Figment

I'm not entirely sure why they've not given all ships full ASW capability, because giving at least some makes sense, but one reason could be they want to see just how much the performance of those ships is hampered in comparison to ships with various ASW abilities and possibly if it results in certain shiplines not being played as extensively anymore. That said, it can't be a solution to not play this type of ship anymore if the goal is to bring these subs to Randoms and would make this class unworkable. Either way, the sub will eventually have to come up, so they're not entirely powerless against them, provided, like with DDs, they manage to spot them.

Ishizuchi.

And improved range (spotter aircraft).

Marblehead Lima here as well. Though I got a Ischizuchi from the Tier II - Tier IV container from the Pacific missions, while I only have half the listed T2-T3 premiums from events / beta gifts. So it seems to still be random. Not sure if they have equal drop rates, but even if they do it's still likely you get one of the more numerous cheap ones than the most expensive ones. If you want one out of 10 ships and call 6 out of 10 cheap, then the odds of getting one of those 6 is of course higher than getting that one specific ship you're hoping for.

Limited amount though.

Yeah, it is kinda ridiculous the Italian ships don’t get a near 100% WR by default. Clearly this is an non-realistic anti-Italian paper bias from WG. https://countryballs.net/france_vs_italy/676

Italian ships need more than two flags. Just in case.

25 torps hits or kills: 4x4 8km torps, smoke and bots sailing by on both sides… should have had that mission in two matches really. Got to 21, 17 hits and four kills, but BB was taken out by a DD with faster torps just before my torps would hit in the second match.

French autoloaders are easy kills... Just wait for them to reload and they've got no defense...

Not much trouble, two, three evenings (mostly the damage and xp missions). The remainder are easy to do. For the 25 cruiser torps/kills for instance I just took an Emerald into coop for three matches.

Too easy match. :x But first time over 3000 base exp I think: 3032 xp 20210905_104517_PASD008-Benson-1945_44_Path_warrior.wowsreplay

You can manually check who voted what though, even if it's cumbersome, it's traceable what the combination was. Could you clarify?

Shouldn't do anything of the sort. Could there be a performance issue involved? I get that sort of thing now and then when there's a lot of AA for instance, but then it's my laptop or wifi having a stroke.

@YabbaCoe @MrConway Think the poll’s direction is pretty clear already. A large amount of players feels they don’t play the lower tiers as much as they’d like and the main reasons are mostly lack of mission incentives, pay-out, CVs impact on T3-T4 and lacking (PvE) Ops content. Fixing the above may fix the low player count issue. Anything you’re planning to address this?

The funny thing is you and Pikko basically want the same thing I do. And it seems some others too. A lot of the argumentative discussion is about semantics and definitions and tbh a fear of Steel Ocean. I don’t think any of us have a lot of faith in WGs capabilities to implement it just right, but I think where we differ is that Pikko and I to a slightly lesser extend welcome the challenge, provided there’s some further improvement and could tolerate even current design, whereas you want perfection (which I havn’t clearly seen defined what kind of class interaction you would like to see, but you may have stated that somewhere). I found I can adapt to it easily so far and I can see the current incarnation quite easily adapted to a slightly more complex level to at least the level of complexity between various DD. I’m willing to give WG the benefit of the doubt as they have made clear improvements. I think they are too fast rolling it out, as they often have been in the past, but by bringing it into ranked they enforce at least a good testing ground, where the separate mode saw too many bots to get a really good idea of their efficiency and effectiveness. It is my opinion that a lot of players confuse detail design and finetuning with core concepts, so when some balance is off they go into a panic survival mode and call for removal. Consider though that when they put German DDs or Dutch cruisers in test they tossed them in game within months. With these subs we know they have been developing them since at least 2018 and have given them three tests before the current one, each time players were convinced WG would toss them in randoms the day after. They have been somewhat patient with them, not sure if their management wants to put it off too long (air strikes and depth charges are already available in randoms), but they do seem to be aware it isn’t yet completely ready. There were major differences between the last three versions and I’m sure they will tweak some stuff. And I’m sure they will implement them, possibly in a couple patches. But that doesn’t mean it is the final incarnation either and if we want them to do it right we should not drown our constructive feedback in toxic negativity and make them ignore us.

It's not a weapon, but it is a counter that thwarts certain types of stealth attack by taking away the surprise and allows for evasive or aggressive action as it also allows for forming a counter-attack. I would imagine that's what he's going for. Essentially you're not disagreeing as much as he includes it in a definition of ASW whereas I presume you are more talking about depth charges for deeper under water engagements? I wouldn't go as far. Some of these CN games can have innovative things. I remember a CN PlanetSide inspired clone, which had some interesting UI and base design elements added, but got so much other things wrong for a MMOFPS I wouldn't want to play it. Still, certain mini-map and other UI elements and and some defensive security camera features were interesting concepts I wouldn't have minded in PlanetSide 1. A game design is made out of thousands of decisions. They can't all be wrong.

