Submarines interaction can´t get worse? Now on PTS..

[NewHorizons_1]

37 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

WG is working on it maman. they are surely going to find the perfect balance. see? they are getting close to find that sweet spot of balance. 

Balance has done out the window

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

On 4/28/2022 at 6:39 PM, Asatori said:

So WG is pretending Subs are stationary targets? Or?

I mean in 5 seconds the sub will have moved a significant distance, hence it is no longer at the position the effect shows up. AND than the position the effect showed up was still wrong in the first place because of the rtarded RNG element to it. 

Stop with the shitty RNG mechanics allready jeez. This is brought as a nerf to subs but this could just as well be regarded as a buff it completely depends on how quick you spot a tiny littel speck on the ocean (like we have nothing better to do...)

 

The sheer incompetence of WG developers....

And it still presupposes that you have nothing better to do in battle than be on the lookout for the spot you're being pinged from. It's not as if you're getting shot at from all directions, already dodging torpedoes, trying not to give broadside to that Slava in the back...

It is beyond ridiculous now.

[Figment]

20 hours ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

The announced changes feels like a slap in the face to the playerbase.

 

PTS- Server:

 

 

Honestly? He's whining a lot for someone who killed two subs in one match virtually unchallenged (yes, he had to dodge torps, which is exactly how you dodge sub torps: go slightly diagonal to the ping, repair, slow down, turn other direction, keep moving in fast to close the distance so the sub can't keep its nose trained on you and is forced to dive, where you can freely drop depth charges). The first volley nearly killed it. The second run he was dead. Even gave oil spots to give an indication of where the damaged sub was heading, making leading with depth charges easy. Took nearly no damage from that ram either...

 

Overall very short chase and engagement times before either sub died. He waited minutes before chasing after the sub that engaged the BB (which survived despite having been engaged by that sub for minutes), could  eventually easily catch up with it and kill it quickly, all the while proclaiming it was all very hard.

 

Meanwhile spamming torps at other targets himself from invisible range, accidentally hitting a BB and Napoli with one volley of poorly aimed torps and most the time firing at and hitting DDs and cruisers while in free look around mode... Because aiming is hard, apparently.

 

Could be worse... :/

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

4 hours ago, Figment said:

Honestly? He's whining a lot for someone who killed two subs in one match virtually unchallenged (yes, he had to dodge torps, which is exactly how you dodge sub torps: go slightly diagonal to the ping, repair, slow down, turn other direction, keep moving in fast to close the distance so the sub can't keep its nose trained on you and is forced to dive, where you can freely drop depth charges). The first volley nearly killed it. The second run he was dead. Even gave oil spots to give an indication of where the damaged sub was heading, making leading with depth charges easy. Took nearly no damage from that ram either...

 

Overall very short chase and engagement times before either sub died. He waited minutes before chasing after the sub that engaged the BB (which survived despite having been engaged by that sub for minutes), could  eventually easily catch up with it and kill it quickly, all the while proclaiming it was all very hard.

 

Meanwhile spamming torps at other targets himself from invisible range, accidentally hitting a BB and Napoli with one volley of poorly aimed torps and most the time firing at and hitting DDs and cruisers while in free look around mode... Because aiming is hard, apparently.

 

Could be worse... :/

Sometimes it doesn't matter what the message is if the messenger isn't palatable.

[Andrewbassg]

12 hours ago, Figment said:

.Snip

.....

Could be worse... :/

 

Gotta love this....

[Figment]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:29 PM, PsychoClownfish said:

Sometimes it doesn't matter what the message is if the messenger isn't palatable.

Ironically, I couldn't agree more. The level of self pity and lack of challenge acceptence and openmindedness to have a constructive argument by people afraid to adapt on these forums is excessive. The lack of these people wanting to even consider other arguments or nuance is frustrating, especially since they are so petty they'll try ostracizing and personal abuse tactics.

 

Sound familiar?

 

 

 

That goes for most people these days because of their biases (justified or not) to particular playstyles of old, or preference for particular ship classes and their hatred of those that hurt them (without ever checking if they hurt the gameplay of other classes in a similar way, of course). Their desire to protect it from any interference whatsoever leads to black and white thinking, especially if it's new or more different from their own playstyle. Talking to people with an absolute dislike for subs or CVs is akin to talking to abortion absolutists, where it isn't about reason, it's about emotion and a strife for a corruptly motivated, self-centered utopic ideal that is assumed to be the same ideal of everyone else. And if not they'll enforce it on everyone else... Well, if they could. They can't. Which is what makes them so toxic and unconstructive.

