Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'submarines'.



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
    • 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
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

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 82 results

  1. All I know about WWII subs is from the books I have read and movies I have watched. But one thing that subs can do, is hear ships' propellers if they are nearby... please fix it so that even though a teammate on the surface can't spot a red ship, so as a sub driver I can see it on the map if I am in 'hearing range' of a ship....especially before I come up to periscope depth between 3 of them! All within 1 km or 2! BTW the underwater soundtrack plays sounds like whales frolicking, but I cant hear a BB next to me. thanks rentsch
  2. To preface: - Subs are here to stay. Regardless of my opinion, that's a fact and this post is trying to be constructive. - Creative liberties are taken to make submarine gameplay fun so players keep playing them. Understandable, we were never gonna get silent hunter redux. - Subs are still being tweaked and this is not their final iteration - the live server is PTS 2.0. With how long CV rework took to reach a relatively stable iteration, we can expect sub tweaking into next year. With that said, I don't understand how we arrived at the sonar wave mechanic (or whatever its actual name is) wherein a visual indicator is displayed when a submarine pings. This feature has little value to surface ships other than the direction the submarine is in. What bothers me the most is that this wave can be wildly off target - several km off in any direction (clarified to be a 1km radius). Trying to use it as a means to hone in depth charges or plane strikes is somewhat laughable and, more often than not, wastes a charge. Before the sonar wave, surface ships were able to see the sonar ping approaching their ship within a set distance. I would argue this was more informative as players could get the exact angle the ping originated from and even guestimate the distance between the surface ship and the sub based on the time delay between pings. We could even assume the heading of the submarine based on the change in the ping's angle relative to the ship. Hell, if the sub was within this ping visualization range, a surface ship could deduce that when the ping came from within the 6 or 8 km range (I don't remember what it was originally). I know the intended reason for the sonar effect not being directly on target is to give submarines room to avoid any reactionary ASW (according to dev blog 322), but with inability to tell the submarine's heading and the wave being somewhat randomized to a general radius around the submarine makes any counter more of a hail marry - even with the range reduction back in late April. This frustration is compounded by recent buffs to submarines: the HP buff makes submarines as bulky as destroyers and the removal of the increased capacity drain when spotted + capacity recharge in captain skills makes submarines a nightmare to play against. To my knowledge, even with its recent buff, ASW still isn't at the potency it was before its major nerf that reduced splash and dmg. With all this said, I don't believe submarines need another crutch to avoid damage. If that's the case: I'm under the assumption we won't revert to the previous real-time ping that preceded what we have now; so I would propose that the radius of how far the wave effect spawns from the submarine be further reduced to a degree where a depth charge launched directly on the location would, guaranteed, put the submarine within the further end of depth charge's area of effect - increasing the chance to reliable hit the submarine if no action is taken. I think asking for the effect to spawn directly on top of the submarine would be met with an outright no so I won't even bother. While we're at it, how about a system where the submarine's detect range increased in increments the more frequent he pings - allowing him to be picked up by hydro or spotted at the surface at longer ranges. For example, now pings increased detect range by 1km so 4 successive pings would mean a base detect increase of 4km. This would be the submarine's equivalent to the detection bloom of surface ships when they fire. This increase dissipates entirely after a set amount of time - whether it be the same 20 sec window as seen on surface ships or longer/shorter depends on balance. I mean, it would, in an arcade way, adapt the historical risk of running loud for a submarine This idea could completely replace what we have now or be additive. At this point, I just want subs to be consistent to play and consistent to play against.
  3. Hello folks, Having played as and against subs, and being a submarine fanatic, I have seen that the submarines are currently implemented poorly. The matches I play as subs are either 150k+ dmg matches where you butcher a helpless enemy team, or frustrating 0 dmg insta-deaths where you get annihilated by swarms of depth charge bombers. The current implementation has serious problems, and much of the community would rather bandwagon on the hate-train against subs opposed to actually offering solutions that satisfy everyone. I intend here to provide a conclusive solution that will satisfy all players, submarine enjoyer and otherwise. The solution to submarines is as follows: 1: Remove homing torpedoes and depth charge planes. Reasoning: Homing torpedoes drag the skill floor of submarines way too low, and allow subs to strike targets they definitely shouldn't be. For example, these homing torpedoes can counter DDs/cruisers sitting in smoke, submarines even partially countering DDs is extremely silly. As for depth charge planes; this means that BBs become the primary counters to submarines, I can definitely testify to this from personal experience. The design of submarines should be focused on how they fit into the game as a whole, BBs countering subs better than DDs is insane. DDs should be the primary counter to submarines, more on this later. All classes of ship should have access to simple depth charges, with DDs possessing the best (greatest quantity of depth charges released). 