Jump to content

Procrastes

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    2,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2599
  • Clan

    [CPA]

1 Follower

About Procrastes

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,080 profile views
  1. Procrastes

    Do you want submarines in the game?

    As I've written before, I think the most vital thing for WG to focus on when introducing submarines, is this: Make submarine gameplay equally enjoyable for all ship classes - subs and non-subs - right from the start. Don't create an initially overpowered, new and exciting ship class, and then nerf it into the ground after the community goes bananas. I have just watched iChases youtube video, where he showcases a few short excerpts of DD vs. sub gameplay. Oh, and there's a battleship involved as well. My impression was, that the submarine has the clear advantage. The destroyer's best hope for a victory is if the submarine screws up and allows for repeated depth charging, while a battleship on its own seems to be more or less screwed whatever it does (especially, as iChase remarks, since a tier VI submarine is actually faster than several battleships it may face in battle). The instance where the destroyer sank the submarine, was when the destroyer came in from the side while the submarine was busy attacking the battleship, and from what I gathered, the submarine was sunk then only because it had already been damaged in a previous depth charge run. In the next movie clip, the submarine attacked the destroyer head on, and torped it to death without too much difficulty. And since the submarine holds the concealment advantage, it should be able to dictate the terms of any such engagement. From the destroyer's perspective, ASW gameplay currently seems to consist of driving in circles looking for circles, which doesn't look all that entertaining to begin with. It also seems to be asking for a torpedo in the nose, and this is in a one-on-one scenario. I can imagine that it would be somewhat harder in a normal random battle, where the destroyer would be conducting his depth charge run while spotted by the submarine and thus under fire from any and all of the submarine's team mates that happen to be within firing range. Obviously, this is a work in progress, and we should not take a few early-on submarine gameplay videos as any kind of representation of how the real gameplay will eventually turn out. It will be interesting to see how this will continue to develop. I earnestly hope that all ship classes will be given adequate counterplay options when facing submarines. There should be plenty of opportunities to utilize such resources as already exist in the game, such as hydroacoustic search and float planes, as well as to tinker with various offensive anti-submarine weapons such as the hedgehog. And there are doubtless many other possibilities as well, that I can't think of out of hand. We live in interesting times!
  2. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    I really hope we are not going to see a game development that turns Radio Location into another mandatory, must-pick skill. As things are now, it is hugely useful, but not to the point where you are stupid if you don't take it.
  3. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    I share the same thoughts. Although I suspect that the speed thing may be a necessary adaptation in order to make submarines at all viable in a ship-to-ship arcade combat environment. As I've written before, I think both WG and the player base have learned a lot from the CV rework. Or at least I hope so. If Wargaming called me up today, and asked to provide one focus point - just one - for the introduction of submarines, it would be this: Focus on making submarine gameplay equally enjoyable for all ship classes - subs and non-subs - right from the start. Don't create an initially overpowered, new and exciting ship class, and then nerf it into the ground after the community goes bananas.
  4. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    Newsflashes like "...can only be attacked by another submarine...", or "...homing torpedoes with 18 km range...", tend to bring out our inner pitchforks. So I say, as much to myself as to anyone else: Let's keep an open mind, and see what happens? A really good bit of information so far, was the part where it said that the new submarines will at first be tested out in a separate game mode only. That should improve the odds that submarines won't hit ordinary random battles before they are adequately balanced. If we learned anything from the CV rework, it was that ongoing balancing efforts in a live random battle environment are not always a soothing experience. Please note that this post is not an incitement to stop brainstorming about the submarine project. On the contrary, it is vital that we, as players, keep our input ongoing and lively throughout the whole ordeal shenanigan - that's the way to influence the future of the game!
  5. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    They specifically wrote, "If a submarine is detected on the surface or at periscope level, she can be attacked with HE shells, rockets, or bombs..." - which, if taken as what it says, means that you can't do any damage to a surfaced submarine with AP shells, even with a direct hit. Or perhaps they mean that a surfaced submarine can't be directly hit at all, but is vulnerable only to splash damage from HE shells, rockets and bombs. Both alternatives seem silly, and I guess it's more likely that the text is badly written and conveys the wrong message.
  6. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    Thanks again! All in all, the new submarine gameplay would seem to be something entirely new, and quite intriguing! Quoting from the announcement, there are at least two thing I wonder at: "Submarines are relatively slow. Their speed on the surface is a mere 25–30 knots; at periscope depth their speed is reduced further. When underwater, submarines will be able to cruise at the same speed as when at surface level." So a fully submerged submarine will be able to move at a greater speed, than one that is at periscope depth? "If a submarine is detected on the surface or at periscope level, she can be attacked with HE shells, rockets, or bombs. Such armaments will be able to affect targets within a certain radius of impact (splash damage)." I assume that a direct hit with an AP shell will also do damage?
  7. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    Are you saying that a destroyer equipped with hydro could use it to detect a submerged submarine, but a cruiser or battleship could not? Even if they also have hydro? (It's late and my brain is about to go to 1/4 speed, so please excuse me if I am a bit slow in the uptake here.)
  8. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    So a submerged submarine can't be detected by a surface ship, by any means? Not even with hydroacoustic search? That's a tad... surprising, perhaps? Unless of course the submarine can dive to (and come back from) a depth exceeding the range of the sonar, that is between 3000 to 5000 meters as things are now. Which would be a tad surprising as well, I'd say!
  9. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    Thanks for your clarifications! But quite apart from all this newly released information, I'm fairly sure I heard something a couple of months ago - back when the Halloween event with subs was on - to the effect that ships with hydro would be able to use it to locate submarines at greater distances. And even if I remember wrong, I can see no reason why hydro shouldn't detect submarines the same way it detects other ships...?
  10. Procrastes

