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

264
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,680 posts
8,116 battles
3 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

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.

Submarines stopped aiming with their bows very early into development. Torpedoes had a gyro-compas to turn to a set course, depth and speef after launch. 

Not that this is a simulator, but subs would never have to be pointing at their target; just be in range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
470
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,020 posts
3,512 battles
1 minute ago, GreyFox78659 said:

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.

There is no evidence that a USSR Carrier line, nor Pan-Asian Carrier line is going to be added... Where the hell did you get that idea from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
470
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,020 posts
3,512 battles
1 minute ago, Crokodone said:

Submarines stopped aiming with their bows very early into development. Torpedoes had a gyro-compas to turn to a set course, depth and speef after launch.

Not that this is a simulator, but subs would never have to be pointing at their target; just be in range.

No, they didn't. There is still a firing angle that is required to be hit first. Those Gyro-compasses, simply increased the firing angle. The bow or stern (some subs had torpedo tubes in the stern), still had to be pointing in the general direction of the target for the launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
3 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

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.

Which is exactly what you are saying when say it’s not. But I do have WoWS recent track record as back up to the fact Carriers are still  going to be broken. Also there has been zero input from carrier mains they are just as in the dark as we are. Outside of the ones that got a sneak peak under NDA. Literally no details have been leaked. Which considering the scope of this rework is kind of unprecedented. Every ship in the game will have to be reworked and rebalanced. While RN DDs are in the works BTW they have to be rebalanced too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,412
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,044 posts
6,722 battles
7 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Russian and Chinese carrier line

Russia,and as far as i know China, didnt even have ONE CV in the era this game covers, now designs being made? sure, but a operational CV? no

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,680 posts
8,116 battles
2 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Well at least you admit you are losing the "debate."

Oh... you weren't talking about your side...

The support of the minority.

How about this: Address some actual concerns that were brought up. Submarines are slow, and likely would not engage in combat, not once, when the game ends. Submarines as a result, would cause players to lose credits, and gain very little experience in return, heck, that's if the game even registers them as having been active (not being active results in 0 credits and 0 experience, and still require paying base service cost).

The Speed, and the method of aim, will make submarine play more frustrating, which is why majority of the WoWS community does not want submarines in the game. Face it, the side you claim is losing and "making themselves look larger" is most certainly larger than you want to believe. YOU are in the minority, not the majority.

I personally would LOVE to see submarines in the game. But the difference between you and I, is that I'm not delusional.

None of these arguments are true. In addition, WG adjusts the economy according to their impact on the battle: carriers anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,407
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,255 posts
2,029 battles
6 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

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.

WG has point blank stated they have no plans to add a German or Russian carrier line because it would requite far to many ships that existed as blueprints only.

So there's your answer.

Likewise, there is no Chinese line, only 'Pan-Asia', which exists only so far as a Destroyer line, and maybe someday light cruisers. That being said, it's not like their nationality matters when it comes to China, as the CN server censors all nations into fictional ones. That being said China also couldn't have a WWII submarine line, so subs really don't help WG expand into China at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,680 posts
8,116 battles
3 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

No, they didn't. There is still a firing angle that is required to be hit first. Those Gyro-compasses, simply increased the firing angle. The bow or stern (some subs had torpedo tubes in the stern), still had to be pointing in the general direction of the target for the launch.

If that was true? Why so many subs were sunk by own aka circle running torpedoes?

Sub launched Torpedoes were designed for a long time to turn down an opposite path as rl engineers long seen that problem.

Edited by Crokodone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
470
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,020 posts
3,512 battles
1 minute ago, Crokodone said:

None of these arguments are true. In addition, WG adjusts the economy according to their impact on the battle: carriers anyone?

So a submarine, due to being unable to engage because friendlies are in the firing line, and they can't give chase, contributes 0 spotting damage, 0 caps, 0 potential damage, 0 damage, 0 kills, 0 defense, 0 fires, 0 floods, 0 torpedo hits... is going to get a whole ton of credits and experience, despite contributing nothing to the over all battle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,364 battles
2 minutes ago, Avenge_December_7 said:

Screen Shot 2018-06-24 at 1.16.10 PM.jpg

This is gold, +1 to you.

