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

348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

Big take away from this debate don’t beat up on a real ships stats with a fake ships stats. Even the real ships in game have fudged stats for balance reasons. So if subs can’t have fudged stats than remove all the ships in game that do. That would mainly be Battleships.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DRG_N]
Members
427 posts
588 battles

Because what this game needs is more invisible skill throwers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles

*duplicate post*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles
11 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

 

Yes, also should note underwater endurance of a Type XXI was the best. So yes trading surface speed for underwater time.

Also none of the stats for BBs aren’t in anyway realistic. Heck most of those were never built. Why should stats be realistic for subs and not BBs? BTW type XXI was built.

That is another problem with the argument against subs a lot of the ships used to berate them were never built.

And how many subs that were never built would we have to add in? Seeing as how many subs are grossly inadequate in terms of speed? The Type XXI still couldn't make 18 knots - still slower than the slowest in-game BBs. But sure, we could remove any ship that didn't actually see service for BBs.

You know what happens if you take every battleship in the game that actually saw service, and average out their speed? 25 knots.

 

Still far ahead of even the fastest submarines.

 

So no, this argument against subs works extremely well, especially when you only use real ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,099
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,333 posts
6,609 battles
6 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Big take away from this debate don’t beat up on a real ships stats with a fake ships stats.

Last time I checked, the North Carolina, a ship that was real, could go more than 27kn historically. And also last time I checked, the Type XXI submarine, which was also built, could go 16.5kn underwater.

So using real ship stats the Battleship which was laid down 7 years before the submarine would be 10kn faster than the submarine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles
10 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Big take away from this debate don’t beat up on a real ships stats with a fake ships stats. Even the real ships in game have fudged stats for balance reasons. So if subs can’t have fudged stats than remove all the ships in game that do. That would mainly be Battleships.

Except this also means nothing, because using real ship stats still leaves submarines far behind, and denies them the ability to use fake ships to justify higher speeds. 

 

Because unless you use fictional, high speed submarines, for the fast majority of the subs in the game, the problem still remains; they are far too slow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[NGA]
Members
1,302 posts
7,888 battles

Image result for idiot gif

This thread in a nutshell.

Edited by JediMasterDraco
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[CO_OP]
Beta Testers
160 posts
2,828 battles

Let not put more stuff into the game till we get the current content running smoothly(carrier fix etc..). I rather have qaulity then quantity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles
6 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Image result for idiot gif

This thread in a nutshell.

Xq0HwvQ.gif

(take my upbote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[BNKR]
Members
716 posts
736 battles

I'm fine with them as long as they can't submerge and lose all their hit points when hit by a gun larger than 57mm. Also, they are immediately spotted if there are any aircraft in the air. 

Share this post


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

Except this also means nothing, because using real ship stats still leaves submarines far behind, and denies them the ability to use fake ships to justify higher speeds. 

 

Because unless you use fictional, high speed submarines, for the fast majority of the subs in the game, the problem still remains; they are far too slow

Real ship stats leave Subs behind but WoWS doesn’t use real stats.

This is eating your cake and having it as well. 

Either get rid of fake ships stats or buff subs to a level to make them balanced. Like is done for all other ship types.

So pick an argument 

Fudging for balancing sake, or real stats only?

You can’t hold both which you are trying to do.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
799 posts

How many times does WG have to say no before you will except the fact there will be no subs? Also, BB players whine constantly over destroyers and torps.... I can just hear the forums now if subs ever got in the game. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,040 posts
3,580 battles
4 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

 

Yes, also should note underwater endurance of a Type XXI was the best. So yes trading surface speed for underwater time.

Also none of the stats for BBs aren’t in anyway realistic. Heck most of those were never built. Why should stats be realistic for subs and not BBs? BTW type XXI was built.

That is another problem with the argument against subs a lot of the ships used to berate them were never built.

What was your point about mentioning the type XXI being built? I-201 was built as well, last submarine class built by the IJN before War's end. Though yes, only 3 of them were built, 3 were scrapped, 23 total were planned. Oh, and 2 were destroyed before completion. Type XXI had defects, which of the 118 built, only 4 were fit for combat, only two were sent on combat patrol, neither ever having sunk a ship, though one reported having a British cruiser in sight, before the cease-fire order was given.

