Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'asw'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 10 results

  1. For me the two most irritating things about submarines are a) how they are able to shift between the 6 m immunity zone with startling speed and b) how they are at times able to survive more than 20 depth charge hits. In reality any submarine that takes that many hits would more likely resemble a piece of metal Swiss cheese than a submarine. The purpose of these changes is to promote a more realistic and skill-based interaction between submarines and asw ships. Thus, I propose the following for ASW: Depth charges should not be a consumable, but instead a type of ammunition with varying reloads and load outs depending on class/nation. The reload should be reduced to something like 15 seconds (or 20 seconds at most), and load-outs can vary from 3x3, 9x1, or anything else (similar to different torpedo firing arrangements on torpedo-carrying surface ships). Depth charges should be able to be aimed. Whenever the depth charge consumable is selected, the captain of the asw ship should be able to select the depth that a single salvo (or perhaps for certain nations individual depth charges) can be dropped, perhaps in a top-down view (like a CV) or an underwater view (like a submarine but without showing said submarine unless detected by hydro or something). For example, a ship with a 3x3 load out can drop depth charges at 10 m, 50 m, and 30 m, while a ship with a 9x1 load out can drop charges at 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, 40 m, etc. The reticle can be something similar to a surface targeting reticle. Depth charge hit ribbons should only show up if either the submarine targeted is sunk or already detected. If a submarine is already detected or dies because of depth charge attacks, then the ribbons should appear on the asw ship's score sheet on the right-hand corner. However, if a submarine is not detected, then there is a different way of judging hits. Visual cues should aid with asw accuracy: historically a common trick of submarine captains is to eject oil/random parts to make it appear that a submarine is already sunk. Thus instead of ribbons, successful hits on a submarine should cause oil or parts to float up to the surface. These bits of debris should either be highlighted or easily noticeable whenever they surface so that in the heat of battle they may be used to judge the success of an asw attack (especially if an asw ship is looking for them), but also not highlighted so that it is possible for an asw ship that's inattentive to miss these signs. I also suggest the following for submarines: For the 6 m divide between vulnerable/immune to surface fire, implement a 10 second cool down every time submarine surfaces/dives across this line. This way, a prepared surface ship at a reasonably close range will be able to get off some hits (not all ships, but honestly if you're trying to do something like hit a submarine 5.9 m below with an Atlanta 11 m away, you're probably doing something wrong) Going deeper and slowing down in a submarine should increase depth charge dispersion and detection but not damage. In this way an asw ship that is only guessing your submarine's depth (given the above aim mechanic) would not inflict as much damage as an asw ship that has you pinned down and knows your location and depth, and gives the submarine captain time to get away with minimal damage should they be able to evade detection said asw attack. It also adds an interesting question for submarines: should they try and speed out of the depth charge zone at risk of being detected and pursued or hunker down and hope to slowly creep out of the firing line of the asw ship? Submarines should have an eject debris consumable. Corresponding to said visual cue for asw warfare above, submarines should be able to eject debris (oil, metal parts, etc.) with a 1 minute or so cool down between each use. This debris floats to the surface and is indistinguishable from actual debris caused by successful depth charge attacks. This allows submarines to perhaps fool an asw ship into ceasing or misjudging their attack or cause a smarter asw captain to realize that a submarine is not dead and continue their attack. This consumable can thus be a double-edged sword as it was in real life if used improperly.
  2. First of all, I'd like to preface that I'm not a seasoned CV player. I only recently started to grind the UK CV line and have no prior knowledge. That said I got about 1/3 of the way through the exp grind of Hermes before I used a bunch of free exp to skip up to the Furious, in order to get it specifically for the sub mode. General play Now, when the match starts, my first target always has to be the enemy DDs (focus players over bots) and CLs. If my team can kill those fast, it gives our subs almost free control of the map. At the same time I'm trying to put up fighters to protect our own DDs, that way they can counter the enemy subs. I've noticed that the win rate is much higher if you can do both of these objectives. If you lose all your DDs and CLs the enemy subs are impossible to get rid of. Once this is done, I'll start to send my planes after the enemy BBs and CAs. Preferably, weakened enemies. I'm not really going after kills here, I'm just harassing, trying to force the ships into a position that exposes themselves to our hunting subs. Lighting fires.. etc so that if the sub gets a flood, it sticks. I'll only go after the enemy CV if it exposes itself, or if its the last surface ship. Its just not worth losing full airwings in early-mid game. As a note, be careful in this game mode. Positioning your CV is key. I fell into the trap of being aggressive and following the front line to get more planes out quicker, but with the bots and the subs, you'll find the front lines change and crumple fast. You'll want to hang back a bit, always keep an escape route ready. ASW Now for the Sub part. I've only had a few occasions where I've been able to actually interact with a sub, besides running from torps because of poor positioning close to the front lines. On the first, my carpet bombers just happened to be flying over the right place at the right time, when a sub surfaced and wasn't paying attention. I was able to drop a full load of bombs on him, and destroyed him. I assume he was not paying attention, because he could have submerged easily upon seeing my planes, and escaped all damage. The second time, I managed to clip a sub with a rocket from one of my planes. Did negligible damage sadly, but it forced him back under. Again this was just lucky positioning of my planes when he came up. If he had been paying attention, there would be no way I could have hit him. Finally towards endgame we got into a scenario, where my team was on one side of the map, and a sub got into our cap and started capping. With no allies there to stop him, my planes were all we had. I found they were actually incredibly efficient in doing so, as the mere sight of my bombers approaching him, forced him under, resetting the cap. Now this sub was keen and perhaps paranoid, as a result I could not score any hits on him, but we won because he could not cap us. Thoughts Personally, I think subs add an interesting new layer to the game. It does force a CV player to be a bit more attentive and opens up an avenue for more strategic game play. However.. once the DDs and CLs are destroyed a sub can operate with very little to no opposition, which can be frustrating. I had to sit back and watch as a sub ripped a BB to pieces, because I couldn't even spot the sub. Overall I do enjoy the game mode with the subs. Suggestions? While some of these will come down to sub nerfs, theres a few small things I'd suggest for CVs as well. Remove or highly limit the battery recharge underwater (1/4 speed). This will force the Subs to surface if they want to recharge and give surface ships and planes a chance to hit them. A sub spotting ships and other subs while underwater, should not transmit that data to its team mates. Give a CV's bombers the option to launch with small depth charges instead of the regular bomb payload. (or even a toggle on the regular bombs) These need not be powerful. Even small damage vs the sub to harass them, and give you the option to 'eventually' kill them. Give planes an option to drop a sonar buoy or something with limited range, to spot enemy subs. (this could be added to the BB/CA spotter planes Overall, I think subs will be a benefit eventually. There is still work to do. I'd love to hear feed back from more seasoned CV players as I am still very new. I'd also love to hear from other surface ships, such as DDs, in how they think the best role of the CV is in this game mode. Subs.. if you care to expose your secrets.. tell me how to kill you. ;) Thank you for reading. I'll keep taking notes as the testing continues.