 

Note that the following is not a defense of the current implementation of subs, but more of a principles of game design rant.

 

 

Most of you are not at all looking at what the subs cannot do and how to value sub hp endurance for instance. A sub will usualy lose virtually all its hp in the first engagement it is in where it is spotted. If it loses all in every first engagement it engages in, there is absolutely no reason to ever have fun in the class, as this first engagement is typically out of their control. Being able to withstand two volleys of attack is not overpowered. Most other ship classes engage over many, many more engagements, while doing substantially more damage with substantially less risk to themselves. From a game perspective, a sub player should have approximately the same amount of game time, impact and fun as any other player. That goes for the CV player as well, IMO and no, I'm not saying this is where either is at the moment. Hell, I don't think that's the case for DDs and cruisers atm with respect to BBs and overall game balance, which is heavily skewed towards BB and heavy cruiser play, next to certain all-round and hunter (hydro and radar) DDs.

 

 

When you look at a video like hte above, you only look at the perspective of the DD player and what the DD player notices of the sub's engagement. You don't look at how the subs are limited, generally turned out to be wholly ineffective (despite the DD player not even having realised there were two subs from the start...). You don't see how they are constrained and what their handicaps are.

 

Why? Since most people here are too arrogant and petty to actually try them before whining about them, most people here never developed any strategy to counter them (instead assuming there's none and then proclaiming this as "The Truth"). If you don't know how a sub player plays, developing a counter strategy is simply based on bad assumptions and ignorance, so I'm not surprised so many people whine that they just can't sit in the open water next to a submarine and they don't care that it's bad, they just want to sit in open water next to a submarine because they've always sat in open water when there wern't any submarines. Sorry to say, but those people should be offered Darwin Awards, not be listened to.

 

It's very noticable that most of the people here have absolutely no good sense of the effectiveness of either guided torpedoes (some even assuming those have a high hit rate, while it's significantly lower than that of regular torpedoes...), not to mention tracking and counterplay options against subs in general and how it feels on the receiving end of an engagement from the sub perspective. Mostly because those people want to see the sub die the moment they look at it on the player list, as they simply don't want this engagement to be there in the first place and do not acknowledge the right of that sub player to have fun. Same goes for their treatment of CV players. There are quite a few people who project their irrational fears and entitlements and are scapegoating  and harassing players for poor design decisions on WG's part. IMO people frequently abusing the karma system by abusing players in certain classes of ships at a disproportionate rate, should be temp banned for being toxic until they learn to behave. Be constructive towards WG, but don't hate on players who have no control over the design.

 

That sentiment colours all their judgments and people often settle for pretty weak argumentation as a consequence. Which actually hurts the cause of getting something changed when it is pure in emotion. We all know these devs prefer spreadsheet arguments over feelings of fairness. So if you want things changed, make a good case they can relate to.

 

Instead, some people will bring up evidence of a sub even daring to hit something as a sign of being overpowered. Such arguments will simply be checked against a spreadsheet of relative performance and be dismissed. Are there instance where subs have too much striking power? Yes, IMO there are situational balance issues with subs as is, on both sides of the argument and on both engagement, spotting and other mechanics. Hence I'd do subs very differently, butat least there are things the devs improved on this PTS from the looks of things that were barely mentioned, or even recognised or acknowledged. This is what I would focus on if I wanted to change things further for the betterment of all. Not just whine on as people have.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

A proper analysis of the PTS sub would look at the various changes and say "okay, this mechanic is an improvement" (tracking damaged subs by oil spills) and "this balancing is still bad" (torpedoing frequency). It should be noted that despite that high frequency of torpedo spam (with which I have to agree, is too high for the potential damage per torpedo) the DD survived two engagements, while under fire from a BB's secondaries and an Italian cruiser and suffered only one torp hit out of many fired at it by one sub, while the other didn't even have a chance to engage the DD chasing it before getting rammed.

