How would YOU design U-boat gameplay?

[orzel286]

You want subs? Join the navy.

[Enduro_Biker]

4 minutes ago, orzel286 said:

You want subs? Join the navy.

I was rejected, they said I had to much crazy ideas and could never shut my mouth 

[HaachamaShipping]

20 minutes ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

Dont be silly, U-boats are cool and belongs in World Of Warships, you know it , I know it 

No.

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

Scare a battleship for a day and it will die miserably, teach a battleship how to be scared and it will camp for life. 

[RC_8015]

Low speed underwater but also hard to spot. No vision on their own, just asured vision on 2 km. Hydro consumable availible, extends vision to 3 km for a few seconds. Only arnment torps, maybe some kind of flak on higher tier (as far as I know some had machine guns mounted on deck, so would be like 4-12 damage per second, nothing usefull).

Maybe introduce 2 classes with their own torps. Normal ones with normal torps, and deepwater u-boats, which have deepwater torps of course. Deepwater ones have even lower detectability and vision, but as they are deeper in the water, they also hit island faster, may be unable to cross through passages and their torps can hit the ground of the sea more easily aswell.

 

But well, not sure if the engine and map design is even made for that. Also they may easily end up as op DDs. Cant see them, cant kill them, while they just spam torps like mad. Remember having that discussuin in alpha times aswell, and even then we didnt get a good solution. If you'd give cruisers n DDs deepwater charges to fight them, then you could surrender if you only have BBS left and the enemy still has an U-Boat. Also requires maybe a lot of reloading shells. So you spot the only U-Boat, switch shell type to even attack it, U-Boat runs or whatever and you cant attack it any more, so you switch back to HE or AP, U-Boat spotted again...

 

Nah, I still think its just too hard to balance.

[Enduro_Biker]

8 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

No.

 

I we have space battleships in asteroid fields, I am quite sure we could fit U-boats in a WW2 game. Its not like we are lacking crazy things anyways 

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

 

I we have space battleships in asteroid fields, I am quite sure we could fit U-boats in a WW2 game. Its not like we are lacking crazy things anyways 

That was April fools and it was just a graphics rework, with two new weather effects. Not a whole new class.

[Enduro_Biker]

44 minutes ago, RC_8015 said:

Low speed underwater but also hard to spot. No vision on their own, just asured vision on 2 km. Hydro consumable availible, extends vision to 3 km for a few seconds. Only arnment torps, maybe some kind of flak on higher tier (as far as I know some had machine guns mounted on deck, so would be like 4-12 damage per second, nothing usefull).

Maybe introduce 2 classes with their own torps. Normal ones with normal torps, and deepwater u-boats, which have deepwater torps of course. Deepwater ones have even lower detectability and vision, but as they are deeper in the water, they also hit island faster, may be unable to cross through passages and their torps can hit the ground of the sea more easily aswell.

 

But well, not sure if the engine and map design is even made for that. Also they may easily end up as op DDs. Cant see them, cant kill them, while they just spam torps like mad. Remember having that discussuin in alpha times aswell, and even then we didnt get a good solution. If you'd give cruisers n DDs deepwater charges to fight them, then you could surrender if you only have BBS left and the enemy still has an U-Boat. Also requires maybe a lot of reloading shells. So you spot the only U-Boat, switch shell type to even attack it, U-Boat runs or whatever and you cant attack it any more, so you switch back to HE or AP, U-Boat spotted again...

 

Nah, I still think its just too hard to balance.

This game is very arcady. Its is a casual point and click game with grind thrown in the mix. World of warships isnt really a simulator. So I think the design of the U- boat should be really simple, as with the other classes.

 

40 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

That was April fools and it was just a graphics rework, with two new weather effects. Not a whole new class.

Well you know crazy things could be found else where. Like tier X battleships with lower detection then cruisers and on top of that hidden citadels aswell.

While the same tier cruisers has citadells painted all over the side.

It is hard to argue for logic when clearly everything is designed around entertainment and money 

Thus of course U- boats would fit!

[Fat_Maniac]

Too slow to be player controlled - you could implement them as bots patrolling particular grid squares in Operations for example.

 

[HaachamaShipping]

8 minutes ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

Well you know crazy things could be found else where. Like tier X battleships with lower detection then cruisers and on top of that hidden citadels aswell.

While the same tier cruisers has citadells painted all over the side.

It is hard to argue for logic when clearly everything is designed around entertainment and money 

Thus of course U- boats would fit!

Sure, keep on dreaming, if you think high-tier BBs make SS as a class reasonable.

[Enduro_Biker]

22 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Sure, keep on dreaming, if you think high-tier BBs make SS as a class reasonable.

I am sorry to inform you Riselotte that eventhough all you politeness, the thread topic was how you would design imaginary U-boat gameplay. Not if we should have U-boats in game or not. Since you failed to read the the thread title and my opening post, and in order to keep this thread on topic, I would kindly ask you to leave. Forum moderators will of course be notified if further forum rules are broken.

 

27 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Too slow to be player controlled - you could implement them as bots patrolling particular grid squares in Operations for example.

 

That design could work. I would like to build upon your idea to add gameplay with depth charges. Could be fun PVE gameplay with friends 

[eliastion]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

You are lead gameplay designer at Wargaming. How would you design U-boat gameplay in World Of Warships?

I would love to know☺

 

My take on it would be to make U-boats have detectability range of 1 km while being under water but extreamly slow and the time under water would be limited. While on surface they would be as fast as a normal ship but easier to detect. Hydro consumable would be able to spot U-boats from a greater range while being under water. A new weapon system depth-charges would be introduced to cruisers and destroyers. 

U-boats would be glass canons to counter battleships. 

I wouldn't.

You see, the role of submarines (stealthy torp attacks) is covered by destroyers. Introducing subs would require a big re-design of all the classes and their roles.

[Enduro_Biker]

26 minutes ago, eliastion said:

I wouldn't.

You see, the role of submarines (stealthy torp attacks) is covered by destroyers. Introducing subs would require a big re-design of all the classes and their roles.

Yes aircraft carriers are currenly being re-designed from a RTS game to a action game by Wargaming (if you follow the news). So your argument that major redesigns can't happen makes all the sense in the world.. Could I kindly ask you to stay on topic aswell. Please read the thread title and my opening post.

[Aotearas]

Easy answer: not.

 

WW1 and 2 submersibles were purpose-build as merchant hunters and never meant to fight actual warships. That's like putting Peter Dinklage up to fight a boxing championship against Mike Tyson in his prime ... sure he might get a cheap shot off but in the end he's going to get demolished.

[Enduro_Biker]

10 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Easy answer: not.

 

WW1 and 2 submersibles were purpose-build as merchant hunters and never meant to fight actual warships. That's like putting Peter Dinklage up to fight a boxing championship against Mike Tyson in his prime ... sure he might get a cheap shot off but in the end he's going to get demolished.

Pls dont do that. You can't make an argument for historical accuracy in a arcade game with battleships setting fires, aircraft carriers with limited squad sizes, surface ships using smoke as primary offensive tool. Pls just dont go that route. This is a money driven arcade game designed around casual entertainment. Pls read my thread title and follow the forum rules (keep on topic).

 

[Ferry_25]

All contra arguments have been mentioned by now. The only exception I can think of is an Operation in which there are NPC submarines. Perhaps it isn't too difficult to program depth charges for our ships as a consumable. DD's having the fastest reload.

Also, parallel on topic, I can vividly remember a submarine simulator game on my C64 or Amiga (yeah. I'm that ancient). It was exceptionally detailed. Played in the Pacific. 2 modes: travel and encounter. When an encounter happened you could chose to take it or back off. Points were gained by tonnage sunk. You had a limited amount (quite plenty though) of torpedo's, weather conditions were active (good to poor visibility) and even 1 or 2 charges of "fake destruction debris." You could let some debris float to the surface, trying to fool the AI you'd been sunk by depth charges. Graphically it wasn't much of course but oh man, I played it for hours at a time!

[Enduro_Biker]

3 minutes ago, Ferry_25 said:

All contra arguments have been mentioned by now. The only exception I can think of is an Operation in which there are NPC submarines. Perhaps it isn't too difficult to program depth charges for our ships as a consumable. DD's having the fastest reload.

Also, parallel on topic, I can vividly remember a submarine simulator game on my C64 or Amiga (yeah. I'm that ancient). It was exceptionally detailed. Played in the Pacific. 2 modes: travel and encounter. When an encounter happened you could chose to take it or back off. Points were gained by tonnage sunk. You had a limited amount (quite plenty though) of torpedo's, weather conditions were active (good to poor visibility) and even 1 or 2 charges of "fake destruction debris." You could let some debris float to the surface, trying to fool the AI you'd been sunk by depth charges. Graphically it wasn't much of course but oh man, I played it for hours at a time!

I am liking the Operations idea in PVE aswell, perhaps you could escort merchants and use depth charges to hunt bot submarines. The depth charges could be fun gameplay itself using different spreads and patterns to hit the target. I hope PVE would give as much XP as random battles because that would be so fun to play. Perhaps some sort of simple use of sonar to locate the subs aswell, cat&mouse gameplay in coop

 

[ShinGetsu]

25 minutes ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

Pls dont do that. You can't make an argument for historical accuracy in a arcade game with battleships setting fires, aircraft carriers with limited squad sizes, surface ships using smoke as primary offensive tool. Pls just dont go that route. This is a money driven arcade game designed around casual entertainment. Pls read my thread title and follow the forum rules (keep on topic).

 

Yes you can.

Despites everything, WG still maintain a layer of historical thingies in their game. Ship speed follows mostly the reality for instance. And speed happens to be one of the biggest drawback of submarines.

 

Subs were designed entirely for the purpose of being commerce raider, and, maybe apart from USS Harder, they ALWAYS refused to actively enter a fight as they were far too vulnerable for that.