  3. Herr_Reitz

    Carriers ASW Tips

    Hullo all, New to the whole sub thing. Somewhat familiar with carriers. I am finding, unless I catch a sub on the surface, my carriers have no offensive/defensive abilities for use against submarines. I must be missing something here, right? What tips do you have to sink 'em using your carrier, other than the possibility of ramming. TIA!
  4. Roamer0101

    ASW thoughts

    Played a few games today in DD's as I have been the one of the unlucky ones not to get a sub yet. I think ASW could be a great deal of fun and redefine how to do DD. I concentrated on staying alive and harassing from distance until the Subs started to go into the caps. Then I chased them down. One question I have is what is the distance that a Depth Charge will do damage? How far away can you start dropping? Is there an "Optimal" distance? I would like to hear from the Sub drivers so far on how effective the DC's are? It seemed like they did a lot of incidental hits and saw some fires and flooding. Is it something you fear?
  5. So WG has released some documentary stuff on IJN aircraft carrier submarines before and I have seen a few threads on giving the old odd tier CVs ASW capabilities, so I thought why not combine the two? When they inevitably add IJN subs, just give their scout plane the ability to drop depth charges. Everyone can clearly see that a single scout plane for a submarine would be either useless or simply give away a subs position in WOWS' current submarine game mode, but you know WG will try and shoe horn the historical gimmick anyway. With this, not only do they get their gimmick, but it also gives a class of submarines a more effective way of ASW than the current option which has been noted to be ... difficult. Surface players will have nothing to complain about other than the limited spotting capabilities of a single scout plane that should be easily shot down if it gets too close for any extended period of time. Submarines would have to be spotted for the ASW scout plane to be able to attack it anyway. The planes would be a consumable, meaning they would be very clearly limited in number and would have a cool down period between launches and duration. The only other conceivable consumable gimmick for IJN submarines would be manned torpedoes, which seems unlikely due to the decision to not include Kamikazes on IJN CVs as well as the redundancy of already having ping guided torpedoes.
  6. I don’t see what the big deal is. People on this forum in general are so angry. Other than lacking some historical accuracy, i think it’s a blast having another class in the game. Playing them, or playing against them has been no issue for me. What I do see is a lot of people not understanding the full mechanics regarding what they can and cannot do. Playing dds is very fun and now I have even more I can do. Subs being boring is a matter of personal opinion, because many have a lot of fun with them. I don’t think they should be locked to their own game mode permanently, but they should for now until final touches are in place. Im not saying that some things don’t need some changing or tweaking though. I’m saying the game isn’t “broken, busted, OP, useless, dying, etc”. All of these words pop up often every time something changes or is added to the game, or any other game out there. People hate change, and they don’t want to adapt. Personally, I think most people threatening to quit will not quit. Those that do are replaced by more new players that DO want subs. Probably more players than the one that quit too. I am not an OG alpha player. I migrated to Steam long ago, and my original account began when CV’s were more of an RTS style. I wasn’t upset through all of the changes then and I’m not going to start now because the meta is getting shaken up. I have spent a lot of money and supported this game because I have a lot of fun and appreciate the attention to detail, and I will continue doing so. If I was to give some constructive feedback though, it would go like this: 1. Although I have rarely had great opportunities to target BBs (too much other stuff to do in the match with higher priority while playing sub), I do think BBs need some self defense option. In those times that the end of the match results in a sub vs BB situation, the BB needs an ASW option such as a consumable. Perhaps an ASW plane that is NOT tied to current slot choices. All BBs would have one for the appropriate tier brackets. Heavy cruisers and other cruisers without depth charges should also have access to this consumable. 2. Hydroacoustic search should have a vertical detection along with lateral but not in its current form. We can use the classic German hydro of 5km as an example. It should be 5km lateral radius, with a 50m vertical detection that extends throughout its 5km radius. This way, the subs deep-dive consumable also has better use than its current form (51m-80m depth). 3. The sounds of the depth charges seem to have changed since PT. Please change it back. There’s no splashing, loud explosions, rumbles, etc anymore. They were perfect then. Now it’s too quiet. 4. The torpedo turn radius while acoustic homing is active is just a tad bit too tight. They should not turn quite that sharp. Subs should require a little more skill to be effective. 5. For the love of god, please add tracking to the sonar ping interface. It’s very disorienting, especially when underwater. Everyone else gets tracking to keep their crosshairs moving with the target, why shouldn’t the sub? 6. Subs need to be able to single fire torps. Not only for a bit of realism, but for strategy. 7. As far as camos, flags, and signals: In the current form, camos would be fine, but with T6 detectability as it is, they don’t need -10% detection. So, if you plan to have subs with this “baked-in” low detectability across all tiers, then introduce subtle camos with no detectability bonuses. Signals can look painted on the hull in the front, but very tiny. Flags too, but just a little bit bigger. 8. CVs need an ASW plane as well. This one is player controlled like the other planes in their squadrons. One plane at a time goes out with “the weapon”, controlled by player. The plane should have high hit points. This is really best used mid-late game to make sure the match isn’t drawn out, or the CV isn’t a sitting duck without defense options. If the plane is shot down, then tough break - fly another one out. The reason for this is so the submarine may also defend itself. The submarine should have a working AA mount (the one on the bridge). The model is there, so let’s use it. If the CV wants to focus a troublesome submarine, then that is less time the CV spends harassing other ships. I have some more ideas, but thought I would stop here to see how much love or hate I receive from the community before continuing. I’m interested in hearing thoughts on this.
