General Submarines related discussions

[Sprockett]

1 minute ago, mtm78 said:

 

If WG changes their game to an extent a court would force them to reimburse people who bought in game content under false pretenses well that's a whole different kind of story then, and I would prefer that route above the other. 

they did that with the Atlanta originally sold as an AA ships that then got nerfed and now is nothing but an expensive lie? To name but one ship of many.

[Sprockett]

that was footage of old RTS cv gameplay ?

 

[mtm78]

Just now, Sprockett said:

they did that with the Atlanta originally sold as an AA ships that then got nerfed and now is nothing but an expensive lie? To name but one ship of many.

 

Blys was marketed EXPLICITLY with her stealth fire capabilities, yet they removed the mechanic and 'compensated' the ship. What did they do with Atlanta? 

 

Anyway, those are individual ships, I am talking about the entire game changing because of wanting to sell premium pixel submarines, with the effect that ALL my ships are now placed in a different game then what was EXPLICITLY stated. It's somewhat the same issue, but on a totally different scale. 

[Gudgeon]

I'm really enjoying being an unpaid tester in a BB, pooped on by an a class that has very little counter play and homing missiles, sorry torpedo's, in ranked. The CC debacle must be a convenient distraction from the REAL PROBLEMS being engineered in the game. It almost appears that you are going out of your way to destroy what little fun and reason to log on to this "game". If these things hit random battles in this state.....

 

Even CV mains must be loving this, CV's seem almost balanced compared to this ill thought out class and the total broken nature of every aspect of its implementation. Well played. 

 

I suspect that people will not hang around this time for another two years of the never never rebalancing of a broken class.

 

Please put submarines into random battles for the next update. Lets get the nonsense over with and the player base can vote with their log in options.

[BLUB__BLUB]

26 minutes ago, Gudgeon said:

I suspect that people will not hang around this time for another two years of the never never rebalancing of a broken class.

 

Please put submarines into random battles for the next update. Lets get the nonsense over with and the player base can vote with their log in options.

I agree. 

 

@YabbaCoe subs could be good, and an actual improvement. 

However seems to me WeeGee have now totally FUBARd it. I know this is a test but was such a thing necessary?

Any common sens would have already ruled out any need to test this. 

 

- speed of subs on surface should be a bit lower than any BB they can meet. 

And yes that does mean T8 subs need to be slower on surface than a Lolorado. T6--> see Texas. 

Because: if they are not, they are just gonna hunt down that BB, without ever being seen, and as such: no countermeasures. 

 

- Speeds of subs BELOW surface should be even lower. 

else they are like an Italian DD but with a 6-10 minute smokescreen. 

Worse - at least you can see the smokescreen and SHOOT into it, or torp it. Might even hit.

 

Those torps, too... 

I am not even gonna say something about that except "WTF".  

[__RSK__]

I"ll keep it short.. I am done with ranked. It's broken to point of zero fun just frustration left. I could say a lot of things about it.. like rest of the people here, but whats the point, no one is listening.

 

I'm out.

 

[Shirakami_Kon]

Submarines need to go from the game as a whole, their current itineration doesn't fit or has a place in the game. It's even worse than the ridiculous battle influence of CVs, but they are just a boring (both for players and to play against), unfun and unpolished attempt at adding a new concept in the game. If this is what devs where working all this time, honestly, find new ones that know what they are doing, because if this garbage is what passed as their final version to be implemented in the game a lot of other players and me don't know what to say about it.

 

I'll start with the obvious, homing torps are aiming for the most unbalanced mechanic of the game, and is quite impressive that something is managing to take the spot away from CVs lately. Should give a hint about a problem going on to anyone with two brain cells working together.

 

Second, ridiculous stealth and just being able to completely disappear from vision without any form to detect them. No plane, hidro (ironically) or radar will help you with them. How did the ability to be spotted only if the player wants to pass the testing stage? Oh, wait, there was none. Because it's ridiculous to think there was and this was deemed ok.

 

Third, the joke of air capacity limitations and that technically if the submarine allows you to spot it it runs out of air faster. They can be submerged for so damn long that this mechanic doesn't even feel like it's there. It's baffling how pandered this class is from the starting point and scary to even think what will be done to try to make them more appealing from this point on.

 

And knowing WG, considering the popularity of the class isn't following up at all we can expect for certain that in some way you're going to buff them even more until they attract a playerbase. How is beyond my imagination at this point. It's just baffling. Submarines as a whole and all they add to the game is the most toxic addition to the game since stealthfire, and honestly, it's way worse than what stealthfire was, and that got removed from the game.

 

Submarines just don't work in this game in their current form, the entire idea is flawed in every single aspect regarding to them, they need to be removed and think of a rework for them from scratch all over again.

[admiraldelorin]

Quote

12 posts, hidden profile. I can't check but I assume you're not alpha/beta/weekend tester or even one which been around since 'release' since WG been actually advertising the game as semi realistic ( just listen to the YT video sponsorship 'commercials', or the one's they aired on TV now and then in different countries ), and they EXPLICTLY PROMISED there would be no submarines. 

After careful consideration, reading the license, research past  behaviour and cost asessement we decided we would try WOWS as a naval combat, shooter.. What we found agreed with our expectations, so investments were made in full acceptance that premium ships like Missouri could change over night aka. we consider WOWS stable for one month so the investment is only to  be for a month. LetÄs say 4 gaming nights at 3 hrs each per month. A complete write off of 100 , - €  comparible with going to the movies twice that month.  We stayed a bit longer and invested a bit more.     
 

Quote

That's the game I spend countless hours on, the game I spend quite some money on and the game I would like to play even now. Sadly that game has been replaced with a different game. 

what planet were you on?  If you were promised no submarines..lawyer up a class action suite should be possible.. and show those lawyers the contract.  Oh, and mind you we invested while we were made to believe submarines would be in the game one way or another, and we would politely ask a refund should this not happen.  I suggest you do the same.

