Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

82 Good

About Crokodone

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    East Coast
  • Interests
    Naval History, Naval Warfare

Recent Profile Visitors

586 profile views
  1. Submarine Watch - Update

    Counter or not, defenselessness is not a game balance design for a variety of reasons. In addition , the nature of deep water torps, though less detectable are still very detectible in close quarters. Some submarines, like the VII uboats dont even have a stern gun. Making sub launched torpedoes deepwater even on the surface, would be like making dd guns not capable of damaging cruisers. Therefore, the slow surface speed of submarines, would be an instant death sentance for a sub as they would neither be able of escaping harm, or be able to deal harm; as battleships and cruisers have limited asw capability. On the surface a submarine could be engaged by any participant, including other submarines. Unless, depth charges are not not included in the first iteration of subs or modeled, there is no reason to grant immunity when destroyee speed already grants a form of immunity. Furthermore, imposing a deepwater restriction on subs would impede submarine participation in existing and future operations. In PVP? Unless, WG implements the submerged ability like the siege mode in WoT instead of a consumable, defenseless is far from tangible.
  2. Submarine Watch - Update

    I didnt catch the deepwater part, though understandable, given their speed and limited submerged ability, restricting subs to deepwater torps would be rather unfare for a sub to be unable adequately pose a threat while on the surface. The reason being, due to their excessively limited gun armament (few exceptions) and limited ability to stay submerged (consumable) submarines would therefore be more vulnerable to destroyers than destroyers are vulnerable to high tier carriers. This issue would be exacerbated at higher tiers where some submarines would not carry guns, AA or stern mounted torps at all. In additiin, damaged torpedo tubes have a greater penalty than a damaged gun. What i suggest is this; vary the status of submarine launched torps upon the depth their torpedoes. If from the surface: ordinary torpedoes; Submerged: deep water. If deeply dived, the sub would fire torps that could only hit battleships. This way, submerged subs would be campable, but once their submerged duration runs out they would be able to defend themselves aka threat to their pursuers. Therefore, the above would avoide the great delema created by smokescreens and carrier squadrons with unlimited range.
  3. Beating the Dead Horse - CV Poll

    Personally? No. And if you wana know why CVs are so unpopular now to begin with is more to do with a series of collective handicaps imposed on CV drivers. Handicaps such as: 1) mirror MM:having to subdue the enemy CV on top of all things. 2) reduced economy: no longer able to finance other ships and making future purchases even more delayed than contemporaries. 3) reduced experience gains; assuring a longer grind per ship. 4) CV controls withheld from starting tiers is akin to not being able to fire torps outside the torpedo lead indicator. If WG revokes half of the above you see CVs come back like before
  4. Submarine Watch - Update

    Personally i was thinking the Gato & type VII take up the tier 6-7 slots with more advanced designs going forward and more flexible designs going backwards. Like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_S-class_submarine for tiers 4 due to her 11kt submerged speed. For tiers 6 the ideal candidate would be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Porpoise-class_submarine With the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SS-168) at tiers five if The ssn 571 Nautilus is excluded. That leaves candidates for tier 8-9 that wont be hard to fill for allied nations but may be a challange for the Germans as germany was restricted to coastal subs after the 2nd WW. The https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang-class_submarine would easily fit into tiers 8 or 9 as the Tangs started the standard for high submerged speed which peaks with Barbell. This is reasonable as tier ten is where classes reach their maximum potential/porportion, aka Des Moines & Shimakazee.
  5. Submarine Watch - Update

    Outside of the submerge consumable, a submarine would need no other consumable than what's already in the game: hydro/radar. A poster here sugested DDs should/could get an ASDIC. He discribed the as ASDIC a passive cone ahead of the DD that would auto detect a submarine up to 5km; and because its not a consumable, it would not occupy a consumable slot. Because selinity and thermal layers will mot be modelled, the submarine is guaranteed detected regardless of depth or course.
  6. Submarine Watch - Update