2: Refocus the purpose of submarines to be anti-CV. Reasoning: CVs are known for playing an extremely safe, passive playstyle with respect to their ships positioning and movement. They currently have no counter, submarines can fill this void. Giving submarines increased damage, even a chance to land citadel torpedoes against CVs ONLY. This increased damage potential will motivate many submarines to seek out CVs. People will often go where their most reliable way to get damage and citadel ribbons is, this is how you can motivate anti-CV play. 3: Allow nuance in play for submarines by changing how sonar works. The submarine should draw inspiration from the Spy from Team Fortress 2, a backline assassin with a few distinct methods of play, either super stealthy but only able to harass a few (albeit more reliable) backline targets, or super high risk high reward (less stealthy). Here is what I mean, the sonar ping and hydrophone consumable should both be removed in favor of a toggleable sonar. When the sonar is turned off, you are blind, but are far harder to detect, only able to see other submarines at extremely close range (where you can hear their propellers). This allows for a low-risk way for the sub player to sneak past the frontline and sneak to the backline where its intended targets are, CVs and sniper BBs. The alternative would be to turn on the sonar which would reveal the submarine to other submarines underwater from a significant distance (5-10 km depending on concealment). This offers a higher risk, high reward style of play, with the sonar having a long range detection of underwater ships, while a shorter range (~75% of underwater) detection of surface ships. The hydroacoustic search consumable should only find submarines who either have their sonars on, or are extremely close (where the propellers can be heard by the hydroacoustic instruments). 4: Change how submarine spotting works. When a submarine spots another submarine currently, if both of the subs are near the frontline, they both get descended upon by tons of depth charge bombers and often both die before they can even kill one another. After my suggested changes, the subs will now be able to duel properly if they so choose to by turning on their sonars. However a submarine being a hard to spot machine itself, it being able to spot everything better than a DD makes no sense. So rather instead of a sub being able to spot enemy ships with its sonar, it instead only spots the ships for itself (and possibly for friendly submarines). If the sub is at periscope depth or the surface, the spotting functions as normal, but comes with the downside that it is detectable by nearby surface ships. 5: Revert the dive timer back to the battery. This is a no-brainer, simply make the sonar consume battery when it is on. This would make submarine duels extremely interesting games of battery management, juking/3D positioning, and leading torpedo shots. I suggest allowing submarine torpedoes to arm much sooner, allowing for closer knife-fights underwater. 6: Make the different depths matter, and partially revert the diving ability. The 60m depth should make the submarine extremely hard to spot, and reduce/eliminate the damage from depth charges. The downside of this would be purely the agility of the torpedoes themselves. Torpedoes can only rise so quickly, so this would significantly limit the subs ability to deal with close range targets, and without guided torpedoes the long range targets are much harder to hit. This balances itself out. The periscope depth should, like a few submarine updates prior, allow for the recharge of the battery. As for the diving ability, to prevent abuse it is good to leave the surface and the periscope depths as preset depths where you cant feather in between periscope depth and just below it, however below a certain depth the diving/ascent shouldn't be constrained by preset depths, only having a maximum depth which can vary by the submarine (this wont be too much of a problem in submarine duels if my point #8 is added). 7: Reassert the DDs place as the submarine counter. DDs (and light cruisers to a lesser extent) should possess innate vertical sonar, giving a cylinder of detection directly below itself, perhaps about 200m in radius. This, coupled with my change to spotting, means that if your friendly submarine spots an enemy sub, your DDs will know the general area to start searching and should be able to find the sub quickly. This combined with being able to release a long chain of depth charges should scare many subs away from trying to meddle with the frontline, as usual they must take a high risk for the potential of a high reward. 8: (New mechanic) Allow for torpedoes to be aimed both horizontally AND vertically. This would simply add another axis to being able to launch torpedoes, this is so sub vs sub fights can allow for leading shots in all 3 axes of movement, since subs can juke by changing their depth. As stated previously torpedoes are only able to ascend/descend so fast, limiting the ability for subs to strike at surface ships from too deep down. I am convinced that submarines can be a fun addition to the game, where they also improve the health of the game by discouraging unfun playstyles. Should my changes be implemented, CVs will no longer be able to feel "safe" every single match, and be able to just sit in the back and send their planes out. This will force team coordination on the part of the CV (definitely a good thing), as should the CV wander too far away from friendly ships, they will easily fall prey to a sub. As a person who also enjoys CVs, I hate seeing CVs that just sit back and play it super safe all game. CVs should move up and act more as a part of a battlegroup. This to me is the most enjoyable way to play as and against CVs, as it gives a chance for more daring players to attempt to pierce the battlegroup and strike the CV. I believe that subs can definitely function as a counter to the CV/sniper-heavy meta we've been seeing for a while. Subs will make the backline an extremely dangerous place to be, and encourage more active play on all parts. Thanks for reading my ten thousand leagues of text.
  4. magnus392