 

In fact, throughout the match, that DD was a bigger threat than either sub and probably been less visible while engaging with torps far beyond detection range. And when spotted simply put up smoke, still seeing its enemy, but the enemy not knowing where the DD is as long as no shots were fired. Somehow this is considered fair (because everyone is used to it from the beginning), but when the sub does it, it's not fair? Sorry. As a very frequent DD player who dominates in ranked battles due to its shipclass (even though I don't use a hydro or radar DD in those), I find this logic simply stunning.

 

In fact, from the looks of it, the DD put out more torpedoes that actually hit, because the DD torps wern't guided, but aimed at a general route of multiple enemy ships with no means for those ships to steer the torps away on top of turning themselves. They could of course turn, but that Italian cruiser for instance turned into them due to not knowing torps had been fired (whereas it would be known if a sub had fired and pinged to get the guidance on).

 

Note how the DD could abuse the guidance of the torps to make them miss because guidance means giving a modicum of control over the angle of the torpedoes to their target on top of their own dodging agility. He did that quite well and it's not that hard. Once you're close enough the torps won't guide anymore and you can just run circles around the sub, because the sub has very limited rotation rates and limited forward angles. This makes these engagement quite one sided. This approach also works with cruisers and BBs, btw. Though I would recommend using island cover to approach and dismantle torps as any ship class (if you steer towards running behind an island, the sub has no way to use guided torps on you and thus can only fire non guided torps at poor lead angles).

 

Under the current mechanics, guided torpedoes are - despite all the whining - actually worse as long as the targeted ship has a chance to repair, and DDs have a very short repair timer. So from the perspective of the submarine, these engagements must have been terribly frustrating, terrifyingly panicky and have felt entirely one sided with little to nothing he could do to win but hope the DD would steer into a torp due to not paying attention for a second. The subs only other option was an attempt to escape before depth charges were fired and hope the DD would search in a different direction, but in this case they tried to do so after the first depth charges. With the new mechanics in place the oil spills gave away their position and effectively they were blind to any threats from the DD, while the DD had a better sense of where the sub was. That is definitely an improvement towards hunting subs that few people have acknowledged.

 

But once the sub dives rather than try to kill the DD with torps, it also means it won't be able to get back up and safely engage any target, as long as that DD was in the vicinity. The DD will be too close to safely approach the surface and would hunt it down immediately without friendly support. With the new oil spill mechanics, the DD will home in on it even if it dived out of sight and the chances of getting away permanently are even smaller.

 

So consider that any player hates getting instagibbed and a sense of being able to fight back is important. This goes for people playing against subs (which is why cruisers who repaired and are in the open are IMO slightly too easy targets for subs as is due to torp damage), but it also goes for sub players. Like DDs, being spotted is usualy death. So a little bit of extra endurance, especially if you need time to disengage (and subs need more time than it would appear), isn't weird.

 

Look at who actually won the engagements and what the subs were able to do, rather than an overall biased judgment that "oh noes there were subs/CV/whateverpetpeeve involved, so bad". What you see is the DD player counting the amount of depth charge "hits", while not realising that a gently nudging near miss is portrayed the same way as a full on hit. So they'll go "but I hit it 17 times! How is it not dead!?", without realising that many of those hits will likely be similar to ricochets. So there could be a difference between depth charge hits that actually hit and those that are misses in terms of ribbons to convey this to the player that is firing blind. But you should realise that if you would do this, this would give a lot of positioning information away that narrows the targeting for the next run and the chances of escape - which are lower than most people seem to think - would become much lower.

 

Then there's the speed. In the example above, the sub chasing the BB was spotted about 4 minutes before the DD decided to give chase. Then complained it got so far away from the moment of giving chase (while in reality it had multiple minutes to relocate and wasn't that far from the original position) and when it was spotted that it was akin to a "race car". Yet he managed to catch up for depth charges and catching up to the point of ramming it. Some race car that was to have squandered a multi-minute lead to get rammed... Only for the DD to race to another side of the map and kill a sub there as well. What he didn't notice at all, was that the sub might have seemed fast, it was not agile at all and not at all capable of dodging, whereas his DD was extremely agile and had been dodging throughout.

 

This in practice means a lot of difference in endurance. Yet when he tests for endurance, he only looks at amount of hits required on a stationary target, not at expected hit rate and times of (dis)engagement possible.