SO... back to another point: Friendly Fire. Let's pretend they increase the speeds, to allow them to keep up with at least BBs. You still run into the problem of Cruisers and Destroyers getting in the way of the submarine, thereby preventing a submarine launching the torpedoes, in fear of friendly fire. Sure, you can give them DWTs like the Asashio, that can only hit BBs and CVs and Subs... But then, you have a submarine, that is only able to hit 2/4 or 3/5 ship types... and we don't even know how common submarine play would be. If it is as rare as CV play currently is, then effectively only 1/4 because the enemy submarine is likely to die by another ship.

Submarines require long term, and patience. This game is fast-paced, and short-termed. Submarnes, no matter how one attempts to balances them, simply will not perform, in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,515 posts
5,500 battles
3 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

I'm fine with them as long as they can't submerge and lose all their hit points when hit by a gun larger than 57mm. Also, they are immediately spotted if there are any aircraft in the air. 

SUBS are going to be fragile for sure but as always the player would have to use their stealth to protect itself.  You would have to be very aware of where the enemy is and where you can hide always planning ahead. Caught in the open seas is not a good move. As for spotting, the sub commander would have to go to periscope depth and look to see if their are any recon enemy planes nearby. Periscope deoth can be detected but at a much smaller radius. If the Sub surfaced totally then it would go to a higher level of detection obviously.   if the sub is a state of very low HP but has heal some games have it that only when fully surfaced can the heal work.  The Subplay is not as easy as one would think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles
8 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Real ship stats leave Subs behind but WoWS doesn’t use real stats.

This is eating your cake and having it as well. 

Either get rid of fake ships stats or buff subs to a level to make them balanced. Like is done for all other ship types.

So pick an argument 

Fudging for balancing sake, or real stats only?

You can’t hold both which you are trying to do.

Real Stats? In which regard?

We were talking about speed - in which case real BB speeds do leave submarines behind, and that's not even to mention most of the paper BBs still have realistic speeds. Just because they weren't built, doesn't mean their stats are fudged - so no, your argument isn't actually valid. You're trying to paint 'paper' battleships as something they were not, and that is a disingenuous argument. There are only handful of BBs in-game that I would consider to have unrealistic speeds, and even then only by a few knots.

 

Meanwhile, that still doesn't change the fact that even the fastest submarines were far slower than most BBs, and even more importantly, the vast majority of WWII submarines are much, much slower. If a South Carolina can outrun the vast majority of submarines you'll see in the game, that class has massive, gaping issue with its viability as a while in the game, never mind the other factors that make submarines nigh impossible - which you still haven't addressed from my first few posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,040 posts
3,580 battles
2 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

There are only handful of BBs in-game that I would consider to have unrealistic speeds, and even then only by a few knots.

I would like to hear your opinion on this. Which battleships do you believe have unrealistic speed? Yeah, I'm changing the topic, because this person simply doesn't like his idea being shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,515 posts
5,500 battles
4 minutes ago, SteelClaw said:

How many times does WG have to say no before you will except the fact there will be no subs? Also, BB players whine constantly over destroyers and torps.... I can just hear the forums now if subs ever got in the game. 

You bring up an interesting point there...the question is HOW many WOW players actually frequent the forums anyways?  Are 5%-10% of the WOW players deciding for the other 90%-95%  as to what should be done? I don't see or hear WOW doing lots of public surveys on issues as a whole.   Would be interesting as to what those numbers though I doubt they will be revealed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
Members
312 posts
10 minutes ago, SteelClaw said:

How many times does WG have to say no before you will except the fact there will be no subs? Also, BB players whine constantly over destroyers and torps.... I can just hear the forums now if subs ever got in the game. 

The forums would explode. 

Share this post


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

Let not put more stuff into the game till we get the current content running smoothly(carrier fix etc..). I rather have qaulity then quantity. 

There in lies the problem it will never be fixed. So the known proposal is to give direct control squads and AA. Ok how does that fix the main problem of air power dominance over any battlefield?

So after the “fix” Battleships will still complain Carriers really aircraft are OP and now they have to multitask AA and main guns. 

So it’s really a bust no matter what they do. Which is why that is probably not what they are doing. Subs would being added would be under a tight NDA because of backlash from a faction of the players. Which ironically the devs have stated they want to bring this factions numbers under control. Mainly Battleship players! You know most of the people on this thread arguing against subs.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles
Just now, Counter_Gambit said:

I would like to hear your opinion on this. Which battleships do you believe have unrealistic speed? Yeah, I'm changing the topic, because this person simply doesn't like his idea being shot down.