That April fool's event was one of the funniest things I've run into on the interwebs.

Edited by megadeux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
470
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,020 posts
3,512 battles
2 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

If that was true? Why so many subs were sunk by own aka circle running torpedoes?

Citation needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,680 posts
8,116 battles
1 minute ago, Counter_Gambit said:

So a submarine, due to being unable to engage because friendlies are in the firing line, and they can't give chase, contributes 0 spotting damage, 0 caps, 0 potential damage, 0 damage, 0 kills, 0 defense, 0 fires, 0 floods, 0 torpedo hits... is going to get a whole ton of credits and experience, despite contributing nothing to the over all battle?

Thats the point. Friendlies wont be in the firing line because right now the firing line is nomans land thanks to radar or so they claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,680 posts
8,116 battles
2 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Citation needed

Read a book on submarines theres many out there :cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[SAA]
Members
856 posts
27,229 battles

Ok subaholics, you win, i give up. 

I have now seen the light and I think you are totally right about adding subs to the game.  I think that your points are all valid and that to make the game more realistic we should have them added.

With that I think we should add other units as well, like:

1. Rockets that hit your port and damage your oil supply's

2. Land based attack aircraft to randomly come after you during a match

3. Land based artillery (Yep!  Bring on the arty!)

4. Randomly generated land based torp stations

5. Blimps

6.Unicorns (Hay, Why the %#*@ not)

Were dose this sheet storm end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,407
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,255 posts
2,029 battles
2 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Which is exactly what you are saying when say it’s not. But I do have WoWS recent track record as back up to the fact Carriers are still  going to be broken. Also there has been zero input from carrier mains they are just as in the dark as we are. Outside of the ones that got a sneak peak under NDA. Literally no details have been leaked. Which considering the scope of this rework is kind of unprecedented. Every ship in the game will have to be reworked and rebalanced. While RN DDs are in the works BTW they have to be rebalanced too.

"Which is exactly what you are saying when say it’s not."

No offensive (I don't intend this as an ad hominem attack), but you're going to have to clear up this sentence grammatically, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  

Moving on;

WG's recent track record? You mean the implementation of Graf Zeppelin, about which WG has stated they disliked the way it was implemented? Seeing as that carrier has no bearing on the CV overhaul except for an example of what not to do, I really don't think that becomes an argument for "WG will throw out CVs entirely. Whether or not CV mains have had an input or not really doesn't mean much, as any testing WG's doing on it is purely internal and with Supertesters at best (so, NDA), if they've advanced to that stage yet. Given the scale of said overhaul, it's not surprising no details have been leaked - generally leaks only happen if WG puts things into the game code of other the live or PTS server. So it's really hardly unprecedented. It's not like we were getting leaks about Invisi-fireing's removal aside from the fact it was happening, until they actually announced it.

As for rebalancing - yep. In terms of AA at least, but I don't expect it to cause a massive earthquake of tier-shifting. But it would requite far, far less effort and changes than the rebalancing that would need to happen if submarines were added.

To bring up my as-yet unanswered argument from earlier in the thread;

Quote

Considering how integrated CVs are into the game, and the amount of effort being expended on fixing them, it wouldn't even be remotely close to cost-effective to cut them out, especially as that would entirely remove one of the major balance metrics of the game - Anti-Aircraft Firepower.

 

Submarines would just be far more costly to create, and would requite a fundamental overhaul of the entire game engine seeing as underwater isn't even modeled, and one would have to rebalance entire lines based on their ability to hunt and counter submarines. This is not to mention the facts that not all submarines look alike, so you're adding in a massive number of new models, and animations for said models. WG has modeled entire battleships and carriers for April Fools, so their ability to model a submarine for it is of no significance. Heck, they've even put out promotional material for mechanized dolphins.

