Submarines: How to Play

[Pikkozoikum]

2 minutes ago, nettlem said:

There are so many people here against subs and cv. But i CV and subs were in historical naval battles so i cant see reason why to not add them.

I can see that hunting a sub with DD could be interesting, but i my opinion method what is used now could be changed.

 

So my question is: why are u so afraid of subs? Are u afraid that after u camp behind island all game u will get the torped? Or why are you so against it? I can guess that only for CV and BB is  sub a real thread. Also interaction between CV and subs could be interesting. And after all i cant see that CVs are OP in current games, its sometimes really quite hard to not get all planes shot down when attacking high tear ships.

I generally can't understand that either. It's new content and gives more varierty to the game. If people don't like different ship types, WG should maybe add an additional game mode, where only BBs can enter.

[PrinzSiegfried]

CV's aren't even close to being OP. Especially with new EU destroyers with insane AA. 

From current info I think that subs won't be op. I have more concern about players, that will be using them (kamikaze? game-ruiners) - it might cause some toxic atmosphere. 

In my opinion acoustic torpedoes are a good feature for subs. Something must compensate the submarine speed. I can't wait to see that ambushes between isles, it is going to be funny.

Tactical thinking will be rewarded greatly. 

[kmudri]

Subs will be live on Public test server tomorrow at 15.00 CEST!

[AlexeiCrimson]

30 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Where do I start.

1. Try playing a BB against subs.

2. Unrealistic sub speeds.

3. Stupid sonar pings and dumb homing torpedoes.

4. No hedgehogs on DD's or Cruisers.

5. Inability of Wargaming to balance sub game-play, just as per the garbage CV rework.

 

 

1. Its no different to going up against a DD. A BB stands no chance of outplaying a DD that can sit outside detection range and spam torps, if both players are of equivalent skill.

2. WoWs is not a game defined by realism. Game balance is the priority. Not to mention that WG has said multiple times that the battles in WoWs are their representation of a multi-hour long engagement IRL.

3. Sonar pings no longer reveal the pinged ship. Homing torpedoes no longer track within 1km, so you have time to dodge, especially when a ping basically tells you homing torpedoes are coming for you.

4. Im sure its planned eventually. Probably for higher tier ships. Right now we only have T6 stuff.

5. All your previous points show that you have not even made an effort to read WGs latest post on Submarines and the changes they made. This is the exact reason you all look so salty when you post this crap. Uninformed opinions, and zero desire to look at Submarines with an unbiased perspective.

 

If Submarines prove to be incompatible with the live server, then i will be all for their removal. However, i will test them first. I will not make pointless, salty posts on the forums, making myself look like a fool. I encourage everyone to at least play them and attempt to post critical feedback backed up by actual experience rather than uselessly shitpost. Then you can threaten to quit the game without looking silly.

[TheWarJaC]

Hi Captains, 

 

We are currently experiencing server issues, some of you may witness then problems to log in or in some in-game features. We are already working on the problem in order to solve it as soon as possible.

 

Thank you in advance for your understanding,

Stay safe! 

 

TheWarJaC

 

 

[Alex_steel_45]

Don't worry, add submarines without fear.

Make game simple and obvious like WoT.

Don't listen much who write on forum much.

Common players play and don't write on forums.

Common players don't install test servers, they play on regular one.

So you are going wright, but make game much obvious and simple then many people enjoy.

Thus you will get more players.

GL HF.

PS. Return CV to their first state, like it was on the start.

[Phoenix511]

20 minutes ago, Alex_steel_45 said:

Don't worry, add submarines without fear.

Make game simple and obvious like WoT.

Don't listen much who write on forum much.

Common players play and don't write on forums.

Common players don't install test servers, they play on regular one.

So you are going wright, but make game much obvious and simple then many people enjoy.

Thus you will get more players.

GL HF.

PS. Return CV to their first state, like it was on the start.

lol

[Tanatoy]

Hey guys,

 

Sorry if it was said before, but please pay attention that the submarines will be added to the test public at 15h UTC tomorrow.

[gabberworld]

3 minutes ago, Tanatoy said:

Hey guys,

 

Sorry if it was said before, but please pay attention that the submarines will be added to the test public at 15h UTC tomorrow.

yeah I noticed that in public test update message

[Kasseopea]

6 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

@Sehales , they don't trust you

Well, i thought it meant that they PTB will go live today (as in - patched onto live). But on the Discord people are saying 3-4 weeks, sooo. Which I guess makes sense, but I was really hyped up for today X_x

[GoneFishingAgain]

11 pages of reactions in forum thus far. Mostly negative.

