Submarine Survey 2.0 - The questions that really matter

[nerderklaus]

Poll extended until end of June 2022

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

I answered 'No' on 7 because WG did not fundamentally misdesign subs for the game. It's just a fact that subs can't be made to fit in the game at all, no matter how well designed.

Unless they create some special mode in which a sub can operate the way THEY were designed to do, in other words NOT in pitch battles like WoWs does exclusively. Subs and sea battles do not go together.

[WildWind84]

There is 1 posibbility for sub, but then they should be drastically changed. This should be done like I see:

1. remove homing torps against surface ships, but they should stay against other sub

2. give sub half HP of average HP dd in their tier

3. spotting: limited to range of their torps or +1 or 2 km

4. give them normal torps, but with dmg like Italian cruiser's torps and range of average dd in their tier

5. hydro should be able to detect sub on any depth and radar should be able to detect subs on surface and periscope depth, radiolocation of surface ships should also work, at least against subs on periscope depth and surface 

6. pinging removes (reason: removing homing torps)

7. ALL surface ships gave ASW or depth chargers (I cannot speak here about CV's because I don't play them)

8. ALL BBS should have ASW +2 km of sub's torps range; cruisers should have ASW in range of sub's torps (that all should depending of their tier)

9. oil spoil on surface should stay

10. all surface ships in tiers 5/7/9 should got ASW of tier 6/8/10

11. concealment of subs - dd have smoke, but limited and subs have sea (water), so subs basic concealment should be -1 and half km of range of their torps

12. MM not more than 2 subs per team and 4 dds in late hours, and in active hours 2-3 dds and 1 sub.

 

That is some of maybe ideas. 

 

EDIT: Reload of sub's torps should be very much longer

 

 

 

 

[ReDiR20]

Very easy, all answers are "no". Can't wait for subs to be included in tech trees

[Siagor]

The Sub problem can be solved easily if WG implement this new option in Report

 

[lovelacebeer]

I have to say I’m honestly impressed that 30% ( at time of writing) of respondents believe WG are capable of implementing submarines as a positive addition to the game.  

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

1 hour ago, ReDiR20 said:

Very easy, all answers are "no". Can't wait for subs to be included in tech trees

I don't think you'll have to wait very long.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

55 minutes ago, Siagor said:

The Sub problem can be solved easily if WG implement this new option in Report

 

I second this motion. 👍

[JohnMac79]

Not played for about 3 weeks, having a blast playing COH2, Wargame: Red Dragon, The Long Dark, and many other games in my vast steam library.

[illy]

35 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

I have to say I’m honestly impressed that 30% ( at time of writing) of respondents believe WG are capable of implementing submarines as a positive addition to the game.  

the question asked whether they can be implemented better which i believe they can, are WG capable of doing that..... nope

[MadBadDave]

Sorry, but another pointless post, WG like the Russian state will plod on with its anal decisions, you could slap every high ranking person within WG with a giant wet kipper and say NO SUBS, and they’d still give us subs,  it took them over a year to finally sort cvs out and there’s still many that say they ain’t balanced and fit for the game, we all said subs would be a total cluster f..k,  and here we are.  Anyone care to bet with me that the same discussion will be going strong next year. 

[Verblonde]

3 hours ago, illy said:

the question asked whether they can be implemented better which i believe they can, are WG capable of doing that..... nope

Pretty much this. Submarines could be a positive addition to the game; sadly, WG seem hell-bent on actively avoiding this outcome at all costs...

[lovelacebeer]

4 hours ago, illy said:

the question asked whether they can be implemented better which i believe they can, are WG capable of doing that..... nope

Oh don’t get me wrong I love submarines and submarine warfare, which is precisely why I despise the truly awful way WG have done things, it’s so bad it beggars belief. 

[Asatori]

Not really a good survey*. But filled it anyway.

 

*All your questions are leading, that is to say by how you phrased the question you suggest that there is a correct answer.  Ah big nono for a good survey. 