    Submarines Survey

    Starting a little poll, I don't know if it will stay up but hey, here's to trying. I get that they are here to stay, but playing against them is about as fun as having a frontal lobotomy. The "GIT GUD!" elitist can go away. WG likes to talk about their numbers and spreadsheets etc, well lets show them how we feel. Furthermore since I know the dumpsterfire known as Subs are here to stay, I strongly advocate for them to get their own game mode/scenarios. Their ability to "shotgun" inside of your ASB range and their spotting range is disgusting. Their ability to open water hunt you with near impunity is infuriating, and bluntly, they are not generally fun to play against. The proposed changes are not enough as shown by some pretty embarrassing YouTube footage, coupled with the extremely exploitable immunity zones that Subs can exploit is very disturbing. Yes, I use some inflammatory phraseology, but seriously... WarGaming has made all of these grand proclamations of being more transparent, vowing to listen to it's player base and YES they have made some strides in transparency. What I have seen and perceived ZERO movement on is listening to their player base. Locked threads about AA, the CC Disaster, the NDA's on test ships and closed testing of ships in development come to mind. Now we have T11 (Superships), still broken AA with no real CV counterplay and now Subs with the near exact problem of laughable counterplay, removal of achievement rewards, economy rework, commander reeeeee-work, and perceived tone deafness. That is before we talk about Super CVs!?!?! I don't intend for this to digress into a slogfest and am genuinely interested in legitimate feedback from the player base.
  5. Obviously there’s lots of complaining about CV’s and now submarines. How there’s really no way to defend against them. And yes this is something of a response to LWM's posts on this sub forum. First, we have to accept that anyone who advocates changing CVs and AA to make it feel less like inevitable doom is advocating making CVs weaker. You’re talking about undermining a business model that involves adding new ships to the game. So 99.9% of calls for changes are nonstarters. Any call for gameplay where surface ships can defend as effectively against air strikes as used to be the case when carrier play was more RTS, with limited and vulnerable air groups, will lower the number of carrier players. This is a nonstarter. Insofar as carrier or sub play is ‘boring’ compared to surface ships, it can only be compensated by having these vessels be more powerful. In other words, the defenselessness of surface ships is inevitable if subs and cvs aren’t seen as intrinsically interesting by themselves. But I’m not here to complain about the game or the business model. I’m going to propose a solution that won’t gradually attrit players from the game whilst also allowing WG to keep CVs, subs, and possibly new gimmicks to the game and players having good reasons to use them other than mercilessly bulling those who don’t: My proposal is to make *all* Carrier strike groups and Submarines operate as consumables for surface ships, but unlike regular consumables, these consumables have their own tiers & tech trees with credit and experience requirements to unlock as if they you were going down a tech tree. Carriers and Subs cease to exist as a separate class of warship. In such a system It's possible that some surface ships might go without either sub or air strikes, maybe in exchange for more powerful surface consumables. But I envision in the long run a majority of players in matches will be using 1 or several different type of aircraft. I also envision a degree of variety in consumable selection both between and within ships to allow for customization and differential but overlapping point of focus. This already exists to some extent for the air dropped depth charges and the Dutch cruisers. But I would put back in the ability to manually aim the squads. I’m going to first list the pros (and cons) then describe how I imagine each ‘class’ of consumable working and also how surface ships might counter say consumables. Pros: Because carriers and subs are no longer a dedicated class, there’s no business need to ‘balance’ the whole consumable against surface ships, let alone make the consumables stronger than the ships themselves. You only need to: 1. Make the consumable strong enough to be useful in certain situations 2. Make the consumables balanced against each other. This means that *actually* strong AA ships are no longer an issue. From WG’s perspective this solves the problem of getting people to play carriers and subs, everyone will essentially be playing these to some degree (most likely) much more than they are currently. Sub and Carrier consumables can theoretically be used after the main surface ship has been destroyed, giving players another way to continue participating after the match has ended. Surface ships that are currently lackluster can be buffed with better sub/strike consumables, again, in a way that doesn’t compromise WG’s business model. Corollary to the above; If you’re a low tier in a high tier game, it’s possible to have the imbalance compensated with by the consumables scaling to the tier of the match rather than the tier of the ship. This gives WG a way to incorporate naval aviation for countries that did not have any carriers, since the ’carrier’ aspect is less relevant. (I’ll describe how WG can still use carriers as gameplay elements) Cons: Players who don’t like aircraft or subs in general may dislike feeling obliged to use them to be competitive. One solution is to think about how to balance the existing consumables to allow for a ‘pure surface ship’ that is stronger. (like shorter CD consumables or more charges in exchange for no air wings and such) Potential for excessive micromanagement and multitasking, especially at the very competitive level. Catapult aircraft will need to be rebalanced around this, since my suggested system makes it possible for a surface ship to defend itself with fighters that are pulled from outside the map. Aircraft spotting will likely need to be removed or changed so that destroyer-as-scout is not 100% undermined. Insofar as manual dropping is concerned this system may inadvertently favor battleships and slow ROF ships in general that can multitask by microing their consumables in between salvos. This may lead to a need to return of ‘premium consumables’ Matchmaker will need to account for difference in potential punching power between two ships of the same tier one of which has not upgraded their consumables yet. In my mind only the micromanagement requirement is an unavoidable con to my proposal. How would it work? In theory it could work a number of ways but I’m going to describe how I imagine it. The most important thing is that the consumables approach makes this (or any) balancing feasible. Re-read the first two paragraphs if you have to. Aircraft: > Your surface ship might have 1 or several classes of aircraft, with numerical indicators (A/B) where A is number of aircraft [or squadrons] available to be launched as a squadron and B is the number [of aircraft or squadrons] you have in total reserve. Since these craft can theoretically be launched if your surface ship is destroyed, they need to be finite in number. > Tap the hotkey corresponding to the strike group you want to send out, it will take a few seconds for that group to enter the battle group either launched via carrier