Maybe we miscommunicated, but I stated that most the things required for a proper implementation already exist in some way shape or form in WoWs and from what I understood you suggested it'd be far too much work from scratch to implement any of the sort. Most the required additional work on top of the basic stuff already in game was implemented in this recent submarine incarnation. Sub-sea maps being the biggest art thing, which Lesta in 2015... or so... said they didn't want to do iirc. Not sure what the argument was exactly, could be performance. Again, far from perfect, but a lot of the tools to make something out of it are there. Iirc, it wasn't a response to you, but the person I quoted who pretended no arguments were made whatsover.

In that case we should pretty much scrap most ships with gimmicks in WoWs because they all use imperfect mechanisms that are either nigh acceptable or tolerable. I mean, just mentioning BB/CL healing where others don't have that, but Conquerer healing especially. Going from 1.000hp to 40.000 in a matter of seconds... Extremely long range radar, radar on some BBs, absolutely impossible to counter high frequency spam compared to sluggish but potentially instakill alpha damage from up to ~33km... I mean... What is acceptable is subjective too. I tolerate a lot of the stuff and work around it and subs are no different for that matter. Hell, I barely find them a threat and perhaps they're even a boon to my aggressive playstyle because they keep the naughty ships that would stop my silly BB secondaries advance towards a cap at a further safe distance. I use terrain to my advantage anyway and subs can't handle those areas well. There's a lot of things in game I'd do differently, but tolerate. Radar is the most annoying concept, IMO. For me, worse than aircraft since at least aircraft you can avoid if you see it coming. Radar can come from 5 isles away and you won't be able to overcome it if you just happen to be a DD in fog in a precarious duel or whatever. I mean, with aircraft at least you're engaging with those units directly and you can simply hide in smoke as a DD at times, butradar the only option is hug cover or rush away 12km while being shot at by the entire enemy team for up to 30s. I mostly see him be on the defense trying to explain how he's been wrongly interpreted and he seems consistent enough to be believable there IMO. It's often hard in a debate for people to step back and see if they're being fair to someone, particularly when emotions run high (and with an anti-something crowd who fight change against something they perceive as a threat to their beloved game, chances are those are the ones making the emotional arguments...). Havn't played Steel Ocean and I don't know what he wants implemented exactly, but that's his every right to want, as it is your right to disagree. Wanting something from another game (other games can have good ideas too, even if they're knock off games) is no disqualification for an opinion though. It may just provide a different perspective. Besides. As you say yourself, chances of WG listening...

Cheap, low and dishonest would be ignoring a long list of extremely specific arguments and saying a post is void of arguments.

In my thread I had subs situational awareness through passive hydrophone increase at lower speeds too for that same reason.

Tbh as an onlooker, he's occassionally being unfairly strawmanned and I'd almost say deliberately misinterpreted at times, just because he likes subs and thus is the "partisan opposition who must be proven wrong". Of course I want complexity and skill based gaming. :) I'd love WG to implement it all, but as you say chances are low. That doesn't mean they won't implement something tolerable, but outright removal isn't necessary imo. Oh they should have some sort of ASW, though a Thunderer probably has way more effective HE than most other ships to deal with subs, especially with ASW captain skills. Bismarck has no ASW but has hydro and thus finds and forces subs to the surface more efficiently with the detection penalty on sub diving stamina. There are other ways to balance this than purely depth charges. But if you play subs now, you can already get overwhelmed very quickly by ASWs with little means of fighting back too as situational awareness is low of approaching DDs (~2.4km warning, by which time it is too late).

But that's a specific design solution. :/ I mean, it'd be fine for gameplay if the speeds were 60% of this too. After all, it's a game. Full of paper ships. Shima's are... speshiul.

As killing subs with BBs - even without ASW, but with high explosive shells - does, correct? Ask yourself whether you are always in a position to fight back. Or situationally and whether you can create these circumstances. I would argue it is easier to do against subs, since DDs are more mobile and have better situational awareness. There's positioning near cover, timing of repairs in combination with evasive movement, spotting which forces them to the surface as air runs out quicker, dominating a capture zone it needs for points, working together with other units to spot and kill it with HE (which hits to at least about 12-15m deep I think - not quite tested how deep it goes with captain skills and caliber size tbh). That goes for subs as well actually. If you can't touch them they tend to have issues too and must compensate. There are situations where they can torp and you can't fire, but you can break their lock at which points their torps are easier to dodge than stealth torps from DD. You may not have hydro or radar either. Yet you dodge torps and corner DDs. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. Speeds are regularly... "improved" for various ships. Battle influence is a different matter, but that requires a good definition too. And it's okay if it's just a regional influencer, as long as it is defined as such (CV is an all-over influencer, in contrast). Power should scale accordingly, but remain competitive and counterable. You're hyperboling here. Adding "nothing" as a class is an extremely subjective statement.

^ My views on subs. Change and more work is definitely still needed, but it's not as hard to implement as some seem to think. Just saying "no" is basic narrowmindedness. The argumentation used is largely obsolete and often because of what people have seen (and even then often not understood), without being able to imagine what could be.

Considering anything that is mentioned as an argument is completely ignored in favor of convenient subjective Truths or twisted to mean the opposite at times… I don’t care what Lesta once said, they brought you CVs in two poorly executed manners. Why are those same people supposedly capable of defining what would never work all of a sudden? Everyone complains about their spreadsheet thinking until they are suddenly Wielders of Truth™️ when it is convenient?