Submarine is a warship - New CV is a warplane

[Silvercat18]

The CV is about to leave our game.....or rather it should.

 

With the coming changes, CV captains will no longer be captains, they will be squadron commanders and their "ship" will be controlled for them, with consumables and movement traded away to the AI. Thus, I propose, with a heavy heart, that the CV be removed and replaced with the trialled submarines, as they are much more worthy of the term "warship" than the new version of the "Carrier", which may as well be a static airfield on an island.

 

I loved the old carrier play and I would be happy to embrace the new version....if I could switch between hull control and the squadron, but the new FAQ shows that wargaming Is taking a stand on preventing that. Thus, its time to let the old girl go and give her a decent burial. Complete removal and replacement of the CV is now a better option than the gutted "thing" that we are about to be left with.

 

So, lets see some announcements about the new submarines and lets try to move forward - I would rather move in this direction than the disaster that is the new cv rework and making a lot of old style CV captains simply leave the game. We need you to give them a new home and that home is a strong presentation of how WG intends to introduce subs....which are going to be our play style's future.

[Yedwy]

Well tbh cv gameplay in its current rts mode doesnt really have all that much in common with other clases gameplay either...

[Silvercat18]

Just now, Yedwy said:

Well tbh until now cv gameplay disnt have all that much in common with other clases either...

True and its about to get an even weaker connection - think on that.

[BLUB__BLUB]

Well, that would be a burial-at-sea then... see them slip beneath the waves... 1-2-3 there ya go CV players 

[Silvercat18]

2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Well, that would be a burial-at-sea then... see them slip beneath the waves... 1-2-3 there ya go CV players 

Well that's the issue - regardless of how you feel about carrier players - if we lose them, we are losing a significant chunk of the game's playerbase and that's not good for anyone. Submarines are the way to keep some tactical play and we know that WG is strongly thinking of introducing them. They are basically fiddly destroyers and should appeal to those players without generating this sort of hate. I want WG to make some positive announcements on them, to give those captains an alternative to simply leaving the game. They need some hope and I feel that subs are that hope....as it is, the game is about to kick out some of its most experienced and committed members of the community and it need not be like this.

[Yedwy]

14 minutes ago, Silvercat18 said:

True and its about to get an even weaker connection - think on that.

How is it weaker or even that different in its core? Now you depend on planes for striking power as well as your primary means of defence (both against ships and other cvs planes) same as you do in new action mode (you have same short range defensive aa abd sec options one way or another) albeit with a different set of controls you basically do same thing - search for targets and set up strikes same as you do now 95% od time, no? Basic principle of reducing multitasking strain is not necceserily a bad idea for one and on another notion nothing prevents devs from adding additional ship control later when they implement the new plane controls if/when it becomes neccesary

[Hades_warrior]

43 minutes ago, Silvercat18 said:

So, lets see some announcements about the new submarines 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Silvercat18 said:

They need some hope and I feel that subs are that hope....

Hell no man, they are so simple, even I can do it. 

[Verdius]

Technically submarines aren't even ships, while CVs definitly are

[Praevasc]

Nah, the problem with submarines is that in the depicted era they were completely useless in battles. They were commerce raiders, good for sinking unarmed transports, but utterly useless against anything even somewhat armed who was aware that submarines are in the vicinity.

So, to make them competitive, they would have to change them into something completely different than what they historically were.

 

I know that for gameplay purposes some little historical accuracy has to be sacrificed, and that's OK. But to make submarines viable, so much historical accuracy will have to be sacrificed, that they could introduce flying mecha into the game as well.

[Torped1ne]

4 hours ago, Silvercat18 said:

The CV is about to leave our game.....or rather it should.

 

With the coming changes, CV captains will no longer be captains, they will be squadron commanders and their "ship" will be controlled for them, with consumables and movement traded away to the AI. Thus, I propose, with a heavy heart, that the CV be removed and replaced with the trialled submarines, as they are much more worthy of the term "warship" than the new version of the "Carrier", which may as well be a static airfield on an island.

 

I loved the old carrier play and I would be happy to embrace the new version....if I could switch between hull control and the squadron, but the new FAQ shows that wargaming Is taking a stand on preventing that. Thus, its time to let the old girl go and give her a decent burial. Complete removal and replacement of the CV is now a better option than the gutted "thing" that we are about to be left with.

 

So, lets see some announcements about the new submarines and lets try to move forward - I would rather move in this direction than the disaster that is the new cv rework and making a lot of old style CV captains simply leave the game. We need you to give them a new home and that home is a strong presentation of how WG intends to introduce subs....which are going to be our play style's future.

One can not sell an airfield on shop

[BLUB__BLUB]

50 minutes ago, Praevasc said:

Nah, the problem with submarines is that in the depicted era they were completely useless in battles.

Is that why the RN was afraid they'd put half the fleet out of action... maybe they were right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_American_submarines

I count 94 IJN navy ships and 40 commercial ships sunk, by US subs... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_Japanese_submarines

12 US navy ships sunk by IJN subs, from 42... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_British_submarines

24 navy ships sunk by British subs, from total 31... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_German_submarines

I'm not even gonna count that.... 

[Robber_Baron]

And those lists might not even be complete. I'm pretty sure the Dutch list on Wikipedia is incomplete, since it only lists three surface vessels and O-19 alone already sank 6 vessels. Not sure about the amount of navy vessels though.