  7. WanderingGhost

    CVE's and DE's - a concept

    So, the game has had CVE's in it before (Bogue) used as smaller CV's, and people have asked in the past about DE's being added. Obviously these types have a bit more reason now with subs on the way but of course the question is implementing them without being an overly focused type - it does no good to have an ASW ship on your team if it has 0 use against other types. It's a juggling act, not useless vs a BB but bit more ASW bend, but I think it's doable. I don't see many nations having these kinds of lines but not every nation had every type and all. For this I'm going to focus on USN ships simply because I have more info and ideas to use as examples. So I'll start with the CVE's. The idea for these is to make them low impact enough that mirror MM is unnecessary. While near impossible with fleet carriers, I do think that it can be achieved with relative ease on these. They have smaller air groups, fewer planes, and aren't carrying as many weapons meant to take out heavy ships. Unlike fleet CV's currently, they won't spot ships for the team in regards to ability to shoot, simply on the minimap like radar does for the first few seconds now. That should limit the information to not be as much an issue (as long range guns can't snipe a ship based on that info). The rest comes down to group size and damage really. As it stands much as I play CV's I think the alpha is too high on some ordnance (damage from volume vs per piece when a lot of this has volume AND per piece). So between lower alpha on weapons and smaller numbers the damage impact shouldn't be much more than a DD. At worst, maybe a cruiser. Here's a possible USN line: (planes in flight x number of flights) Tier 4 - USS Long Island 16 planes on deck, group of 4 F2A Buffalo's (2x2) and 4-6 SBC Helldivers (2x2 or 3x2). There are two ways to arm the F2A - my way (more historically accurate) with 2x 100 lb bombs dealing 1800-2100 damage or Wargaming's way with 4x 3.5" or 5" FFAR dealing roughly 600 or 8-900 damage respectively. The SBC's would have a single 500 lb bombs dealing 4200-4800 damage per plane. Tier 6 - Bogue 24-28 planes on deck. 1 group of 4 F4F-3/4 Wildcats (2x2) with 6x HVARS (1000 damage), 6 TBF Avengers (3x2 or 2x3) with 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (probably 1500 damage +/-), 4 F4F-3/4 or TBF Avenger (2x2) with 2x 250 lb bombs (2400-3000 damage) or 4x 500 lb bombs (4200-4800 damage) Speed buffed to 21 knots Tier 8 - Casablanca 31-35 aircraft on deck. 1 group FM-2 Wildcats or TBM-1c Avengers with 6x (FM) or 8x (TBM) HVAR's with 6 planes (3x2 or 2x3), 6x TBM-1c with either 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (3x2), 6x FM-2 or TBM-1c with 2x 250 lb bombs or 4x 500 lb bombs (3x2) Speed buffed to 25+ knots. Tier 10 - Commencement Bay 35+ aircraft on deck. 9x F4U-4B or TBM-3 with 8x HVAR (3x3), 6 or 9 TBM-3 with 4x depth charges or Mk 34 'mine' (2000+ damage) either 3x2 or 3x3, 4x F4U-4B (2x2) or 6x TBM-3 (3x2)with either 6-8x 250 lb bomb or 4x 500 lb bombs. Speed buffed to 25+ knots Before I start seeing 'that damage is way too low' there are a few things to remember. First of all is that these are meant to be sub hunters, while I have no idea the actual HP of subs as I wasn't chosen for testing, I'm guessing as much or less than same tier DD's. So a standard pen hit with a 3.5 inch FFAR that deals 600 max damage, is 200 per hit, and you fire 12 at tier 4. Odds are you won't hit all 12, but even half that is 1200 damage off a ship with ~10000 hp or less in one pass. These also shouldn't have the ridiculous nerf rockets were given a few patches ago instead of the alpha nerf they needed. More likely it'd be 5" FFAR's - closer to 300 damage per hit so 50% would be 1800 damage per pass. Bombs is a similar story - you have them in volume, a bit less so than rockets for the most part, not as accurate, but higher alpha. Depth charges again - I lack knowledge how they work as is - though they seem to need nerfs based on gameplay I watched, so no damage for them listed. And to explain for those unaware and do not instantly freak out when I say this - the Mk 24 and it's Mk 34 successor are the homing torpedoes that USN actually had operational during WWII and it's post war update respectively, and were meant mostly for ASW and surface ships really as a last resort/secondary target. Now as to why I say don't freak out because 'OMG CV WITH HOMING TORPS' - the fact they have some homing and historically had a hilariously small explosive charge for a torpedo is why the damage is that low as well as again, anti-sub weapon. However there are other drawbacks as well - generally the range should probably be fairly short for them, at best the torpedoes should be maybe a bit faster than a sub, meaning most surface ships should be able to out run them and for subs the option of out diving them at minimum (if not possibly in cases out running them, though most that'd likely be on the surface), and in general avoiding them (they aren't going to be super agile). That and DD's can easily out run them, and any cruiser or BB that can't likely has torpedo protection on top of HP to reduce damage and all. The worst would be any flooding it may cause. Also given the nature of aerial dropped depth charges usually meant for shallower attacks, depending on what they land near I see some use for them in attacking ships though likely not as great as against a submarine. I imagine against a DD they may do some actual damage where as a BB may just have steering/propulsion knocked out and maybe some flooding - unfortunately while there is talk of Taffy 3 attacking the center force with depth charges out of desperation, and ships having damaged themselves mistakenly with depth charges, can't seem to find much saying what kind of damage may have actually been done. The TBF/M's with depth charges and Mk 24/34's would have MAD