Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'sub theory'.
Found 1 result
I keep reading a lot of common place commentaries like: "Submarines don't fit/belong in the Game", "Submarines ruin the Game", "Submarines make the Game worse/less enjoyable", etc. I feel compelled to start a serious theoretical discussion on what I feel is mostly a perception issue, blowing out of proportion the impact Submarines can have in matches and the Game as a whole. I want to keep this discussion at the theory/concept level, the mechanical details are still "Work in Progress" and some changes are to be expected. It is clear Submarine mechanics still need more tweaking and balancing, discussing those changes is not the objective of this thread but to debate how positive or not are the conceptual changes to the Game associated with Submarines. I'll start by making a base statement, feel free to argument this first point. It is my opinion that Submarines contribution to the game can be summarized in these two concepts: Submarines enforce a "Exclusion Zone". This means Submarines have the ability to lock a section of the Map to extended Surface operations. In other words, any Surface ship within that area risks being spotted, pinged and torped to oblivion. Submarines introduce the concept of "Partisan Warfare" to WoWS. This means Submarines have the ability to infiltrate and operate behind enemy lines for extended periods of time. Let's start by the easiest one and discuss "Partisan Warfare" and why I think it is an evidently good addition to the game. The first reason for me liking this concept is it gives the Game more tactical depth, it introduces another variable and makes the game more complex and interesting, while I know many of you consider Submarines very "arcade-y" (and mechanically they are) at the tactical level they are very interesting tools that open new gameplay options, both in the offense and defense. As offensive tools, a Submarine can infiltrate the enemy lines, helping to break stalemates by threatening the enemy from an unexpected direction and providing direct spotting on the enemy back field. Why is this not broken? because it is a very risky play for the Submarine, it would be isolated, within Airstrike range of most of the enemy fleet and open to be charged and dumped by a DD, it is a high risk/high reward situation, the kind that make us players giggle in excitement when well pull it... it is entertaining. As defensive tools, a Submarine acts as a "Partisan" left behind the enemy lines. It presents a tactical choice for the attacker whether it needs to choose between pressing the attack leaving a potential threat at his back, or wasting time in order to secure his position. A "Partisan" works as a speed bump preventing flanks from folding quickly hence helping to prevent steam rolls, I consider that a positive. I want to note that the "Partisan" concept isn't really novel, it is the same consideration already employed by ships kiting towards the map edge... Subs just take the concept to the extreme. Now into the more thorny issue of "Exclusion Zones". Again my first reason is: It makes for a more complex tactical situation, the tactical solution to the problem becomes more complicated and interesting, it requires more brain than brawn. It is also not a really novel concept, an HE spamming cruiser/DD behind island/smoke can create a similar exclusion zone. Why is this not broken? because it can be counterplayed with relative ease in multiple ways... Submarines are fragile and very dependent on not being spotted, they can't endure attrition for long periods and it is possible to completely neutralize them with something as simple as dropping a Fighter consumable on top of them. An unsupported Submarine becomes very vulnerable to being rushed and there's the fact that your own Submarine player can be a very effective counter to the enemy's. In short, "Exclusion Zones" can be very effective deterrents but are also relatively easy to counter, they become situational depending on the degree of support provided by the teams. As a closing comment, I want to remark how Submarines juggle with the apparent contradiction of being both very effective independent operators and very team dependent units, able to multiply the effectiveness of their team mates actions. That by itself I consider a net positive addition to the game. Now, feel free to refute and contradict my statements and make your case on why Subs "don't belong" or "are broken" as a concept. I'll gladly exchange ideas with you and possibly we'll end up wiser than when we started.