Jakob_Knight

As always with a resource as hard to get as Steel, it's a question of if the cost is worth both what you'd get from playing it and offset possible other purchases that might come up before you make back that amount. The first is comparatively easy, while the second is partially guesswork. Unfortunately, without firm word from WG on the ships coming out in the next two years, that's the best anyone can do.

Here's a comparison I posted in another thread between the Gato and Balao: You have one more loader for the forwards tubes ( 3 for 6 tubes instead of 2 for 6 tubes), the unguided torpedoes have considerably more damage (18,100 vrs 13,867 ) and have longer range (16.5 km vrs 9 km ), while the homing torpedoes also do more damage (10,000 vrs 7.833 ) but have a half the range (6 km vrs 12 km ). The torpedoes reload in 55 seconds as opposed to the 46 seconds on the Balao, which partially offsets the extra loader in front. The Gato gains 4 knts on the surface, but loses 9 knts submerged. The Gato offers 0.1 km more concealment (in other words, without the ability to modify this number, the two are effectively the same concealment). The Gato can accept any USN capable commander without requiring permanent assignment, while the Balao requires a dedicated commander. Additional note: Gato and Balao have the same starting dive capacity, I believe. From the above, the Gato reminds me of some of the IJN DDs that trade off flexibility in torpedoes for a slightly different playstyle, particularly close-in torpedo work. It's not an ineffective or bad design (far from it) but might not appeal to someone who plays different from the designed intent of the ship.

I don't think there are more than a handful of players who like the current itineration of Subs, though the exact parts they dislike vary widely. Myself, I wish they let the artificial protections they put in against Subs fighting Subs drop and let them counter each other, among other things. The problem is what changes would be beneficial without causing other problems. Subs are a compromise right now, and no one is ever completely happy when they don't get everything they want. I can live with them and even enjoy playing with or against them, but my biggest fears would be putting in changes that tip the scales too far in one direction. Yeah, Subs in a division can be a pain to fight against, but that's true of any shiptype that has a subteam playing them. The torpedo soup a division of DDs can drop, the bonfire of conflagration a division of CAs can unleash, the pure armor-shredding vollies of shellfire a division of BBs can bring to bear, or the Eye of Sauron destruction a CV divisioned with other ships can deliver are about as unfun to be under.

I can tell you that when I was playing my Shimakaze, fear was not the response I felt to a Yamato charging me. Right up until I realized my torpedoes were still reloading. And the Yamato wasn't alone. And it had its guns trained on me.

It says that the world has moved on. Once, there was a world we knew, but that world is not this one today.

Ok. I think I see the problem here. 'Submerged' refers to a Sub that is below Periscope Depth, and receiving all the benefits of being submerged. That includes reduction in Hydro detection range, immunity from surface fire, use of the Submerged speed and concealment stats, and inability to spot units without the use of a consumable or teammates. In this mode, a Gato cannot use the Gearing torpedoes and must use homing torpedoes. When at Periscope Depth, the ship is not on the Surface, but not Submerged either. It is in a hybrid state with its own conditions. Hydro works at full effect, the Sub has reduced visibility (but still spottable by things like aircraft), uses its Surface speed, and has reduced ability to spot units itself without the use of a consumable or teammate. In this mode, a Gato can use either the Gearing torpedoes or homing torpedoes. So it is a confusion of terms. When you used the term underwater, I took it that you were talking when the Sub was below Periscope Depth, as the Sub is not underwater when at Periscope Depth, but still partially on the Surface. When Submerged, the Sub is completely underwater and under all the effects of being underwater.

Got to make a lot of pixel artificial reefs. Just think of all that affordable housing we're giving to all the pixel fish.

Well, WG put it at T10 last itineration, though I think originally it was T7 (memory is foggy that far back). They could change that, but I think WG will put it at T10 to smooth over its first-glance shock factor. I'm not sure WG has ever removed turrets or tubes from historical ships, let alone ships that were distinctive for those. They might put out a paper variant, but not until they had the actual initial build in the game. And, the Kita is well known enough and already modelled that I doubt such a change would have much traction. The simple fact is that the ship is meant to do one job, and that job is devastating in the environment of WOWS. The degree of crippling disadvantages the devs have to give this ship to even test it is testimony to that. I don't see how it can be made 'fair' without removing the point of having it at all. Edit: one of the more unique problems with running this ship was the viewpoint and aiming changed to the launcher ready to fire, so firing a full broadside of torpedoes could be disorienting. I think the Okhotnik may have this issue, and it means you end up with a chain of torpedo spreads that are a bit inaccurate.