WG get a hint!

[anonym_KL6VDkqOY4Mu]

It will be as a separate mode game, at least for the start. So i dont know why the crying lol

[Phoenix511]

1 minute ago, GoneFishingAgain said:

11 pages of reactions in forum thus far. Mostly negative.

WG get a hint!

Well, 11 pages of reaction without any testing. All there is fear and denial. I bet most of them wont even try the testserver and getting a personal opinion, and even fewer will give a proper feedback so that most balancing problems can be fixed and adjusted. Im pretty sure there is still a lot of testing to be done to even think about implementing it on the liveserver and even more to do for it to be implemented in the random-gamemode. In my opinion, if someone refuses to be part of this process, he looses all the right to complain if its not like he wants it to be. Sure you can say that youa re not interested into subs, but a lot of people are and/or will be if this is getting implemented. everyone has his favorite shipclass and his personal enemy as a shipclass. But saying that this should not be there is just leaving out something that should be there to make it complete.

[Smegger213]

1 hour ago, Phoenix511 said:

Well, 11 pages of reaction without any testing. All there is fear and denial. I bet most of them wont even try the testserver and getting a personal opinion, and even fewer will give a proper feedback so that most balancing problems can be fixed and adjusted. Im pretty sure there is still a lot of testing to be done to even think about implementing it on the liveserver and even more to do for it to be implemented in the random-gamemode. In my opinion, if someone refuses to be part of this process, he looses all the right to complain if its not like he wants it to be. Sure you can say that youa re not interested into subs, but a lot of people are and/or will be if this is getting implemented. everyone has his favorite shipclass and his personal enemy as a shipclass. But saying that this should not be there is just leaving out something that should be there to make it complete.

They have been tested 3 times already. 4 times, if you count the original Halloween event that involved subs.

Although, I haven't played any of the tests myself. I did play the Halloween event and I have seen many Youtube videos from CC and others that have covered each sub test.

The Youtube videos I have seen, have convinced me that subs will break the game and will not be properly balanced by Wargaming.

Leave them in a special game mode and things will be fine.

Put them into random battles, and I will be done with this game, end of.

[Zentry]

On 4/15/2020 at 4:41 PM, Pikkozoikum said:

 

 

There might leave some people. But people, who left the game, because what reason ever, might come back to play the new content. In the end the player base will be steady

good for you

[Phoenix511]

22 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

They have been tested 3 times already. 4 times, if you count the original Halloween event that involved subs.

Although, I haven't played any of the tests myself. I did play the Halloween event and I have seen many Youtube videos from CC and others that have covered each sub test.

The Youtube videos I have seen, have convinced me that subs will break the game and will not be properly balanced by Wargaming.

Leave them in a special game mode and things will be fine.

Put them into random battles, and I will be done with this game, end of.

Well okay, thats your opinon, will you participate in this test then?

[DarthDon49]

23 hours ago, Sunleader said:

 

Erm Yeah

 

""Johnston was hit so many times that one survivor recalled "they couldn't patch holes fast enough to keep her afloat ""

 

Seems it Sunk ^^

 

And no. Actually the Majority of the Hits on Taffy 3 were the 15cm Secondary Armament.

 

 

You See Mate.

 

1.

I am Talking about Plunging Hits. Meaning the Shells Flies into the Ship High then Exits it in the Ships Belly.

That cause massive Flooding. And Generally cant be Plugged when the Shell Hitting you is BB Caliber.

2.

Watertight Compartments only Limit the Flooding. Funny enough. The Reason you have Watertight Compartments is actually because Military Knows that Pumps will not keep the Ship Afloat for long when a Major Flooding Occurs.

Watertight Compartments. Simply Limit the Flooding to that 1 Compartment. So that in the very likely scenario of the Flooding not being Stoppable by Damage Control. The Ship Stays Afloat.

But that only works if the Flooding is Limited to that Compartment and the Compartment has not been Compromised.

Now if as I said. A Ship is Hit by 3-5 Shells from GK. Then Chances are. That the Floodings are in Several different Compartments. And that the Compartments thanks to the Shells Flying through the whole Ship First have been Compromised.

 

 

And Finally.

Well. Smolensk has Damage Control in the Game :)

I just need to hit him a Second Time *gg*

You are wrong - a 1 /2 meter hole from a shell that didn't detonate will NOT sink a 200 meter ship - sorry. Keep up your fantasy though (p.s. I'm a U.S.N. vet.)