 

Submarines simply do not fit into the hierarchy of WoWs. This game is centered around a tactical battle, a fleet engagement. This is not the kind of situation submarines were meant to or even able to operate in. They were strategic weapons, ambushers and stalkers of defenseless ships. They did not and could not operate in fleet battles, as the action moved far to rapidly for them. This would be true in WoWs as well. No submarine is going to be able to cross the map in a timely manner to defend a cap, it's only option is to wait and hope that someone blunders across their path and doesn't also dodge their first spread of torpedoes. It would be boring to play as, and frustrating to play against. That's about the worst combination you can put together in a game.

 

It would be a massive price tag to throw away CVs, moreso to add submarines, and you'd probably not get much in return because they'd be bloody awful to play. If you want submarine gameplay, go play Silent Hunter III, and get a real and enjoyable experience out of it. WoWs just isn't built in a way that would ever be comfortable for submarines.

No CV overhaul is going to cause anywhere near the mayhem and rebalancing as a submarine addition. In terms of cost-effect, throwing out CVs for subs just makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,407
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,255 posts
2,029 battles
2 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

Ok subaholics, you win, i give up. 

I have now seen the light and I think you are totally right about adding subs to the game.  I think that your points are all valid and that to make the game more realistic we should have them added.

With that I think we should add other units as well, like:

1. Rockets that hit your port and damage your oil supply's

2. Land based attack aircraft to randomly come after you during a match

3. Land based artillery (Yep!  Bring on the arty!)

4. Randomly generated land based torp stations

5. Blimps

6.Unicorns (Hay, Why the %#*@ not)

Were dose this sheet storm end?

Oh, don't forget mines!

Oh, and being unable to fix jammed rudders!

Also, random engine failures and boilers coming offline if you run at top speed for too long!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
6 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Citation needed

That is why you need to stop while your ahead on subs. Circle running was a huge problem. Subs still have torpedoes the self destruct if they turn 180 degrees. Homing torpedoes were used by both Germany and the US during the war. If fact an Avenger got the first ever aircraft delivered homing torpedo kill on a German Uboat.

Share this post


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

Ok subaholics, you win, i give up. 

I have now seen the light and I think you are totally right about adding subs to the game.  I think that your points are all valid and that to make the game more realistic we should have them added.

With that I think we should add other units as well, like:

1. Rockets that hit your port and damage your oil supply's

2. Land based attack aircraft to randomly come after you during a match

3. Land based artillery (Yep!  Bring on the arty!)

4. Randomly generated land based torp stations

5. Blimps

6.Unicorns (Hay, Why the %#*@ not)

Were dose this sheet storm end?

Your idea for a sheet storms Sparks my interest, will it have a reduction in mobility associated with it?

Can the sheets be lit on fire?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
470
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,020 posts
3,512 battles
2 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Read a book on submarines theres many out there :cap_book:

you made the claim, burden of proof is on you. So again: Citation Needed.


But if you are curious: Those torpedoes were never meant to do complete circles. It was a failure of the gyro-compass and rudder system, that allows for a launch that weren't 100% bow on. The system was to do minor course correction, then swim straight the rest of the duration.

Only5 submarines were known to be sunk by faulty Gyro-system. Two USN Subs, and 3 German U-boats.

German U-boats, were equipped with torpedoes, that were built to adjust course after traveling a certain distance, and then keep adjusting course, until it runs out of fuel or hits a target. Those torpedoes were used to great success against merchant ships and transport ships. NOT meant to do a circular run until after it travels a set distance. As a result, those submarines, required near-bow-on, or near-stern-on, launch of the torpedoes. Only failure of the Gyro-system caused it to make a complete circle shortly after launch.

The Mark 14 torpedo used by the USN Submarines, were never meant to do circular runs. The gyro-system was meant to alter course, so that a torpedo launch didn't have to be perfectly bow-on. So the launch was still near-bow-on, or near-stern-on. These torpedoes were not designed to do the same task as the ones the Germans used, and for sure was not meant to do a complete turn around shortly after launch.


So no, there weren't "Many submarines that sunk themselves." Just 5, due to FAULTY, Gyro-system.


HMS Trinidad, RN DD, also suffered a hit from a torpedo with a faulty gyro-system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,642 battles
6 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

The great submarine debate  Not the first.

 

The arguments against submarines currently being debated. I can help you.