Quote

But now DD's and light cruisers are expected to do EVERYTHING they already had to do, and also protect the BB's from submarines? 

It is obvious to us, WOWS is not a static game.. the = (zero) = 0.x.yyy version number actually is LOUD and clear..

Quote

Even if I would reinstall that %$%$@^ 'game' I would ignore any submarine on the enemy team, because I did not BUY my premium destroyers to go after WG's fantasy version of nuclear submarines during WWII. But that's probably not going to happen, it would be to heartbreaking to see what the lies from this company have done to a game I once loved. Instead, if they really will push to add submarines to random battles, I will be contacting Dutch lawyers to look into a court case demanding refunds for all my premium ships after which WG can close my account all they want. 

Sorry if you invested in the wrong game.  I would suggest you should have invested in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts, still in development but there the end goal  is that you end up with a static version., although there too functionality may be lost once the server is shut down.  I would suggest that what you call "promisses" are actually more floating ideas that were never guaranteed in writing... Like submarines have been "promised" but still are not there, and my lawyer will be laughing all the way to the bank when i file a lawsuit.. Whether you or I can successfully reclaim our  investment, I doubt as the defending lawyer will check  entertainment value vs prospective alternatives. Without a proper court order my statistics can not be accessed without breach of privacy laws. What I do know is that if you are confrontal, your only option soon will be a lawsuit. I don't think they will respond to any "community" pressure seeing how toxic that community is.

As I see it you can have your "Grand Battles" ? without submarines and CV's as i can have my joint force battles with no BB''s..   alas all ship classes and types in random is something you and I may have to accept. That will not hurt me. My desire and only reason why we (me and my friends)  have WOWS is the chance of well coordinated, highly complex tactical game play in clan battles  and in training mode. Don't care about  random or ranked or coop or all the other "wild" modes.  They are just tools to get more game currencies and a place for experiments. And no, divisions can carry battles easier,  but nothing beats a well oiled dozen, as you may occasionally (1 in a 1000? ) witness in random when by change the right players are thrown in one team and the rest follows their lead.    
 

[st_dasa]

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

Submarines need to go from the game as a whole, their current itineration doesn't fit or has a place in the game. It's even worse than the ridiculous battle influence of CVs, but they are just a boring (both for players and to play against), unfun and unpolished attempt at adding a new concept in the game. If this is what devs where working all this time, honestly, find new ones that know what they are doing, because if this garbage is what passed as their final version to be implemented in the game a lot of other players and me don't know what to say about it.

I've experienced a few iterations that were bearable. However, they keep finding stupid crap. 

Also, CVs can be fixed... if they just listen. 

 

2 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

I'll start with the obvious, homing torps are aiming for the most unbalanced mechanic of the game, and is quite impressive that something is managing to take the spot away from CVs lately. Should give a hint about a problem going on to anyone with two brain cells working together.

Agreed. They should think about that. 

If necessary, think about "homing" the dev that keeps insisting on it... 

 

2 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

Second, ridiculous stealth and just being able to completely disappear from vision without any form to detect them. No plane, hidro (ironically) or radar will help you with them. How did the ability to be spotted only if the player wants to pass the testing stage? Oh, wait, there was none. Because it's ridiculous to think there was and this was deemed ok.

Every ship is able to 'disappear'. The issue is, how long. 

And most have "countermeasures" like radar and hydro.

 

2 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

Third, the joke of air capacity limitations and that technically if the submarine allows you to spot it it runs out of air faster. They can be submerged for so damn long that this mechanic doesn't even feel like it's there. It's baffling how pandered this class is from the starting point and scary to even think what will be done to try to make them more appealing from this point on.

True. It should be comparable to stealth on DDS in some way. 

 

2 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

And knowing WG, considering the popularity of the class isn't following up at all we can expect for certain that in some way you're going to buff them even more until they attract a playerbase. How is beyond my imagination at this point. It's just baffling. Submarines as a whole and all they add to the game is the most toxic addition to the game since stealthfire, and honestly, it's way worse than what stealthfire was, and that got removed from the game.

I don;t agree to that, but if they leave them as is now - yes then I do agree. 

 

2 hours ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

Submarines just don't work in this game in their current form, the entire idea is flawed in every single aspect regarding to them, they need to be removed and think of a rework for them from scratch all over again.

Yes I agree current idea is kinda dumb. We'll see what they do. 

Maybe WeeGee need to remind themselves that it is not the players that a get screwed.

If they leave, they'll find another game. However, it would mean WeeGee employees need to find another job... 

[Westie77]

So finally managed to get a few games in last night as a cruiser against Submarines and it was great. I didn’t find attacking Submarines difficult. I managed to get a lot of depth charge hits in. And also managed to negate the Submarine pings on a few occasions and actually wasn’t hit by the attacking Submarine at all. So where I thought fighting Submarines would be hard I didn’t find that to be the case. I found it no more difficult than going up against a skimmer. I actually found playing as a submarine was much harder. So from a surface ship point of view the Submarines are evenly matched. But from a Submarine perspective the manoeuvring could be addressed . I still feel they turn to slow and the turning circle is to large. I will say however those ships without Depth Charges are fighting a losing battle. So I don’t know how I would feel in a slow moving battleship with no ASW capability. But I suppose that is the reality of Naval Warfare against Subs. 

[admiraldelorin]

Desmo with "just" radar and hydro is doing great, Republique kills more subs then with secondaries then air attack, and occasional long shot with the main.   Subs vs sub kills work fine.  just need to skill captains.   In coop targets are gone to fast to say anything usefull.   Iowa is fast enough to close in before torps are armed or sub can come to surface, can sit on top of a sub and kill it with secondaries just fine. 