systems - basically what they gave DD's in test 2 when they are surfaced or at shallower depths, but would only go off within about 4 km of the sub max. When using rockets/bombs need to spot it manually for the most part. I say the most part because I've given consideration to the tier 10 TBM's with rockets possibly having a unique consumable to make them a choice over the F4U - aside from being a sturdier plane - Sonobuoy's. I imagine them kinda like a place-able hydro that lasts for 30-60 seconds and shows subs and ships at x range, and subs that are not dove deep (second level below periscope depth). The question would be limited number or unlimited but longer CD. I also felt it better to give options so they aren't as boring to play as fleet CV's currently are and take advantage of the roles the planes can fill. Attack planes an option for more rockets and a sturdier plane at cost of speed and agility, or fewer rockets on a faster more agile plane with fewer hitpoints, or the same other than rockets but one has an edge hunting subs, the other an edge running down surface ships. The Depth charges were low hanging fruit for USN and while I don't think USN subs should have homing torps, save maybe at tier 10 or 9 depending on what a full tech tree would look like, I feel it'd be wrong to pass these up on ASW carriers. And it adds some utility for anti-ship options even if not super amazing. As far as bombers there are 2 distinct styles at play with these The TBF/M's would be glide bombers - between what UK currently is and standard USN, generally more covering an area with a heavier payload. The fighter-bomber option meanwhile is basically high speed DB's - with the F4U taking advantage of it's pretty insane carry capacity (though preferably only the 6x 250 lb bombs used as that still puts it lower payload than the the TMB) having a bit more area coverage than predecessors but still less powerful bombs than the TBM is carrying. Also of note - these would be far stealthier than the fleet CV's, what level of stealth I don't know exactly, but these would rely a bit more on that than straight up speed to run. Also, even though it's even's only - not having the same nonsense we have currently with CV's on how much xp these take to get to the next level. So going from 6-8 would take either the same as going from 6 to 7 OR 7 to 8, not the current one where it's the xp where it's the xp to get from 6 to 7 AND 7 to 8. This would hopefully help them fit the role of sub-hunting, making them unique from fleet carriers a bit, and give them tools effective against subs without being too insane, and still have some ability to attack ships on the surface and still do some damage other than DD's and if added DE's. And reigned in enough to not need mirrored MM. Destroyer Escorts. - Tier Class Armament Speed Notes 3 Evart 3x 76 mm/50 guns, 2 K guns, 2 DC rails, assorted AA 19 knots 4 Edsall* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots 5 Cannon* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots 6 Buckley* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots 7 Rudderow 2x1 127 mm/38 guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots Main battery and AA pretty much deciding factor 8 John C. Butler 2x1 127 mm/38, 8 k guns, 2 DC racks, hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 29 knots More AA than previous ships, rounded up the speed Samuel B Roberts achieved at Samar 9 Bristol (or Dealey) 4x1 127 mm/38 guns, 6 K guns, 2 DC racks, assorted AA, 1x5 TT 37.5 knots Sub hunting version of Gleaves class 10 Dealey (or Bristol) 2x2 76 mm Mk 33, 1x4 TT, 2 ASW torpedo launchers (seems like 1 per side, 3 torps per), 2x hedgehog or squid, 2 k guns 25 knots * The order is a bit messed up from reality, should go Buckley, Cannon, Edsall, but the HP they'd likely have, speed, AA and all kinda made it this makes more sense. With 9 and 10 I have what I'm calling the "Dealey Dilemma". I decided late in the game to pass on Claude Jones (ships after Dealey) when I stumbled across Bristol which some things refer to as a DE rather than DD, and either way the subclass was meant to be more ASW/AA. Obviously, being a Gleaves class, it's heavier, faster, has 4x 127 mm guns, a quintuple launcher, and well, small caliber AA on top of more K guns. So other than it wold mean inconsistent calibers jumping from 127 to 76 back to 127, something Wargaming seems to have an issue with these days, it seems like an obvious choice to be tier 10. But then there is the argument to be had over Dealey's tech. Dealey's 76 mm guns with a historical RoF is between 45-50 RPM - or a 1.2-1.3 second reload without BFT or AR - I'm not sure dakka can get any more maximumer. Which I think the insane rate of fire would likely make up for the lower alpha of a 76 mm instead of 127. Lacking a bit in k guns and DC but packing either 2 Hedgehog or squid systems likely makes up for that. Not to mention ASW torps that like the above CVE's may be slower and low damage, but still home in on a target. Though I'm thinking those are single launch with a bit of a delay (2, maybe 3 seconds). Some of these may need speed tweaks based on how fast subs can go, or general balance, but overall, speed doesn't seem like an issue. Staying historical 9 and 10 have 0 problems I think fighting other ships outside their class with their guns, and all but the lowest one has a torpedo tube that can be used to attack larger targets. The question mark is 3-8 vs other ships. The 3x 76 mm guns on the low tiers historically top out at 20 RPM or a 3 second reload, and the 2 with 2x 127 mm I believe are the type with hoists and so could achieve up to 22 RPM, or a 2.7 second reload. Both numbers are faster rates of fire than contemporaries (4 seconds and 3.3 respectively) in the USN line which has some of the highest fire rates, the question is is it enough? Though a slight fudging of RoF would not be the worst