Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
hopfolk

Submarines might be balanceable. Really.

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-SWS-]
Players
12 posts
2,864 battles

Okay, this thread probably pops up now and again... and again...

But I was thinking about balancing Subs today and wrote down some pros and cons that almost convinced me that they could sort of work.

 

Take a look:

Cons

1. Forward-firing “blindfire” deepwater torps with no aim-arc (would add a skill-check to their use)

2. Limited submerge time 30s / Air recharge time on surface 20s (would counter the invisible menace / slackers)

3. Slow when submerged 22kts (makes planning an attack crucial)

4. Depth charges on DDs are hard counter (there's always got to be a counter, right?)

5. Max two per team

(unpopular, but they're going to be annoying so...)

6. 40mm Armour (otherwise they would sink... oh wait)

 

Pros

1. SUBMARINES (!)

2. Difficult to hit with Artillery (low profile in water, small size etc)

3. High damage Torps 18k (few launched, hard to hit with but nasty)

4. Immune to Torps and Artillery when Submerged (Vulnerable to Depth charges)

5. Detection range 7-10kms

(again, to make sub captains plan and think)

6. No fires.

(because they're wet, right?)

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
824 posts
3,330 battles

I would say that you cannot spot enemy ship underwater unless using hydro (which will spot even you), or have only limited spotting range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SWS-]
Players
12 posts
2,864 battles

  Good thinking, Endala.

Using Scenarios, wargaming could test Subs out as NPCs, too. That would be suitably terrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,743 posts
4,631 battles

Except that once they surface, they will b inevitably shelled to death by cruisers and destroyers. As such, you end up with a class that is hiding half the time and is being useless most of the time. I mean, what does a submarine bring to the table that a destroyer with smoke does not? as it is now, a destroyer even outperform a submarine in pure submarine-duties (aka launching torpedoes on unsuspecting ships) while also contributing to the game in the shape of spotting and capping.

 

Mobility will also be a severe issue, as non-submerged sub-marines aren't exactly fast either...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
492 posts
9,103 battles

3. Slow when submerged 22kts (makes planning an attack crucial)

 

[edited], in terms of the era's we are playing, anything over 10kts submerged is going to be a stretch for most designs, and anything above this apart from the late war german boats is going to make them as detectable as if they were on the surface

 

Subs simply don't belong in this game, get over it 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HMSR]
Players
1,629 posts
5,846 battles

Personally i would love subs in a scenario, battle of the atlantic, DD's protecting convoys, and being able to use depth charges :cap_viking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
3,143 battles
3 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

If I get an overpen on a submarine, would it cause a flooding?

 

If youre flooding, would you be submerged automatically ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
490 posts

The way I see it, submarines are already in the game, we really don't need them in any other form. In reality they provide recon, surprise torps and something for convoy escorts to hunt. All of that is already in the game in the form of DDs. I don't know if it's art by accident or actually elegant design, but WG took something that was potentially boring and annoying and combined basically all of the submarine warfare elements into DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,440 posts
7,788 battles

I'm sure there are people that would like to play subs in this game (I do), but the main problem with them is their speed. So either they need special spawns on every map, making them very predictable, or you need to buff their speed to unrealistic levels.

 

Sailing around in a 20kts DD with better concealment only works on the small low tier maps. Covering the bigger maps at that speed is completely unrealistic when you also take into account that most sub-launched torpedoes were smaller than the ones we're used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,361 posts
14,165 battles

The only realistic addition of subs to this game would be in operations. That's the only mode where WG can try crazy things like Schnellboots @ Dunkirk.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,584 posts
10,382 battles
5 hours ago, hopfolk said:

Okay, this thread probably pops up now and again... and again...

But I was thinking about balancing Subs today and wrote down some pros and cons that almost convinced me that they could sort of work.

 

Take a look:

Cons

 

1. Forward-firing “blindfire” deepwater torps with no aim-arc (would add a skill-check to their use)

2. Limited submerge time 30s / Air recharge time on surface 20s (would counter the invisible menace / slackers)

 

3. Slow when submerged 22kts (makes planning an attack crucial)

 

4. Depth charges on DDs are hard counter (there's always got to be a counter, right?)

 

5. Max two per team

 

(unpopular, but they're going to be annoying so...)