or flying into the map if it is a naval aircraft not carrier launched (like a condor). Carrier aircraft might have a perk that makes the deployment period shorter. > Once the air group is in the map it can be moved RTS style on the map or via the minimap, but it can also be moved manually as is done currently. > Aircraft have a certain loiter period, i.e. how long they can remain in the zone before needing to refuel. > Super Optional: Have carriers as entities a few kilometers behind the main battle line from which your team’s carrier aircraft are launched, these don’t move can be targeted and destroyed by surface ships or even enemy strike craft (though the latter is difficult). You’d have to get well past the middle point of the map to even detect the CVs. I wouldn’t countenance CV sniping in this new system except as a way to punish an exceptionally passive enemy, but that does provides a massive incentive in any game mode to push if doing so deprives the enemy of his air consumables. Aircraft, Air Strikes, and AA: Since we’ve changed the incentives around for players and for WG, there’s no cause to either make aircraft trivially useless for the sake of surface ships or to make aircraft unstoppable death dealers. We can finally just focus on creating a dynamic between surface ships and aircraft that is tactical, hopefully fun, and modestly historically realistic. We want the consumables to work well when used well and visa versa. > Surface ship AA health (at least light and med) % is visible to all players by default this is important information because… > Medium and light AA will deal damage to any planes in its radius with no invulnerability periods granted, though damage will scale up and down depending on the type and speed of the aircraft and whether it is maneuvering. As a rule, medium and light AA will be most effective (i.e. higher damage) against torpedo bombers since they fly low and slow, but those also happen to *usually* be the aircraft that can do the most damage to ships, if they survive and lead the enemy ship properly. High health AA is much more of a lifeline for large ships and low health AA much more of a curse. > Heavy AA will be most effective against slower larger aircraft that operate at high altitudes, though heavy AA can also be used to provide cover to allied ships that would normally not be covered by medium AA. > Surface ships damaging enemy vessels superstructures are not simply about farming damage but about trying to get that ship’s passive AA low enough that torpedo bombers and the heavy damage dealers have a reasonable chance to drop before getting shot down. Though some aircraft classes may be specialized for being hard to hit for enemy AA and doing supression of enemy air defenses. > Defensive Fire consumable is replaced with the ability of certain surface ships to manually aim heavy AA flak bursts, rotating the camera around will give the direction of the flak and instead of zooming the aim in and out you raise or lower the fuse time (i.e. the distance from the ship that the flak explodes). It is easier to visualize in 2D, think of a clock with 1 hand that can shrink and grow, the center of the clock is the ship, the time of the clock is the direction the flak is aiming, and the length of the hand is the fuse time. The trick is to get the flak cloud to explode in the same spot and time that the enemy’s planes will be there. This manual flak should be far more effective than passive flak, and the goal is to encourage AA ships to actively try to shoot down squadrons aimed at teammates. I am thinking, depending on the ship, 1-3 shot chances before the ability goes on cooldown. Technically elevation and fuse time would be different things but the aiming will adjust based on what is being targeted so that players do not have to aim in 3 dimensions. > Surface defense against aircraft consists in: Strong passive AA Defensive Fire Evasion for smaller vessels Note “Just dodge” needn’t be a sarcastic jab anymore, since dodging strikes was viable during the pre-CV rework and manually aimed strikes can have their whippy turn times nerfed since, again, aircraft is no longer a class that needs to match or exceed surface ship strength. The ability to call in air wings capable of intercepting strike groups. (See aircraft classes for more details). Certain of these defenses will be more effective against certain airstrikes. > Given how many ways air strikes can be defended against, getting hit multiple times with a dive or torp bombing should be roughly as punishing as getting citadel multiple times. The existing damage levels of CVs have to somewhat account for the fact that strikes are Mostly inevitable Mostly undodgable Mostly infinite None of this will be true anymore, so it’s important to make aircraft deadlier when used correctly. Aircraft Classes: Some mentioned before Torp Bombers: Slower and more vulnerable when doing a drop but drops deal far more damage (on a per torp basis more than what they do now, but less than destroyer torpedoes). A battleship or cruiser with good AA should be capable of shooting down a wing of these guys unless the AA has been sufficiently weakened, so these planes are more meant for finishing off ships that have already had their superstructure farmed. Rocket(armed) Planes: Meant as a way of dealing with strong medium AA, since they are faster than dive/torp bombers and don’t have to come in at a low altitude they take less damage on the approach and can soften up targets. They also can survive more effectively against other fighters in dogfights. Dive Bombers: Dive bombing planes will take less damage from medium/light AA than torpedo bombers but the strikes themselves will not deal as much damage. They are effectively intermediate between the rocket planes and torp bombers Fighters: Fighters not armed with anti-ship weapons will not just spontaneously spawn from other air wings as they do now, instead operating as separate units which can be used to cover airspace. They can operate in one of several niches: Heavy Fighter: Takes a while to arrive but can loiter in an area for a longer period of time, armament is good against slower bulkier craft but might be outmaneuvered by rocket planes, and will generally lose to other fighters in dogfights. Air superiority fighters: Intermediate between interceptors and heavy fighters with respect to dogfighting and loitering. Deals less damage to bombers but takes less damage from other fighters. Interceptors: Meant to fly quickly to an area, loitering only for a brief time, then leave. They can be used to clear away heavy fighters and air superiority fighters, or even bombers if they are well timed. Level Bombers: Lots of options here laying and destroying mines, dropping smokescreens, level bombing – high altitude level bombers are very inaccurate but immune to most short-range AA, but also fewer in number, slower, and more vulnerable to fighters. sub hunting (Replace airdrop depth charges) Submarines: > Subs as consumables is a bit harder than aircraft, but I still think it’s possible. I imagine basic commands like direction and depth settings can be done from the minimap as a surface ship, with the ability to switch to the sub to launch torpedoes. > In terms of a role for submarines, the one thing that WoWs doesn’t really have is a class that can punish camping. So having a consumable that is spawned in from the flanks of a fight, surfaces, launches torpedoes and dives to reload can fill that niche.
  6. Snoopys_Odyssey

