Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
GreyFox78659

The great submarine debate

193 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

267
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,707 posts
8,132 battles
1 hour ago, Slimeball91 said:

WG can't see into the future either.  Never say never.

Yeah, lime post treaty cruiser designs aka Moskva, HIV, Kronshtad and Stalingrad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
9 minutes ago, xXxRCADDICT said:

That is the point. There is nothing new to bring up. You are right the video is old. That is what we have been trying to tell you after all these years the developers have never mentioned them after that video. That is why there is no debate.

 

10 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, it's not.

It's an example of someone pointing the truth out to you, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA!!!" because you refuse to accept the truth.

The reason I am not going bother with this argument is I would have to go  through all the dev blogs pointing times they said subs were a maybe also the times the devs said something only to come back and change their mind.

So like I said to Lert do you really want to stand in the plank of the devs word? I mean there are sharks swirling under it, BIG ONES!

One of them has a picture of Graf Zeppelin tattooed on its fin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[SAA]
Members
856 posts
27,305 battles

I bet I have spent more money on this game then any 5 of you combined, the day they add subs, I'm gone. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
9 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

I bet I have spent more money on this game then any 5 of you combined, the day they add subs, I'm gone. 

If they Subs and six start playing then you have not persuaded them. They have your money.

Also the the DEVS SAID NO! Logic in a nut shell.

No Subs = devs will never break a promise to make a buck

Subs coming = devs will break a promise to make a buck if it looks like the money is worth it.

See the problem with that logic of NEVER SUBS?

 

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
6 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

The reason I am not going bother with this argument is I would have to go  through all the dev blogs pointing times they said subs were a maybe also the times the devs said something only to come back and change their mind.

No need. I have read all the Dev blogs since their inception. They have never stated anything about submarines.

 

People have already stated the flaws with submarines. Not to mention the fact that they have fixed torpedo tubes and you'd have to turn the boat to fire, and given the speed of other ships, that'd be a nightmare to aim. As well as the fact that they are utterly defenseless on the surface and would have about less than 10k HP across the board. Basically food for anything.

 

I'd love to see them, but at current game understanding, they would be a nightmare to make, balance and more importantly, play.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[SAA]
Members
856 posts
27,305 battles
Just now, GreyFox78659 said:

If they Subs and six start playing then you have persuaded them they have your money.

Also the the DEVS SAID NO! Logic in a nut shell.

No Subs = devs will never break a promise to make a buck

Subs coming = devs will break a promise to make a buck if it looks like the money is worth it.

See the problem with that logic of NEVER SUBS?

 

Nope, I think my logic is sound.  You add something to this game that most players do not want and the devs at one time said they would not add and you will loss a lot of players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles

I will reiterate;

They (the devs) have enough on their plate thing to figure out major overhauls to the entire game's aerial engagement system. The idea of trying to put any effort towards developing submarines is just absurd because that's an even larger issue, and after multiple years we're still waiting for this air overhaul. Submarines would throw balance up into the air - not to mention the fact that underwater literally isn't even modelled and once again, in order to make what? 

To introduced boats that had little to no interaction in fleet combat? Fleet combat is what this game is about. Submarines are strategic weapons, not tactical ones, and this game works on the tactical level only.

Adding subs would create a vessel type that would boring to play as and frustrating to play against. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
187
[JUICE]
Members
819 posts
6,369 battles
4 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

No need. I have read all the Dev blogs since their inception. They have never stated anything about submarines.

 

People have already stated the flaws with submarines. Not to mention the fact that they have fixed torpedo tubes and you'd have to turn the boat to fire, and given the speed of other ships, that'd be a nightmare to aim. As well as the fact that they are utterly defenseless on the surface and would have about less than 10k HP across the board. Basically food for anything.

 

I'd love to see them, but at current game understanding, they would be a nightmare to make, balance and more importantly, play.

Not to mention the cost of development to model the maps below the water line, the increased server load because of that and the fact that when surface ships are sunk now they disappear. In the new version they would need to actually sink and still be rendered for the remainder of the match the load on the client side would also skyrocket it is just not a sound business decision to do it. Yes I will stick with my original thoughts on what the developers said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
17 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

Nope, I think my logic is sound.  You add something to this game that most players do not want and the devs at one time said they would not add and you will loss a lot of players.