 

[mtm78]

1 hour ago, admiraldelorin said:

After careful consideration, reading the license, research past  behaviour and cost asessement we decided we would try WOWS as a naval combat, shooter.. What we found agreed with our expectations, so investments were made in full acceptance that premium ships like Missouri could change over night aka. we consider WOWS stable for one month so the investment is only to  be for a month. LetÄs say 4 gaming nights at 3 hrs each per month. A complete write off of 100 , - €  comparible with going to the movies twice that month.  We stayed a bit longer and invested a bit more.  

 

Good for you, but that doesn't actually mean anything to me, or do you think it should? I joined early, wanted this game to be great and did my best to give feedback when asked, and specifically enjoyed the interaction there was with the development team. I was in the top percentage of games played during closed testing which gotten me a nice in game reward, I've been a supertester and I've invested time and money otherwise. Which yes I admit, I have gotten a return on since I've had a lot of fun in this game. 

 

1 hour ago, admiraldelorin said:

what planet were you on?  If you were promised no submarines..lawyer up a class action suite should be possible.. and show those lawyers the contract.  Oh, and mind you we invested while we were made to believe submarines would be in the game one way or another, and we would politely ask a refund should this not happen.  I suggest you do the same.

I'm waiting for the final decision from WarGaming on what they want to do with submarines. If they push them into random battles then what you're suggesting is something I consider. Though I realize that no one will get full refunds, since WG will argue we have had a return of investment in the time between then and now and this legal debate could sway a lot ( which is why a good lawyer would make a lot of sense indeed.. ). 

 

1 hour ago, admiraldelorin said:

It is obvious to us, WOWS is not a static game.. the = (zero) = 0.x.yyy version number actually is LOUD and clear..

I think there is a legal argument to be had for claiming games when released and having sold assets in can not randomly change the characteristics of said items. Which is exactly what happens when you suddenly add a sci-fi class ( not that submarines aren't real and don't have a part in something like a convoy hunt or escort mode, but their current versions make nuclear powered submarines turn green in envy and break all immersion ) AND force existing classes into new tasks which change fundamentally the item you spend money on. 

 

1 hour ago, admiraldelorin said:

Sorry if you invested in the wrong game.  I would suggest you should have invested in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts, still in development but there the end goal  is that you end up with a static version., although there too functionality may be lost once the server is shut down.

 

I have taken an interest but haven't invested till I hear from people playing the final version, I think they have a campaign now which is what I was waiting for. But it is not comparable to World of Warships. 

 

1 hour ago, admiraldelorin said:

I would suggest that what you call "promisses" are actually more <snip>

Actually, no. But if you think that way, I won't argue with you as I don't get paid by the letter sadly. 

[Gnomus]

19 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That makes no sense at all. You use DCP for damage reduction. How does it matter, if that is a fire from a DD or cruiser, or reduced damage + flood immunity from a SS?

Maybe I'm not clear enough

Scenario 1

Cruiser and SS attacks BB. Cruiser spams HE. maybe gets a fire, maybe not. But Torpedos income, and he can't dodge, because potato or panic, so he DCP the cit-damage.

Torpedo dmg reduced, immune to floods and HE spam fires

 

Scenario 2

Cruiser and DD attacks. Cruiser spams HE. maybe gets a fire, maybe not. But Torpedos income, and he can't dodge, because potato or panic, and takes a flood. DCP the flood and maybe fires.

 

There are 2 enemies in both scenarios, and both can cause effects, that could need DCP. Where is the issue?

 

There are few differences: 

 

BB needs to use DCP to stop fires and floods, only after receiving them, in high enough number.

HE spam & fire and flooding does damage, but that damage can be healed. BB can soak up quite a lot, and heal it up.

BB can smash that cruiser and DD while taking damage, forcing them to disengage, or even sink them.

When DD torps are read for next strike BB DCP is up again.

 

To avoid citadel hit BB needs to use DCP in advance, without knowing if there would have been flood or not.

Subs do citadel damage with homing torpedoes. This can't be healed in meaningful manner.

BB can not sink the sub, at least if it has no ASW weapons, so it can't get rid of the sub like it can threaten cruiser and DD.

Subs torps are ready to use before BB DCP is active again, so if he used DCP to one salvo the next one can do the citadel damage and floods.

 

That is quite a big difference there.

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

But then, being 1-3 knots faster makes no difference.

Thanks for admitting this. Now we know that only fast cruisers and (most, not all) DD's have advantage on subs. So subs are practically as fast as BB's, CA's and CV's. So are they slow?

 

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

And the maximum is very unlikely. In what scenario is no ASW ship available, and a submarine has full Div Cap? That must be a scenario, that is pointless anways.

Mostly a submarine loses divecap by random spottings, how the ping mechanic works, submarine hydro etc. If a T10 has too much, than it's a balancing issue of the DivCap, not of the ASW.

 

I don't agree, that all ships should get counter against Subs, but not against DDs.

Even if the maximum chase of 8 minutes does not happen, it still should tell you that this mechanism is broken. One ship totally helpless against another for long time and no way to get out of situation (other than team help, and we know randoms).

 

Even T6 sub (U-69) can stay down a long time. Div capacity of 400 + 2 or 3 reserve batteries + 2+ second grace period. Even if he gets into situation at 75% he can stay below 5 minutes + 1,5 minutes + 20 seconds. If he fears DC loss he can go to deep (unspotted so no extra loss) pop a reserve battery (so DC is stopped) come higher to torp and then go deep again. Repeat two more times. 

 

If you consider that battles last max 20 minutes, and out of that first 3-4 minutes are just sailing to position, most battles end early and end is often just cleaning up, so active fighting time is generally around 10 minutes, if not less. T6 sub calculate how long T6 sub can stay down. For ships with no ASW "wait for the DC to run out" is not an option.  