So when you say a submerged Sub is using Gearing torpedoes when it is not, it is misleading. And that is what I stated and you did not understand. The thing that is worse about the torps a Submerged Gato uses is their damage. It's 10k vrs 17k, a marked difference. And of course a Sub will take advantage of its superior stealth abilities. They have to, because they give up any other form of doing damage but torpedoes for that stealth. Would you expect a BB to not take advantage of its armor or a Cruiser its Hydro? The reason a Sub would likely not take advantage of this is the same as those units..because the situation is such that it is likely a suicide move to do so. Remember that, unlike a DD, the Sub can't maintain range and keep it's torpedoes on target. It's either closing or withdrawing. By closing to under 3km, it is committing to getting closer before its attack hits, and a Sub commander that wants to live as long as possible won't want to put his ship into such a situation. And that also answers you question about sitting at 6km...Subs can't. A DD can parallel a target and shoot, a Sub can't. Radar will work on a Sub on the surface, while one at Periscope Depth will need others on its team to spot anything but a Battleship or CV before its danger close. Hydro also works at full distance if the Sub is in this position. And, once spotted, every enemy ship in range equipped with airstrike depth charges will have the option to immediately attack it. So yes, Subs have advantages that they are expected to use like any other unit in the game, and their disadvantages also play into it. One of those is that a Sub has to be pointing at or away from a target to fire at it, and Subs like the Gato (the Sub specifically under discussion) cannot use all of its torpedoes at once, cannot reload all those torpedoes for a second shot, and cannot use the same Gearing torpedoes submerged as they do when at the surface.

Only issue with that is it has no other effective weapons system at a Tier where it has to deliver it's worth to a team quickly or be sunk before it fires it's expected throw weight. It might work in conjunction with a lot of TRBs with quick reuse times, but otherwise it would be no more dangerous than a T6 CL in a T10 match.

Misleading in that the Sub when underwater does not shoot Gearing torpedoes. It has to be at the Surface or Periscope Depth to fire those. And I would say the DDs that cannot launch all of their torps together being rated with those that can as though they had that ability is another way that the chart is misleading. To say a Kleber has more punching power with torpedoes than a Shimakaze or Somers simply doesn't tell an accurate story, because the target will never take the full output of the DD, where the Shima and Somers can put all torpedoes into play. DPM is just a tool for overall carryweight, not actual torpedo performance, especially when Torpedoes are alpha-strike weapons rather than DPM ones. Add to that that the DDs that cannot put all their torpedoes out at once are the exceptions rather than the rule, that they don't have to turn nearly as much as a Sub to shoot off their full salvoes, and that they don't have to deal with not having all of their tubes reloading at the same time, and you get very different performances from what that chart describes.

Uh huh. A CL that was a tasty snack for the CVs last time is going to have less armor. Hmmm. I wonder if the torpedo range will be reduced too.

Again, the chart shows the falloff started before Subs were even on the board. The various incidents noted certainly played a part, but except for the changes in trajectory that correspond to the Research Bureau, the CC Exodus, and the Economic Rework, all losses were along the predicted curve of this chart. The various points where Subs were injected into it show no deviations in that trajectory, which is not what would happen if they were the primary cause. In fact, I suspect I know very well the primary cause of the drop, but I cannot discuss it here in depth because it would be against forum rules. Suffice it to say that events happened that continue to profoundly affect gamers beyond the game, and lead to a decrease in having the interest in gaming. Those events are still ongoing, and thus the sharp downturn remains unabated. I'll simply use a very apt quote that covers the period in question. "The world has moved on."

And of course, factors outside the game itself and unrelated to it can impact the data as people's lives reorder priorities.

You may not believe this, but I'd probably love to see a lot of this (though the RTS CVs would need some tweeking so we didn't have the same problems as before). I'd probably add in progressive performance loss from damage taken, reinstitution of Friendly Fire damage, and the minimap only showing what the ship itself can see (let players learn to call out contacts instead of trash talk). I'd have quite a few changes to Subs too, but only if the game changes as suggested. Otherwise, they'd be too far behind other units for the changes to work.