General Submarines related discussions

[togMOR]

Although i´m welcoming the general addition of ASW means for the remaining ships (still sticking to my point that all ships should have some kind of ASW, however strong or weak it may be) but this iteration in testing looks half-hearted as in: "We are aware that we bred an unruly mutation and still have no idea how we are going to cope with it" ...

Which in turn, once again, for me shows that the entire package of the submarines doesn´t really fits into the core game.

[Camperdown]

5 minutes ago, togMOR said:

Although i´m welcoming the general addition of ASW means to the remaining ships (still sticking to my point that all ships should have some kind of ASW, howerver strong or weak it may be) but this iteration in testing looks half-hearted as in: "We are aware that we bred an unruly mutation and still have no idea how we are going to cope with it" ...

Which in turn, once again, for me shows that the entire package of the submarines doesn´t really fits into the core game.

WG is experimenting its way into an unholy idea 

[Prophecy82]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/214

 

Finally smth useful. No access to ASW was just a stupid idea (like subs are in general). 

I wonder if Okhotnik finally got some ASW... 

[Pikkozoikum]

13 minutes ago, togMOR said:

Although i´m welcoming the general addition of ASW means for the remaining ships (still sticking to my point that all ships should have some kind of ASW, however strong or weak it may be) but this iteration in testing looks half-hearted as in: "We are aware that we bred an unruly mutation and still have no idea how we are going to cope with it" ...

Which in turn, once again, for me shows that the entire package of the submarines doesn´t really fits into the core game.

Though I think it's a wrong conclusion, if "changes" are seen as "must be bad before". There are different ways, how something can be designed. I prefer the ASW specialist concept, that makes some ships more interesting, that deserves a buff. Aside that we actually have a design concept, that not all ship can counter every ship.

Subs will range snipe only, because of ASW plane spam probably.

[lovelacebeer]

It will be interesting to see how the latest changes affect submarine interaction. Whilst WG still seem to be lurching around uncertain of what they want the finished product to be, at least they are beginning to grasp that the way they have designed this game it’s necessary to give all ships some form of ASW.
 

That being said it still bothers me that battleships have the best utility in the ASW department. 

[Pikkozoikum]

35 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

That being said it still bothers me that battleships have the best utility in the ASW department. 

Though makes technically sense. The ASW are planes, and what would you protect rather with ASW planes, a captial ship or a small "boat"?

 

On the other hand, it's just a design decision. WG wants them to counter Cruisers and not BBs, I guess.

[lovelacebeer]

5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Though makes technically sense. The ASW are planes, and what would you protect rather with ASW planes, a captial ship or a small "boat"?

 

On the other hand, it's just a design decision. WG wants them to counter Cruisers and not BBs, I guess.

Its best not to try and rationalise the “logic” behind WGs decisions it’s purely a game balance decision. 

[Pikkozoikum]

15 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Its best not to try and rationalise the “logic” behind WGs decisions it’s purely a game balance decision. 

I mean, it's a design decision to make BBs strong against submarines. They could make also BBs weak against submarines. Earlier version were stronger against BBs, but they shifted that to cruisers and DDs.

And all design can work.  Steel Ocean were the opposite. BBs were very weak against submarines, DDs extremly strong

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

7 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I mean, it's a design decision to make BBs strong against submarines. They could make also BBs weak against submarines. Earlier version were stronger against BBs, but they shifted that to cruisers and DDs.

And all design can work.  Steel Ocean were the opposite. BBs were very weak against submarines, DDs extremly strong

I wish you would stop referring to a game that failed and died already. You and WG are jinxing this game alike with nonsense ideas about gameplay.

[lovelacebeer]

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I mean, it's a design decision to make BBs strong against submarines. They could make also BBs weak against submarines. Earlier version were stronger against BBs, but they shifted that to cruisers and DDs.

And all design can work.  Steel Ocean were the opposite. BBs were very weak against submarines, DDs extremly strong

 

Given WGs track record that's hardly surprising is it. Also this game isn't Steel Ocean, WG have different priorities and its pointless to compare to two games nor helpful given Steel Ocean failed. 

