Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Scary14

Curb your submarines

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,264 battles

They're either going to be such a nightmare to try and balance they're either going to stay confined to heavily scripted CoOp operations, or WG is going to go full bonkers and make them hilariously broken in order to put them into PvP.

 

Also, yay for WG going back on yet another promise. Anyone keeping a list?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
715 posts
16,915 battles
23 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

They're either going to be such a nightmare to try and balance they're either going to stay confined to heavily scripted CoOp operations, or WG is going to go full bonkers and make them hilariously broken in order to put them into PvP.

 

Also, yay for WG going back on yet another promise. Anyone keeping a list?

Nah, we ran out of paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,984 posts
4,032 battles
8 hours ago, Aotearas said:

They're either going to be such a nightmare to try and balance they're either going to stay confined to heavily scripted CoOp operations, or WG is going to go full bonkers and make them hilariously broken in order to put them into PvP.

 

Also, yay for WG going back on yet another promise. Anyone keeping a list?

 

I'll put it right under 'unified gold with WoT' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,682 posts
4,313 battles
10 hours ago, USSARIZONA_2015 said:

Personally, I hope they add the Balao-class submarine, particularly the Uss Sealion II.... :) 

With the CV rework coming the same year as the submarines, I'm more interested in the Sentoku/i-400 class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
49 posts
7,255 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

With the CV rework coming the same year as the submarines, I'm more interested in the Sentoku/i-400 class.

 

If I remember correct, that's the Carrier-like submarine right?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,682 posts
4,313 battles
23 minutes ago, USSARIZONA_2015 said:

If I remember correct, that's the Carrier-like submarine right?

Correct. Aircraft Carrying Submarines.

They could only carry three planes, but seeing as the carrier rework only lets you attack with three at a time, it kinda seems similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
49 posts
7,255 battles
2 hours ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

Correct. Aircraft Carrying Submarines.

They could only carry three planes, but seeing as the carrier rework only lets you attack with three at a time, it kinda seems similar.

Ah, I see.  That would be interesting to see.

 

The Only Reason I would like to see the Sealion II is due to its history, particularly the night of November 21st, 1944... 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,682 posts
4,313 battles
25 minutes ago, USSARIZONA_2015 said:

Ah, I see.  That would be interesting to see.

 

The Only Reason I would like to see the Sealion II is due to its history, particularly the night of November 21st, 1944... 

The Sentoku class don't really have any history. They were comissioned too late and Japan capitulated while they were enroute to their first assignment. They were ordered to surrender to any ally ships they encountered, and while two of them did one was discovered and sunk by depth charges. After the Americans captured the vessels and took the classified documents they received information that the Soviets wanted to inpsect the ships, so they scuttled them to prevent them falling into the hands of the Soviets.

I want to see them in the game just because the whole design is awesome to me. They were three times the size of other submarines of the time, and had enough fuel on board to circumnavigate the globe 1.5 times! They were literally designed to pop up anywhere, launch their planes to attack land targets, collect their pilots after they bailed, and then go home again. Their specially-designed floatplanes even had an appropriate name: "Seiran" or "Storm from a Clear Sky".

Edited by Captain_LOZFFVII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
49 posts
7,255 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

The Sentoku class don't really have any history. They were comissioned too late and Japan capitulated while they were enroute to their first assignment. They were ordered to surrender to any ally ships they encountered, and while two of them did one was discovered and sunk by depth charges. After the Americans captured the vessels and took the classified documents they received information that the Soviets wanted to inpsect the ships, so they scuttled them to prevent them falling into the hands of the Soviets.

I want to see them in the game just because the whole design is awesome to me. They were three times the size of other submarines of the time, and had enough fuel on board to circumnavigate the globe 1.5 times! They were literally designed to pop up anywhere, launch their planes to attack land targets, collect their pilots after they bailed, and then go home again. Their specially-designed floatplanes even had an appropriate name: "Seiran" or "Storm from a Clear Sky".