[Sunleader]

38 minutes ago, DarthDon49 said:

You are wrong - a 1 /2 meter hole from a shell that didn't detonate will NOT sink a 200 meter ship - sorry. Keep up your fantasy though (p.s. I'm a U.S.N. vet.)

 

Sigh. Such a Little Sentence. And so much Wrong with it.....

 

1.

"Meh Your Wrong I am Rigtht" is not an Argument. Its a common Reaction Showing that you dont have any Arguments.

If that is the Reaction you give me. After I am using a Quote from the Event that YOU provided as an Example to Prove you Wrong. Then Yeah. Tells me alot about how much you actually know.

2.

A 42cm Diamter Hole. That is 2 Meters below the Waterline. Is not something Easily Patched up. Especially if it Drilled a Tunnel through the Entire Ship First.

And having 3-5 of them is not exactly something that a 130-190m Ship will Survive.

3.

Mate. No Offense Intended. But Literally Every Time such a Topic Comes up. My At least one Guy on the other Side of the Argument. Suddenly is some Navy Veteran, Engineer or whatever.

So Forgive me if I highly Doubt this kind of Statement by Now.

Needless to Say. That being a Navy Veteran is not exactly telling me anything. Because being a Soldier Aboard a Ship does not exactly Entail that your Familiar with WW2 Ship Engineering and Damage Control.

I have no Doubt. That Nowdays with High Power Pumps, Automaticly Sealed Bulkheads and Heavy Powered Tools that work Independent from the Ships Power System. The Damage Control Capability will allow you to Deal with a 42cm Hole in the Hull. Even more so when Nowdays some Frigates and Destroyers are Larger than WW2 Light Cruisers....

But even so I would actually be Doubtful that 3-5 such Holes would be something that can be Dealt with easily.

4.

You can Demean it as Fanatasy. But likewise I am always Impressed by the kind of Ideas some People have about alot of things.

Not sure what you think People in WW2 were Capable off. But a 42cm Hole 2m below the Waterline with Water Flooding in under Extreme Pressure. Is really not something that can be Easily Repaired.

In case you dont know. But in WW2 most cases of Flooding of Smaller Ships. Were Desperate Fights for Survival of that Ship often Ending in the Loss of the Ship. And in most cases. The Survival of the Ship did not come about by Patching up the Flooding. But usually by Abandoning the Compartment and Limiting the Flooding to one Area.

 

[Pikkozoikum]

45 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

Sigh. Such a Little Sentence. And so much Wrong with it.....

 

1.

"Meh Your Wrong I am Rigtht" is not an Argument. Its a common Reaction Showing that you dont have any Arguments.

If that is the Reaction you give me. After I am using a Quote from the Event that YOU provided as an Example to Prove you Wrong. Then Yeah. Tells me alot about how much you actually know.

2.

A 42cm Diamter Hole. That is 2 Meters below the Waterline. Is not something Easily Patched up. Especially if it Drilled a Tunnel through the Entire Ship First.

And having 3-5 of them is not exactly something that a 130-190m Ship will Survive.

3.

Mate. No Offense Intended. But Literally Every Time such a Topic Comes up. My At least one Guy on the other Side of the Argument. Suddenly is some Navy Veteran, Engineer or whatever.

So Forgive me if I highly Doubt this kind of Statement by Now.

Needless to Say. That being a Navy Veteran is not exactly telling me anything. Because being a Soldier Aboard a Ship does not exactly Entail that your Familiar with WW2 Ship Engineering and Damage Control.

I have no Doubt. That Nowdays with High Power Pumps, Automaticly Sealed Bulkheads and Heavy Powered Tools that work Independent from the Ships Power System. The Damage Control Capability will allow you to Deal with a 42cm Hole in the Hull. Even more so when Nowdays some Frigates and Destroyers are Larger than WW2 Light Cruisers....

But even so I would actually be Doubtful that 3-5 such Holes would be something that can be Dealt with easily.

4.

You can Demean it as Fanatasy. But likewise I am always Impressed by the kind of Ideas some People have about alot of things.

Not sure what you think People in WW2 were Capable off. But a 42cm Hole 2m below the Waterline with Water Flooding in under Extreme Pressure. Is really not something that can be Easily Repaired.

