General Submarines related discussions

[JohnMac79]

3 hours ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

At the moment a sub under can't seem to detect other ships while its submerged unless teammates are spotting it. The 800km radius to depth charges mean that you should have absolutely no problem hitting the sub once you know even roughly where it is.its back to you.

 

How about you stop playing subs and start playing DD, then come back and tell us how easy it is to catch up to a sub and depth charge it in front of the enemy team while being perma spotted.

 

Ironic you say how 'easy' it is while DD is your worst performing class already...

 

3 hours ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

They got nerfed to an almost comical degree recently.

 

Not by enough. Not even nearly enough. Ironically you seem to perform better in sub than other classes.

[BLUB__BLUB]

On 5/22/2022 at 6:06 AM, COPlUM said:

He's been bragging for 3 days about how he got 50% WR on tuesday, won 22/44 games with 125PR and 9.6K average damage. Calls himself a guru because of it.

True most of us would have to try very hard to match that... I would not even care to try... 

[159Hunter]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 True most of us would have to try very hard to match that... I would not even care to try... 

Is that a challenge?

Maybe we should div up in our worst performing tier X, play them without camo, flags and captain points (no voice ofc)... and see if we can match that 

[lovelacebeer]

3 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Is that a challenge?

Maybe we should div up in our worst performing tier X, play them without camo, flags and captain points (no voice ofc)... and see if we can match that 

Honestly I doubt you two could achieve such a ‘special’ result even if you tried your worst.

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Is that a challenge?

Maybe we should div up in our worst performing tier X, play them without camo, flags and captain points (no voice ofc)... and see if we can match that 

I can easily match it in Donskoi... really really easy... 

[Pikkozoikum]

7 hours ago, JohnMac79 said:

How about you stop playing subs and start playing DD, then come back and tell us how easy it is to catch up to a sub and depth charge it in front of the enemy team while being perma spotted.

I do that all the time with a cruiser :3

 

But then, in most cases, you won't yolo into an enemy team, no matter what you plan was. Though, I even did that actually and won xD

[159Hunter]

15 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

Honestly I doubt you two could achieve such a ‘special’ result even if you tried your worst.

I'll just brind audacious. That ship just doesn't agree with me.

Fire chance is non existent when I plat that ship (as opposed to Implac ).

[De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit]

You have nerfed subs a bit too much this iteration. I'm just dumpstering on subs this patch. Free kills. Whenever I play subs, I feel like my only purpose is to be a damage piñata for the enemy team. At this point it's not worth it to play submarines over DDs, so you'll have to buff them in some way to make them viable. 

[CaptJTorres]

Hi WG, me again, bringing in the submarine-related/adjacent suggestions I posted on the Suggestions thread.

 

1- For most, if not all CVs: a Consumable squadron with depth charges to fight submarines. That simple.

- Why? CVs and Dutch ships can only fight submarines when they surface. Not fun.

- How I see it working: just like other consumable squadron that you have on Hornet or on Super CVs, and just like the depth charge airstrikes that ships have, with a reload between 180 and 240s. Maybe make the planes slow to balance it out, like the B25 from the Hornet, or let us fly the Catalinas!

 

2- Anti-torpedo Netting. For those ships that historically had it and especially for those that are already modelled in the ships in the game, mostly BBs.

- Why? Historical, and why not...

- How I see it working: as a consumable with 2 or 3 charges max, that reloads every 120 to 180s. Once you activate it, it takes 15s to deploy, stays in the water for 45-70s, and takes 15s to be removed from the water. While active, it slows down the ship to 50% of max speed, increases rudder shift by 50%, and can take about 3-4 torpedo hits before depleting its HP pool on either port or starboard sides and becoming unusable for the rest of the match. You can also choose to have two types of netting: one that works for all torpedoes, and one that is shallower and does not stop Deep Water torpedoes.

 

3- A Torpedo Decoy consumable for most ships. As an additional tool, not as a replacement to the ping-clearing effect of the Damage Control Party (so the player can choose how to handle the situation).

- Why? Historical, and gives ships a tool to deal with incoming torpedoes, not only with the ping homing effect.

- How I see it working: as a consumable with 2 or 3 charges max, that reloads every 60 to 90s. Once you activate it, it takes 5s to deploy (time to sink slowly a little and activate behind the ship, so it is not an instant solution, you still have to pay attention to incoming homing torpedoes). Stays active in the water where it was dropped for 15-30s. Homing torpedoes have a certain % chance of homing to the decoy instead of to the ping on the ship. If the ship has been pinged twice, the chance of the decoy working is reduced (there could even be a Submarine Commander skill that improves the odds of avoiding decoys). A decoy hit by a torpedo is destroyed.