6. 40mm Armour (otherwise they would sink... oh wait)

 

 

 

Pros

 

1. SUBMARINES (!)

 

2. Difficult to hit with Artillery (low profile in water, small size etc)

 

3. High damage Torps 18k (few launched, hard to hit with but nasty)

 

4. Immune to Torps and Artillery when Submerged (Vulnerable to Depth charges)

 

5. Detection range 7-10kms

 

(again, to make sub captains plan and think)

6. No fires.

 

(because they're wet, right?)

 

Enjoy.

You are basicly buffing them to make the work somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
453 posts
7,651 battles

Who wants to play a broom handle moving through the water? Or would the sub captains want their own custom view from underwater? Lots of work for WG.

 

BOT subs prowling the map borders with no team alliance? Bring it on.

 

Want a sub, play C*** W*****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
3,901 posts
16,255 battles
8 hours ago, hopfolk said:

 

Cons

 

1. Forward-firing “blindfire” deepwater torps with no aim-arc (would add a skill-check to their use)

2. Limited submerge time 30s / Air recharge time on surface 20s 

3. Slow when submerged 22kts (makes planning an attack crucial)

 

Pros

 

2. Difficult to hit with Artillery (low profile in water, small size etc)

3. High damage Torps 18k (few launched, hard to hit with but nasty)

6. No fires.

(because they're wet, right?)

 

 

 

No.

 

1. Aiming arc is needed, or else only very good players could uss them. Launching implied solving a calculus first.

2. A naval battle usually lasted less than 24 h, they had enough autonomy to stay submerge.

3. Max submerged speed was 6-8 knots, max surface speed was 20, and this on the most modern subs late WW2. But because refueling and recharging the batteries were difficult, and running submerged at max speed would increase the noise and detection, top speed was not used.

Deploying at 20 knots when starting from same spawn means they will be the last ships in battle and  not useful.

 

2. Easy to hit at surface because low speed and destroyers with a +15 knots  could close on them quickly.

3. No, they used the same torps as the other warships.

6. Fires. All the ships are wet unless slow speed in good weather. Fire does not burn on the outside of the ship, but on the inside when a compartment is breached and set on fire.

Submarines were very vulnerable because after a few hits could not submerge anymore.

 

These are the reasons why the subs were mostly used against comerce ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles

i am all for submarines. that way potatoes wont infect BB so much and they will be equally useless in 10kts submerged sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
3,901 posts
16,255 battles
27 minutes ago, robihr said:

i am all for submarines. that way potatoes wont infect BB so much and they will be equally useless in 10kts submerged sub.

 

10 knots submerged was an end war top submarine, and at that speed the batteries discharge  and the noise was max, so easy to be detected. Economic/silent running was a few knots only. Try chase a 20  knots BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
878 posts
11,126 battles

I wouldn't give much importance on IRL speeds, as WG tends to change just about everyting for balance (Although very inconsistently,; for example it was fun when I read in the last devblog that "The GZ's detection radius can't be changed because of the height of the mast", though this is exactly what happened with the Pensacola [and rightfully so]). So in comes the classic "don't argue with real life examples".

Still, I think subs would/should be operations only (maybe coop if you want to screw with everyone), and as such they could be, similar to clan battle rules/mechanics, reward vehicles. Six five star ops -> you get a seaplane tender, eight - > a sub, or whatever. Why this won't happen though is because it would require to pour a metric ton of work into a very marginal gamemode. Not really a good trade.

...then again, WG tends to put a lot of work, maybe even more into the Halloween events running only maybe two weeks in the entire year or so, so who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
4 minutes ago, 22cm said:

 

10 knots submerged was an end war top submarine, and at that speed the batteries discharge  and the noise was max, so easy to be detected. Economic/silent running was a few knots only. Try chase a 20  knots BB.

 

i was generous for gameplay purposes :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,562 posts
9,093 battles
9 hours ago, hopfolk said:

 

6. No fires.

 

(because they're wet, right?)

 

 

As opposed to ships that are never exposed to water? ô.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,556 posts
4,784 battles

I am in favour of the 'how about, NO' opinion on this.

 

Too slow, never actually used in a tactical combat, torp range too short (1-2km max in historical terms, unless someone has different info'*), no spotting range, too fragile, etc etc etc.

 

* the torpedo's themselves had longer range, but the submerged sub did not have the vision range or the predictive ability for longeranged firing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
670 posts
10,870 battles

A very definate no

Up until mid 1942 most german submarines till surfaced to engage ships, the Japanese tried to use there submarines tactically but it never worked 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
1,962 posts
5,445 battles

Same answer as always... A big NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×