In case you dont know. But in WW2 most cases of Flooding of Smaller Ships. Were Desperate Fights for Survival of that Ship often Ending in the Loss of the Ship. And in most cases. The Survival of the Ship did not come about by Patching up the Flooding. But usually by Abandoning the Compartment and Limiting the Flooding to one Area.

 

I'm not sure, but can't those ship lock segments, so just some rooms are flooded? I mean, those ship are weighing so much, if now there are a few tons of water in it, I think that doesn't matter. Though I guess it depends on how much it's flooding, if it can hold in small rooms or if the water pumps can deal with it

[Pikkozoikum]

2 hours ago, Zentry said:

good for you

Not sure, how that is good for me, but thanks :D

[Sunleader]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I'm not sure, but can't those ship lock segments, so just some rooms are flooded? I mean, those ship are weighing so much, if now there are a few tons of water in it, I think that doesn't matter. Though I guess it depends on how much it's flooding, if it can hold in small rooms or if the water pumps can deal with it

 

Thats not Entirely Correct.

 

Ships. And Especially Warships. Are Equipped with Damage Control and also Damage Limitation Measures.

These Measures Include

Watertight Compartments to Limit the Flooding to the Compartment in which the Outer Hull was Broken.

Water Slowing Wall Structure. That Ensures that in case of the Watertight Compartments being Broken the Water will only Flood 1 Section of the Ship up to the Waterline and then not reach the other Sections of the Ship.

Pumps to to Slow Down the Water Intake and if Possible Force Out the Water from Flooded Compartments after they have been Sealed or Repaired.

Equipment and Damage Control Teams to Slow Down and if Possible Repair Holes in the Hull. And Especially inside the Ships Interior so a Flooding does not Spread.

 

Now.

Unlike the Idea you have. Water from Flooding in the Ship. Is not a Matter of Weight. But a Matter of Floating Capacity.

In order to Keep the Ship Afloat above the Water. The Ship Displaces Water. And as the Ship is Watertight. The Water which is Forced to the Side. Will then not Allow the Ship to Sink Deeper than the Point where the Water covering the Area of the Ships Size inside the Water is Heavier than the Ship due to Gravity.

This Works because the Air Filling the Ship Interior. Is Lighter than Water. And therefore. The Gravity Laws make sure that Ship Stays Afloat on top of the Water.

 

When you Take in Water. You do not actually Gain any Weight on the Ship. You Simply Lose Boyancy because the Air in the Ship which is Keeping the Ship above the Water. Is Replaced with Water. And thus no Longer Provides Boyancy to keep the Ship above the Water. Meaning that the Weight of the Steel now Pulls the Ship down Deeper into the Water.

 

At all Times. The Amount of Air Below the Waterline. Has to be Big enough to Carry the Weight of the Ship. And this will Happen Automaticly. As the Moment you Take in Water. The Ship will Sink A tiny bit Deeper into the Water. Until the Amount of Air that is now below the Waterline. Is big enough again to Stop the Ship from Sinking Deeper.

 

 

But here comes a whole Range of Problems.

 

1.

A Shell which Overpenetrates the Ship. Will Destroy the Watertight Compartments on the Way through the Ship. And thus will allow the Flooding to not just go into a Single Watertight Compartment. But immediately Flood several Compartments at once.

2.

Because not only does a Ship have a Certain Limit of how Deep it can Sink into the Water before you Start taking in Water from Openings further up on the Ship. But the Boyancy and the Weight on the Ship are also Distributed by a Certain Plan. And Water on One Side of the Ship. Can cause the Ship to List to a Side and Capsize.

And if your Unable to get that Water out of the Ship. The only Choice you have. Is to Flood the other Side Voluntarily to prevent the Ship from Capsizing.

3.

Because Ships are not Stuffed to the Brink with Crew. A Hole will not be Instantly under Repair the moment it comes up.

And a 42cm Hole will Take Several Cubic Meters of Water in every Second. So by the Time a Damage Control Team even Arrives at the Hit Place. The Compartment might already be entirely Flooded and no Longer Accessible.

Especially if you get Hit by several Shells at once.

4.

Unlike Modern Days. In WW2 there was no Heavy Equipment that Worked Independently from the Ships Power System. And Overpenetrations tended to have that annoying habit of Flying through Electrical Lines and Potentially Breaking Power Systems and other Support. Which often meant that Sections or even the Entire Ship were Cut off from Power. Not having Pumps or Heavy Equipment at all. And thus having no Choice but to Abandon the Compartment or even entire Segment and Try to Seal Neighboring Segments and Compartments instead to Limit the Damage.