 

"That is it for today. Go away now."

[TheBudgieAdmiral]

Vor 56 Minuten, CaptJTorres sagte:

Hi WG, me again, bringing in the submarine-related/adjacent suggestions I posted on the Suggestions thread.

 

1- For most, if not all CVs: a Consumable squadron with depth charges to fight submarines. That simple.

- Why? CVs and Dutch ships can only fight submarines when they surface. Not fun.

- How I see it working: just like other consumable squadron that you have on Hornet or on Super CVs, and just like the depth charge airstrikes that ships have, with a reload between 180 and 240s. Maybe make the planes slow to balance it out, like the B25 from the Hornet, or let us fly the Catalinas!

 

2- Anti-torpedo Netting. For those ships that historically had it and especially for those that are already modelled in the ships in the game, mostly BBs.

- Why? Historical, and why not...

- How I see it working: as a consumable with 2 or 3 charges max, that reloads every 120 to 180s. Once you activate it, it takes 15s to deploy, stays in the water for 45-70s, and takes 15s to be removed from the water. While active, it slows down the ship to 50% of max speed, increases rudder shift by 50%, and can take about 3-4 torpedo hits before depleting its HP pool on either port or starboard sides and becoming unusable for the rest of the match. You can also choose to have two types of netting: one that works for all torpedoes, and one that is shallower and does not stop Deep Water torpedoes.

 

3- A Torpedo Decoy consumable for most ships. As an additional tool, not as a replacement to the ping-clearing effect of the Damage Control Party (so the player can choose how to handle the situation).

- Why? Historical, and gives ships a tool to deal with incoming torpedoes, not only with the ping homing effect.

- How I see it working: as a consumable with 2 or 3 charges max, that reloads every 60 to 90s. Once you activate it, it takes 5s to deploy (time to sink slowly a little and activate behind the ship, so it is not an instant solution, you still have to pay attention to incoming homing torpedoes). Stays active in the water where it was dropped for 15-30s. Homing torpedoes have a certain % chance of homing to the decoy instead of to the ping on the ship. If the ship has been pinged twice, the chance of the decoy working is reduced (there could even be a Submarine Commander skill that improves the odds of avoiding decoys). A decoy hit by a torpedo is destroyed.

 

"That is it for today. Go away now."

Re 1): Agreed, a separate CV squadron for countering submarines would be nice.

 

Re 2): Anti-torpedo netting was only used when the ships were at anchor. I suppose it could be used only when stationary or moving very slowly to avoid it breaking?

 

Re 3) I am split on this. On one hand, double pinging should be rewarded a little more, and this would give that ability, and surface ships need more ways of threatening subs. However with the plans around chaff consumables and the already large amount of abilities that are just getting more numerous each day, i worry it would become one consumable too much to manage. Perhaps allow surface ships to swap out the ASW airstrike or depth charges for such a decoy, like you can swap radar for a spotter plane?

 

Some of my own thoughts after playing subs for a while recently:

 

They're not as weak as i had thought, definitely not, though they don't deal as much damage as surface ships. Reason? Too slow. Perhaps increasing surface running speed by a few knots and lowering underwater speed by a few in return would be neat.

 

Surface ships should have more tools of forcing a sub below the surface in my opinion. Given the slower underwater speeds, this would allow surface ships to more effectively run down the sub and encircle it to finish it off, thus lowering its survivability mildly. Right now, subs only need to dive when they screw up and get too close or when a CV shows up above. Perhaps make ASW airstrike aircraft able to spot subs as well? That would require some more drastic evasion from the sub.

 

I feel plane spotting against subs is a little strong right now, as they can spot subs both on the surface and at periscope depth. Usually, a sub will take longer to fully submerge than it takes the plane's squadrons to go from showing up on the minimap to flying right over your head. I suggest adjusting the plane spotting so that subs stay unspotted when at periscope depth.

 

I'm out of credits to try higher tier subs with full module builds unfortunately, so this feedback was compiled from playing only fully kitted out T6 submarines.

[Cuddly_Spider]

22 hours ago, JohnMac79 said:

 

How about you stop playing subs and start playing DD, then come back and tell us how easy it is to catch up to a sub and depth charge it in front of the enemy team while being perma spotted.

 

If a sub is that distant it shouldn't be a big threat to you. Air-launched depth charges have a radius of 800 meters now, and their reload time is very short.

 

Add to that the fact that even a slight knock renders a subs weapons unusable for a time and you have an overly fragile class. As soon as a sub is spotted it can be put out of the game. It wouldn't be so bad if they allowed the sub to spot other ships while at periscope depth, but that isn't the case.