[Maris_Piper]

28 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Its best not to try and rationalise the “logic” behind WGs decisions it’s purely a game balance decision. 

OMG Logic and Wargaming in the same sentence 

[RossijskijAxisFlot]

Just scrap them ! I don't want that sh*t 

[Aethervoxx]

7 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

Its best not to try and rationalise the “logic” behind WGs decisions it’s purely a game balance decision. 

 

7 hours ago, Maris_Piper said:

OMG Logic and Wargaming in the same sentence 

I took lovelacebeer's post to be complete sarcasm (excellent sarcasm ).  Correct me if I am wrong .

[Pikkozoikum]

9 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

Also this game isn't Steel Ocean, WG have different priorities and its pointless to compare to two games nor helpful given Steel Ocean failed. 

Eh, the context is, that in a game, you can have different designs. For example that Submarines are good against small ships. Or that submarines are good against bbs. Of course you can compare that. Steel Ocean is an example for design, where submarines are good against BBs. WOWS is and example for a design, where submarines are bad against BBs.

 

And if you compare WOWS with another game, then Steel Ocean is the very closest and best example for comparison. You can even compare WOWS with Counter Strike, if you want. It's about the question, what you compare

[lovelacebeer]

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Eh, the context is, that in a game, you can have different designs. For example that Submarines are good against small ships. Or that submarines are good against bbs. Of course you can compare that. Steel Ocean is an example for design, where submarines are good against BBs. WOWS is and example for a design, where submarines are bad against BBs.

 

And if you compare WOWS with another game, then Steel Ocean is the very closest and best example for comparison. You can even compare WOWS with Counter Strike, if you want. It's about the question, what you compare

 

Are you just deliberately attention seeking? Of course its an aspect of game design all games have different designs this comparison adds nothing to the discussion because its utterly irrelevant and is quite clearly a deliberate waste of time this game isnt Steel Ocean, we are within the confines of WOWS.

[Pikkozoikum]

51 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Are you just deliberately attention seeking?

Weird question, no, are you?

 

52 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Of course its an aspect of game design all games have different designs this comparison adds nothing to the discussion because its utterly irrelevant and is quite clearly a deliberate waste of time this game isnt Steel Ocean, we are within the confines of WOWS.

It's not irrelevant, because it's about the statement:

 

11 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

Its best not to try and rationalise the “logic” behind WGs decisions it’s purely a game balance decision. 

 

It has not really something to do with balancing, it's just a design decision. They decided to make BBs good against BBs.

[lovelacebeer]

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Weird question, no, are you?

 

It's not irrelevant, because it's about the statement:

 

 

It has not really something to do with balancing, it's just a design decision. They decided to make BBs good against BBs.

 

You chose to reply to my post with your typical off topic ramblings, I didn't start this conversation you did and from what i can tell your purely being either contrarian or deliberately annoying for attention sake. 

 

The comment I made that you decided to get involved with was about BB vs SS compared to DD vs SS nothing to do with BB vs BB, and a issue that is very much about balancing.

 

You could if you wish raise your concerns about WGs design decisions regarding Battleships but this is not really the appropriate thread and also of no interest with me so don't waste my time with it, as I'm not interested. 

[Pikkozoikum]

24 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

You chose to reply to my post with your typical off topic ramblings, I didn't start this conversation you did and from what i can tell your purely being either contrarian or deliberately annoying for attention sake.  

No idea, how that matters, I was posting to something, that you said. I'm pretty sure, that this is a forum and it's for discussion. But I think many forget that and think it's only for ranting. No idea

 

 

24 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

The comment I made that you decided to get involved with was about BB vs SS compared to DD vs SS nothing to do with BB vs BB, and a issue that is very much about balancing.

It was obviously a typo... you should really figure that out by yourself just by the context... It was about BBs vs SS. I tryed to explain, that this is just a design decision. They don't make BB vs SS strong, because of balancing, instead because of a design decision. They could also make BBs weak against SS(e.g. Design of Steel Ocean, or earlier Designs in WOWS)

Should be clear now, I hope.