 

 

And Finally.

5.

The Really Simple Matter of Size.

 

The Ability of a Ship to Lose Compartments. Depends extremely Highly on the how many Compartments the Ship has. And how much Leeway the Ship has before the Air in the Ship just cannot keep the Ship Afloat anymore.

A Battleship for example. Thanks to its tremendous Size. Not just in Length but also in actual Width and thus Interior Space. Could take alot of Flooding before it would actually Sink.

In Fact. The Bulge Armor on Battleships. Was ultimately nothing else. But Empty Compartments where the Torpedo could Run a Hole into and Flood them without reaching the Interior of the Ship. Thus only Flooding a Predefined Area which the Ship could Control. This also allows Battleships to do Counterflooding. And thus Prevent the Ship Capsizing by Purposely Flooding Compartments so that one Side of the Ship is not causing the Ship to Roll over.

Moreover. The Battleship also has a Far Larger Number of Watertight Compartments. Allowing it to lose a Far Smaller Percentage of its Floating Ability when a Compartment is Abandoned. Thus the Sinking of the Ship for a Single Flooded Compartment is much lower. Which also means the Waterline Change is much less Severe and thus the Additional Water Intake is Lower.

 

However. As you can Imagine. Light Cruisers. Which while they are Pretty Long. Tended to not be extremely Wide. Have much much less Space inside them which they can Abandon before it leads to Severe Problems.

And being much Thinner. They also have a much Higher Risk of Capsizing and Rolling over when Flooding is Onesided. While at the same Time. Simply not having the Luxury of having alot of Empty Compartments they can just Flood on the other side of the Ship to Prevent the Listing of the Ship.

And as each Compartment is also a much Bigger Percentage of the Ship. It has far more Severe Effects from such Floodings as well.

(Needless to Say. That Destroyers had fairly few Compartments when Compared to Larger Ships. And thus also had very little Leeway in Abandoning Compartments.)

 

 

 

 

Now dont get me Wrong.

3-5 Hits with 42cm Shells will Certainly not Guarantee a Light Cruiser to Sink.

 

This Depends on just way too many Factors. Like How many Watertight Compartments got Destroyed when the Shells Punched through the Ship. How fast could Damage Control Teams Reach the Affected Area. How many Compartments could be Repaired/Sealed before they got Flooded. How many Different Segments are getting Flooded. Are the Floods all on one Side or are they Distributed along the Ship. Are the Systems and Pumps in that Section of Ship still Operational.

And Also. How well is the Cruiser Designed and how much Leeway does it have towards Sinking. Is the Cruiser Operating very Close to the Displacement Limit of its Hull and thus be in Extreme Trouble if the Waterline gets moved up 10 or 20 Centimeters due to Flooding. Or is the Cruisers very Comfortably inside the Displacement actually on the Ship. And therefore the Waterline moving even 1 meter higher will still not mean the Ship to be Lost.

 

And it also Depends on the Depth of the Hole. If the Hole is 20 Centimeters below the Waterline. Then the Water will also only Rise up to that 20 centimeters. Because after that. The pressure inside and outside the Compartment is Equivalent. And thus Water is no longer Forced into the Ship. Which also means. That the Compartment will still be Accessible for the Crew to Possibly Repair the Hole.

Meanwhile a Hole 2 Meters below the Waterline. Is a Friggin big Problem. Because the Water will Fill up the Compartment entirely (they dont tend to be 2m High) Which in WW2 meant. That Entering this Compartment and Repairing the Hole was next to Impossible during a Battle. And would require the Ship to Dock somewhere for Repairs.

 

 

 

BUT regardless of the above.

It is Absolutely Certain. That such Hits. Would Create a Severe Problem. And have Indeed a Huge Risk of the Ship being Sunk by this.

 

Thats why the other Guy Tooting his Horn there. Like this would be no Big Deal and easily Patched up. Is Triggering me Pretty Hard.

 

[Nebuched]

In the subparagraph "Surface" the first sentence says something about a sub being most vulnerable when submerged. I think this should read "when surfaced". 

[Nebuched]

I want a "fantasy" game mode  with fantastical subs, those that can emit a smoke screen when surfaced, launch a spotter plane when surfaced, cv planes with depth charges, subs with good AA, and so on. 

[Nebuched]

Submarine: "Why do I hear Benny Hill music ?"

DD:

[The_Gladietors]

Hello,
it does not give me access and gives error 6001. Do you know how to solve it?