 

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I already told it: You will have a submarine spotted. It has to be close, because the combat ranges are around 9-14 km. Submarine is close, and now, if all ships get ASW planes, that have no DCs. Then they will instantly all drop their ASW Planes on them. That is such easy kill.

 

But if a DD is spotted on 10-14 km, and ships shoot, is that always an easy kill? Well, I don't get always instantly killed, just because I got spotted. So I doubt that.

 

So sub needs to be close, but DD is spotted 10-14 km away? What happens if DD is spotted 6-7 km from several enemy ships? That is such a easy kill.

 

Also you are again stuck on "If all ships get ASW planes, that have no DCs". Ships with no ASW weaponry could just get some depth charges. Simple as that. They do not need to get the best possible ASW weaponry.

 

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That what "kinda" work, but I still think it's unfair. Also not saying, that this game is super historically accurate, but as far as I know, they don't give DCs on ships, they don't have those. But don't quote me on that. just my current knowledge.

Did BB's ever had depth charges? Answer is generally not, but as depth charges are just big barrels dropped from ships they would be easy to include.

 

Historically BB's encounter submarines with 5-10 knot submerged speed (ingame around 3,5 times faster) using torpedoes with 3,6 km range (ingame around 3,5 more) doing 20 to 30 knots (ingame around 3 times faster). Even US "standard battleship" doing 21 knots could easily out run any sub and torps. Fast battleships with ~30 knots could do it even easier. Alert and maneuvering BB (or any real warships) was very difficult target, and possible only when it wasn't aware of subs presence and general position. 

(Balao Mk29 did have 10,8 km range, doing 21 knots, or 3,6 km doing 28 knots, so range is almost there)

 

Stop to think for a second. If BB's had actually encountered subs that are (3,5 x 3,5 x 3) 37 times more dangerous to them, would admirals and naval architechts be like "nah, BB's need no ASW" or would they have started to carry depth charge on next port visit, and actual ASW mortars after next overhaul? 

 

If enemy gets totally unhistorical characteristics, then perhaps targets should also get some decree of bonuses to counter it.

 

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If a sub does that, then we are back for effectiveness. I don't understand, why it's so easy for a BB to push an invisible DD away and makes him "ineffective". But forcing a submarine for minutes to Maxium depth is effective for the sub.

 

Because sub can stay at operating depth (against ship with no ASW) and do damage from his primary effective range. If he want's to save dive capacity he can go to deep depth for reloading only to pop up at operating depth for torping (from his primary effective range). In both cases he has no threat and BB can do nothing about it. Only for going to optimal killing position is increased loss of dive capacity (that sub should have plenty, if not failing).

 

If DD want to get to better position he needs to come within spotting range and endanger himself. His change from inefficient to efficient position will take a long time (around 4-5 km sailing) while sub can do deep -> operational change in seconds.

 

That is the difference.

 

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

So, that's an interesting arguing. On the one had you are saying, that they are like 12 minutes under water. But on the other hand, they use a skill, that works only with depleted DivCap?  I wouldn't even think, that submarines actually take that skill. I don't

But then, T6 and T8 should be submerged actually slower. Also my explanation for that high speed is ,that with every tier, ships get more stats. The problem is, that submarines don't have a "sustain" stat, unless you don't buff them with huge amounts of HP. But there is no armor or anything, So speed is actually a defensive stat. That's what I could imagine.

 

You was one arguing that waiting to deplate subs dive capacity was good and balanced way of fighting against subs.

After BB has already waited for 423 dive capacity to expire U-2501 still has 141 dive capacity + 2x30 second reserve batter + 20 grace period to roam with increased speed.

 

I already mentioned length of battles. Being able to stay underwater for up to 12 minutes (U-2501) is a pretty big part of that. If sub can recharge at some safe situation he can stay underwater even linger. That is a lot.

 

Subs sustain comes from okeyish speed and maneuvaribilty, superior camo and ability to hide from damage under water. If someone can spot it and bring ASW weaponry to bear (two big if's) then it wonät last long. Same as DD that has it's camo and agility deprived of it, he will go fast.

 

20 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

• Still on the slower side, BB speeds, mostly. Especially in the case of T6. This shitty speed skill, then a BB can also take the shitty speed skill, since we assume, that the submarine is on maxium depth for being save, the BB will be invisible and very fast.
• Maneuverbility takes also speed into account. At least it's what WG is defining it. And that's what I'm takling about. They are low range, slow speed -> Inflexbile. They don't have 20km ranges, they don't have 40 knots or higher.
• Don't say, they are bad, just not saying, they are broken op and they have disadvantages.
• Non-homing has the diadvanatge of having only tight spread but also reduced damage. (to be more correct: They don't have increased dmg)
• Yes, that's a mechanic I like, the play with the concealment. And I like the idea of good concealment on periscope depth and with ping 4km, that gives avery spicy gameplay, when the submarine pings without being away of a DD. Overall the concealment is good, but some DDs can play around it. Beside that, the concealment gets better for surface ships, when submerged.
• Depends. Submarines can also easily get killed. So really depends. Similar to a smoke for a DD. DDs can get killed there, or not even get touched
• Happend to me, also happend to other subs. I almost won a 1vs4 vs two submarines, a DD and cruiser I guess. Both enemy subs had no DivCap, that was my advantage

 

Sub that manages to get BB over it has dome something wrong (unless he is abusing BB's inability to harm him). Subs with their speed, maneuverability and camo should be able to keep safe distance from BB's, if they so choose. BB's on the other hand can hardly avoid subs.

 

If you consider below 20 km range and below 40 knots inflexible, then I have a surprise for you: There's majority of DD's and big part of DD's that are inflexible, by you standard. Some low/mid tier BB's would also be inflexible. Subs speed, maneuverability and fighting range are there with along the 50% of other ships. They are not particulary restricted.