thing. The other thing would be HE pen. Even at 1/4 76 mm breaks out to 19 even, though the 127 mm guns would have 31 mm of pen. Generally maybe the line's pen should be set at 21 mm so it doesn't shatter on pretty much everything. Typical DD rtpe consumables and maybe slightly better stealth (most after all are a little smaller than DD's) - I do think it's possible to have a line with them that can actually function in the game, with a bit more purpose with subs added (which will likely happen before these). I imagine other possible tweaks for them to be slightly better sub-hunters, maybe faster depth charge reload, slightly longer range detection to track subs, whatever. Anyway, my hair brained idea using what I currently have on USN stuff for a CVE and DE line that would hopefully work well enough in game. While at the same time opening up some historical ships I think people would like to see (Samuel B Roberts, any of the 6 'jeep carriers' at the battle) as well as some maybe unique ones (USS Eldridge as a Halloween one based on the supposed 'Philadelphia Experiment' - perhaps in place of smoke it temporarily turns invisible, but can't fire any guns or torpedoes). It's all still in a more rough draft form, probably needs more work, but figure I'd toss it out there. This has been another wall by WanderingGhost to be ignored.
  8. So get this out of the way - these are second hand, their based off watching video's and observing gameplay there as I didn't get in to testing. A point or two I have however I don't think really require having to play them. It's also my opinion - people agree, great, people don't - oh well. Also - a lot of text is inevitable, you have been warned. Tech Trees - Starting off with something I don't think requires me to play them - the tech trees. Short version - I hate them. To clarify - I like the choices, at least most of them, but evens only from tier 6 with the type VII at tier 6 - just no. I don't think it should be seeing some of the ships it does, or at least less of them. And as I've said in the past months, the exclusion of First World War subs is just wrong. And if Germany and America only had these handful of classes - okay fine, but just like the CV's - they don't. For the 2 established lines we start with I have 2 line setups - one goes 5-10 with just adding a couple and some moving, the other which can be tweaked is 4-10 with tier 10 shifting away from really mid-later 40's to something more akin to the start of 'modern' submarines right before the Nuclear Era - though this can be tweaked to run the same with 5-10. Tier German Tech Tree German Premium Tier USN Tech Tree USN Premium 5 U-19 type 4 Tubes (2 bow/aft), 1x -> 2x 8.8 cm gun 5 S-Class 5 Tubes (4 bow, 1 aft), 102 mm gun 6 UB-III type (UB-48) 5 Tubes (4 bow, 1 aft), 1x 8.8 cm gun -> 2x 10.5 cm (Halloween) UB-65* 5 Tubes (4/1), 1x 8.8 cm gun 6 V-Class (Cachalot) 6 Tubes (4 bow, 2 aft), 76 mm gun, 3x. 50 MG's V-Class (Nautilus) 6 Tubes (4 bow, 2 aft), 2x 152 mm guns, AA guns 7 Type VIIC (U-69) 5 Tubes (4 bow, 1 aft), 1x 8.8 cm gun, AA guns Type IA 6 Tubes (4 bow, 2 aft), 1x 10.5 cm, 1x 2 cm AA gun 7 Salmon Class 8 Tubes (4 bow/aft), 76 mm gun -> 102 or 127 mm gun, AA guns 8 Type IXC/40 (U-190) 6 Tubes (4 bow, 2 aft), 1x 10.5 cm gun, AA guns 8 Tambor Class 10 Tubes (6 bow, 4 aft), 1x 127 mm gun, AA guns 9 Type XVIII (U-796)** 6 Tubes (bow), 2x2 30/73 AA guns Type XXVI (U-4501)** 10 Tubes (4 bow, 6 amidships aft) 9 Gato Class (or Balao)*** 10 Tubes (6 bow, 4 aft), 1x 102 or 127 mm -> 2x 127 mm, AA guns USS Chopper [Balao] or Barb [Gato]*** 10 Tubes (6 bow, 4 aft), 1-2x 127 mm guns, AA guns, 5 inch rocket launcher 10 Type XXI (U-2501) 6 Tubes (bow), 2x2 2 cm AA 10 Tench Class 10 Tubes (6 bow, 4 aft), 2x 127 mm guns, AA guns * UB-65: The submarine was supposedly haunted, and was generally plagued during construction and seemed almost cursed. Could make for a interesting choice for a Halloween premium. **Type XVIII and XXVI - Both of these use the same propulsion and are both high speed, admittedly higher than the XXI, but the hull design of XVIII was used for XXI and was a stepping stone between traditional ships like the Type IX and XXI. XXVI being equally, if not more, paper and of the same family at that point I feel is better at T9. While her armament seems impressive at 10 tubes, matching most anything American, the lay out is to say, unique - everything I find indicate they are angled out toward aft and would have to work similar to ships with tubes on the sides and limited movement. *** Gato/Balao and Chopper/Barb - This is one of those 'preference' things with me. Gato and Balao seem to get lumped together, if I have to choose one to add to the tech tree - I choose Gato since Balao is basically just a tweaked version then. Like how if I had my way, Gnei and Scharn would swap places but keep their armaments. That said while I find info saying Chopper at one point had rockets - Barb, which is a Gato, is confirmed 100% to have had and used them. In this case - the tech tree would determine the premium. The USN line is a tad weird to me, mostly because I kept Cachalot (if it didn't have the design influence on the following ships - I'd remove it) but I wasn't about to move them to tier 7. If we were to shift things to add the later more 'modern' type subs - The USN line would all shift down a tier with the tier 10 being Tang or Barracuda class, Germany would do the same (with a what if ship), though if we opt to keep T5 as the starting point, which is more than fair, but with the Tang/Barracuda and Sub X I'd say omit type XVIII and move Tambor to a second line, With the first line being S, V, Salmon, Gato, Tench, Tang and the other after S and V being Sargo, Tambo, Balao, Barracuda. I feel this is a bit better, adding some earlier subs and inter-war development and goes through progression of design and all a bit better. U-19 type (specifically U-21) scored