angry at the world being so unfair to them and unable and unwilling to accept that there are features, elements and other things you can work with to make something work. Instead, people here only think in the present and past, too uncreative, too shallow, to low on thinking power, to look beyond a given situation. So, I correct people when they’re being foolish humans. You are, you are contributing nothing but malice and misinformation based on prejudice, ignorance and incompetence instead of being constructive by understanding the problem, knowing what is actually wrong and providing an alternative so that WG can make changes for the better without losing too much face since there is clearly ego involved. Unfortunately people like you are too busy bashing and making sure devs refuse to even read the forums to avoid the abuse.

BB overkill just makes you want to throw away certain cruisers and never play them again when they’re extra squishy in comparison to others on the higher tiers. I can’t see that happening with torp attacks. The only other time I’ve had that with were a double set torp strikes from an US TX carrier where the aircraft had not been spotted. Well played by the CV, but what was WG thinking on balancing there? Subs otoh, I shrug when I see them spotted in game, map click m, prioritize them, keep alerting allies to their presence and likely next move, get them killed, whether self, airstrike spammed or allied focus and move on once swiftly dispatched. I can’t say they have ever been a problem. If you let them get close in a way you don’t control, that’s IMO more your fault as a team than game design. Again, it is a bad design and meh gameplay, but the crocodile tears and hypocrisy from BB mains especially. For crying out loud…

Depends. Are you in his side with your nose pointed at it or is he in yours? Problem is, knowing everything is basically cheating in a game like this. It's too much power to hold, especially over concealment units. Once exposed, they're relatively useless and ineffective for minutes if not dead as everyone reacts to the knowledge. As you said, a wallhack feature like current radar sure makes things easier to decide on a push or not for one side, but it also means ships avoid pushing when they would have the moment they know there's something somewhere. It's game changing. I think some don't have that button installed on their keyboard. :/ But if you can get into closer positions, it certainly becomes more appealing to try to close in. Especially for secondary heavy ships. You do realise that you too get to move up into better positions closer to the enemy when you're not as prone to broadside strikes from the other side of the map? I loved sitting close in my Cleveland, but constantly had to watch not for the units on this flank, but those I couldn't even see 20-25km out. I would wager most people liked pre-radar late beta stealth gameplay better. :/ It was a much more dynamic and rewarding game for high risk takers.

Please help me interpret the stats on the subs you've played? What exactly did you dev strike, you being in complete control and having 'real', full capability understanding of what the ship can do and all? How often did this happen and what were your targets? Because it's a lot rarer than you seem to think and it's quite possible you've not even done so yourself so far given your stats suggest you at most could have killed a DD or cruiser in a single strike, while in other matches barely denting anything at all (such is the power of averages, can have had horrible matches and one good one after all and on subs that can be extreme). Given the hit pools at TX though, you've not hit quite a lot of things with the all-mighty subs that can sneak up on anything and everything and are supposedly in complete control of the engagement. They're not. Look, I'm not that great with subs myself (hell, I accidentally pressed "raise to surface" several times when trying to press DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD and/or diiiiiiiiiiive button >.<" - which is not good for your sub's health btw). But are you sure you're quite capable of determining how hard it is to get in a dev strike position? Many torpedoes didn't deal that sort of damage either without a double ping and citadels registering (which already changed) and to ensure hits you often couldn't use pings because the homing torps were unreliable in well... homing in on anything but islands and open sea due to it being a two part control type ordinance (your opponent indirectly controls the direction of your torps). Many a single DD torp can kill another DD. This isn't even true for most subs. There are pros and cons here, what with how ping works if used properly, but dev strikes even in the current poor design situation happen only on ships that made themselves an easy target, while they should have known there's a sub in the area. (Positioning in open water without any cover nearby and risking needing repair for HE fire spam, both of which can be mitigated for with positioning). Besides, even if it were common, that's a pretty simple damage balancing fix (i.e. reduce alpha damage) and not an argument against the concept of the sub. I would say the most important thing to get right with subs is the detection system from both ends. Single strike power is a related, but consecutive discussion IMO. I think your games in subs were broken indeed. But not quite in the way you portray it... :/ Don't make such hyperboles if you can't prove game breaking. And if you think dev strikes out of nowhere are gamebreaking, maybe talk to the BB class (long range) and DDs (longrange torpspam) a bit. Those are 100% accepted forms of dev strikes and far less rare and less hard work getting in a good position in my experience.