 

22 hours ago, JohnMac79 said:

 

Ironic you say how 'easy' it is while DD is your worst performing class already...

 

1. That's not irony.

 

2. I'm discussing submarines as a particular class of playable vehicle, not about my (or anyone else's) personal performance in them or anything else.

[JohnMac79]

49 minutes ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

1. That's not irony.

 

Yes, it is.

[viktor_jebaited]

1 hour ago, JohnMac79 said:

 

Yes, it is.

Another bot defending subs....what a coincidence. Its hard to argue against smart people, but impossible to argue against stupid 

[De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit]

40 minutes ago, Kenneth_95 said:

Another bot defending subs....what a coincidence. Its hard to argue against smart people, but impossible to argue against stupid 

 

What I find annoying is the tendency among some anti-sub players to resort to namecalling. Instead of actually adressing the argument. Besides, I have checked some of the anti-sub players records and what it often shows is the lack of submarine experience. Often 0 submarine games under their belts. I totally get why you don't want to play that class if you despise them. But it may influence your overall opinion on subs, if the only sub perspective is from a stance of fighting against the class. 

[SV_Kompresor]

1 hour ago, Kenneth_95 said:

Another bot defending subs....what a coincidence. Its hard to argue against smart people, but impossible to argue against stupid 

Did you quote the wrong guy by any chance?

[viktor_jebaited]

1 hour ago, SV_Kompresor said:

Did you quote the wrong guy by any chance?

No not at all :). Telling him not to argue with a stupid person 

[viktor_jebaited]

2 hours ago, De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit said:

 

What I find annoying is the tendency among some anti-sub players to resort to namecalling. Instead of actually adressing the argument. Besides, I have checked some of the anti-sub players records and what it often shows is the lack of submarine experience. Often 0 submarine games under their belts. I totally get why you don't want to play that class if you despise them. But it may influence your overall opinion on subs, if the only sub perspective is from a stance of fighting against the class. 

What annoys me is the tendency to use the argue "no sub experience therefor you cant possibly know what you are talking about" - I dont need to play a dum* a** class to know its complete and utter trash for the game, same goes for cv as well. Do you need to drive a Ferrari to know its fast ? ofc not, you know its fast.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

5 hours ago, CaptJTorres said:

1- For most, if not all CVs: a Consumable squadron with depth charges to fight submarines. That simple.

- Why? CVs and Dutch ships can only fight submarines when they surface. Not fun.

Only fair, considering CVs ain't fun for anyone else. Probably a good reason to actually play subs, if they weren't so toxic.

 

5 hours ago, CaptJTorres said:

2- Anti-torpedo Netting.

Just say no to immovable camping objects.

 

5 hours ago, CaptJTorres said:

3- A Torpedo Decoy consumable for most ships. As an additional tool, not as a replacement to the ping-clearing effect of the Damage Control Party (so the player can choose how to handle the situation). 

Nah, just get rid of fantasy laser guided homing cruise missiles torpedos and use WW2 ideas. Decoys could be in the same as the concealment mod slot, with the effet that you only have a 50% chance to get hit by these things.

 

There were torps that homed in on engine noise, so, throttle AND speed should have an influence, so you need to use the remaining energy to dodge the torp.

Or make torps that move in a pattern back and forth through an area. You just need to rework the torpedo spotting mechanics that they don't stay spotted when out of range, maybe with a single warning for those downrange, maybe on the minimap for as long as they're spotted. Who knows, this might even teach people to watch the minimap...

Or maybe people can choose to load mines instead of a number of torpedos. Not talking about italian torpedos, real mines, drifting slowly around, really short detection range with a life of about say, five minutes. If dropped from depth, they take a minute to float to the surface, so it's not a "haha, they're trying to waterbomb me" kind of weapon. And ofc detectable by hydro, inside of 2km.

 

Also, make the torpedos single launch, as they are now, but allow a maximum of two homing torps inside 20 seconds, the alpha on DDs is just too high.

 

[De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit]

29 minutes ago, Kenneth_95 said:

What annoys me is the tendency to use the argue "no sub experience therefor you cant possibly know what you are talking about" - I dont need to play a dum* a** class to know its complete and utter trash for the game, same goes for cv as well. Do you need to drive a Ferrari to know its fast ? ofc not, you know its fast.

 

Except you think it's a Ferrari, while I think it's a Suzuki Esteem at best, in it's current itteration.  Just take it easy. 

[viktor_jebaited]

13 minutes ago, De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit said:

 

Except you think it's a Ferrari, while I think it's a Suzuki Esteem at best, in it's current itteration.  Just take it easy. 

Why would I think its Ferrari, when you can see it. Even you can :) hopefully hmm :thinking: 

 

Perfectly calm ma dude, how are u btw ?