the first ship kill with a self propelled torpedo, UB-III type had a fair influence on the type VII design, Type XVIII wasn't added till I started typing this - my intent had been to put the Type VII at tier 8 and the type IA at tier 7 - but figured the random increase then decrease of tubes may be an issue for Wargaming, players, or both because consistency. But hey, if Wargaming and players are good with it pass on Type XVIII, put VII at tier 8, IX at tier 9 and IA at tier 7. On the American side - well admittedly there seem to be issues in WWI subs, but it didn't seem right to omit Tambor (the first actual successful Fleet Submarines of the USN) and the Tench really being the peak of the design during the war before the post war Type XXI types. Though that said some of my other suggestions tie in to subs chosen as well (especially the post war subs) Torpedoes - This is the section where I expect most of the community will want to tar and feather me. The ping system - Here's my thing with this: if we want to add those more 1950's pre-nuclear subs that were based a lot of the Type XXI and operate more underwater than above and have this be a thing at tier 10 - okay, fine, I say lets do it and have it apply against subs as well. Otherwise - just remove it. It's not how torpedoes worked back then, even homing ones, and no it is not a 'skill check' as I've seen some WG staff refer to it as. Predicting where my target is going to be in 40-90 seconds should be more than enough. And the way it all works is kinda dumb in my opinion. Homing torpedoes in general - So this is where I know a lot of players will lay on the hate, least the ones that aren't Anti-Sub. I think that homing torpedoes should be left to tier 8 and higher German submarines. They should also have a lower damage than a normal, unguided torpedo. That said - the homing torpedoes like their real life counterpart should be more 'fire and forget' like the real ones, that if they are withing 400 meters or less of an enemy ship will start to track. Pro - if your aim was off a little bit, you may still get a hit, Con - may not hit the ship you want, as it aims for the stern may hit protection instead of an unprotected spot. Though things the Anti-Sub players may hate - they would no longer directly give your position away, and they would simply be an ammo choice like HE or AP - do you opt for lower damage with higher accuracy or the ones that'll really hurt a ship. Or - given how they track similar to the one type in Halloween last year - use the one type to try and disable the ship and the other to actually sink it. And for those that I know likely want a Type VII with G7es TIV/V homing torps - there are literally hundreds of them, some made later, that we could bump up a tier and give them the homing options. USN and pre-Tier 8 Germany: So with above where does that leave the previous German ships and USN line. Well, tier 5 I think should just be getting used to subs, and learning how to use their normal torps. If we for some insane reason do put subs at tier 4 - absolutely just point and shoot and need to have aimed right. Tier 6 and 7 for Germany and 6+ for USN - both sides used pattern running torpedoes, they can make for an excellent option. Albeit, we are talking about a torpedo that will run and either go back and forth like it's up a latter or ends running in a circle so... the question is trusting players to use it and NOT team kill by mistake. Alternatively - Germany gets a couple tiers of pattern run (as a precursor to homing) and USN's alternate is the deeper torpedo that citadels Cruisers and/or Battleships/CV's - though possibly limited only to the bow tubes for balance sake. Germany being a bit more accurate, USN going a bit more in terms of bigger boom and well spray and pray. I think players would also be a little less annoyed if the torpedo citadel they just ate was because someone actually aimed a torpedo and hit them there themselves, not pinged so it can guide there. I'm sure someone will bring it up so I'll explain it now - I am more than aware of the USN's Mk 27 torpedo. Some things get changed for the game anyway - but the 'best' version of the Mk 27 - the mod 4, tops out at 15.9 knots with 128 pounds of TPX - The Mk 14 mod 3, the standard submarine torpedo - did 30 knots with 668 pounds of TPX. Also keep in mind the Mod 4 is post war - the 1100 made during the war had a speed of 12 knots and 95 lbs of TPX. Where as on the German side The difference between a homing electric G7 and a standard electric G7 is 20 (T4)-25(T5/11) knots and a 440 lb charge vs 30 knots with a 617+ lb charge. That is why at this point I'm omitting the Mk 27 from the USN subs. I'm also aware of the Mk 28 that basically entered service in 1945 and is based on captured G7e torpedoes - But with less range and depending on model of G7 speed as well. If we did actually give USN 2 lines of subs, they can field an extra technically, then sure, give one homing torps as a sub/DD hunter-killer. But generally speaking - I feel homing torps on USN is something that should generally be reserved to some premium/freemeium ships. Surface combat and Weapons in general - Submarines should be able to at minimum use their bow tubes on the surface, ideally - both bow and aft. They commonly did in reality and should be the same here. Underwater firing - once again - things that happened that should happen in game with sub vs sub. That said - homing torpedoes would not be able to be used (obvious balance reasons), I'll even say make it standard torpedoes only period. And you have no aim marker whatsoever, you want to shoot at a sub under water, you basically need to make a blind shot like you would in the real thing. Deck guns - should be operational. Are they going to be super effective - no, but they are only ineffective if you make them so. 3-5 inch guns as it is have decent RoF in game, Germany in particular