 

[illy]

1 hour ago, lovelacebeer said:

Oh don’t get me wrong I love submarines and submarine warfare, which is precisely why I despise the truly awful way WG have done things, it’s so bad it beggars belief. 

well underwater speedboats with sidewinders was never a good option

[Takethatyoubeast]

1 minute ago, illy said:

well underwater speedboats with sidewinders was never a good option

The fact that WG can only implement subs by giving them totally insane speed, homing torpedoes with a range that is ludicrous and the ability to use active sonar without giving their position away, speaks volumes 

 

They don’t fit, they won’t fit but we will still have them in the game because…..reasons 

[Animalul2012]

The best idea would be to see them announcing that"hey we screwed up, they are indeed impossible to balance in our game and we decided to cancel them and they will never be seen ever again unless it is about an aprils fools event, thank you for your understanding". Thats what they should do. 

How are they gonna get money? Well by making the players happy and maybe getting some old players back so how about:

-Matchmaking is +1,-1 all the other wows interactions have it heck world of warplanes with what? less than 1k playerbase has +1 -1 matchmaking why is wows PC not having it? You think is fun facing smolensk in bismarck? Or des moines in a z-23? 

-CV lose the bonus damage reduction while they attack and while there is a last squadron remaining, the immunity after attacking is reduced by 1 second. Def AA gets 300% and 400% bonus to continous damage and 50 to 100% bonus to flak.

-Nerf all braindead ships like Thunderer buff ships like gnevny,neptune,silliwangi,z-23/35, fen yang, ducas,gibraltar,z-31 etc.

REMOVE SUPER SHIPS, make US cv the t10 or a premium for the second USN CV line, make Eagle a premium or the t10 of a second RN CV line. Make h-44 a premium or the top tier for another german BB line, straight to the trash to all the other fakes and abominations such as Cancernapolis, Conbulshit, Zortrash, Yamabalance.

Removing submarines and super ships and a +1-1 MM will elevate this game to 2015-2016 golden era once again as a start.

[BlackYeti]

I think subs CAN be implemented in a balanced, though boring way. By removing pings and guided torps for starters. Then tweaks to visibility, oxygen and oxygen regen...

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

8 minutes ago, BlackYeti said:

I think subs CAN be implemented in a balanced, though boring way. By removing pings and guided torps for starters. Then tweaks to visibility, oxygen and oxygen regen...

If they bring subs back to the same realism level of the surface ships, they would work for the players who play those ships. But they would get wrecked in every single game and no one would touch them with a barge pole. So, like CV's, they get magic cranked up to eleven. Unlimited torpedoes instead of 10, 4-5 times as fast as IRL, tankier than a Hannover and with a cloaking device that would make a Klingon blush.

[arcticstorm123]

I think you can implement subs successfully but in a separate mode, convoy being the favourite, like the Halloween event was.

 

Have all subs in game to allow wolfpacks with 3 sub divs, was fun in Halloween and can be fun…as a separate mode .

 

Can also give subs more believable speeds etc. with good game design I.e. spawn along convoy path.

 

I would buy subs for that scenario, but in randoms, ranked etc.? no they just don’t fit.

[nerderklaus]

PUSH

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

Subs will come either way. And they will stay. CV rework is also ongoing for years now and it seems WG is willing to accept another challenge. Main ambition anyways is not to enrich the gameplay, but adding subs to the rotation of premiums and resource vessels to profit from, nothing else. And most likely they will not dumb them down before they have sold a good amount of the models they have already created waiting in the shelves to be pushed into the shop.

[invicta2012]

2 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

Subs will come either way. And they will stay.

And they will not be popular, and they will make the game and the community more toxic and unhappy.  The levels of bullet headness, obtuseness and clumsiness on display from WG here are quite remarkable. 

[Dutchy_2019]

On 5/10/2022 at 6:23 PM, Asatori said:

Not really a good survey*. But filled it anyway.

 

*All your questions are leading, that is to say by how you phrased the question you suggest that there is a correct answer.  Ah big nono for a good survey. 

 

 

Then how would you try to get the same questions answered in a non-leading way?

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

4 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

And they will not be popular, and they will make the game and the community more toxic and unhappy.  The levels of bullet headness, obtuseness and clumsiness on display from WG here are quite remarkable. 

CVs are also developed, bought and played. So will be subs, especially unique ones like U-69 or I-400 with planes or subs with other gimmicks. WG can decide what the meta is, so if they push subs, they will also be considered in CWs in future etc. At some point, you will "need" to have them to stay competitive. And others will play them just to grief, even if they hate this class.