 

24 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

You could if you wish raise your concerns about WGs design decisions

Never stated any concerns about that?

 

24 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

but this is not really the appropriate thread and also of no interest with me so don't waste my time with it, as I'm not interested. 

Eh, I answered to what you wrote, so it's connected to that. If that is not relevant in this thread, why did you even started mentioning it? o_O

[lovelacebeer]

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

No idea, how that matters, I was posting to something, that you said. I'm pretty sure, that this is a forum and it's for discussion. But I think many forget that and think it's only for ranting. No idea

 

 

It was obviously a typo... you should really figure that out by yourself just by the context... It was about BBs vs SS. I tryed to explain, that this is just a design decision. They don't make BB vs SS strong, because of balancing, instead because of a design decision. They could also make BBs weak against SS(e.g. Design of Steel Ocean, or earlier Designs in WOWS)

Should be clear now, I hope.

 

Never stated any concerns about that?

 

Eh, I answered to what you wrote, so it's connected to that. If that is not relevant in this thread, why did you even started mentioning it? o_O

 

Don't worry I have long become used to your rants and attempted to stifle genuine debate, hence this whole effort of yours to yet again sidetrack someone elses point and certainly not for the purposes of debate. 

 

As for the typo, whilst it was the most likely eventuality, however your track record for flip flopping on topics for no discernable reason I choose to take what you said to be what you meant. 

 

Anyway I have stated my view on on the oddity of the ASW of BBs being better than on DDs, why on earth you wish to make it into a game balance vs game design debate eludes me nor does it interest or concern me. 

[Pikkozoikum]

8 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Don't worry I have long become used to your rants

What rants? The only rant I do, is about the J5N, but that is actually not a rant, rather a criticism

 

9 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

As for the typo, whilst it was the most likely eventuality, however your track record for flip flopping on topics for no discernable reason I choose to take what you said to be what you meant. 

And that contributes into a discussion in what way?

 

10 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Anyway I have stated my view on on the oddity of the ASW of BBs being better than on DDs, why on earth you wish to make it into a game balance vs game design debate eludes me nor does it interest or concern me. 

You said, it's a balance reason, I mentioned, it's a design decision, not a balance reason.

[Maris_Piper]

14 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

 

I took lovelacebeer's post to be complete sarcasm (excellent sarcasm ).  Correct me if I am wrong .

As did I Sir 

[lovelacebeer]

10 hours ago, Maris_Piper said:

As did I Sir 

 

And your reply was also witty and fun, there is a nice healthy banter here on the forum.

 

Anyway I pride myself on being able to have civilized reasonable discussions or banter with pretty much anyone (although there might be one irritating individual I find insufferable) you sir were as always a delight. 

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

may have already been said, but subs are stupid, when sub-surface they can outrun a cruiser trying to hunt it down to depth charge and even the BIAS OP Russian cruisers have issue. Another monumental stupid low IQ decision from our beloved DEVS who don't play the game, just screw it up !

[Shirakami_Kon]

On 9/24/2021 at 3:50 PM, AxisMarine said:

Just scrap them ! WE don't want that sh*t 

There, fixed it for you.

[VedranSeaWolf359]

To be honest we are people and people is very difficult to please!

 

Before subs we cry we want subs! why game don't have subs!, now we have subs now we cry remove subs! Please! it destroy the game!

So conclusion is we cannot be pleased! 

 

Gameplay need to be tweaked yes in which way I don’t know for sure

but it should get its AA and deck guns if it historically have it

 

in reality WW2 subs is much slower underwater don't preform attack bellow periscope depth

 

Fastest WW2 Sub German Type XXI don’t go faster than 17.2 knots underwater

15.6 knots (28.9 km/h) surfaced

17.2 knots (31.9 km/h) submerged

 

Balao-class submarine

20.25 knots (38 km/h) surfaced

8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged