Procrastes

I was thinking more along the lines of a Terry Pratchett drop... ...but I'm sure we could have a combination of ideas?

Not having an arming distance for their torpedoes has to be an oversight. It's so obviously exploitabe, especially for something that can arise suddenly from below like... well... ...this. On the topic of cool submarine monsters, I wonder why it is that nearly every movie ever made about them suck such utter mooseballs?

Wait, what? Why the deuce not....??!!!

Submarine battles are getting more and more surreal. Right now, if I join in a submarine, there will be a first stage game of daggers involving the human submarine players and the mostly human destroyer players, with the best/luckiest players coming out alive. Then will follow a second stage where those subs left alive will just butcher the mostly bot surface ships that remain. At this stage, a surviving human destroyer player can make a quick end to the game, but if no such players are left, we are looking at a long, slow and impressively boring endgame. If I join in a destroyer I can expect to have a fairly successful battle, since most surface ships will be bots and most submarines will be easy prey unless I manage to sail right into their torpedoes at point blank range (hydro helps against this, by the way). An enemy gunboat destroyer driven by an actual human is the only real threat to me in this scenario.* I have yet to join in a cruiser or a battleship. I'm fighting the urge to buy that tier VI British battleship that is equipped with a hydro (the Duke of York, right?), but then again, what good would it do me without access to ASW? It would be like meeting an angry grizzly bear at night in Yukon, and be so so fortunate as to be equipped with night-vision goggles. I'd just as soon not be able to see my horrible end as it closed in on me. I am honestly curious to find out what conclusions, if any, Wargaming is drawing from this experiment so far. * With the possible exception of the sporadic CV player, but he or she will probably be busy screaming his lungs out in a fit of futile rage while circling and trying to hit a submarine that keeps bobbing up and down and making funny faces at his little planes. I never thought I'd pity a CV captain in this game, but I guess there really is a first day for everything.

I don't have any specific data either, but I'm still fairly confident in saying that you are correct in this. I believe that the hit ratio for a typical WW2-era battleship was less than 3 percent at longer ranges, and that it would in many cases take anything between ten to twenty minutes before they scored the first hit (if any). On the other hand, one single hit was much more likely to have serious consequences in real life than it is in the game (where, barring a Detonation, we just lose some hit points). A single hit from a battleship gun would be quite likely to put a cruiser out of action, if not sink it outright, for example. Needless to say, fighting a battle under these conditions would kill the gameplay outright in an arcade game such as World of Warships. If we would go to a simulator game instead, things would be much different.

While this is correct, I have this nagging feeling that Wargaming shortened the stealth radar duration merely as a temporary measure to placate the agitated part of player base while the new Russian cruisers are being phased in. As soon as this is done and everyone is busy discussing other topics, they can sneak-boost the duration with a few seconds here and a few seconds there, and have them back to 20-25 seconds in half a year or so. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I'll have you know that the raccoon [Procyon lotor] is a very adaptive and intelligent animal. Although perhaps not adaptive enough to cope with submarines being introduced into random battles... so at this juncture, I'll support your "the whole thing has to be scrapped" motion.

I have a new totem spirit.

Then all I can say is that you are evidently a much better shot than I. Salutations!

Yes, that "Historical Battles" mode in WoT was a magnificent clusterf---k. To give Wargaming their due, they made a good run at it, but they quickly realized it wasn't feasible and shut it down. The inherent problem with that kind of set-up, or indeed with any kind of nation vs. nation battle mode in a PvP game, is that wars are not fought in a neatly balanced tier progression. Instead we have such things as, say, a history of about a year of terror for the British merchant fleet as the great U-boat aces of the Kriegsmarine moved among them like wolves let loose inside a sheep pen, and then came new times with depth charges and ASDIC and hedgehogs and whatnot and the German submariners went from being hunters to being hunted almost to extinction. Good material for a 50's BBC TV-documentary, but hardly much fun if modelled as a PvP environment.

Indeed, the London moves as if she's had one too many for the road. A fair way of compensating for her having a smoke screen, certainly - but trying to dodge away from a suddenly appearing torpedo spread is like standing up to quickly after, well, having one too many for the road...!

I also have a soft spot for the Emerald, since she nearly always rewards me with a citadel hit whenever I shoot at her. I never had any truck with playing her myself, for much the same reason. She's one of very few ships I have actually sold back, in spite of her having access to that gorgeous Gaelic green as a permanent camouflage pattern!

Right you are. And she's got torps to boot. The Kuma may be slightly stronger overall, but you underestimate the Lady Svetlana at your peril!

Good information! I had noticed the disparity in damage values and wondered what they meant in crunch factor. It's good to see the middle-tier Brits get a bit of love, and the Gallant, fine ship though she is, has seen little action as of late. I might rather choose to dust off the Icarus, however, seeing as she has that highly useful hydroacoustic search consumable.

The Charleston is basically a premium St Louis, and you can't go very wrong in a St Louis. But if you are looking for some really entertaining gameplay at those lower tiers, get the Bogatyr and put a captain with the Advanced Firing Training skill in her! You will be able to outrange just about anything other than a battleship, and unlike a battleship, you will actually be able to hit what you shoot at. Get the Bogatyr, and put the world on fire. If you absolutely have to burn down every muthaf- - -a in the room, accept no substitute!

The Bayern is tough as old boots, she can take a beating that would put most other ships on that tier on the bottom. Just don't expect to hit very much at longer ranges (but then you shouldn't be fighting at longer ranges in any German battleship). I like her a lot, although I tend to prefer the Warspite in operations.

I'd say that of these two alternatives, having a finite - but possibly rechargeable - oxygen supply, is the better one. This was also how Wargaming started out when they began tinkering with the introduction of submarines, but for some reason it was scrapped in favour of the current (and admittedly more "arcady") model. However they choose to proceed, I believe that we can't have a gameplay model which allows submarines to stay underwater indefinitely. Unless they are forced to surface at some point, they are just too untouchable.

What you say here... ...is of course correct. Although I do believe that WW2-era submarines were actively hunted not just planes but also by destroyers, having battleships going after submarines with depth charges is a bit ridiculous from a historical perspective. I am however not writing from a historical perspective, but in response to current submarine gameplay in WoWs. And they way this game is set up, leaving battleships - or any ship for that matter - unable to effectively attack submarines, is not conducive to good and dynamic gameplay. You obviously can't depend entirely on team play, and even if you could, we have those situations where a couple of non-ASW equppped ships find themselves entering the endgame with one or more submarines on the opposite team - not a very fun situation for either side. I am not saying that giving all surface ships access to ASW is the best solution. It was just one thought I had. If you have any thoughts on alternate ways forward, I'd like to hear them!

On the subject of that Earl Gray video, I don't really know what to make of it. Are we seeing a soon-to-be ex employee bashing his employer, or is he an already ex employee bashing his former employer? What exactly is, or was, his affiliation with Wargaming? And what made it turn sour? As for the factual content of the video, we all know that Wargaming is in the business of making money and that quality gameplay will always play second fiddle to economic gain. I've just been sort of hoping that they would coincide. And aside from the Sir Fochsgate incident a couple of years ago, which I mainly pegged down to the ineptitude of the communications department of Wargaming NA, it wasn't until the Puerto Rico debacle that I witnessed any outright unethical marketing strategies from Wargaming. Right now, I don't really know what to think and what to expect from them in the future.

With the Nürnberg, you'd do well to try and keep the distance and do most of your shooting while kiting away. You have good range and nice ballistics, and two of your three turrets are situated on the aft deck.* (They also turn 360°, which is a nice feature to have, especially if you find yourself as the pursuer instead of the pursued.) Keep wiggling your cute little German butt and stroke your pursuers gently with HE - but if you happen to come across any cruisers that give you broadside at 12 km range or less, switch to AP and citadel them to Kingdom Come! If you still end up being cornered at close range, you have access to some really heavy torpedo armament (with the proper build) - but don't go showing off your own broadside just to get some torps off. But perhaps most importantly, don't be discouraged if you get blown out of the water with alarming frequency! If you are not being shot at by at least half the enemy team, you are probably doing something wrong - fighting against the odds is almost as large a part of being a light cruiser captain, as it is the domain of the dashing destroyer commander. Accept that you will not survive! * Historically for this exact purpose, actually, as the Kriegsmarine expected their light cruisers to do most of their fighting while running away from the Royal Navy.