 

They are impossible to balance! It is the opposite. Very easy. First you need to understand that subs can only have 4 or 6 torpedo salvo so they never are going to be OP. So the only 2 aspects  WG needs to tweak to make them balance is: how much time they can be submerged ; how many seconds to reload. 

 

Subs have many facets that allow balance, underwater time surface time, sight distance,etc. This was already  discussed in previous debates about subs. The stock CE would be around 4.5 km. With captain skill and cammo will be around 3.7 km

 

They are invincible underwater! Nope. They can be killed by depth charges or by torps and ramming at periscope depth. However it is not supposed to be that easy to kill them with depth charges. The same way ships can have torpedo beats subs could also have the chance for dodge them. This would bring skill to the DD and sub player.

 

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

 

Battleships can’t attack them! They are not supposed to do but yes they can. There is a time limit a sub can stay under water. 

 

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. All subs can be rammed in periscope depth.

 

They will be boring! I share the same opinion about the actual CV gameplay , but in the end there are many who enjoy. The same will happen with sub gameplay.

 

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

 

They won’t add anything to the game! They add subs. A stupid answer to a stupid question.

 

They will help with the current meta issue of ship staying static and not moving. In fact is the opposite. Imagine a Des Moine behind a island, been perma spotted by a submerged sub near him? He really needs to move.

 

 

They aren’t realistic! Doesn't make sense.

 

Nothing in this game is truly realistic. Doesn't make sense (2)

 

They will win by survival causing me to lose! They are not invincible. They can be killed with depth charges or you can wait them to surface.

 

Back the day when ties were possible yes ties aren’t possible. Falacium. Irrelevant to the debate.

 

For your BIG DEBATE you forgot to make some important questions, but i will help you.

Subs can submerge immediately? Nope there is a delay around 5 seconds or more. This is to give the players enough time to attack them when spotted.

Subs are to slow! They will all have a super speed booster  for the diesel engines. This will help them to relocate from an area to another . However it will only works in the surface. This is intentional to create a risk/reward situation. The moment the sub submerge , if activated the player will lose the speed boost.

The devs will need to create the underwater floor for subs? Nope. You guys can watch subs gameplay from steel ocean on youtube. You guys will understand how it works.

When can i expect to have subs? Probaly when there is no more tech tree to be release , WG will then look at subs to make new content to the game and make profit.

What others gimmicks subs can have? American subs radar but will only work at surface, german hydro. The u-flak will have defensive AA but this will be a premium probaly.

Can we expect to see german subs using snorkel? Nope. Snorkel didn't gave no advantage in speed underwater IRL. So there is no reason to see the in game.

Subs can only aim forward? Nope. Players can aim to the left and right , no problems. When launched the torpedo will sail forward only for some meters before turn to where you aimed. But this is only for some meters to prevent subs to spam torps behind islands.

How is supposed to players detect a sub submerged? There will be a new gimmick for DDs and CL . The active sonar. The difference is this gimmick is always activated and will detect subs at ranges around 4 km.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,492 posts
5,479 battles
38 minutes ago, megadeux said:

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?

Come on now..EVERYTHING in WOW is a gimmick. Check this out on a BB - MAIN GUN RELOAD BOOSTER  -  NOW thata a real gimmick much like torpedo relod booster but on a BB on main guns.  Oh the  ideas they have!

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
470
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,020 posts
3,512 battles
10 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

That is why you need to stop while your ahead on subs. Circle running was a huge problem. Subs still have torpedoes the self destruct if they turn 180 degrees. Homing torpedoes were used by both Germany and the US during the war. If fact an Avenger got the first ever aircraft delivered homing torpedo kill on a German Uboat.

He said many were sunk by circle running torpedoes (I.e. torpedoes with faulty gyro-systems)... THAT'S what I was asking a citation for... Did you literally not read the quote?

By the way: 5 is not many.

I was not asking about citation on homing torpedoes. Which by the way 37 submarines sunk by mark 24, 18 damaged. A success rate of 55/340... 340 being the total number of mark 24s used during the war. So if they were designed to take out submarines, they weren't very successful at it.

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.

×