I don't think he meant subs were completely useless in general though, but during naval battles.

[BLUB__BLUB]

39 minutes ago, Robber_Baron said:

And those lists might not even be complete. I'm pretty sure the Dutch list on Wikipedia is incomplete, since it only lists three surface vessels and O-19 alone already sank 6 vessels. Not sure about the amount of navy vessels though.

I don't think he meant subs were completely useless in general though, but during naval battles.

Hmmm... that would depend on what you'd call a naval battle. Certainly Jutland qualifies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland#Submarine_deployments

They WERE part of the plan.... 

[HaachamaShipping]

5 hours ago, Robber_Baron said:

And those lists might not even be complete. I'm pretty sure the Dutch list on Wikipedia is incomplete, since it only lists three surface vessels and O-19 alone already sank 6 vessels. Not sure about the amount of navy vessels though.

I don't think he meant subs were completely useless in general though, but during naval battles.

I-68/I-168 finished off USS Yorktown and sunk USS Hammann. That's two more ships sunk than the entire CV force of the IJN achieved in that battle.

[Silvercat18]

Why are we talking theoretically about submarines - I thought there were some actually in the game during Halloween? How did they work out?

[HaachamaShipping]

4 minutes ago, Silvercat18 said:

Why are we talking theoretically about submarines - I thought there were some actually in the game during Halloween? How did they work out?

Fun for the event, but picking between this and the current iteration of yet-to-be-balanced CVs is like picking between plague and cholera.

[Zen71_sniper]

50 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Fun for the event, but picking between this and the current iteration of yet-to-be-balanced CVs is like picking between plague and cholera.

TBH, I would rather pick subs.... At least you are a commander of a naval vessel.... 

[HaachamaShipping]

6 minutes ago, Zen71_sniper said:

TBH, I would rather pick subs.... At least you are a commander of a naval vessel.... 

I mean, either in the current iteration are absolutely toxic and would have me quit this game if not properly fixed.

 

And I pick CVs, not because of game mode, but because they had more influence on naval combat during the era than subs. CVs have a far greater legitimacy to be represented than subs and just because people don't like squadron view doesn't mean that subs are better.

 

If I were to paint all bananas blue it still wouldn't mean cucumbers should be in the fruit salad instead. It just means I should find proper bananas that I didn't screw around with.

[FooFaFie]

I don't know why so many people are so overreacting toward change. And somehow people think current CV gameplay is some bizarre thing were CVs had a gameplay as a normal ship. I remember them more in the back.  Mostly just moving toward 1 spot and staying there. If they moved at all.

 

Also I don't think you saw many CVs in WW2 in  planned gunbattles. If everything did go well the ship didn't see a single enemy. Planes on the other hand...

[HaachamaShipping]

2 minutes ago, FooFaFie said:

I don't know why so many people are so overreacting toward change. And somehow people think current CV gameplay is some bizarre thing were CVs had a gameplay as a normal ship. I remember them more in the back.  Mostly just moving toward 1 spot and staying there. If they move at all.

 

Also I don't think you saw many CVs in WW2 in  planned gunbattles. 

I think the issue there is that in WWII, gun battles either occurred when CVs were not available, or were rare compared to CV clashes. If we go back to the roots of WoWS and look at the Pacific navies, you'd basically be looking at aviation presence in pretty much everything that also had a BB present and wasn't a night battle. Certainly not the usual 5 BB, 3-4 CA, 3-4 DD per side action you see in this game in broad daylight. This much on "planned" gun battles.

[Latouche_Treville]

Even if the arguing in interesting, In this case, historical accuracy is pointless, it's not the problem. It's about the future CV's gameplay in a free to play arcade game.

I don't play CV, i have no idea how to, but i don't want them to disapear.

So i'm really interested in CV players opinion,

[Sargento_YO]

16 hours ago, Silvercat18 said:

I loved the old carrier play and I would be happy to embrace the new version....if I could switch between hull control and the squadron, but the new FAQ shows that wargaming Is taking a stand on preventing that. Thus, its time to let the old girl go and give her a decent burial. Complete removal and replacement of the CV is now a better option than the gutted "thing" that we are about to be left with.

 

Ditto. The rework sucks alot. However it wouldn't suck that much if at least we could use the carrier´s cannons manually and have decent ranges (8 - 12 km). Hell, even it would be fun.

I forsee that at the beggining of the rework there will be alot of people playing cvs, but they will get bored very quickly and in the end cvs will be much more scarce than they are now.

[aboomination]

...wonder how I capped in a plane  Just accept that they don't want you to control two units at a time...more annoying imo is that auto dmg con...such a meme.

[FooFaFie]

35 minutes ago, Sargento_YO said:

Ditto. The rework sucks alot. However it wouldn't suck that much if at least we could use the carrier´s cannons manually and have decent ranges (8 - 12 km). Hell, even it would be fun.

I forsee that at the beggining of the rework there will be alot of people playing cvs, but they will get bored very quickly and in the end cvs will be much more scarce than they are now.

I have another view on this. If the CVs are very strong players WILL keep playing them. The same reason why a large part of the players only play OP ships and why they complain about new premiums being so so... Most players don't care how they win as long they win every time.

 

What will die out for the large part is players that play exclusive CVs. But in general there will be more CVs in the game if they're still OP.