 

It should also be noted, that throughout the DD was engaging multiple targets, many of which at all kinds of angles with respect to the DD's own hull. This is something a sub cannot do. It can only ping on one target and keep its nose in one direction. It might have butt torps, but those are relatively hard to line up without ruining your main firepower lineup. You saw in fact one attempt at launching such torps by the first of those two subs, but the only thing it did with that was give away its approximate position to the DD with nice arrows saying "sub here". Did any of you recognise it as such? No, because you register this subsconsiously without considering its rammifications. At most you'd go (like Flambass did) "oh wow, it has more firepower!", without considering how he used the knowledge he obtained from that torp volley (or any of the other torp and ping attempts) against the sub.

 

If you people are fair, you would look at both sides of the engagement without going into cringeworthy one sided double standard hypocrisy.

 

There's a lot I would do to change the current design, but to cry about the current situation from a position of prejudice and ignorance like some people do here is a needless exageration.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Iron<tl;dr;>

Blah blah. I'm showing you an example of Flamu's hunt for a sub, which eventually he wins. But you won't comment on the example, only on the player, and when I point that out, you only feel a need to try and point back at me. The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

Flamu is one the very best players that I am aware of, and so it shouldn't be surprising that he can sometimes achieve something that few others can, as he did in this video. He is also - apparently, although I don't see why -  a somewhat divisive figure, which causes people like you to just dismiss whatever he says.

That is your prerogative. But don't pretend to still be engaged in actual discussion.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

double post

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Ironically, I couldn't agree more. The level of self pity and lack of challenge acceptence and openmindedness to have a constructive argument by people afraid to adapt on these forums is excessive.

How about this: regardless of the balance - I find both playing against sub and playing subs just plain boring? As I said before, I'd love to have as many "types" of ship included, but not at any cost.

 

 

[GeniusMage]

Il y a 29 minutes, PsychoClownfish a dit :

Flamu is one the very best players that I am aware of, and so it shouldn't be surprising that he can sometimes achieve something that few others can, as he did in this video. He is also - apparently, although I don't see why -  a somewhat divisive figure, which causes people like you to just dismiss whatever he says.

He's divisive because, while skilled, he's also incredibly toxic.

[Figment]

Just now, Nibenay78 said:

How about this: regardless of the balance - I find both playing against sub and playing subs just plain boring? As I said before, I'd love to have as many "types" of ship included, but not at any cost.

Sure, but I would argue that the current boredom is down to WGs implementation and choice of mechanics.

[PeteEarthling]

On 5/3/2022 at 2:02 PM, PsychoClownfish said:

And it still presupposes that you have nothing better to do in battle than be on the lookout for the spot you're being pinged from. It's not as if you're getting shot at from all directions, already dodging torpedoes, trying not to give broadside to that Slava in the back...

It is beyond ridiculous now.

WG is just preparing you for multicrew gameplay. 

[Figment]

38 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

Blah blah. I'm showing you an example of Flamu's hunt for a sub, which eventually he wins. But you won't comment on the example, only on the player, and when I point that out, you only feel a need to try and point back at me. The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

I actually gave a lot of comments on the example... In multiple posts? 

 

 

OH WAIT YOU JUST SAID TL;DR... Well... Makes sense coming from you.

38 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

Flamu is one the very best players that I am aware of, and so it shouldn't be surprising that he can sometimes achieve something that few others can,

Strange... Because his submarine torp dodging is exactly the type of actuion I said over a year ago already and has served me quite well...

38 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

as he did in this video. He is also - apparently, although I don't see why -  a somewhat divisive figure, which causes people like you to just dismiss whatever he says.

I don't care if he's divisive. He is biased and expresses his opinions taking testing stuff out of context of practical combat situations while pretending it's representative of something and while not always fully understanding what it is he's doing. See his submarine tankiness video for instance.

 

Make no mistake, he's a good intuitive player and has extensive in game knowledge of ship layouts and all, but he's not necessarily an expert on the fine details of all mechanics. His initial assessment of the Dutch cruisers trollability was also rather off IMO.

38 minutes ago, PsychoClownfish said:

That is your prerogative. But don't pretend to still be engaged in actual discussion.

lol. Says someone who actually uses TL;DR. I'm not pretending, you are.