What little it conflicts, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Surprise encounters improve gameplay experience IMO as it allows both for laying traps and anticipating traps. It requires planning and exit strategies, but it would create a much more dynamic gameplay. Scouting is an essential part of gameplay and currently, I would say it's far too easy, creating predictable, stale, cowardly and conservative play. There's currently little room for aggressive play without expedited punishment. But, we're also talking specifically about protection from long range strikes because those ships don't get immediate visuals on you if information on your position is relayed by radio through a second ship. It doesn't mean you're unaware of what's in your vicinity, rather than having to fear less for broadside strikes from some Yamato or Slava on the other end of the map. Knowledge is power. Too much information power is crippling to units relying on stealth, so it can't be turned on constantly at a greater range, the suggestion to keep it on indefinitely and/or with greater distance would be absolutely devastating to the game playstyle balance fundamentals. Radar in this game is an extra information source that boosts the regular visibility range and overrules concealment ranges of ships. Hence you could argue it's a sanctioned wallhack feature. It's not meant to be a primary passive information source. We already have that in the form of regular line of sight spotting. Using radar from absolute safety has proven very detrimental for the gameplay of other units, obsoleting some or forcing them to become extremely conservative. There's ample use for concealment range overwriting in the open, especially if chances of being instagibbed or heavily crippled from exposure to ships is lower and aggressive play is more incentized. If anything, you could make the radar module a temporary concealment range reducer. Exposing ships say 3km closer than you'd normally spot them. That'd be a huge boon and would make it more useful in general, rather than just against close range stealth ships. As is, ambush play has been severely gutted, which is a lot worse than some radar ships having to use their gimmick in the open to expose invisi-ships (in smoke or out of detection range). This change would allow ambushes to become way more prevalent and hydro a more important counter tool than radar against close range ships, rather than being the poor man's radar + torp detector, which it is today.

Have you played during RTS CV periods? Single torp waves (depending on CV, could be multiple squadron strikes at once to ensure some hits) could annihilate ships depending on torp spread, amount of torps and angles. Besides, a lot of this is down to damage balance per hit. Which can be modified. I'm not going to comment on exact damage per hit or wave, as this is going to be different for various CV configurations and very much related to the effectiveness and average/optimal hit rate and attack rate of their aircraft and AA. You cannot say anything about this without playtesting and fine tuning. Note that the ships to be targeted would be closer by and not optimal targets. This will be taken into account in the AA (critical) hit rate balancing as well by the Mighty WG Spreadsheet Gods™. You do realise that's partially because Russian aircraft strike from relatively far away to survive AA and thus reaction time is relatively high? You can't dodge a German strike if it's launched right on top of your broadside for instance. Again, this has more to do with response time balance than this particular design. Fewer waves also doesn't mean single waves. Shokaku for instance has a lot more waves than it needs. It would likely be more effective with fewer waves with more torps. Please also note that I've suggested BB turn times to be lowered, making them more vulnerable to air strikes in particular. Torp speed, torp damage, torp spread, torp depth (!), endurance (luck mitigation factor) of aircraft, airspeed, etc. are more than sufficient variables to play around with. I would suggest you can't comment on expected damage dealt without knowing the damage tables, longevity of CVs, amount of aircraft etc. People ran out of aircraft in CVs during RTS times, without doing little damage I might add. Two attack waves in short succession should IMO be the max to deal with at a time as a player, because otherwise you're tasking average and below players too much. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to hit better players, but since your range is reduced, there's a much better case to make hits from a wave a bit more reliable, though damage is up in the air for balancing. In short, you're overreacting and dropping to conclusions. In a hit luck check system without aircraft hp that's not true. ;) A module-hit-by-luck system can be tweaked to compensate for bad AA ratings much more easily than a hp system, since high levels of hp would simply overwhelm a low AA rating ship to the point it becomes pointless to even have it on. A luck system would also make it possible to balance this between specific units, hence inter-tier combat would be possible to be more fair, where before DPS vs HP would ensure a win in advance for the higher tiers (often without losses) when CVs from different tiers engaged one another. With a luck system you can boost the odds variables of a lower tier when faced with a higher tier or even a specific class quite easily for both A2A and A2G attacks. For instance, you could have ships with next-to-no AA have a higher base chance to hit modules of aircraft (with some modifiers) and critical hits that down the air, but only get a few chances to hit. While ships with a lot of AA could have a low base chance, but the sheer volume of fire giving a lot of hits and chances of critical hits. This way it would be a lot fairer to low rating ships and give them more validity, while they'd still be more vulnerable in general. Some CV players lose next to no planes in the current setup. You mostly lose air to flak and this can be negated in the current AA meta. It's by no means as limited as it was during the RTS period. Regeneration as a form of replenishment is a bad design choice IMO. I'm not talking about plane hp. Do you even read this through since you're not at all aware of what is being suggested? :/ You have no clue what has been suggested, because you're incapable of looking past current design and imagining a completely different damage system.