 

So the devs aren’t in for the money? Counter point every  THIS PREMIUM SHIP IS PAY TO WIN thread on the forum. 

Edited by GreyFox78659
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,415 posts

The chinese knock-off of this game has submarines implemented in a very fun and immersive manner...and balanced. Its a shame WG can't do better than said cheapo knock-off product. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
1 minute ago, Skyfaller said:

The chinese knock-off of this game has submarines implemented in a very fun and immersive manner...and balanced. Its a shame WG can't do better than said cheapo knock-off product. 

Actually it’s been out longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,305 posts
21,091 battles
3 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

The great submarine debate 

You mean like those disheveled eccentrics loudly debating with themselves on the street corner whilst gazing vacantly into the sky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

You also have the issue once RN CV are released. Other national lines with minor exceptions will only paper designs. 

Were as subs would give every national line including PA another line of mostly real ships.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,501 posts
5,485 battles
1 hour ago, Turbotush said:

I bet I have spent more money on this game then any 5 of you combined, the day they add subs, I'm gone. 

How much total did you spend ?  Lets start with total premium ship costs. Then whats next after that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,035 posts
3,548 battles

You never addressed the speed issue. With the pacing of these matches, submarines will likely rarely ever engage in combat.

when they do engage, as someone else pointed out, aiming their main armament will be a pain, because they are fixed, do not rotate. To aim, you must maneuver the ship entirely. With the speed, and turning radius of submarines, a submarine will be unable to aim properly. Which is why submarines were used primarily against transports and merchant vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
187
[JUICE]
Members
819 posts
6,369 battles

Just imagine a match were the last two ships alive are subs. Sounds like an epic battle huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,676 posts
3,824 battles
3 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

But first attempts to shout the discussion down or insult ideas on either side will result in my ignoring you.

BRTky.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
297
[KNTI2]
Members
787 posts
4,311 battles
3 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Even that was true it isn’t BTW. This would be an appeal to authority. An authority that is in business to make money. Also would be an attempt to shout down debate.

It's not a fallacy because unless stated otherwise, that IS their policy.

> Subs have many facets that allow balance, underwater time surface time, sight distance,etc

Except there is no provision for depth charges in this game because that would only work against subs (which don't exist), and making it a consumable would be dumb because then it would have cooldown (during which a sub is completely invulnerable to enemy fire) and take up a valuable slot for the sake of putting in a [edited] ship class that doesn't need to be in the game.

Requiring torps to sink is not valid.

Every other ship type can be damaged by any weapon type; more specifically, any ship can be damaged by any other ship. A DD can be sunk by a BB. A CV can be sunk by a DD. Etc.

This would REQUIRE a cruiser or DD, leaving a BB or CV COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of engaging a submerged sub. And even among cruisers and DDs, ONLY the ones with hydro (a consumable) could find them at ANY point while submerged.

This is dumb.

> Nope, they are invisible only guns and bombs won’t effect them. Depth charges and torpedoes still will as well as ramming

Invisible is the same thing as invincible. You can't get shot at if they don't know you're there.

There's also the fact that 5.4 km detection is already difficult to detect without a consumable or poor play on the DD's part. Going even smaller than that with a torp platform would be dumb.

> ramming

Ramming is not only the least used method of engaging ships (because it does the same damage as their entire TOTAL HP POOL, among other things), but it would be idiotic against a torp armed vessel that can evade detection COMPLETELY once hydro is gone.

> While they are under this is true underwater they will surface and become an easy kill for your secondaries also Battleships have deep hulls which means ramming a submerged sub is possible.

The only feasible way to balance a sub would be to make diving a consumable with CD and limited duration, but then subs are basically 14 kt DDs that can only torp forward and have like one 5" gun for surface combat until you activate it.

During which you would become a 5-7 kt DD that is basically playing with god-mode enabled.

> They will help with the current meta issue of ship staying static and not moving

No, it will make it worse, because now even DDs can't push into caps; hydro is the ONLY thing that can detect a submerged sub but only a few DDs have it.

And again, depth charges don't exist, so the DDs' only option is to use their torps, which doesn't work if you have DWTs, so you're basically completely immune to any DWT DD (like, for example, one of the few non-KM DDs with hydro) while being able to sink them.

> The BB centered gameplay is fine in Europe and the US but most navies never had them (China and Korea). Most still have submarines.