used incendiary shells, you may not do a ton but if your stuck on the surface - with increased pen, already high rate of fire and fire chance the guns may at least do SOMETHING. That and, unless your in something like XXI or Tang - your not spending 10 minutes watching 2 subs circle trying to get a torpedo shot because the damn deck guns don't work. AA - once again, I don't care that normally, it's near useless - I'll even say I don't care if we use the deck guns to fire flak at this point but as soon as we balance AA DPS on ships and plane HP - these too should have decent enough DPS to not be completely defenseless. CV's would still be a major threat if caught alone, but they may at least do some damage if they have any AA. Torpedo Tubes and Reload - As is it should be 1/2 selects what torpedo type goes in the forward tubes, and 3/4 the rear tubes. And it's all the tubes not half, or 1/3 or any of the other weird things I've seen when I played Halloween subs and seen in testing. However - they should operate the same as Halloween subs did in that you can fire them one by one, and fire them as they reload (IE, you fire a 6 torp spread and 40 seconds later you see a DD charging you and 1-2 torpedoes of the 6 have reloaded and you fire them before diving deep away from it). If Wargaming wants to make them like DD torps, namely UK, where you can choose between single and group fire - that's fine as well. That's one element I think Halloween subs did way better it just needed the all forward or rear tubes bit. Submarines and how they play generally - Once again places I have the unpopular opinion. I feel like they should have the same general evolution that they actually had in reality - with the tier 5's being a bit more like DD's that just use diving instead, but as you go through tiers they can operate longer and longer underwater, till you get to the more works underwater than on it types. Which also in that realm - especially the lower tier ones that spend a bit more time on the surface the surface aiming point should be more accurate than underwater. But again, my opinion. ASW - This still needs some work. The 'hydrophone' DD's have, like I've said before, should be like the one subs's have, but only work if the sub is not on the surface or periscope depth, not a sub only RPF. If the AA interferes with it being on the compass, maybe make a new element that just has that. Maybe next to the mini map. There should be a way to evade the passive hydro - namely 'running silent'. Much like when a DD uses smoke on the surface at 1/4 speed the hydrophone stops updating location. If a player knows the ring ranges, they may be able to guess and still drop on you, but there is a chance you can get out of range undetected. That said - Oxygen will be a factor as you travel at a slow speed so it likely won't be an absolute get out of jail free card that can be abused. Depth Charges - They still seem a bit too powerful. I get you may need to take out a sub underwater, but seems a bit much. I mean surviving several hundred depth charges for gameplay reasons is a bit too much but so generally does the ease a DD has of destroying with them based on what I saw. ASW carriers - This is going to be a short version because I'm still on design and concept, still need to figure things out and test it but the basics of what I have. Essentially this will be a separate evens only branch of CV's from the normal ones. In the case of USN - Tier 4 Long Island/Charger, Tier 6 Bogue, Tier 8 Casablanca, and tier 10 Commencement Bay - though they will likely need some buffs to speed. If it isn't already applied to fleet carriers, these won't have 3d spotting - only so where something is on the mini-map. The groups will be a bit smaller and the weapons better geared towards attacking a submarine and to a lesser extent DD's (weapons good vs subs kinda overlap with DD's) but generally far less effective vs most cruisers and BB's - they can still do something, they just take far longer to wear one down. Generally the idea is to lower the impact of these enough to NOT require mirrored MM similar to the other classes. Arguably as much or less than a DD. Planes with the more generic ordnance (rockets/bombs) would be normal, where as ones with more specialized weapons like depth charges the planes would have a shorter range detector (If DD's are say 5 km, the planes would be 2.5-3 km) to try and find them and attack if not on the surface. What I have so far, little as it is - USN Standard weapon - 3.5 or 5" rockets (multiple aircraft) Standard weapon - 500 lb or less bombs Specialized - Depth charges (confirmed for TBF/M), generally 4 per plane. Usefulness vs ships likely limited to certain incapacitations (Rudder, propulsion most likely) and perhaps flooding. Ship damage is debatable, possibly based around type (depth charges from planes are also smaller than the ones from a DD) Specialized - Mk 24 'mine'. In actuality the Mk 24 aerial dropped homing torpedo that was the basis for the Mk 27. While not great for use in game for anti-shipping, or really even reality, but is suitable for anti-sub work. It could still be used on say a CL/A/BB/CV but odds are other than maybe a very light CL like say Atlanta (that's basically a DD with a citadel) isn't going to do a ton of damage. That said standard torpedo damage for USN planes is around 5k I think, this would likely be around 1k. Basic defense for subs would be to run and dive - the torpedo should not be too much faster than them, and not work below say the first level after periscope (or the equivalent that existed in Halloween last year) depending on given agility maneuvers could likely shake them too, and don't expect these to have a very long run time. UK Generally seems to be rockets, depth charges and bombs. Adding a bit of flavour seems like either A: options in rockets (HE, had a dedicated ASW AP rocket), B: AP rocket standard but