Ah, ok then.

 

I guess I should explain my reasoning as to why I want the Uss Sealion II,

 

While The Sealion II didn't have a completely action packed Service, there is one point in its service that sticks out.

 

"On The Night Of November 21st, 1944, The  Uss Sealion II  Intercepted A Task Force Consisting Of The Japanese Destroyers Hamakaze, Isokaze, Urakaze, Yukikaze, Kiri, and Ume, The Cruiser Yahagi, And The Battleships Yamato, Nagato, And Kongo. During This Attack, The Uss Sealion II Managed To Sink The Urakaze, But After A Couple Of Hours, Also Managed To Track Down And Sink The Kongo, Whom Had Broken Off From The Task Force After Sustaining 3 Torpedo Hits During The Sealion II's First Attack. Upon Kongo's Sinking, She Was The Only Japanese Battleship Sunk By A Submarine In WWII, And The Last One Sunk By Submarine In History."

 

On A Side Note, The Uss Sealion II Is The Only Submarine To Audio Record An Attack On An Enemy In WWII, Which Can Still Be Listened To Today

 

 

So Thats Why I Would Like to See The Uss Sealion II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
27 posts
2,046 battles
On 9/18/2018 at 6:43 PM, Aotearas said:

They're either going to be such a nightmare to try and balance they're either going to stay confined to heavily scripted CoOp operations, or WG is going to go full bonkers and make them hilariously broken in order to put them into PvP.

 

Also, yay for WG going back on yet another promise. Anyone keeping a list?

 

Submarines cant possibly be more annoying than carriers, so I'm all for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
27 posts
2,046 battles
6 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Is that a challenge?

 

I'm going to play the **** out of any submarine. Silent Hunter 3 is one of my most favorite games ever. But yeah sure, consider yourself challenged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,264 battles
14 minutes ago, Schlieffenplan said:

 

Submarines cant possibly be more annoying than carriers, so I'm all for it. 

You don't know WG very well, do you?

 

3 minutes ago, Schlieffenplan said:

I'm going to play the **** out of any submarine. Silent Hunter 3 is one of my most favorite games ever. But yeah sure, consider yourself challenged.

Oh yes, you really don't know WG very well if you think any upcoming submarine gameplay is going to play anything even remotely resembling the Silent Hunter series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
27 posts
2,046 battles
6 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

 

Oh yes, you really don't know WG very well if you think any upcoming submarine gameplay is going to play anything even remotely resembling the Silent Hunter series.

 

No, I dont think that. I just know it will be a rock/scissor/whatever and thats all I need. If submarines spawn at a different location that would be great....especially if they spawn closer to enemy carriers. It would mean that destroyers would actually have to hunt submarines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,435 posts
6,709 battles
4 minutes ago, Schlieffenplan said:

 

No, I dont think that. I just know it will be a rock/scissor/whatever and thats all I need. If submarines spawn at a different location that would be great....especially if they spawn closer to enemy carriers. It would mean that destroyers would actually have to hunt submarines. 

Given you can still spawn in the questionable Southwest corner of Land of Fire, properly thought out spawns are not very high on the list of priorities.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,264 battles
22 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Given you can still spawn in the questionable Southwest corner of Land of Fire, properly thought out spawns are not very high on the list of priorities.

Nothing quite like being bottom tier in a Colorado, spawning all alone in the map corner and then trying to get to other friendlies before all those tier IX ships get a whiff of you being alone there :Smile_ohmy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,435 posts
6,709 battles
5 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Nothing quite like being bottom tier in a Colorado, spawning all alone in the map corner and then trying to get to other friendlies before all those tier IX ships get a whiff of you being alone there :Smile_ohmy:

I mean, there's worse. If it wasn't for an attentive CV providing cover, that Bismarck would have basically died 2 minutes into the game, getting nothing at all done and with no hope of ever getting into range of friendly AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×