Although this is picking on a gimmick; Any French ship with Speed boost, because most of those are already at maximum speed.

Richelieu being able to make 32 knot is kind of iffy - she made them on trails with her engines higher shp than usual and her displacement was less than she'd normally have - her real top speed should be somewhere around 30-31 knots. That being said, her sister Jean Bart had a more powerful powerplant and was a 32-knot ship - which is ironic as in WoWs she's only going to be able to do 30 knots... :Smile_sceptic:

Normandie and Lyon are the other two main culprits, because of WG's radical rebuilding. Normandie was only going to be able to make 22 knots had she been completed according to original plans (45000 shp on 25230 tons full load). For modernization plans after WWI (construction was suspended because of the war), they were going to more than double the power of the classes to 80,000 shp, and lengthen the hull somewhat to fit said machinery in. However, this would only be good for 24-25 knots, so they decided it was not worth it.

Now, keep in the most radical reconstructions of the 1920s-1930s was the Italian Cavour and Duilio-classes, which along with hull shape changes, had to sacrifice their amidships turret for the power plant to gain 5 knots of speed.

WG's Normandie, without losing any main battery turrets, was lengthen by WG to fit Dunkerque's powerplant (107000shp), and weighing in at 32043 tons in-game, makes 28 knots. Another upgrade raises this to 112k shp, which gives her an additional 1.5 knots - which makes no sense at all.

Lyon, which was to be 23 knots, has had similar treatment, and is able to make 27 knots versus her real-life 23 knots - on a 36301 ton hull with the same power plant and upgrade to it as Normandie

Both of these upgrades are entirely unrealistic based on WG's speculation for ships that were never completed in the first place. Nevermind the fact the upgrades never would have likely had such a drastic speed increase, the project would be so massively expensive the French, who barely afforded what they did historically, could ever conduct such a project without sacrificing the construction of any modern BBs.

 

That's really it, to be honest. I might be missing some (my knowledge on the IJN & USN BBs is not great), but for the most part France is the biggest offender (mostly because of how WG decided to construct the line, which imo really wasn't the best way of doing it). But again, as I mentioned before - a handful, considering we have something like... 65 battleships in total (not counting ARP)?

Share this post


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

You bring up an interesting point there...the question is HOW many WOW players actually frequent the forums anyways?  Are 5%-10% of the WOW players deciding for the other 90%-95%  as to what should be done? I don't see or hear WOW doing lots of public surveys on issues as a whole.   Would be interesting as to what those numbers though I doubt they will be revealed. 

You will never see those numbers. But the forum is like a small percentage of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
13 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

There in lies the problem it will never be fixed. So the known proposal is to give direct control squads and AA. Ok how does that fix the main problem of air power dominance over any battlefield?

So after the “fix” Battleships will still complain Carriers really aircraft are OP and now they have to multitask AA and main guns. 

So it’s really a bust no matter what they do. Which is why that is probably not what they are doing. Subs would being added would be under a tight NDA because of backlash from a faction of the players. Which ironically the devs have stated they want to bring this factions numbers under control. Mainly Battleship players! You know most of the people on this thread arguing against subs.

Why would WG want to remove an inherently simple concept for a type that is going to be, if nothing else, gimmicky as hell? 

Subs are ridiculously gimmicky by their very nature, why even bother with adding them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,425
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,267 posts
2,029 battles
15 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

There in lies the problem it will never be fixed. So the known proposal is to give direct control squads and AA. Ok how does that fix the main problem of air power dominance over any battlefield?

So after the “fix” Battleships will still complain Carriers really aircraft are OP and now they have to multitask AA and main guns. 

So it’s really a bust no matter what they do. Which is why that is probably not what they are doing. Subs would being added would be under a tight NDA because of backlash from a faction of the players. Which ironically the devs have stated they want to bring this factions numbers under control. Mainly Battleship players! You know most of the people on this thread arguing against subs.

Ah, so when did you become privy to details on WG's CV overhaul? I don't suppose you have a source for that first statement?

Without anyone knowing the full scale of what the overhaul is, we have no real way of knowing if it will be a bust or not, so you're only at best guessing - which does little to support your argument. And no, this is not coming from someone who plays mostly battleships.

Share this post


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

Also this is a Russian game trying to expand into the Chinese market. Explain to me how you are going to add a Russian and Chinese carrier line without fudging everything. A sub line well maybe the Chinese line might have some fudging.

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.

×