if hits the water curves up so a near miss may be a hit that could cause flooding to a sub, C: the fact that they generally would have 250 lb DC on planes so something like the Swordfish and others can carry 6 or more of those (depending on plane) as opposed to USN's 4x 350lbs, or maybe an option for fewer 450 lb DC, or D: some combination of A and C. IJN Other than strafing a submarine (which if they finally added strafing I'm sure everyone would go 'I want it too') all they had historically was bombs. Me personally I'm fine with this but Wargaming and possibly the player base wouldn't be. Beyond that it's Type 5 Number 1 Mark 9 mod 1 ASW rockets (experimental), an aircraft use version of the type 4 Depth Charge (contact detonation or self destruct at 200 meters -experimental only), or an undesignated type of DC that was an 'Acoustic Depth Charge' in which only the drawing and idea are confirmed to exist but no prototype. Unless we give them some kind of nerfed DWT that might hit a sub a bit deeper - not sure what to do there, if anything. Japan was way behind in the ASW department. Anyway - that's my current thoughts, hopefully if there is a round 3 I can get in to that one - rather have full hands on experience rather than just footage. I don't think we need to super gimmick subs with this ping system unless we want to get in to more the 50's when you have more development of active acoustic guidance, tech tree that has some of the other subs would be nice and well, subs should function on the surface too.
  9. Florendo19

    How might ASW work

    So I was wondering how ASW would be added to existing ships. It has been noted many times on this forum that many ship models include depth charges. There are however several other forms of ASW weapons that could be available to the time period of WOWS. DD: The most notable weapons for DDs would be hedgehog or squid like forward launchers on allied ships. I would propose that some DDs be given the choice to choose a ASW role by selecting a different hull that sacrifices a gun turret for a launcher and gets a sonar consumable (because I assume this will be a consumable) CV: Those odd tier CVs can make a comeback with FIDO air droped homing torpedoes and Sonobuoys as additions to their ASW capabilities BB: Ramming seems like the best option here but BBs with aircraft handling capabilities may be able to trade a spotter or fighter for ASW planes. Of course, while using this ASW aircraft, the ship would act like a CV hull on auto pilot and the plane would be controlled like CV planes. CA/CL: Some have depth charges but ramming could also be an option. Again Cruisers with aircraft handling capabilities could have ASW aircraft like BBs. IJN Tone class CAs could be an interesting development here DE: While Destroyer Escorts are not currently part of the game, they were generally the most specialized ASW ships. While they would have the weakest anti ship armament, they would have powerful ASW capabilities and probably slightly lower than DD concealment. Convoy Modes: WG has previously mentioned that they are testing two Convoy modes on the Dev blog on August 1, 2019. I think these modes would be made especially for Subs and ASW. Here is the post from the Dev blog ST, game modes. There will be a closed test of two new game modes. They both are based on the idea of escorting of the allied convoy of bot ships. Please note that these are conceptions of the game modes and their rules may change significantly. In the 'Convoys A' mode both teams have the same objective - be the first to escort the indestructible bot ship from the team spawn to the destination point on the fixed route. The ship moves by itself, but if the allies are nearby, they will slowly regenerate HP and the bot will move faster. Any player's ship, except aircraft carriers, can, after being destroyed, respawn near the convoy route a maximum of twice per battle. The routes are symmetrical and there are parts when teams have to come close to each other. Teams are composed of 6, 7 or 12 players. There are two rounds in the 'Convoys B' mode. In the first round, one of the teams (defenders) escorts the convoy of three armed ships along the fixed route. The task of the attacking team is to destroy these ships in a limited time. Teams change their objectives in the second round. The team that escorts their ship further than the opposition wins the battle. The player's ship respawns after being destroyed. The attackers respawn faster and may choose one of the spawn points, and defenders get back into battle near the convoy. If there are ships of the defending team near the convoy ships, then both they and the convoy regenerate their HP. Both teams consist of 7 players. Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.
  10. With the possibility of submarines being added to regular game play at sometime in the future, would it be in the player's interest for WG to add a DE (Destroyer Escort) class of ship optimized specifically for ASW? Many of these ships were constructed between 1942 and 1944 and were used for ASW as well as AA and Radar pickets. They could be added for Tier7 and above using the Buckley and Cannon classes for the USN, The River class Frigates for RN and Commonwealth, the Flottenbegleiter or F-class for the Kriegsmarine and the Kaibokan class for the IJN. I've even thought about a Premium DE ship that I think would be excellent candidate. The USS England DE-635 was a WWII destroyer escort that is steeped in naval history. It was named for Ensign John C. England who was killed while rescuing fellow crewman from the USS Oklahoma during the attack at Pearl Harbor. The ship also has the distinction of being the only USN ship that sunk six Japanese subs during a 12 day period, which won her a Presidential Unit Citation. Anyway, those are my rough thoughts about ASW ships countering subs. I'd like to know what the rest of you think?
×