    Another Submarine Request Post

    Hey, it was on paper as designed, and WG has created ships with less.
  7. I wish that Wargaming would stop flirting the submarines to us and just add a permanent tech tree for them already; I have enjoyed playing submarines each time it was released for testing, but the whole 'test this for us so we can improve on the gameplay, then have you wait anxiously for its release' back and forth thing is getting ridiculous! Just let us enjoy the ship type already!
  8. As the saying goes, it is only too late if you never try. So, I'm submitting this idea as the Core mechanic for Submarine gameplay (instead of you know, what-da-ping). CORE CONCEPT Submarines are a Concealment based class, as such their distinctive characteristic in WoWS is variable Concealment values which behaves dynamically depending on the Submarine actions. In order for players to keep track of their own concealment in an easy, practical way, we present you the "Conceal-o-Meter": Using a visual Gauge players will be able to easily and intuitivelly learn how to manage their concealment. The base Concealment value for Submarines is their standard surface Concealment value. Some actions increase concealment, some actions decrease concealment, modifying the base value. On general Concealment terms, the deeper the Sub is, the better; the faster it moves and more noise it makes, the worse. Travelling underwater at high speeds, pings, use of certain consumables, etc will have a negative impact. This all adds up to a base underwater Concealment value, which is the distance the Submarine can be detected by "natural" means by Surface ships. This way, Submarine gameplay becomes truly focused on stealth and Concealment management. This, along Dive Time are the prime assets for a Submarine player. A SPOTTED SUBMARINE IS A DEAD SUBMARINE Counterplay against Submarines should be focused on breaking their Concealment, once revealed and in plain view, Surface ships should have the tools to deliver effective and consistent damage to Submarines. To this end, the game must provide a set of Detection tools and consumables able to break Submarine concealment in a determined location. Similarly to current Hydroacustic search, new consumables like ASDIC/SONAR could provide detection at extended ranges, but shorter action time. Deployable detection tools like sonobouys and directional SONAR pings could help round up the arsenal of detection tools available for Surface ships. As tools for delivering damage, I think DC Airstrike is an adequate concept (the particular values for time-to-target and damage can be adjusted as needed for balanced interactions) for medium-long range, for short range some form of directional DC-Hedgehog proyector, with traditional DC "drops" for point-blank attacks. WiP will be editing OP
  9. I think the modality of the game changed in every way, it is no longer useful to have skills in ship battles, now we depend on a submerged rat, the same thing will happen as in the other Navyfield ship game, the Submarines turned out and the game died . I speak from my experience in another similar game that incorporated this modality and it turned out to be the tombstone of the game, what was achieved in 10 years, was ruined in months, it is very difficult for a battleship or cruiser to face a destroyer with smoke and torpedoes, imagine an object that is under the sea and nobody can see it, I think it is a cancer and unfortunately it is here to stay, for my part I feel unmotivated, since no matter how many skills you have or improvements to your ship, do not miss much with they. My motivation for this game is already enough, I already lived this process and I am sure that many think the same.
  10. It doesn't work like AP/SAP/HE where the last ammo type you used in a match is carried over to the next game. Example: match ends with AP rounds loaded. Next game I start the match with AP rounds as well. But with submarines however. The match ALWAYS starts with the slow non-homing low range conventional torps instead of the homing torps (which is almost always going to be used at the start of a match). Meaning I always have to press '2' twice. Sometimes I forget to switch thinking I have homing torps from last game and miss a opportunity to get 30-40k damage + floods. This needs to change so if you had homing torps up last match, it is carried over to the next match.
  11. In every Submarine thread that pops up, there's always a guy that says Submarines are "Useless", or they "Bring nothing to the team", or "Are not worth playing", or "Are a waste of time". For future reference: Submarines, like any other ship type, can be effective, reward good play and it's worth your time. These are from this first week playing Submarines, 3-4 matches per day. I hope we help establish that Submarines "Can do the work and get well paid for it" Cheers
  12. Hello. To those who don't know me, I spent a lot of time trying to get WGs attention about CV problems, during their release, to get them to improve the balance of the game. Some of those things were successful, and others were not. With Subs on the horizon, and my opinion of their inclusion in their current state being questionable at best, I will do the same with them. If you're looking for a guide with no opinions, this isn't for you. Most of this is not numbers, but an opinion on the workings of the class. As we deep dive into how this class interacts with others, you will learn how to become better at them. It is my hope that with this knowledge you will improve, and shed further light on their issues, in the hopes that a better product is given. I will provide highlights of matches when discussing each sub type below (2 for each). These were taken from a 2-hour stream. I