If you want to play with torpedoes and detectability, play DD, period. Subs doesn't belong in surface ships business. Unlike CVs and AA which were a big turning point of naval warfare, mind you.

 

It would be interesting if we had some "escort convoys" events against AI. I would gladly play that. But in PVP, it's just an horrible idea no matter how much you want it. It's already hard enough to make a team with 12 players works in FFA and focus DDs, I don't want to add idiots thinking "subs are cool" and doing crap with them, while giving EVEN MORE excuse to BBs to camps.

 

Short answer : nope. Never. Or only in very specific PVE events.

[LastButterfly]

2 hours ago, ShinGetsu said:

Subs. Have. No. Business. Fighting. With. Main. Surface. Force.

 

Laughing Harder.

[ImperialAdmiral]

4 hours ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

You are lead gameplay designer at Wargaming.

 

I would scrap the project and focus on current issues of the game.

[aboomination]

I wouldn't...ranked MM is imbalanced enough regarding radars/hydros etc.

Ok:

Ship: 10 knots max speed 

torps: 5km range and 34 knots speed. Have fun!

[Aotearas]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

Pls dont do that. You can't make an argument for historical accuracy in a arcade game with battleships setting fires, aircraft carriers with limited squad sizes, surface ships using smoke as primary offensive tool. Pls just dont go that route. This is a money driven arcade game designed around casual entertainment. Pls read my thread title and follow the forum rules (keep on topic).

 

 

It's not about historical accuracy. It's about authenticity (and yes, those are different things). Submersibles were simply never meant as a fighting force. They were always a raiding force with about as much chances fighting against actual warships as snowball surviving in hell.

 

And if that simple truth doesn't comply with what you want, then you're simply going to have to be able to accept that.

It simply. Would not. Work! With how comprehensively you'd have to change the ship and performance characteristics to make them work in WoWs' balance, you might aswell introduce Star Destroyers and interplanetary combat for all the difference it would make, both would be pure fiction.

 

I mean a submersible diving at 5 knots when silent running (which I assume would be the stealth equivalent) ... whoop. Let's be generous and triple that speed, now it's still only moving at 15 knots, slower than everything in the game, couldn't barely hold pace with a Langley running away. Let's quintuple the speed, because why the hell not, now it can barely keep pace with battleships in the mid tiers.

A pressurized hull, how much HP would you give that? Surely it has to be far more resilient than the actual submersibles were, can't have the sub being incapacitated with just a single hit or two.

What about the weapons? We're looking at typically 2-4 fixed torpedo tubes in the bow (largest torpedo armament I can think of would be 6 bow tubes on the german Type XXI electro-boat and the US Balao submersible, the latter also having 4 aft tubes), maybe an additional small set at the aft and possibly a single DD caliber gun for use when surfaced.

 

The armament alone is tier V material at the most, which would also be the point at which they'd become utterly crippled by their poor agility because they quite simply wouldn't be able to catch ANYTHING that's not moving at them and tough luck setting up a torp attack with fixed torpedotubes, you can't even spread the torps around much so all it takes is a single application of WASD and your torpedo armament is instantly rendered ineffective ... and like I said, it's not like you could just reposition and try from another angle, the submersible would simply be too slow to do that.

 

 

 

You'd have a better chance balancing torpedo and PT boats as a swarm entity as a new ship class into WoWs than getting submersibles to work.

[aboomination]

5 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Star Destroyers

[eliastion]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Surprise said:

Yes aircraft carriers are currenly being re-designed from a RTS game to a action game by Wargaming (if you follow the news). So your argument that major redesigns can't happen makes all the sense in the world.. Could I kindly ask you to stay on topic aswell. Please read the thread title and my opening post.

The playerbase of DDs (these, at the very least, would need a heavy redesign) is

1. A couple orders of magnitude bigger than the playerbase of carriers

and

2. Relatively happy with how their ships work

 

Basically, you're comparing a full overhaul of a popular and liked ship class to full overhaul of a class that's played by few - with even most of these few being pretty displeased with how their class of choice is handled. Not to mention that people who don't play CVs also tend to dislike CVs - the attitude of non-DD players towards DDs is much warmer, comparatively (not necessarily warm, but warmer).

 

Also, I've read the title and your opening post. My answer is, once again: if I were the lead designer at Wargaming, my choice of subs design would be "the class of ship that is not included in the game". Well, not as normal player-controlled ships that can be played in Random Battles, at least - Operations are a bit different, I guess submarines could be included there.

[BeauNidl3]

Simple answer Submarines wouldn't work in the game.

Hydro mechanics (which are tied in completely with the wider spotting mechanics) would have to be completely reworked.

Hydro would have to be on constantly , not on a cooldown or limited charges. All DD's and cruisers would have to be Hydro equipped.

Depth charges would have to be implemented.

Spotting would have to be tweaked for a completely different approach as at the moment there's proximity spotting and submarines wouldn't work in that context.

Submarines were all very slow submerged until late in WW2 and not that fast surfaced, plus what about battery charging?

There are far too many issues to overcome to sensibly implement submarines in the game.