[Cuddly_Spider]

4 hours ago, JohnMac79 said:

 

Yes, it is.

Irony is the juxtaposition of what is the expected outcome of a given subject with its exact contradiction.

 

As my ability (or the lack of it) was not a subject of my comment in any way finding irony in it wasn't actually possible.

 

7 hours ago, De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit said:

You have nerfed subs a bit too much this iteration. I'm just dumpstering on subs this patch. Free kills. Whenever I play subs, I feel like my only purpose is to be a damage piñata for the enemy team. At this point it's not worth it to play submarines over DDs, so you'll have to buff them in some way to make them viable. 

 

I mostly agree, they're on the verge of being unplayable. The combination of low visibility at periscope depth, high vulnerability to having modules disabled, and MASSIVE area of effect of depth charges means their usefulness has declined.

 

I'd reduce the depth charge radius to 600 meters, and increase the distance subs can see at periscope depth to their standard maximum at this time then try things from there.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 hour ago, Cuddly_Spider said:

I mostly agree, they're on the verge of being unplayable

Unfortunately people play them still, so we're not done yet.

[Dutchy_2019]

4 hours ago, De_Zeeuwse_Admiraliteit said:

 

What I find annoying is the tendency among some anti-sub players to resort to namecalling. Instead of actually adressing the argument. Besides, I have checked some of the anti-sub players records and what it often shows is the lack of submarine experience. Often 0 submarine games under their belts. I totally get why you don't want to play that class if you despise them. But it may influence your overall opinion on subs, if the only sub perspective is from a stance of fighting against the class. 

 

The problem is that ANY class to be introduced into the game has to be enjoyable to play, but also to be enjoyable to play against. THAT needs to be combined with the fact that that class must be balanced in a way that it does NOT upset the game balance, the impact of the quality of the player is NOT too big (the massive problem with RTS CVs), and must be acceptable in solo, and in divisions.

 

CV already struggles to meet these requirements (and in some aspects arguably does not).

 

Submarines do barely even meet any of these requirements, let alone check enough of them, and the problem is that many of the mechanisms introduced make them inceredibly un-fun to play against. All means that would make them more fun/acceptable to play against, would make them either (a) completely un--fun to play, and/or make the impact of the quality of the player too big (reintroducing the RTS CV problem).

 

Sure, in any class you have people who manage to put up crazy numbers, and/or dominate games. But usually those players are very good in BB, DD AND Cruiser. What you see with submarines (and slightly lesser extent CVs) is that players who do acceptable (or even worse) can put up crazy numbers in submarines fairly consistently. One or two of them have also popped up in this thread (slightly above average in 3 main classes, suddenly averaging 150k damage and 2-3 kills per game in a submarine over hundreds of games, and a winrate 10 percentage points higher than ANY other class). That is the certain sign the class is broken.

 

That the general numbers are not even more skewed showing submarines being too powerful / not fitting the game as such, has a number of reasons:

 

• Quite a few of the very good players refuse to play them, simply because they do not think they fit in the game (fundamentally opposed), or because they do not offer any challenge in their play to them (they are far too easy).
• A lot of bad players or barely above average players seem to gravitate towards playing submarines. Players who simply are able to use the mechanics to their full potential, which some of the average and the good players are - subsequently wrecking games.
• A ton of players are playing submarines while they have NO business playing them, simply because of the stupid way WG made them available (slightly improved this time, but still...), which massively skews the numbers downward. I am talking about players with like 30 Random Battles experience (less than 130 games in all modes total!), playing T10 submarines. 

[MarChil]

1 hour ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

A ton of players are playing submarines while they have NO business playing them, simply because of the stupid way WG made them available (slightly improved this time, but still...), which massively skews the numbers downward. I am talking about players with like 30 Random Battles experience (less than 130 games in all modes total!), playing T10 submarines. 

This is core WG policy, they will never even consider changing that. Before we know, ships get balanced on potential and we all know that is a disaster. WG needs players that make T10 before they realize they are being milked. 

[leeuwbart]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:37 AM, Cuddly_Spider said:

As a sub player, I don't actually recognise your description of a battle.

 

At the moment a sub under can't seem to detect other ships while its submerged unless teammates are spotting it. The 800km radius to depth charges mean that you should have absolutely no problem hitting the sub once you know even roughly where it is. Furthermore, the sub can't attack you unless it's either head on or it has its back to you.

 

They got nerfed to an almost comical degree recently.

i sadly have to disagree with your statement as the asw plane distance was denieing the option to damage the submarine as it remained to close to my ship, thus  i couldn't do anything about it, yet the torps of said submarine kept coming up while it was encircling me.