This! Another personal favourite is the T-61. She has an amazing toolbox with smoke, hydro and fast-loading torpedoes, but her anemic guns force you to play intelligently and with forethought. In other words, she rewards clever play but punishes mistakes, which is a very good combination of traits as I see it. If you like middle-tier heavy cruisers, you'd probably also like the Essex. Good traits overall, and a heal that lets you recover from some (but not all) mistakes. And if you are looking for a mid-tier battleship that is also good for operations, the Warspite is a good and solid choice in my opinion. If you want one for tier V ias well, I'd advise you to take a look at the Pyotr Velikiy!

In this constellation, and with the current distribution of anti-submarine weapons - i.e., no ASW for battleships or carriers - the green team should be given the consumable "Open Bottom Vents", so they could just sink themselves and save the red team the trouble. On a more serious note, I expect that this is one of those things which will be noted by Wargaming under the "needs fixing" folder. Unless they want to encourage rage-quitting towards the end of submarine battles, that is. A possible solution might perhaps be to give all ship classes (except submarines!) access to depth charges? Having planes equipped with depth charges would probably turn CV:s into the prime sub killers, so they'd be happily back on top of the food chain. Battleships on the other hand would find depth charges considerably trickier to use effectively, due to their low speed and poor maneuvrability - but any small amount of fighting chance is better than none.

Wargaming not wanting to accidentally release an overpowered premium, is of course a good thing in itself. Their guiding principle of late seems to be that if Flamu reviews an upcoming German premium ship and likes it, it is considered to be too strong and therefore nerfed. If he reviews a Russian premium ship and likes it, it is considered to not be strong enough and it is consequently buffed. Or maybe I'm seeing a pattern where none exists. Just because there is overlap, doesn't mean there is a connection. Tinfoil reefs ahead...?* * Please note that I used to dismiss claims of Russian bias out of hand. There simply was no cause for it. Then Smolensk happened, and Kuznetsov arrived, and there are Russian stealth-radar cruisers appearing over the horizon.. and suddenly I'm not so sure anymore.

WW2-era submarines had a significantly lower underwater speed than when travelling on the surface. This had to do mainly with the fact that their diesel engines - which could only run at the surface or at snorkel depth - were much more powerful than the battery-driven electrical engines that were used while submerged. Even with the proviso that game balance must always trump historical accuracy - which it absolutely should - this was such a big part of how those submarines worked, that doing it otherwise in the game would hurt the immersion value. It would also most likely make their diving capabilities too powerful as a stealth mechanic in the game. Depth charges should do damage to submarines at any depth, I'd say - even if they are on the surface. If you're in a destroyer or cruiser and have gone through the trouble of chasing down the little bugger and actually managed to end up on top of him, he shouldn't be able to negate your depth charges simply by surfacing and making funny faces at you (and then just dive again once you brought your guns to bear). Nor should we have a mechanic that encourages ramming as the most expedient way to counter a depth charge attack. And I have had enough instances of closing in on a submarine only to get a faceful of torps in the face at point-blank range, to know that I don't particularly care for that experience either. Of course, this is not to say that submarines should be completely helpless against destroyers; WoWs is a game of play and counter-play after all. Clearly there remains a lot of way to go before submarines can be regarded as even halfway balanced in relation to the other ship classes. I just hope that Wargaming will take their time with this, and not force-feed them into random battles before they are ready for it.

That pretty much sums up the most damaging way so far of exploiting the crazy-a$$ 'bobbing-mechanic' that offers complete immunity to either gun fire or depth charges, depending on whether you are above or below 6 meters of depth. There is a hilarious video showcasing this tactic on the dedicated submarine thread. If you've made this tactic work to your benefit, then good for you. But in my opinion this bobbing mechanic tops the list of things that have to go if submarines are ever going to get anywhere close to being a functional ship class within the wider margins of the game.