SUBMARINES — Feedback Poll

[1MajorKoenig]

Hey, 

 

Reading the Subs Feedback thread I wondered how WG wants to use this feedback — tons of posts but really hard to digest. Therefore I would like to create a poll thread — I start with a couple of feedbacks — suggestions and add to a poll if additional Suggestions + Feedback arise in the discussion.

 

Please leave a vote on the ones you support!

 

 

 

Plus: I try to further suggestions out of the discussion

 

——————————————————————————

 

Here — as a starting point my feedback from the general thread:

 

 

1) have three distinct depths with different mechanics attached to them:

 

- surfaced (recharge batteries, Concealment on par with DDs, full spotting, torping, manual deck gun, AA)

 

- periscope depth (consume battery, better Concealment, reduced Spotting, torping, recharge battery only if boat has a snorkel-I.e. T8+10 boats?)

 

- submerged (Consume battery, no own spotting, make use of spotting from friendlies, reduces speed, reduced damage)

 

- Crash dive depth Consumable (no spotting from own boat or friendlies unless own hydro Consumable, reduced damage, consumes battery)

 

2) battery only rechargeable in the surface or - if you have it - via snorkel. Make the subs surface after a while 

 

3) two types of Torpedos: a slower acoustic one as today just a little less powerful AND a straight runner for manual aiming with better stats (speed + range)

 

4) add manual deck gun for the lulz and give it the 1/4 pen rule 

 

5) add AA (even if it’s not powerful)

 

6) add some indicator for CVs to see how deep a sub is currently 

[Smeggo]

I'll vote for:

- 4 stages of diving (surface, periscope, 50m, max depth)

- oxygen for occasional surfacing  

- no pinging or homing

- secondary deckguns  to fight each other

 

Actually exactly like the Halloween-subs, just slowed down 

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, Smeggo said:

I'll vote for:

- 4 stages of diving (surface, periscope, 50m, max depth)

- oxygen for occasional surfacing  

- no pinging or homing

- secondary deckguns  to fight each other

 

Actually exactly like the Halloween-subs, just slowed down 

 

Agree with that Halloween subs were better. Just no stunning torps please... but having a choice between low damage homing torps and hard hitting unguided torps would be something I could like 

 

Btw. Have you used the poll?

[Smeggo]

Vor 6 Minuten, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

 

Agree with that Halloween subs were better. Just no stunning torps please... but having a choice between low damage homing torps and hard hitting unguided torps would be something I could like 

 

Btw. Have you used the poll?

Yes, of course without the ice-magic-torps. 

And yes, I have voted.

[lossi_2018]

Lol... dis needs a new game.

 

But give enough details, we can make SH6 great again :)

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, lossi_2018 said:

Lol... dis needs a new game.

 

But give enough details, we can make SH6 great again :)

Why new game? I think the Halloween subs were quite close to what could work. All in all I think WG should take their time if they want to introduce subs. It’s not easy to introduce a new class. 

[Pikkozoikum]

Is this just for collecting votes? because at some stuff the contra-vote is missing: There is only the option for agreeing or not voting

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, Pikkozoikum said:

Is this just for collecting votes? because at some stuff the contra-vote is missing: There is only the option for agreeing or not voting

 

If options are missing I try to add them. What do you need? 

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

If options are missing I try to add them. What do you need? 

generally everywhere we need a "Keep current design"

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

generally everywhere we need a "Keep current design"

here you go — added where it was missing 

[El2aZeR]

 

I'm gonna guess you mean "Subs shouldn't be spotted when fully submerged unless proxy spot and hydro"? Or sth else?

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

here you go — added where it was missing 

Not voting for it, but to keep the poll meaningful we need the contra to the change^^

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I'm gonna guess you mean "Subs shouldn't be spotted when fully submerged unless proxy spot and hydro"? Or sth else?

 

Good point - no I meant spotting other ships from the sub’s perspective 

 

(currently I can keep the ASW spotted and just wait it to be killed by my team)

 

EDIT: maybe we need a section on Concealment? What are the options there?

[ScruffyNoob]

Interesting poll - lots of good options.

 

However, I can't get over that the speed of tier 6 submarines exceed that of (some) mid-tier battleships. If the US standard BBs are represented in game with their historical speed - why should submarines get a "speed bonus". 

 

It is very hard for me to judge en entire submarine mechanic, when I am only shown the starting tier, and those submarines already have exceptional speed, relatively long range, high speed homing torpedos which may inflict massive citadel damage as well as lightning fast diving and surfacing times - enabling even unguided devastating torpedo attacks as shown by Notser recently on Youtube. I shudder to think which gimmicks will have to given to tier 8 and 10 submarines.

 

Balancing submarines in the tier 6-8-10 meta is exceedingly hard because of the massive leaps in research and development of submarines as well as anti submarine warfare during the second World War. If WG start out by giving tier 6 vessels "over-powered" abilities in order to make the class more appealing to the general playerbase - they introduce an inflationary mechanism, which can never be balanced.