[Arietis26]

Its even stupid that Subs have homing torps which I do not believe there was any during WWII.  OK I'm wrong but they sure as hell where not as effective as in the game.  You can out maneuver the damn things except in a DD.

 

[Nibenay78]

11 minutes ago, Figment said:

Sure, but I would argue that the current boredom is down to WGs implementation and choice of mechanics.

It is indeed. I found rtsCVs occationally quite fun to play and even interesting to play against.

ReworkCVs are just frustrating and boring.

Same ships, same game, different implementation and quite different subjective experience from my side.

 

It's perfectly possible that there is a way to incorprate subs into the game that I would enjoy, but  I don't really see how and even if I did, I doubt WG would allow any radical changes - as we have seen after the CV rework, they are hellbent on forcing all shiptypes to play "the same way" (Not RTS style or other, regardless if it's better or not).

 

Wether it's impossible to implement or poorly implemented kinda ends up with the same feeling. I just don't want to play anymore. It's not fun. The game is good until the sub or CV shows up. A bad encounter leaves me to just slam the quit button, and I'm a reasonably patient person to begin with.

 

and the absolutely final point - IF WG found a way to make subs fun to play/play against, I would be VERY happy. But I think we both know that if they don't find this, they will NOT cancel the submarine push and we will be stuck with a massively annoying element forever, like CVs are now. 

 

 

 

[lovelacebeer]

1 minute ago, Arietis26 said:

Its even stupid that Subs have homing torps which I do not believe there was any during WWII.

 

Im certainly not a fan of homing torps as WOWS has designed them but to be totally fair they did get developed during the war, but the allies quickly developed very effective countermeasures. 
 

Also homing torps did sometimes used to turn around and hunt the u boat that launched them.

[Nibenay78]

1 minute ago, lovelacebeer said:

Im certainly not a fan of homing torps as WOWS has designed them but to be totally fair they did get developed during the war, but the allies quickly developed very effective countermeasures. 
 

Also homing torps did sometimes used to turn around and hunt the u boat that launched them.

And lets not forget realism doesn't always make a good game. If it was realistic we would all show our broadsides all the time if possible.

[NewHorizons_1]

9 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

If it was realistic we would all show our broadsides all the time if possible.

You mean we don't???

[Nibenay78]

Just now, NewHorizons_1 said:

You mean, we don't???

No doubt, a lot do.. this is why they can't reach 50% 

[Figment]

3 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

It is indeed. I found rtsCVs occationally quite fun to play and even interesting to play against.

ReworkCVs are just frustrating and boring.

Same ships, same game, different implementation and quite different subjective experience from my side.

Agreed. The ship class has nothing to do with the implementation, other than sharing some general characteristics.

 

The problem with WG is they seem to operate from a poorly defined design starting point regarding the desired interaction. They often don't pick the obvious constraints that would be a good counter, or dance around with the balancing to a point where it's either all or nothing. :/ It's pretty sad.

3 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

It's perfectly possible that there is a way to incorprate subs into the game that I would enjoy, but  I don't really see how and even if I did, I doubt WG would allow any radical changes - as we have seen after the CV rework, they are hellbent on forcing all shiptypes to play "the same way" (Not RTS style or other, regardless if it's better or not).

I have severe doubts they wil create huge changes, aside from being  a risk, it's not in their nature. I'd sooner see them adding gimmicks or features (like the oil spills) as attempts to complement or mitigate their other choices, without actually correcting the basics. This might be inherent to old school Soviet thinking, where depending on who made the decision, it's open for change or even critique. I don't know though, I don't know those people too well, but I've seen some interactions that give me some indication of the level of ego involved.

3 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Wether it's impossible to implement or poorly implemented kinda ends up with the same feeling. I just don't want to play anymore. It's not fun. The game is good until the sub or CV shows up. A bad encounter leaves me to just slam the quit button, and I'm a reasonably patient person to begin with.

That's unfortunate. I have had the same feeling with radar ships initially though. I'm tolerating them and working around them as is, but I enjoyed a really aggressive type of high risk high reward close range ambush DD game play (high adrenaline factor) and that just went lost with the introduction of radar ships and longer range hydros.

3 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

and the absolutely final point - IF WG found a way to make subs fun to play/play against, I would be VERY happy. But I think we both know that if they don't find this, they will NOT cancel the submarine push and we will be stuck with a massively annoying element forever, like CVs are now. 