Let's unpack this.

1) You cited reality, like you just disputed in your OP.

2) Destroyers (and frigates, and corvettes) are the most common naval vessel worldwide. Sub warfare became a strategic asset for China, Korea, and other non-major powers after WWII, when after action reports could be compiled and examined.

3) China had river boats during WWII. They basically didn't have a navy, even a green water one. After WWII they were given a pile of IJN and USN DDs and DEs (hence the Pan-Asian line). Korea was in the same situation during WWII; worse, even.

TL;DR

Subs are a dumb idea and only myopic people who want to play an IJN DD without requiring actual skill want subs in the game.

Edited by NATOMarksman
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
116 posts
7,947 battles

Go play Steel Ocean and stop making these [edited] forum posts 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
2 hours ago, xXxRCADDICT said:

That is the point. There is nothing new to bring up. You are right the video is old. That is what we have been trying to tell you after all these years the developers have never mentioned them after that video. That is why there is no debate.

Again don’t care to go digging the times they said otherwise or “maybe later” up as you won’t change your mind. So again anything new? 

See what I am talking you accused me of never changing my mind that is how you handle it.

I have explained how that logic is flawed about No Subs. To which You have dismissed that argument. So I am dismissing your argument. Unless you want to address the credibility of the Developers word in the light of other broken promises. You have no standing to speak for what they are doing behind closed doors. Neither do I BTW. 

So either come up with a valid argument against subs that has not been brought up and answered in the OP or concede the debate.

Edited by GreyFox78659
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
4 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

The great submarine debate 

 

I think we finally had a breakthrough on this subject in  my last thread.

 

But first attempts to shout the discussion down or insult ideas on either side will result in my ignoring you.

 

The arguments against submarines currently being debated.

 

They are impossible to balance!

 

Subs have many facets that allow balance, underwater time surface time, sight distance,etc.

 

They are invincible underwater!

 

Nope, they are invisible only guns and bombs won’t effect them. Depth charges and torpedoes still will as well as ramming.

 

Battleships can’t attack them!

 

While they are under this is true underwater they will surface and become an easy kill for your secondaries also Battleships have deep hulls which means ramming a submerged sub is possible.

 

They will be boring! 

 

This is opinion I find B.B. and CVs boring most of the time.

 

They won’t add anything to the game!

 

They will help with the current meta issue of ship staying static and not moving.

 

 

They aren’t realistic! 

 

Nothing in this game is truly realistic. 

 

They will win by survival causing me to lose!

 

Back the day when ties were possible yes ties aren’t possible.

This again seriously NO stop asking.  You are just making yourself look bad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

Right now we are in the end game of the debate where the losing side is attempting to look larger in an attempt at damage control. While at the same time drowning out the winning sides arguments, so as not to lose more supporters for keeping things as they are with NO SUBS.

Problem is the more I start these topics the support I find for adding subs.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,676 posts
3,824 battles
1 minute ago, torpsRus said:

This again seriously NO stop asking.  You are just making yourself look bad.  

That's implying he looked good before

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
Just now, Vader_Sama said:

That's implying he looked good before

:Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,501 posts
5,485 battles
2 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Again don’t care to go digging the times they said otherwise or “maybe later” up as you won’t change your mind. So again anything new? 

See what I am talking you accused me of never changing my mind that is how you handle it.

I have explained how that logic is flawed about No Subs. To which I have dismissed that argument. So I am dismissing your argument. Unless you want to address the credibility of the Developers word in the light of other broken promises. You have no standing to speak for what they are doing behind closed doors. Neither do I BTW. 

So either come up with a valid argument against subs that has not been brought up and answered in the OP or concede the debate.

I'm with you on that argument to let you know.  Its ALL about the MONEY and if WOW see $DOLLAR SIGNS$ they will go for it. In the meanwhile WOW is busy on the CV retrofit which is secret like no ones business.  SUBS on the other hand...they have to be considering but as always pretty tight lipped.  I noticed that WarThunder has a Nuclear Submarine test program - did you hear?    Just stumbled on it yesterday.    Don't know why there is such a fear of puny SUBS...they will be in the minority and as far as stats will be a lethal as a random detonation in my book.  But I guess some don't even see it that way as SUBS will be as many as CV's in all probability in a match. But those arguments don't matter eh?   Thats alright..we will continue to promote SUBS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×