    Homing torpedoes for subs confirmed

    But no hedgehog? The hedgehog was a fairly efficient anti-sub weapon, from what I've read. Acoustic torpedoes? The description above seems to go rather well with what I just googled up on wikipedia about German acoustic torpedoes during WW2. I never even knew they had a fire-and-forget torpedo during WW2, and I'm not sure how I feel about having one in this game. Unless balanced very carefully, an acoustic torpedo could easily turn into a caustic one, instead. But I guess we're about to find out? Active sonar reveals sub location - good. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if this means that they will fiddle around with sonar range and duration on existing ships, or balance subs against the values we currently have? [Edited: @von_chom kindly let me know that I'd misunderstood this piece of information; see post no. 51 below. Thanks, Von Chom! But anyhow, it is my considered opinion that active hydro should detect submarines, just as it detects other ships.*] Auto spamming depth charges, well. No real surprise there, perhaps? There is really not much room for an anti-submarine weapon that would have to be actively controlled by the player, since very few of us would have the capacity to handle that on top of all the usual steering and shooting and dodging and typing in chat. As an old man, I confess to a certain amount of relief at this piece of information. Also, as an old man, I strive to not reflexively dislike any and all changes to the Usual Order of Things. So I will do my best to approach these new subs with an open mind - and with a bucket of depth charges within easy reach. * I am prepared to make allowances for an exception if they ever put a flying submarine into the game.
  11. Procrastes

    13th Ranked Season: is the game "pay to win"

    These points are all valid. There is a fairly big difference as to what is at stake in a ranked battle, compared to an ordinary random one. When you know that many of your team mates will likely have put in a lot of time and effort, doing less than your best is somewhat disrespectful. On the other hand, it is important to hold in mind that a battle in WoWs - even a ranked one - is still just a game. It is not worth losing sleep or getting into a fight - online or otherwise - over!* * As I keep repeating to myself, between clenched teeth, far more often than I'd care to admit.
  12. Procrastes

    Idea for reimplamantation of the IJN Kitakami

    Pay attention, everyone - now, this is the way to gripe! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhbObZEF0Mc (The good part starts about 60 seconds into the clip.)
  13. Procrastes

    13th Ranked Season: is the game "pay to win"

    An interesting thread, @Alfa_Tau! Here are my two cents on the subject. There are a few basic moral tenets, that I think most WoWs players can more or less agree on: World of Warships is a team playing game. If you take part in it, you have an obligation to play as well as you can, and to behave decently towards the other players (allies and enemies alike). Deliberately ruining the game for others, or other forms of misbehaviour, is not allowed. Not trying to actually win the battle is a form of passive sabotage in this context. Barring acts of deliberate sabotage or other forms of bad behaviour, everyone should be allowed to try to win the battle in whatever way he or she sees fit. OP raises an interesting question with relation to the above tenets, namely how one should view the choices of modules, consumables and signal flags that can augment a ship's performance in the game. Is there an imperative to always use at least a basic camouflage with the relevant bonuses to concealment and dispersion? Should it be considered disloyal to one's team to enter a battle without a full set of modules and premium consumables? I don't set out to provide an answer for everyone. But as I see it, the matter is fairly simple. The conditions for being allowed to enter a battle are built into the game. As long as it is mechanically possible to click the 'Battle' button with a naked ship, or with a ship with no mounted modules or signal flags whatsoever, it is also in accordance with the rules to do so. And given that camouflage patterns, modules, consumables and signal flags all cost resources, I can hardly see how it could be otherwise. Thus, I would never come down on someone in chat, or report him for playing badly or any such thing, simply on account of how he has fitted out his ship. This being said, deliberately taking your ship into battle without such available in-game resources that can help you attain a win - in other words, to wilfully lessen your chances for a victory - could certainly be thought of as going somewhat against the spirit of the game. As long as we are talking about resources that are easily available for in-game credits, and making allowances so that no one should be forced to run a premium account or otherwise spend real money, it would make sense to outfit your ship with at least the basic set of consumables before going into battle. This is especially so if that battle is on a level, or in a game mode, that requires some amount of dedication to take a serious part in. Accidentally entering the lists in a ranked battle without a proper camouflage pattern on my destroyer, for instance, would make me blush like the proverbial tomato. It should perhaps be added that clans are of course free to set up any membership rules they wish concerning such things as uniform and equipment. It's not mandatory to be in a clan, after all. Cheers!
  14. Procrastes

    Idea for reimplamantation of the IJN Kitakami

    What about reintroducing the Kitakami with this setup? Torpedoes have 20 km range Torpedoes can only damage other Kitakami Mirror matchmaking This way the Kitakami enthusiasts can have their fun, and the rest of the two teams can get on with the real battle. Cookies for everyone! Disclaimer: This post is not aimed at any one person or opinion. It's intended solely as a lighthearted joke.
  15. Procrastes

    Submarines: the next step.

    Like the one at Little Big Horn...? I'll get my coat.
×