Probably, but that experience will be worse if people both pretend there are no counters and then don't learn to use counters, making the whole experience worse. Again, I'm with you in that I find the sub addition pretty meh, but I can live with them knowing they're mostly just a sidenote to the battle that can be dealt with relatively easily (even ignored at times), compared to other units.

 

It would have been nice if they had done more with alternate coop playmodes and finetuned subs there (or left them there), as that would probably have been well received.

[Nibenay78]

8 minutes ago, Figment said:

Agreed. The ship class has nothing to do with the implementation, other than sharing some general characteristics.

 

The problem with WG is they seem to operate from a poorly defined design starting point regarding the desired interaction. They often don't pick the obvious constraints that would be a good counter, or dance around with the balancing to a point where it's either all or nothing. :/ It's pretty sad.

I have severe doubts they wil create huge changes, aside from being  a risk, it's not in their nature. I'd sooner see them adding gimmicks or features (like the oil spills) as attempts to complement or mitigate their other choices, without actually correcting the basics. This might be inherent to old school Soviet thinking, where depending on who made the decision, it's open for change or even critique. I don't know though, I don't know those people too well, but I've seen some interactions that give me some indication of the level of ego involved.

I agree with this. "We value your feedback". I Don't really believe it for a second, as only massive feedback gives changes. I'm willing to bet you are very correct regarding mentality and ego.

 

8 minutes ago, Figment said:

That's unfortunate. I have had the same feeling with radar ships initially though. I'm tolerating them and working around them as is, but I enjoyed a really aggressive type of high risk high reward close range ambush DD game play (high adrenaline factor) and that just went lost with the introduction of radar ships and longer range hydros.

All kind of spotting is destructive for such gameplay. I love to do it in any ship, especially BBs (preferably Montana). And while radar and hydro isn't the biggest issue there (as 10km is already pretty close and you know which ships got them) too many of them on top of the cancer-CV makes any bold manouver a VERY high risk. 

 

Subs certainly adds to this risk, especially in larger ships.

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Figment said:

Snip no2...

 

 

On 5/4/2022 at 7:21 AM, Andrewbassg said:

 

Gotta love this....

 

[Nibenay78]

I think I wet myself..

 

I feel there should be an option between "not interesting" and "i'm not sure"!!!

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

40 minutes ago, Figment said:

The problem with WG is they seem to operate from a poorly defined design starting point regarding the desired interaction. They often don't pick the obvious constraints that would be a good counter, or dance around with the balancing to a point where it's either all or nothing. :/ It's pretty sad.

That's actually a not half bad point. Still you are missing some key elements, namely 1) They have no clue what role they should fulfill, therefore they cannot design an interaction. 2) it is a classic, bad example of speadsh#t based analysis and decision making. it is always in reaction and never in anticipation. It doesn't matter how much one spread it, it is still sh#t.

[Figment]

40 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

I agree with this. "We value your feedback". I Don't really believe it for a second, as only massive feedback gives changes. I'm willing to bet you are very correct regarding mentality and ego.

 

All kind of spotting is destructive for such gameplay. I love to do it in any ship, especially BBs (preferably Montana). And while radar and hydro isn't the biggest issue there (as 10km is already pretty close and you know which ships got them) too many of them on top of the cancer-CV makes any bold manouver a VERY high risk. 

Agree. Sneaking up on targets in a BB was fun. :) Did that a lot with the Thunderer loaded with AP too (instagib 5x citadel on random sitting back Slava anyone?).

40 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Subs certainly adds to this risk, especially in larger ships.

They add to the risk, but given they're replacing DDs in the slots, it's not a huge trade-off in comparison. Especially at higher tiers I assume I'm virtually always spotted anyway or my general position and direction is known and I play accordingly. It's less fun. With British T5-T7 cruisers (~9-10km spot range and 8-10km torps and perhaps a smoke screen) it can be a lot of fun and very effective still to play them as big DDs and close in on isles just in front of enemy positions, rather than fog gun boats from a distance. Provided there's no radar ship around. Caught quite a few BBs, DDs and cruisers off-guard that way.

 

Italian fog ships are a bit of a let down in that respect, given their detected range when firing from smoke and hence the smoke being more of a hindrance in any CQB engagements.