 

Subs can use their torpedoes as non-homing. In that case they are equally good to similar DD torpedoes. In ADDITION to being equal they have few very big boost subs can choose to use, when using doesn't give larger disadvantage. In short: They are always equal or clearly better, never lesser -> they are superior. 

 

I don't have much problem with concealment game. That is similar to DD's. I have problem of being untouchable once concealment game fails. Sub below water can get killed, if there are ships with ASW weaponry. Against ships without ASW weaponry they are totally safe. And this the problem.

 

 

 

Situation 1:

Sub failing to keep distance against BB that is equal to his speed (but bleeds speed more), has worse maneuverability and camo shining to heavens gets over run by said BB. If that BB have some depth charges to drop on sub while he passes straight over the sub, you consider it unfair (your comment: "That what "kinda" work, but I still think it's unfair.")

 

Situation 2:

BB that is as slow as a sub, has worse maneuverability and is seen from the moon finds himself close to unseen enemy sub. He has to try to sail away for 5-10 minutes while taking torpedo salvoes from the sub or he has to wait for 5-10 minutes (while taking torpedo salvoes constantly) waiting for the subs dive capacity to end, so he could finally shoot back. This situation is fair and balanced?

 

 

I can't understand your logic, or measure of "fairness" if you consider first situation as unfair but see no problem on the second one.

All ships must have a change to fight back, when enemy fails. No one should be free farm.

[Capra76]

2 hours ago, Gnomus said:

Did BB's ever had depth charges? Answer is generally not, but as depth charges are just big barrels dropped from ships they would be easy to include.

 

Two big problems with installing depth charges on BB:

1. large caliber naval rifles produce very large pressure waves, barrels of high explosives activated by pressure fuses are unlikely to react well to this;
2. due to size and relatively low speed of most BB, the most likely outcome from dropping depths charges from them would be to blow the ship's own stern off;

neither of these are good things.

[General_Alexus]

Maybe instead of DC-planes for BBs, they should make it possible for high caliber HE shells to reach Subs in operating depth. This way its not just point and click, also BBs would need to have the right ammunition loaded when fighting subs.

[Pikkozoikum]

18 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

There are few differences: 

 

BB needs to use DCP to stop fires and floods, only after receiving them, in high enough number.

HE spam & fire and flooding does damage, but that damage can be healed. BB can soak up quite a lot, and heal it up.

BB can smash that cruiser and DD while taking damage, forcing them to disengage, or even sink them.

When DD torps are read for next strike BB DCP is up again.

 

To avoid citadel hit BB needs to use DCP in advance, without knowing if there would have been flood or not.

Subs do citadel damage with homing torpedoes. This can't be healed in meaningful manner.

BB can not sink the sub, at least if it has no ASW weapons, so it can't get rid of the sub like it can threaten cruiser and DD.

Subs torps are ready to use before BB DCP is active again, so if he used DCP to one salvo the next one can do the citadel damage and floods.

 

That is quite a big difference there.

A quite big irrelevant difference and rather an advantage. The alternative would be, that submarines get stronger torpedos, that can't hit citadells. BBs would get overall more dmg.

But that doesn't matter

 

-For each submarine, you will have one less potential Fire/Flood-spammer

-You can counter not only incoming torpedo, but also combine that with existing fires. 1 Fire is active, and torpedos income ->both countered with one DCP.

-Imagine DCP would remove the possibility of getting AP-cita hits. Wouldn't you use it, if a BB gives you a dangerous broadside?

 

I'm not sure, what the initial point was, but the DCP gives the player options. Even as submarine, I use it a lot for countering subs. You might noticed, if you watched the replay.

 

22 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

Even if the maximum chase of 8 minutes does not happen, it still should tell you that this mechanism is broken. One ship totally helpless against another for long time and no way to get out of situation (other than team help, and we know randoms).

 

Even T6 sub (U-69) can stay down a long time. Div capacity of 400 + 2 or 3 reserve batteries + 2+ second grace period. Even if he gets into situation at 75% he can stay below 5 minutes + 1,5 minutes + 20 seconds. If he fears DC loss he can go to deep (unspotted so no extra loss) pop a reserve battery (so DC is stopped) come higher to torp and then go deep again. Repeat two more times. 

 

If you consider that battles last max 20 minutes, and out of that first 3-4 minutes are just sailing to position, most battles end early and end is often just cleaning up, so active fighting time is generally around 10 minutes, if not less. T6 sub calculate how long T6 sub can stay down. For ships with no ASW "wait for the DC to run out" is not an option.  

I would play more surface ships without ASW for testing. But submarines are actually too much fun right now. Also playing ASW ships, hehe. But early hype.

 

In all tests, I never noticed, that any surface ship is now fcked. Especially not BBs in the latest tests. And as I said it many times. The threat of DD and SS is quite similar. Both stealthy hunters. But against both tactics exists.

 

I also see a lot submarines depleted in dive cap. Especially in a german vs USN sub battle can that happen, when the german goes for depleted the USN with the consumable.

 

As far I remember, I depleted mostly in fights, that were rather intense. And in fights, were one side was more stomping, it was less depleting.  (T6)

 

26 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

Thanks for admitting this. Now we know that only fast cruisers and (most, not all) DD's have advantage on subs. So subs are practically as fast as BB's, CA's and CV's. So are they slow?

Because a large number of ships is faster. And even if you don't take the max speed numbers, you might also consider the play style. Now turrets, submarines mostly heading towards enemies and need to turn 180°

 

29 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

So sub needs to be close, but DD is spotted 10-14 km away? What happens if DD is spotted 6-7 km from several enemy ships? That is such a easy kill.