    If you read my statement you would have your answer. In addition i have absolutely no problem getting arund in my bogue. In addition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Barbel_(SS-580) 25kts submerged, given what the consumable could be, at tier 10 a submarine could (like usn smokes) last significantly longer than lower tiers. In addition, the type XXI sub was far from the last sub built by germany, WG could pull up somd later uboats or german experimental designs. Infact, the russian subs would have the hardest time speed wise. Furthermore, a submarine on the defensive would be just as potent as a sub on the attack. Almost all WW2 subs backed stern mounted torpedo tubes. On top of that, torpedo reload speed is based on the number of tubes. What this means is that submarines with their fewer tubes eould possibly have the highest torpedo reload in game. Charging a submarine with hydro or not will present a challenge. On the contrary, the slower speed and sinificantly lower surface detection range on submarines would be both a balance and an advantage. The reason being, their low speed would make it exceptionally hard to estimate where and when they are going. unlike destroyers whith their near uniform speeds you can be certain of it's locality based on his last known position. Submarines, with their 5-4.5km baseline stealth, could go anywhere directly unlike a Colorado or Bogue, which has to take corridors to get into or away from the fray. A 17kt surface running speed isnt slow in this case as sub can go directly at the enemy or the objective without posing a spawn camping threat; very much like how light and medium tanks camp the spawns of heavy tanks at the start of tbe match on Fisherman's bay in WoT. By being slower tban tbe standard combatant, the submarine cannot subjugate most ships with their natural stealth, they merely take advantage of them in a manipulative way. Manipulative by: 1] not being traceable 2] not concerned with islands or corridors (too stealthy.) 3] very dangerous torpedo layout (front & stern) 4] fast torpedo reloads (half the tubes of contemporary DDs.) 5] ridiculously low profile, even at higher tiers; small superstructure would be prone to over saturation relatively quickly. 6] depending on tier, smaller torpedoes than those carried on contemporary warships. 7] immune to radar while submerged 8] higher the tier, the longer the dive 9] higher the tier, faster the submerged speed. Subs will have their strengths and weaknesses. Their weakneses would be their Achilles heel and their strength their Thor's hammer. Submarines will nof be for everyone, but truthfully, no class truly is. I would agree, submarines would need a weaving in process to introduce them to the community in a operatios environment. It can be done, if only with baby steps at first. Like one poster referred, operations would be a gokd start. Honestly, a start in ops would be a more merciful start than what the community got with CVs.
  7. Submarine Watch - Update

    With this logic, it would make more sense to have DE's running up to tier 10. Maybe with an expansion of the team listings from 12-14. However, the battle of lyte gulf is proof, intended use and actual use does not add up. And is no excuse to exempt a class of ship from the battle when that class would contribute in one form or annother. Submarines wojld indeed contribute to the battle. They may not be able to run down the enemy; but they sure as hell would give them something to think about when those points are ticking.
  8. Submarine Watch - Update

    Nome of those points are applicable in game. WoWs uses a very different spotting system than WoT. Ships are detected depending on their camo rating broken by any islands in between. Furthermore, submarines like the Barbell, type XXI and Foxtrot are faster submerged than on the surface.
  9. Cant see through yhe white text. However, imthid spliy is like no split we've ever seen. I just spent 14mill on a baltimore for nothing. Why release the other CLs months from now when they could release them all at once. I wouldnt mind waiting another patch but from what i've seen i dont look forward to playing the Cleveland again. Honestly, Helena and Worcester are the highlights of the split.
  10. The replacements dosnt say anything about which of the CLs we will be getting other than Cleveland. Does that mean we have to grind Cleveland all over again? If so, this split, though welcomed, sucks as we gave to buy both the Dallas and Helena and retrain the commanders.
  11. so done playing with CV

    Not really, the moment CVs are gone they will protest else: DDs. This dude probably is thetype that sailes to the [D] cap on North and snipes from there in a battleship. I may be wrong but the game revolves around competitive play. Not everyone desires to be competitive.
  12. Submarine Watch - Update

    Replies in bold nothimg personal just truth be told. In addition, Japan used subs to help resupply their troops on Guadalcanal, so technically, ijn subs did partake in the naval battles, in the same fashion aircraft carriers partook in the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Submarines have a place in this game.
  13. Submarine Watch - Update