do not think this is indicative of what each battle would look like, as there are bots in the midst and players are still adjusting. Despite that, I don't think the evidence of sub strength is any less meaningful as it is displayed. I pulled the best game I had, and an average game I had for each nations sub. If any Wargaming people read this, I want to say I disagree with whatever decisions led to not allowing subs to be brought into training room. I think this makes it harder for people to test the limits and interactions with other ships, which would have best been done in a closed environment. The Battle mode already has bots in them anyway, and you allowed carriers to be used in the training room during their PTS session last year. I am happy about your reserved pace in introducing subs to us, but it would be nice to try these in other modes as well. A podcast I was in talking about submarines. https://anchor.fm/the-new-guys/episodes/Episode-024-Making-Sense-of-Submarines-with-07s-Pulicat-ef1vrc I have spoiler'd everything below so you can find quickly and read only what you are interested in, or tackle the read in chunks. This is about 4000 words. Submarine Gameplay Submarine Consumables Nation Submarine Strength & Weaknesses Subs Interacting With Subs Destroyers Interacting With Subs Cruisers With Charges Interacting With Subs Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers Interacting With Subs Mechanics that should be added for this class to function better. General thoughts
  13. Second day, some more matches... Subs still are useful. I'll go into more detail tomorrow but right now I kinda astonished at how bad is Cachalot (and Salmon almost as bad)... like why WG? what's the point here? what weird parameters are you testing? Cachalot is worse in every possible sense, by a lot... we are not talking by marginal differences here... OK, I'm sure it is part of the testing process but it isn't funny dudes, poor USN. Chad U-69, even in a defeat makes her presence felt and gets more XP than Cachalot in a Victory. then friggin Omega Cachalot... This fat lazy whale is so bad I think she gets extra XP for doing nothing... 1127 BXP just on Spotting and Caps. Even sader is that was my highest BXP game in Cachalot. Really is so bad it hurts to play that thing.
  14. Guys, Ramming flag is mandatory on Subs... it will save your skin and grant you a kill at least once in every 2-3 matches. Really, I don't want to see one of you out there without Ram Flag equiped. Don't be "that guy". Pro Tip: Always use your bow and ram the side of the enemy Sub, don't go head-to-head. That way you take advantage of damage saturation and will win the ram even against Subs with more HP and/or using the flag.
  15. They clearly dominate in hand-to-hand combat. Here is Salmon reaserting dominance over the U-190. Still think they are bad, so bad they probably get bonus XP...
  16. Finally unlocked the T6 Subs, so it was time to soak my feet again in Submarine gameplayafter some months off. I admit I'm excited to play Subs again... I know, guilty as charged. Some impressions right out of the match... I totally forgot T6 was only Homing torps, dropped fully kitted for dumbfire meta. Subs take a whole lotta more damage, the underwater burning and flooding can be lethal. The DCP reload time is BB level, wth?? I was forced to surface in a risky position in order to repair the damage, that level of DoT was really unexpected, the result was kinda cool tho... being forced to surface for repairs is... interesting. (German) Homing torps look like have improved guidance values, I had a very decent hit ratio. Damage output looks kinda scary honestly, maybe is rookie players... need more testing to have a solid opinion on this. The oil leak works!!! At some point I got an oil leak and left it unrepaired, I knew there was a red DD about 5-6 kms from me but I was not worried, no way that guy was going to locate me and hunt me down... oh boy was I mistaken. Moments later there were Depth Charges raining near me, the friggin DD was over me!!! That was scary!!!. I escaped by a finger nail. The Dive tank is still ample enough, I think I never clocked below 2 mins. The recharge rate is really fast. Now the BAD, and it is very bad... attacks from immunity are back in strenght. It is trivial to sit underwater 1-2 km from a BB and pump torps on it. Really WG, this is a huge step back. Imo Submarine gameplay has became more "dramatic", you are at serious risk at every mistep. The risk of DoT and limited DCP injects more tension into the gameplay. New mechanics like oil leaks and forced surface repairs are interesting and push gameplay into new, interesting directions. I'm left with a very positive impression about this changes... Submarines definitively won't be for "weaklings", I like it that way. Attacks from Depth immunity need to be prevented, the easiest and most rational way to accomplish it is sticking to the original max depth vision rules. When Submerged, the Sub must remain "blind"... no vision of enemy ships at all, nothing, zero, nilch... only through use of Hydrophone and visual of outshapes only. This was writen all over the cards with the last set of changes, I don't know why you flinched in pushing through with the limited vision change. So, the post battle results: That's one friggin' good hit rate, considering I spam torps like crazy. Homing abilities are back into "dangerous" level. This made me particularly happy, that CV was so annoying... friggin fighter spotting is still a real corkblock, even more accounting the slow speed of T6 Subs and their limited dive tank. And just to round up a good WoWS night, I got this baby from a random SC... I love goofy, oddball ships... this one might be interesting.
  17. black_hull4