A little unnuanced, but, which makes the subs highly situational. But that isn’t the focus of the complaints. The “cheating aim” striking power from invisibility is considered the bad bit. Depends on the situation, but many ships have those abilities given circumstance where you can’t easily return fire and risk is really low if not present. Being shot at for full health from across the map is accepted. Being shot at for full health from island cover and out of detection range is accepted. You know, like torpedoes from cruisers and DDs from smoke, or firing HE spam over islands with an Atlanta or Henry. Your problem cannot be with firing from an undetected situation without being a major hypocrite. Your issue is with what you can do once targeted to detect and return fire or to detect them while they are unaware because of having to get close to it yourself most the time. A sub once discovered can go out in one to two passes of ASW , provided the aim is well. That however, isn’t always the case and I think auto aim correct is part of the problem here as it directs fire to the turret, saturating it, and because depth charges fall at the wrong depth. However. I have noticed that most players are terrible at leading subs. Most launch their ASW at the spot the sub was. Or at the wrong angle away from the spot since their approach vector was off. They don’t look at sub orientation when spotted and possible/likely routes. When you have someone who understands subs throw ASW at you, it can be devastating. However, ASW from air strikes should be a two click action: start-end location of run. Including narrowing the spread by shortening the run. Not just start and auto-orientation from the ship. That would make ASW a lot more effective. I find that disputable. I think the problem here is a perception issue on how much damage is thought to have been dealt vs how much is dealt and there’s IMO an issue with regards to how the depth charges work atm, where depth charges always explode at a fixed depth, no matter the depth at which the sub was spotted. Many depth charges are simply not aimed well. If they do explode right against the hull (which they rarely do), it deals pretty huge damage. Torpedoes between subs are also a lot of damage. It’s literally you do well, you do next to nothing (maybe kill the opponent sub) or you don’t do anything with these subs. So I have to disagree there. It is far easier to get consistent damage with a Vermont or DD. And more of it. So honestly this is subjective. Eh don’t underestimate the stupidity of people. :P Sorry, but that there’s almost no counterplay is just not true, even for the current bad design (which I don’t agree with either, I just don't like exagerating for an agenda). :/ There is a lot you can do to track, herd and repress and kill subs and forcing to the surface. Whether those are the proper ways (I don’t agree they are), is a different matter. But that there is almost no counterplay is a lie and exageration for convenience argumentation and not based in reality. Some people even complained about not being able to find bot subs in coop! I’m really sorry, but that is just downright frustration from one’s own incompetence speaking. Because of the large amount of “cheating magic homing torps you cannot escape” complaints. I think you’ve got more of a striking chance firing without a ping though. The whole ping implementation bothers me. For example, you can use ping to make BBs use their repair so others can burn ‘m down.

Or educated guess based on what you'd do as a sub player and knowing its limitations and needs. ;)

Agreed, those are very nice boons to the DD playstyles, yet the DD is not considered OP and the only thing the subs seem to really be judged for is their alpha strike damage on ships that can't disable double pings.