High depends on the situation, but you don't get the point, how ASW planes work and how shells work. Because that is the important thing. Going with "what if a DD is spotted at 6-7km. Is just something, you can't talk about

What is spotting? a DD? Thats a gun fight, what will happen? Both DDs shoot each other. That's quite similar to subs.

Are multiple cruisers at 6-7 km? Sure, it might be dead. but guess what, that are multiple "counter ships" Cruisers are often good in killing DDs.

BBs? They might do no dmg, or kill it, very different.

 

But in case  of ASW planes -> Sub gets spotted and everyone in 13km range will drop ASW planes.

-They dont need to have their guns reloaded.

-They can launched over islands

-Turrets don't need to turn.

-> It's and almost instant action

 

A DD can still survive, if ships are not all already focusing the DD

 

It was a miracle, that I survived that. two BBs dropped me, though only 2 flights and all in one line. I had luck, because I noticed them very early, I took only 30% dmg. If all get ASW, they just can spam the whole area. And well, those 2 bbs had not all ASW flights reloaded, I think, I couldn't spot the planes long enough, because I had to maneuver out

This is only a 7v7, in a 12vs12, the spam would be massive.

 

42 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

Did BB's ever had depth charges? Answer is generally not, but as depth charges are just big barrels dropped from ships they would be easy to include.

It would, just doubt, they will do it. They rather don't give ships, that had DCs, than giving DCs, that have no DCs, it seems

 

44 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

Historically BB's encounter submarines with 5-10 knot submerged speed (ingame around 3,5 times faster) using torpedoes with 3,6 km range (ingame around 3,5 more) doing 20 to 30 knots (ingame around 3 times faster). Even US "standard battleship" doing 21 knots could easily out run any sub and torps. Fast battleships with ~30 knots could do it even easier. Alert and maneuvering BB (or any real warships) was very difficult target, and possible only when it wasn't aware of subs presence and general position. 

(Balao Mk29 did have 10,8 km range, doing 21 knots, or 3,6 km doing 28 knots, so range is almost there)

Historically and world of warships don't match. Historically, a 30 knot moving ship might not find a submarine, because of too much engine noise. I think to find submarines, ships moved around 10-12 knots. Something like that

The thing how I see historically stuff: It's very cool to have them, but never and argument against something.

 

46 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

Stop to think for a second. If BB's had actually encountered subs that are (3,5 x 3,5 x 3) 37 times more dangerous to them, would admirals and naval architechts be like "nah, BB's need no ASW" or would they have started to carry depth charge on next port visit, and actual ASW mortars after next overhaul? 

Or maybe we play a game. If  a single DD could smoke up close by an enemy fleet and start melting BBs and torp them, do you think, BBs were worth building? They noticed that with aircrafts, but they wouldn't even start building them, when DDs are already a counter. I don't see a point in that analogy

 

 

48 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

Because sub can stay at operating depth (against ship with no ASW) and do damage from his primary effective range.

Why would say sit on operating depth, when he is in an effective range anyways?

 

How many ranked games did you play, if I may ask?

 

52 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

If he want's to save dive capacity he can go to deep depth for reloading only to pop up at operating depth for torping (from his primary effective range). In both cases he has no threat and BB can do nothing about it.

Sounds like a BB vs DD encounter. A BB can't also do nothing against a DD. He can move towards it, can move away from it, hide behind islands. Same like against an SS. Don't know why that is an issue, maybe because you can actually see the submarine, because it's too slow for running away like a DD?
But that is actually the point, while DDs can run away a submarine can't . A submarine is played around the depth.

 

But as I said many times before: I don't see a point in giving every ship counter-weapons/measurements. It's still more like an Radar, then just "main armament".

ASW is to counter a specific scenario like Radar. Both gives your the ability to attack in a situation, where you normally can't attack.

 

Radar is a counter measurement

Main armament is not a counter measurement itself

ASW armament is not main armament, but a counter (armament/measurement )

 

The purpose is same like a radar -> to counter something.

 

59 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

If DD want to get to better position he needs to come within spotting range and endanger himself.

Eh why? That makes no sense. 30 knot bbs vs 40 knot DDs. Why would a DD move into his <6km spotting range?

 

There are only two reasons

-potatoes, who have no idea about the game

-Miscaluclation of the situation

 

In general a DD should be in control of the situation. if he messes up, is not an argument. Submarines can also mess it up.

When I play DD, I almost never go into spotting range with a BB, unless I go for a yolo run. xD

What is the thinking process here? DD: "Oh there is a BB hat 8 km. Should I move around with speed boost and torp the BB, or should I move below 6km into my spotting range, what shall I do, what shall I do...?"

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

His change from inefficient to efficient position will take a long time (around 4-5 km sailing) while sub can do deep -> operational change in seconds.

Not ineffective. The DD might blow the BB up. Also not very inefficient, because that's what DDs do, they don't go into their spotting range, unless they have the control over hte situation. But I wouldn't try that with a submarine neither, the difference is, that the air-concealment kicks in, and it will be harder to see other enemies. The submarines are often slower, except T10. There are many disadvantages.

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

You was one arguing that waiting to deplate subs dive capacity was good and balanced way of fighting against subs.

Yes, for ships, that are not supposed to counter subs. Similar to many BBs against DDs.

 

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

After BB has already waited for 423 dive capacity to expire U-2501 still has 141 dive capacity + 2x30 second reserve batter + 20 grace period to roam with increased speed.

 

I already mentioned length of battles. Being able to stay underwater for up to 12 minutes (U-2501) is a pretty big part of that. If sub can recharge at some safe situation he can stay underwater even linger. That is a lot.

 

Subs sustain comes from okeyish speed and maneuvaribilty, superior camo and ability to hide from damage under water. If someone can spot it and bring ASW weaponry to bear (two big if's) then it wonät last long. Same as DD that has it's camo and agility deprived of it, he will go fast.