    Gerand: Hermelin VS Varyag?

    I watch a lot of Russian cartoons because they align with my interests and...well, I ran out of American stuff to watch. Anyways, one is called Gerand, and a recent episode called "Iron Domination" shows what I believe is a Varyag? Now, the ship does have some differences from in-game Varyag. There are numerous AA guns on the forecastle & sterncastle, something many Varyag players wish they had. The ship also has 3 masts, a main gun directly in the bow, and lacks the unshielded guns found on in-game Varyag. What still makes me think this is Varyag is this episode came out around the same time Wargaming's Varyag history lesson did. My guess for the differences is that this is a hypothetical interwar refit of the ship. Note that she("he" in Gerand)still flies the flag of Imperial Russia, in this cartoon's continuity Russia actually GOT KICKED OUT from the Soviet Union but the factions have put off their impending war to fight common allies. Also in the picture are some BK-472 patrol boats. The Russian forces fight the Kriegsmarine fleet, made up mostly of FluSi flak boats but led by what is undeniably KMS Hermelin. They also have what appears to be a Type IIC U-boat with a 105mm gun stuck on it for some reason. Unfortunately, that poor U-boat has caught the attention of the Russian mega-sub Delfin. This thing is MASSIVE. The tallest tower on the deck is of comparable height to Fuso's pagoda. The "small" trapezoidal shape at the front of the ship? That's the bridge, large enough to hold the Tsar Tank. Those external torpedoes are 100-knot NUKES, and the Delfin also has internal torps. Wargaming Tier 200 when? The Imperial Russian Navy is being supported by a mixture of Yakovlev-1Bs, Lavochkin-5s, and Lend-Lease Airacobras. In turn, these fighters are escorting whatever the THIS is:
  18. rentsch

    when submarines return...

    Please, optimize the submarine mission to sneak up and torp flame-throwing cruisers that hide behind islands. This will improve overall gameplay by preventing island camping.
  19. DominicusD

    Easy Come, Easy Go

    oH weLL . . . . .
  20. Seems Wargaming has forgotten the Poor destroyer Leone again, though its no surprise as her development hell time is a sign to show, and as if the ship didnt suffer enough with super slow long arcs on her shells, painfully long reload times on her guns, only 4 torpedoes that are as useful as sea mines (though do reload quickly and have good range) The ship still completely lacks any means of attacking submerged submarines unlike all her Tier VI and even tier V destroyer counterparts! Thats right she cant even drop as little as the Duca D'Aosta with her 2 depth charges in her salvoes. the Leone has 0 means of engaging submarines aside from her guns. Can the Leone get anything? even just a 4km depth charge air strike? just something so she's not basically helpless against them would be appreciated, Cheers.
  21. LukeChambers

    Zeppelins please!