Works fine for me. Then again, I control the amount of enemies firing at me usually through positioning anyway. If there's an enemy that'd fire at you, you'd opt for the island cover rather than engage. The only place island cover doesn't work is ocean after all. But generally subs will not be in your side, they'll be coming from the same direction as the rest of the enemy ships. So it's not like you're going to give broadsides all of a sudden.

Makes them easier to dodge since you basically need to just dodge one line of torps. Tbh. Provided you didn't make the bad call to run straight at the ping location.

As I said elsewhere, to counter such spreadsheet logic in design, you have to make them be able to relate to your issues. These people are not prone to emotional arguments, hence you must demonstrate and provide alternatives, rather than argue with feelings. There's a huge limit to what a spreadsheet can indicate and they're blissfully unaware of it since alpha. One of their problems seems to be they think in optimal interaction scenarios and hardly ever consider abuse or stimulated behaviour. Aside of stimulating BBs sitting in the back, think of their Kitakami implementation for instance.

Agree. Sneaking up on targets in a BB was fun. :) Did that a lot with the Thunderer loaded with AP too (instagib 5x citadel on random sitting back Slava anyone?). They add to the risk, but given they're replacing DDs in the slots, it's not a huge trade-off in comparison. Especially at higher tiers I assume I'm virtually always spotted anyway or my general position and direction is known and I play accordingly. It's less fun. With British T5-T7 cruisers (~9-10km spot range and 8-10km torps and perhaps a smoke screen) it can be a lot of fun and very effective still to play them as big DDs and close in on isles just in front of enemy positions, rather than fog gun boats from a distance. Provided there's no radar ship around. Caught quite a few BBs, DDs and cruisers off-guard that way. Italian fog ships are a bit of a let down in that respect, given their detected range when firing from smoke and hence the smoke being more of a hindrance in any CQB engagements.

Presence awareness is more important than direct engagement. A sub that's spotted and has to dive cannot engage, loses situational awareness and becomes vulnerable. It allows your side to reposition, take countermeasures if needed and indeed, intercept or engage. By simply having spotted the sub and knowing its orientation, you'll be aprized of its likely targets and heading. So relocating it becomes easier. It also determines where the unit can be in a given amount of time from that initial position, making subsequent tracking much easier. No, they are not. I didn't say run. I said reposition. Avoid open water, stay closer to islands to make leading with pings and homing torps hard to impossible. Lure the sub closer. When the sub gets to within 6-8km as it can't engage from further on, you can engage when the rest of the enemy players allow for it. And with island cover that shouldn't be too much trouble. I don't see how you could read "running". That's an incredibly narrow definition of repositioning. Of course it can. Hard elevation rudder limitations in time, ballast tank filling and expulsion speeds and reducing depth control are some basic ways to enforce a sub's choice to sit at a certain depth long enough to not just dodge incoming fire through dolphening. There's also the ASW captain skills that increase HE radius against subs, but I don't take these serious as they're too situational for anyone to consider. Those should be standard IMO and if you differentiate between depth you can hit and periscope depth / knowledge of what's happening on the surface, it should become far less useful to try and dolphin. Many DDs can smoke. Which is far more effective than diving from a combat pov. The popping up "anywhere" is simply not true and more dangerous than you think. Especially with the limitations on diving time (which IMO are done poorly). Yes, they can be engaged differently, but the opposite is also true. A sub cannot engage targets behind any form of cover, or from any sort of barrier cover (aside from leading targets), whereas a DD can fire over islands very effectively and a DD has thus a much better engagement scope itself. Many DD can also have useful AA, which subs do not have. A DD can also fire sideways at targets and have a near 360 turret engagement, most subs can only engage targets dead ahead. That's called a trade-off. They can do some things better and other things worse. That's not unheard of or unfair per definition. Subs aren't in a position to be completely untouchable and you shouldn't try to pretend they are. Again, play some to experience their limits even a little. It'll help you greatly if not just to lead the target better with depth charges (quite important).