    Which is a game that already exist, and by including those very ships you mentioned, you silently admit wartime submarines would be without purpose without the ships we already have. The difference is that WoWs is an mmo, silent hunter, wolfpack? Those are rpgs modeling a very specific time and technology in hidtory: WG is primarily an mmo company modeling a greater scope in compensation for the depth there usually would be recieved in a ship based game; of which submarines are supposed to be one such ship. Furthermore the intent is in the titles. Its world of warships; not surface fleet 1943. Not high seas stakes 44: World of Warships. Warships includes but not limited too: battleships, submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers and their designations including destroyers; of which were at the hight of their varieties at that very same period WG covers. Adding submarines, spawning slightly closer to the objectives would neither be game breaking or class impeding. On the contrary, delivering an alternate stealth style based on current game mechanics and physics; there is no way a submarine would/could undermine the game. @BrushWolf even then thats not particularly true, as the USS Juneau was sunk by a submarine were sunk while she and her task force were on the retreat. I dont kmow much about RN or Free French sub operations but i am sure they have their occurrences. The same goes for carrier aircraft. Carrier or even land born aircraft did not portake in any running fleet battles in either theater (bismarck wasnt a fleet battle and lyte gulf one side didnt have battle line eligible craft) Carriers have been an intrical part of the game. Not because what they did, but because thats what was possible/capable of happening. If WoWs was based exclusively on what took place, it wouldn't be possible to have your battleship on battleship encounters outside specific nations in specific tiers. Yamato would not be able to squar off against Iowa and Montana would not exist. Everybody knows how handicapped a Kongo is against a NorthCal; the player base hated +/-3mm and i am certain you are one of them. Furthermore, every game mode revolves around points; even standard battle. Hoeever, even in standard battle every ship doesnt have to be sunk to win. Therefore if a Battleship cannot or refuses to confront a submarine: fine; you dont have to sink a submarine to win the battle. Submarines are warships. Be it WW1 or post war they are the product and proprietors of technology. There would he neither Hydroaccaustic or ASDIC without submarines. Its amusing that WG gave us hydro on our ships before even murmuring about subs; when the whole (historical) motive behind such sensors were submarines to begin with. So long as we have hydro, submarines should be worked into the game in one form or annother. We dont need depth charges right away, shallow running torps can fill the job for now. Even in AI's hands like the schnelboats of OP Dunkirk, submarines would not deliver those huge walls of skill that already caused a very expensive and legendary premium removed and an entire ship line heavily nerfed. I wouldnt mind dealing with 6 torps, even single fired. Its when these torp volleys reach +10 that they become mortifying; submarines wount be mortifying; less visible, dangerous even, but not half as horrifying as made out to be.
  14. Submarine Watch - Update

    You cant support or champion submarines without vouching them to interact with other warships. A submarine version of wows with only submarines would be like current wows with only battleships; is that what you want? Because, if that were the case nobody would play because of two factors. 1) variety: gives advantages and disadvantages; fueling excitement and investigation of different aspects of the game. This is why simulators came,with text book dense manuals just to get you started. 2) monotony: one type of ship gets old and extremely fast, unless counterscted especially if that ship is the only type of ship to compete against: especially diesel boats. Submerged they are almost undetectable. And without guided torpedoes and 4 torpedo tubes, you'd be reduced to playing the game the exact way we play now: gunning and torping with consumables on top. Gato subs usually packed two guns, some as large as 127mm while uboats had one for the most part. Thats just the mist off the top, You cant escape it, variety is the reciprocation of naval science/warfare; and that's not even where it ends. On the contrary, variety is where naval warfare begins. Even in older single player games like 688I and Wolfpack. The later required you to solve a riddle just to unlock the game .
  15. Submarine Watch - Update

    Find a Windows 95 computer (they are still around) and buy Wolfpack or 688I instead. They dont have the grapics but are more accurate instead. Imo, the inplimentation of subs would be a perfect opportunity for WG to recalculate stealth if its too much. But, unlike the old minekaze(current gets 5.8km) with her 4.8km surface detection, a 4.5-8 makes allot of sense for a type VII uboat or Gato class submarine for their obvious lack of superstructure.