 

Last but not least - it is important for me to play this game knowing that all vessels has a chance of damaging other vessels. In my opinion WG has a problem with ships with no or very little AA encountering CVs and now it seems that a large portion of vessels (CAs and BBs) will have no defense against submarines. If that is implemented - my interest in playing this game will fizzle.

 

I am genuinely afraid that WG will unleash a truly broken class of vessels in their quest to "create" the next shiny thing to dazzle the playerbase. 

[1MajorKoenig]

8 minutes ago, ScruffyNoob said:

Interesting poll - lots of good options.

 

However, I can't get over that the speed of tier 6 submarines exceed that of (some) mid-tier battleships. If the US standard BBs are represented in game with their historical speed - why should submarines get a "speed bonus". 

 

It is very hard for me to judge en entire submarine mechanic, when I am only shown the starting tier, and those submarines already have exceptional speed, relatively long range, high speed homing torpedos which may inflict massive citadel damage as well as lightning fast diving and surfacing times - enabling even unguided devastating torpedo attacks as shown by Notser recently on Youtube. I shudder to think which gimmicks will have to given to tier 8 and 10 submarines.

 

Balancing submarines in the tier 6-8-10 meta is exceedingly hard because of the massive leaps in research and development of submarines as well as anti submarine warfare during the second World War. If WG start out by giving tier 6 vessels "over-powered" abilities in order to make the class more appealing to the general playerbase - they introduce an inflationary mechanism, which can never be balanced.

 

Last but not least - it is important for me to play this game knowing that all vessels has a chance of damaging other vessels. In my opinion WG has a problem with ships with no or very little AA encountering CVs and now it seems that a large portion of vessels (CAs and BBs) will have no defense against submarines. If that is implemented - my interest in playing this game will fizzle.

 

I am genuinely afraid that WG will unleash a truly broken class of vessels in their quest to "create" the next shiny thing to dazzle the playerbase. 

 

I think a lot of us are concerned about how to balance these things but I also think WG will press on with subs. There is a market for these things.

 

Hence why I believe it is important to leave feedback. I tried to summarize the feedbacks I came across into an easy to read overview but I see the difficulties for WG to really understand the feedback from the players. I mean - we can try, no?

 

I think your point about other ships not being able to hit subs is a crucial one.

 

I tried to built that one into “make subs surface via battery or oxygen mechanics” and we should also think about what ships without depth charges would do regardless. Eg Planes, or whatever. Do you have a Suggestion on this?

[hellhound666]

haven't tested, cant give answer to the poll ...

but, wg, whatever the fck you do, pls dont fck this up and fckig listen players ... keep it at special mode till EVERYTHING is ironed out and dont fcking rush like with cv's.

and pls forward everything relevant to the ones who make decisions translated into the language they understand ...

[firerider202]

"Give all light cruisers depth charges to reduce risk of „no ASW ship at hand“

 

 

Is that question correct? because light crusers already have depth charges

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, firerider202 said:

"Give all light cruisers depth charges to reduce risk of „no ASW ship at hand“

 

 

Is that question correct? because light crusers already have depth charges

 

Only some of them 

[firerider202]

Gerade eben, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

Only some of them

wich are missing?

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, firerider202 said:

wich are missing?

 

From dev bulletin 0.9.4:

 

Keep an eye on enemy destroyers and cruisers. All destroyers, as well as cruisers VI Dallas, VI Budyonny, VI Leander, and VI Perth carry depth charges, which can hit submarines hiding underwater.

 

 

(eg Nürnberg does not have them. No idea about other tiers)

[Pikkozoikum]

8 minutes ago, firerider202 said:

wich are missing?

 

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

From dev bulletin 0.9.4:

 

Keep an eye on enemy destroyers and cruisers. All destroyers, as well as cruisers VI Dallas, VI Budyonny, VI Leander, and VI Perth carry depth charges, which can hit submarines hiding underwater.

 

 

(eg Nürnberg does not have them. No idea about other tiers)

If I'm not wrong, the Aoba has DCs as well, though it's not a Cl

Imo every ship with DCs historically should get them, not reason for not adding them

[Smeggo]

Vor 4 Minuten, Pikkozoikum sagte:

 

If I'm not wrong, the Aoba has DCs as well, though it's not a Cl

Imo every ship with DCs historically should get them, not reason for not adding them

AFAIK they just haven't implemented the DC on all CL, but are working on it.

[firerider202]

Vor 14 Minuten, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

From dev bulletin 0.9.4:

 

Keep an eye on enemy destroyers and cruisers. All destroyers, as well as cruisers VI Dallas, VI Budyonny, VI Leander, and VI Perth carry depth charges, which can hit submarines hiding underwater.

And wich are now missing?

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, firerider202 said:

And wich are now missing?

 

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

eg Nürnberg does not have them. No idea about other tiers

 

[firerider202]

Is Nürnberg even categorised as light cruser?