I'd advice using the map for range (circle). I agree that it's stupid that changing to ASW rotates turrets. It'd be a major improvement if those would be locked to the last position you aimed at actively. :/ Agree, that's a MM issue. There should be fewer BB slots, IMO, or subs should be extras. Rockets actually work as HE (not sure about German CVs). But the spotting suffices, tbh. No, cruiser should be repositioning from the moment it is know the sub is on its flank. Well yes, my point exactly. This isn't for once down to the design of the sub by WG, but people not knowing how to play well (especially when faced with relatively new threats you barely encounter during your matches. Most people don't interact with the subs directly during a match after all, so can't learn well either). :/ Dolphing is a design issue. Quite annoying one too since it's been known for so long. You don't need to play them often. Just some basics will give you insights. It's highly recommended to know thy enemy. ;) That goes for a DD that broke through (and for instance solo caps the HQ area) as well though. Honestly, bad teams don't need designed help. They need to get their act together.

Agreed. The ship class has nothing to do with the implementation, other than sharing some general characteristics. The problem with WG is they seem to operate from a poorly defined design starting point regarding the desired interaction. They often don't pick the obvious constraints that would be a good counter, or dance around with the balancing to a point where it's either all or nothing. :/ It's pretty sad. I have severe doubts they wil create huge changes, aside from being a risk, it's not in their nature. I'd sooner see them adding gimmicks or features (like the oil spills) as attempts to complement or mitigate their other choices, without actually correcting the basics. This might be inherent to old school Soviet thinking, where depending on who made the decision, it's open for change or even critique. I don't know though, I don't know those people too well, but I've seen some interactions that give me some indication of the level of ego involved. That's unfortunate. I have had the same feeling with radar ships initially though. I'm tolerating them and working around them as is, but I enjoyed a really aggressive type of high risk high reward close range ambush DD game play (high adrenaline factor) and that just went lost with the introduction of radar ships and longer range hydros. Probably, but that experience will be worse if people both pretend there are no counters and then don't learn to use counters, making the whole experience worse. Again, I'm with you in that I find the sub addition pretty meh, but I can live with them knowing they're mostly just a sidenote to the battle that can be dealt with relatively easily (even ignored at times), compared to other units. It would have been nice if they had done more with alternate coop playmodes and finetuned subs there (or left them there), as that would probably have been well received.

Fair enough. :) Appreciate the long version, keep up the good work. :)

I actually gave a lot of comments on the example... In multiple posts? OH WAIT YOU JUST SAID TL;DR... Well... Makes sense coming from you. Strange... Because his submarine torp dodging is exactly the type of actuion I said over a year ago already and has served me quite well... I don't care if he's divisive. He is biased and expresses his opinions taking testing stuff out of context of practical combat situations while pretending it's representative of something and while not always fully understanding what it is he's doing. See his submarine tankiness video for instance. Make no mistake, he's a good intuitive player and has extensive in game knowledge of ship layouts and all, but he's not necessarily an expert on the fine details of all mechanics. His initial assessment of the Dutch cruisers trollability was also rather off IMO. lol. Says someone who actually uses TL;DR. I'm not pretending, you are.

Sure, but I would argue that the current boredom is down to WGs implementation and choice of mechanics.

Yes. You go from a situation of relative safety where an individual ship is less likely to be pounced and you (at T8) are in the superior position, on to a situation where there's a lot more ways to find, dogpile and overpower you with superior T10 firepower, while you're not much better equiped than the T8s in comparison to the T10s, if you get any special gimmicks to work with at all. Powercreep is excessive at these stages and it is down to a lot of gimmicks in survivability (endurance), tracking and engaging power which you didn't face in such quantities before.

lol. Likely you were ambushed due to your own lack of awareness and consideration, because I don't share your experience, at all. Subs are a mildy irritation at best, free food most of the time. Getting ambushed means you really screwed up as a team and yourself. If you havn't played subs yourself much, if barely at all, then it's no surprise you don't know what to do, what to look for, or how threatening it is. In fact, being scared of subs rather than dealing with subs can lead you to do the things that make subs a threat to you. Watching skilled player videos is not representative of how to play and they're definitely not representative of fights against average sub players. First of all many share what they want you to see to protect their image. Some have an agenda to show off "OP". These people will not always share their bad results. On top of that, a good player will perform better anyway. And since it is likely they face people like yourself in a relatively new threat to those people, they'll perform better. There's a lot of people who proclaim there's no counterplay and therefore put no effort into developing their skills in counterplay against subs. I've seen people do the exact opposite of what you'd want to do when facing a sub and yeah, those can die quickly. But is that representative, or just noobs being noobs?