Thats what I said. The higher speed is not only seen an "maneuverbility stat", but also as "sustain stat"

 

But I don'T see an issue, why a submarine should be able to use the dive cap to play against ships without counters. That's what we have against DDs in a BB. That's why I actually dislike matches without CVs, when I'm in a BB: Because when my DD dies, then I'm pretty fcked, if not the enemy DD is somehow stupid. Mostly I can only run away and hope not getting torped in a bad angle.

I dont have Radar against that nor I can really run away form high speed ships. (especially not as an IJN player, hehe)

 

Having not ASW on all ship has also a very big advantage for ships. Some ships increase in value, some lose in value. For example Petro. No ASW. Des Moines no ASW. Stalin no ASW. many good Radar ships don't have ASW: Especially in CB this might mean, that more ship diversity is necessary. For me that is a very strong point .

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

Sub that manages to get BB over it has dome something wrong (unless he is abusing BB's inability to harm him). Subs with their speed, maneuverability and camo should be able to keep safe distance from BB's, if they so choose. BB's on the other hand can hardly avoid subs.

Oh no. I disagree here.

Yes, submarines can have good positioning. Subs can do good plays. But in general subs are not very fast. It's compeltly different than BB vs DD. In that scenario, a BB can't run away.

But against subs, it can work. They have similar speeds. Subs don't have 40-50 knots. Especially not on lower tiers and dived.
But then, playing against the torpedo threat can be quite easy. I mean if the BB is at 5%, it's something different, but 100% hp vs 100% hp, a BB, that has some clue about submarines, will survive in many/most cases. People can always mess up, that's norma.

 

Submarines have no turrerts, that means they need to point towards or away of them .That is alreay a restriction. While DDs are quite fast, they also can drop torpedos just by passing by. They can quickly choose between "turn in" or "turn away"

 

Submarines h

ave limited vision, that makes "turn away" even harder

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

If you consider below 20 km range and below 40 knots inflexible, then I have a surprise for you

That's a wrong conclusion. I never said that.

I consider ranges below ~14km as an inflexible fighting range. DDs can compensate that by their high speed.

I consider speeds below ~31 knots as inflexible. BBs have that inflexible speed, but compensate that with high ranges.

(on T10, also borders are not sharp, Balao is at the border to mid range imo, but 14km is still quite short)

 

Imagine you give a BB 12 km range. Imagine giving a DD 30 knots. The default ships in their branch will become very weak. because they lose influence.

Reminder: It doesn't mean, that submarines are weak or useless, they only lack in the ability to adapt to situations easier, than others. (Reason, why DDs and CVs are influencial aside other effects)

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

Subs can use their torpedoes as non-homing. In that case they are equally good to similar DD torpedoes. In ADDITION to being equal they have few very big boost subs can choose to use, when using doesn't give larger disadvantage. In short: They are always equal or clearly better, never lesser -> they are superior. 

No absolutely not. Try to sink a BB with no pings. I wanna see, how long that will take xD

Also I think the torps have a low flooding chance, don't they?

I mean the dmg buff did something, but the point is not understood.
You want the maxium output. So you will go for pings. That comes with disadvantages. Also ships can counter the maxium just by using DCP. Or by maneuvering.

I'm pretty sure, that some super unicum will figure out, to make 100% Torpedo dodges against submarines. In what angle and when to turn, so it will awalys miss. The thing is. homing torpedos will always be very predictible. The direction will be known, the torpedo spread will narrow towards the pinged spot.

 

I'm not sure, if you have played ranked, but hitting a BB is actually pretty difficult. It's easier to go for cruisers or Dds or other subs. Though DDs might dodge as well.

 

Also:

-7800 dmg torps or even lower is not a very strong torpedo

-Higher damage only with double ping AND only whe nthe citadell is hit

-A shima torpedo will awlays hit with ~20k. The shima has already max dmg on the torpedo. It will do 20k in the nost, it will do 20k in the side. Only torpedo reduction reduces the maximum

 

So it's not an advantage, when submarines get their max dmg only, when they fulfil many conditions. That's the counter balance to "homing", becuse guess what, if those torpedos would do 20k dmg without any conditions, it would be broken. Even without the speed buff, wecould revert the speed buff to ~50-60 knots, it would be still broken

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

Situation 1:

Sub failing to keep distance against BB that is equal to his speed (but bleeds speed more), has worse maneuverability and camo shining to heavens gets over run by said BB. If that BB have some depth charges to drop on sub while he passes straight over the sub, you consider it unfair (your comment: "That what "kinda" work, but I still think it's unfair.")

Yes, I see it as unfair, when alls ships get coutner against a specific ship type. Similar if we would get Radar on all ships. I mean, why not, we could just make it weaker... on the other ships... ^^

 

1 hour ago, Gnomus said:

Situation 2:

BB that is as slow as a sub, has worse maneuverability and is seen from the moon finds himself close to unseen enemy sub. He has to try to sail away for 5-10 minutes while taking torpedo salvoes from the sub or he has to wait for 5-10 minutes (while taking torpedo salvoes constantly) waiting for the subs dive capacity to end, so he could finally shoot back. This situation is fair and balanced?

Why would it be fair. Btw, it's not seen from the moon, if the sub is dived. It will get air-concealment...

If a ship is bad against a specific other ship type, why should that 1vs1 be fair?

 

Why would a GK vs Des Moines fair? Alsmost all BB vs Cruiser 1vs1 will be won by BB. Though we don't go with any BB vs any Cruiser, it's even more spicy. We go with no-ASW BB vs stealth vesse. That means a ship from a ship type, that lacks in counter-measturements against a ship, that is already in andvatange (more or less)

Vs DD it would be "unfair", and vs submarine it should be unfair. In both cases are still possibilities, but no counter measurements

 

2 hours ago, Gnomus said:

I can't understand your logic, or measure of "fairness" if you consider first situation as unfair but see no problem on the second one.