    I've stopped playing world of warships shortly after subs were introduced to Random. In the new spare time I finally was able to finish a proposal for a new class of vessels, that would be fun to play and sit comfortably next to the submarines. Please introduce Zeppelins! Majestic giants of the sky, romantic air-borne castles, technological wonders of the age, large as battleships. A Tech tree should look like this: GERMANY: Tier IV: Type M, Tier VI: Type P, Tier VIII: Type X, Tier X: LZ131, militarized There must have been some design bureaus in the SOVIET UNION with marvelous Zeppelins (if they had been built), so there ought to be a RUSSIAN tech tree, as well. Premiums: GERMANY Tier IV: Type N; USA Tier VI: Shenandoah, Tier VIII: (edited:) Akron and Macon (can drop fighters!); GREAT BRITAIN Tier VI; R34 and R38. Zeppelins are slow and vulnerable, which wouldn't be fun to play. Therefore they should have exhaust smoke as a consumable, in line with Commonwealth ships. Weaponry: Zeppelins have unique lifting capabilities and could be armed with heavy, complex weaponry. Therefore they should have nuclear bombs. I propose two munitions: Air burst mode: obliterates 4 squares on the maps. DDs and CV are sunk. BBs and CL/CAs lose some health + maximum number of fires started. Friendly ships are immune. Underwater burst mode: obliterates one square on the map. All ships sunk. Friendly ships are immune. To balance this strong armament, reload times should be 60 seconds, or even 62 seconds. Zeppelins would be great fun to play. To maximize income, and keep our favorite game healthy, maybe Zeppelins should be strictly for doubloons only. The more expensive the better, to add a bit of exclusivity for whales like me. Pleeeease!
  22. Commissar_Carl

    Unofficial subs poll

    WG put out a poll for the 10.9 update, and that poll did not reference submarines in random battles. In lieu of this, I thought that I would put up my own. note that this poll is mostly about in game perception of subs from the perspective of surface ships. This poll won't have the obvious questions as to what people think of the subs and mechanics, i'll post a poll on that later. You can answer this if you have driven subs, or if you have not. I'm going to do my best to keep my personal biases out of this.
  23. I only really have one thing to say... It's really balanced and fun when a sub is spotting you while underwater. So the bridge, periscope, and radio mast are all underwater and I'm lead to believe that this submarine is providing near exact positional data to a battleship 20km away. You can't use radar (they're underwater) and they can see you from beyond hydro range. 26m underwater they're visually spotting you without a periscope. Without even a periscope! And they're communicating to the team underwater! How?!?
  24. _SterlingArcher_

    Day one of random subs

    Well. Its day one of the live testing of subs in randoms. What are everyone's thoughts?? Remember to keep civil gents, this thread will get deleted hella quick otherwise. Disaster, as far as i saw. Nobody wants them in game. Every single match i was in today, people were glad if subs weren't present l, and were vocal about such in allchat. In matches with subs, they were constantly bashed, both the players, and WG (the letter, deservingly, the former, not). More than once, people on both teams were calling out locations of their own subs, and letting people kill them off ASAP. Its a cluster(word starting with F) WG. Pull them, and rethink this whole sorry episode.
  25. Buenas! les dejo a continuación una propuesta pensada para los submarinos relacionada al balance de estos y unas novedades que me gustaría ver dentro del juego ahora que a partir de la actualizacion 0.10.9 los tendremos en batallas aleatorias a modo de testeo. espero sus comentarios y me gustaria saber que piensan! Propuesta para un counter mas apropiado a los submarinos en barcos de superficie e incluso otros submarinos. La siguiente propuesta de counter tiene dos fines: uno es balancear la interacción entre submarinos y otros submarinos y/o barcos de superficie Lo otro seria agregar una función que brinde no solo balance, sino añadir una dinámica mas interesante y correcta a nivel histórico. por supuesto estoy hablando de los señuelos o "decoys". Además, como añadido, esto dejaría intacta la función del equipo de reparaciones el que seguiría funcionando para apagar incendios e inundaciones o reparación de módulos dañados, haciendo que uno no tenga que limitarse a usar el equipo de reparaciones cuando recibe un ping para luego recibir otro 10 segundos después. los señuelos eran muy populares hacia mediados de la segunda guerra mundial en enfrentamientos SUB vs DD. un buen ejemplo y bastante grafico para todos se muestra en una escena de la película "Greyhound", donde un U-Boat libera un objeto metálico que emite un ruido confundiendo asi al sonar del destructor que lo perseguía, haciendo que este gaste sus cargas de profundidad persiguiendo a un objeto que le hacia creer que era el submarino alemán. Este objeto es el famoso señuelo o "decoy". Entonces volviendo al tema, como se aplicaría esto en el juego? Sencillo, en el caso de los submarinos estos lo usarían como un consumible a parte del equipo de reparaciones, una vez que este sea alcanzado por el ping de un submarino, desviando así la trayectoria de los torpedos magnéticos. El señuelo podría durar desde 5 a 10 segundos y tener la posibilidad de lanzar hasta 3 cada cierto tiempo, tal y como las cargas de profundidad que poseen los destructores o algunos cruceros. La cantidad de señuelos y su duración podrían variar según la nacion y tipo de barco En cuanto a los enfrentamientos sub vs sub funcionaria igual solo que en una reducida cantidad de cargas y duración (supongamos una sola carga de 5 segundos cada 40 segundos).
×