Right... Because you can't fly aircraft to them, use hydro, spot pings, accidentally come across them, have other subs do a scan, force them to take narrow routes through straights in order to engage you (while becoming easier ASW targets), notice when you and others are being spotted and triangulate / derive an approximate location and at all times, be aware of any sub having been spotted on the map at any given moment in time... That includes whether there's a sub on the other side of the map, because this provides you with intel on whether it's save to do specific actions. If a sub has gone missing and hasn't engaged anyone, it's likely somewhere with few friendlies, possibly trying to break through. So that too gives you information. Talk to your allies. See if they've been pinged and from what direction... I mean... What is it you do to detect subs and keep their threat in check? Doesn't sound like you do a whole lot since you're apparently not busy with locating them till they ambush you? You're right. YOU can only engage subs if THEY screw up, after YOU screwed up first.

Actually, that's not the case. Subs are very limited in where they can go and actually have an impact due to their lack of maneuvrability, speed and fear of being detected in an overextended position. They require more backup than you think. Air strike ASW does not make players do other things differently, it's more like a free extra attack on an additional target. More likely a sub forces some ships to change pathing to a bit more conservative route, it doesn't do much more. It's not good at area denial, like a DD and sure you'll see some people react instinctively out of fear through ignorance, but that's their own choice to get handicapped. BBs and cruisers can often engage subs without straying from their own jobs when it comes to air strikes. The irony is that ships with actual ASW capacity on board get no air strikes and therefore do have to go out of their way and take additional risks. They don't just pop up there. If they get there you let them by your team allowing a section of the map to be broken through. Other subs, CVs, cruisers and DDs can plug these holes. Even on Ocean, those subs don't just teleport anywhere or can engage anywhere without severe risk to themselves if they get exposed. When a sub is detected, it's likely within secondary range of enemies, so it can't just disengage like say a gunship DD. It can dive, but that doesn't make it teleport to the other side of the map, while yielding control and even knowledge of events on the surface. When it comes back up after being detected, it's likely within spitting distance of multiple enemy ships, making it extra vulnerable since the only defense it has is its position not being known. That's not to say I'm happy with the way things are and the mechanics WG chose to implement and the way in which they implemented the ones that are somewhat reasonable, but your post above is pure speculation based on receiving end information. Your profile suggests you've not played a single match in subs. Maybe try it some time to get an idea of what they can and cannot do before you state "Truths". Basically I think you've got observer bias, combined with a highly imaginative and prejudiced extrapolation, which may seem logical under your assumptions, but it's not true in practice. :/ When playing subs myself, I've found that the fast majority of actual engagements for the average gameplay of a sub is between submarines somewhere in the middle of the map. Even if you win that engagement (which can be lengthy and frustrating), you'll either get help from your team or get teamed up on by your enemy. This makes it a very hit and miss, all or nothing experience. Any sub that pops up in your spawn will be overextended and die a swift death from everyone pouncing it. As such, you'll be more likely to seek the edges of battle and stay near the protection of your cruisers and DDs in case you run into an enemy DD, or get spotted by a CV. If you don't, your team will leave you out to fend for yourself, which likely means you'll die. This severely limits the possible routes of engagement to similar positions as DDs, with more limited strafing and relocation abilities in comparison. It can scout behind enemy lines better than it is likely to engage. If however, a flank is completely left open for a sub to break through into the open seas behind the enemy, it can have a devastating scouting impact and if it's lucky, it might hit some targets too (which is actually harder than you'd think because your spread is likely narrower and if you ping often times the torps don't go where you think they'll go and you get no indication of trajectory, so it's sometimes hard to guess whether it will hit rocks or not). With the ping mechanics as they were, damagewise if you do hit could be a lot, or could be shrugged off. Subs, unlike CVs, BBs, cruisers and DDs, aren't great in ranked battles, because they can't dominate over distances very well. They can't jump in to support targets far away. They need close range engagement, even if that's where they're most fragile. They're not good at capturing areas and doing so gives away your position in a harder to mitigate way than for DDs, since DDs can change course relatively quickly, while subs remain relatively predictable.