All ships must have a change to fight back, when enemy fails. No one should be free farm.

Because of the issues giving every ship a counter measurement

 

 

 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

26 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

large caliber naval rifles produce very large pressure waves, barrels of high explosives activated by pressure fuses are unlikely to react well to this;

Was that really a thing? I thought DCs would trigger by water pressure or something

 

27 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

due to size and relatively low speed of most BB, the most likely outcome from dropping depths charges from them would be to blow the ship's own stern off;

I think in theory that isn't an issue. As far as I know, ships have to move slowly to make hydro work. But in reality, I think it was just not necessary to equip BBs with that

[Pikkozoikum]

10 minutes ago, General_Alexus said:

Maybe instead of DC-planes for BBs, they should make it possible for high caliber HE shells to reach Subs in operating depth. This way its not just point and click, also BBs would need to have the right ammunition loaded when fighting subs.

wouldn't that be op? ^^

I mean, there must be a super damage reduction debuff on them, to make that work. Otherwise the BBs would just one-shot them all the time, unless they are not on maximum depth^^

[General_Alexus]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

wouldn't that be op? ^^

I mean, there must be a super damage reduction debuff on them, to make that work. Otherwise the BBs would just one-shot them all the time, unless they are not on maximum depth^^

Taper damage of with distance, make it from 33% of Raw-alpha at the surface (like now already) to 5% at 20m until 1% at 30m, maybe change the numbers around for calibre and explosive filler of the shells.

I agree that BBs need something to touch Subs, but it sould not be for free, like the DC-planes essentially are. Making guns able to hit subs (but removing free DC planes) means, that doging damage from a BB is directly substracted from the damage said BB could have done to a teammate if he had shoot another target. The current mechanic of DC.planes just askes for BB players to get double strikes, blapping Subs with a free consumabels not used for anything else and keeping guns loaded to deleate a CL/CA.

[Cheesekilla]

Subs are al terrible as feared remove please

[Deckeru_Maiku]

43 minutes ago, General_Alexus said:

Maybe instead of DC-planes for BBs, they should make it possible for high caliber HE shells to reach Subs in operating depth. This way its not just point and click, also BBs would need to have the right ammunition loaded when fighting subs.

Considering how most BaBBies play, that would be a non-problem.

[Bringfriede_83]

Vor 7 Stunden, SHDRKN4792 sagte:

Submarines need to go from the game as a whole, their current itineration doesn't fit or has a place in the game. It's even worse than the ridiculous battle influence of CVs, but they are just a boring (both for players and to play against), unfun and unpolished attempt at adding a new concept in the game. If this is what devs where working all this time, honestly, find new ones that know what they are doing, because if this garbage is what passed as their final version to be implemented in the game a lot of other players and me don't know what to say about it.

 

I'll start with the obvious, homing torps are aiming for the most unbalanced mechanic of the game, and is quite impressive that something is managing to take the spot away from CVs lately. Should give a hint about a problem going on to anyone with two brain cells working together.

 

Second, ridiculous stealth and just being able to completely disappear from vision without any form to detect them. No plane, hidro (ironically) or radar will help you with them. How did the ability to be spotted only if the player wants to pass the testing stage? Oh, wait, there was none. Because it's ridiculous to think there was and this was deemed ok.

 

Third, the joke of air capacity limitations and that technically if the submarine allows you to spot it it runs out of air faster. They can be submerged for so damn long that this mechanic doesn't even feel like it's there. It's baffling how pandered this class is from the starting point and scary to even think what will be done to try to make them more appealing from this point on.

 

And knowing WG, considering the popularity of the class isn't following up at all we can expect for certain that in some way you're going to buff them even more until they attract a playerbase. How is beyond my imagination at this point. It's just baffling. Submarines as a whole and all they add to the game is the most toxic addition to the game since stealthfire, and honestly, it's way worse than what stealthfire was, and that got removed from the game.

 

Submarines just don't work in this game in their current form, the entire idea is flawed in every single aspect regarding to them, they need to be removed and think of a rework for them from scratch all over again.

I couldn't agree more. No need for the totally superflous "in-depth" discussion above. Ranked is pretty broken at the actual point, i don't even feel the need to try continuing.

 

Aside from the points above the speed of subs is ridiculous - especially underwater while retaining their stealth properties. At 16kn speed, a sub would and should be hearable at any depth, but they are not even localized by the hydroacoustic consumable. Constant "peeking" of subs to periscope depth and disappearing is just freaking breaking any dd playstyle besides ducking for cover, not even mentioning the usual recon from CVs. The combination of DCP for damage control and ping neutralization punishes high-hp ships higher, as it limits their available DCP (without cooldown) more than before, in that way indirectly increasing the already very high fire damage for BBS and CAs. And there is plenty more of details that have just been messed up (i.e. distribution of ASW along CA/CL and even DDs). Just remove these pieces of junk.

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 hours ago, Westie77 said:

But I suppose that is the reality of Naval Warfare against Subs. 

Well, this game is arcade so... reality? Well... if reality was the norm...

Then subs would do knots underwater and around 15 at the surface. 

Also, Bismarck had ASW... depth charges!

 

 

 

[Shirakami_Kon]

2 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

wouldn't that be op? ^^

I mean, there must be a super damage reduction debuff on them, to make that work. Otherwise the BBs would just one-shot them all the time, unless they are not on maximum depth^^

So it's ok and not OP for submarines to do 30 knots underwater (also completely real btw) and have homing torpedos that ignore any armor the ship has and do straight up citadels (which don't need a damage reduction either), but god forbid a ship did something to your poor submarine that doesn't belong in here as it is currently... Can you be a little less biased maybe? Try at least?