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

Subs - Why We Might Get Them in Game, and Why We Likely Won't

132 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,147
Members
24,013 posts
6,035 battles
12 minutes ago, UssIowaSailor said:

I think with the carrier rework you will see battleships bunching up to maximize AA. What concerns me most is if the carrier rework makes sitting out of range of the machine gun HE spam cruisers suicide so battleships have to move within range of the machine gun cruisers.

Not necessarily. Before there's a good opening, I like to stay near BBs and use them for meatshields in my Hindy. I already provide AA support without specifically doing so.

And really, it all depends on how AA gets balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,536 posts
10 battles
12 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

That sounds petulant, and not what a player of your calibre will do at all.

You'll plan around sightings just like you do when anything else is spotted. You'll analyse the threat level, and act accordingly, while being as effective as possible.

If a sub is spotted on the other side of the map, you'll estimate how long it will take to get within firing range of where you plan to be at the time, and if it can't get to you in a reasonable amount of time, you'll de-prioritise it and carry on.

lol you know hyperbole when you see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
627 posts
3,208 battles

With regards to the camping BB issue, those that camp will keep camping... adding subs changes nothing; those BBs that push already know better so...

I welcome the addition of subs, I do however think they have to be carefully balanced.

Edited by CO_Valle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,714
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,583 posts
11,524 battles
1 hour ago, Slimeball91 said:

There is no need to panic, WG will balance subs, you don't have to worry about that. 

*Looks at the last several years of DD play.*

Suuuuuuure. You’re free to keep thinking that. They still haven’t even fixed the USN and IJN DD guns post 6.3. They haven’t even admitted that there is even a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
627 posts
3,208 battles
2 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

OWSF bad

Invisible subs good

I don't get it

DDs can still do OWSF with torps.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,224
[SBS]
Members
4,610 posts
2,408 battles
24 minutes ago, Xplato said:

No, not even game mechanics. we already know they can fire at periscope depth... to even think they would need to surface to fire with that knoweldge is a pretty moronic thing to even suggest. not to mention it would make zero sense given the technology. Subs only ever fired torps on the surface either at night, or early war period where merchant convoys were very poorly protected. they wouldn't ever intentionally surface to fire on a military warship, for obvious reasons they would be annihilated.

It's a mindbogglingly stupid statement.

Come on, don't be like that.  Besides, you haven't even thought through what you're saying.  As of now subs can only spend a limited amount of time at periscope depth or fully submerged.  That means they will have to spend time surfaced where they will be vulnerable.  If you believe WG isn't going to balance subs then you just aren't think rationally. 

21 minutes ago, UssIowaSailor said:

I do believe Wargaming is trying to get rid of Battleships at high tier and turn the game into a much faster paced and much shorter game.

I'm not sure WG is trying to get rid of BBs (and I don't think you're seriously suggesting that).  I do think the days of BBs being the focal point of the game are numbered.  The game is going to change, we agree there.

4 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

*Looks at the last several years of DD play.*

Suuuuuuure. You’re free to keep thinking that. They still haven’t even fixed the USN and IJN DD guns post 6.3. They haven’t even admitted that there is even a problem. 

I'm with you on the balance being off and DDs tend to get the short end of the stick on that.  Still, balance is a relative thing.  US and IJN DDs aren't perfect but they function and any lack of balance hasn't stopped people from playing them.  Subs will be the same.  Not everyone will like the balance but they will function well enough in the game and life will go on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
Alpha Tester
1,406 posts
541 battles
1 minute ago, Slimeball91 said:

Come on, don't be like that.  Besides, you haven't even thought through what you're saying.  As of now subs can only spend a limited amount of time at periscope depth or fully submerged.  That means they will have to spend time surfaced where they will be vulnerable.  If you believe WG isn't going to balance subs then you just aren't think rationally. 

 

He said fire on the surface. which means surface to fire. not surface for 30s-1Min as a cooldown if you will. completely different things.

again he is a moron for even suggesting subs would only be able to fire ont he surface along with the other brain dead crap he has suggested in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,224
[SBS]
Members
4,610 posts
2,408 battles
Just now, Xplato said:

He said fire on the surface. which means surface to fire. not surface for 30s-1Min as a cooldown if you will. completely different things.

again he is a moron for even suggesting subs would only be able to fire ont he surface along with the other brain dead crap he has suggested in this thread.

I believe he is referring to subs only being able to fire when surfaced and at periscope depth.  Both allow the sub to be detected, surfaced detection is something like ~5km and periscope depth detection is ~4.5km.   Being fully submerged is the only time you don't seem to have a normal detection range (invisible).  Subs can't fire fully submerged.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,536 posts
10 battles
11 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I'm not sure WG is trying to get rid of BBs (and I don't think you're seriously suggesting that).  I do think the days of BBs being the focal point of the game are numbered.  The game is going to change, we agree there.

Get rid of is an overstatement but I think Wargaming does not want games with 6 battleships on each side. I think they would prefer 1 or 2 battleships per team, a CV, and the rest made up of cruisers, dd's, and subs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,349
[ARGSY]
Members
13,946 posts
9,023 battles
41 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

OWSF bad

Invisible subs good

I don't get it

That's because you haven't interpreted what you've seen in the full context. Stop, think, reflect on everything the CC's have said, and I do mean EVERYTHING. Don't just focus on the knee-jerk OMG WHAT HAPPENS IF THESE ARE IN THE GAME TOMORROW WE ARE ALL DOOMED reaction some people appear to be having.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[NMKJT]
Members
3,857 posts
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

That's because you haven't interpreted what you've seen in the full context. Stop, think, reflect on everything the CC's have said, and I do mean EVERYTHING. Don't just focus on the knee-jerk OMG WHAT HAPPENS IF THESE ARE IN THE GAME TOMORROW WE ARE ALL DOOMED reaction some people appear to be having.

I don't believe I have said we're doomed at all. 

My point is OWSF was removed because players hated being shot by invisible ships. Adding subs is contrary to that philosophy.

They can be well designed and balanced; players will still hate stealth attacks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,020
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
8,203 posts
14 minutes ago, UssIowaSailor said:

Get rid of is an overstatement but I think Wargaming does not want games with 6 battleships on each side. I think they would prefer 1 or 2 battleships per team, a CV, and the rest made up of cruisers, dd's, and subs. 

Which would be another example of WG being fixated on their "VISION" to the detriment of the actual game.

They need to concentrate on the quality of the actual gameplay and controls, removing bugs, coming up with a "punishment" system that actually works (see sig), etc, and stop getting their undies in a bunch about the players not following WG's precious "vision". 

Just let people play the damn game, and stop trying to force things.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,923
[WOLFG]
Members
6,409 posts
4,357 battles
5 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

I don't believe I have said we're doomed at all. 

My point is OWSF was removed because players hated being shot by invisible ships. Adding subs is contrary to that philosophy.

They can be well designed and balanced; players will still hate stealth attacks

 

Destroyer torpedoes are already stealth attacks. 

But yes, everyone does hate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,349
[ARGSY]
Members
13,946 posts
9,023 battles
9 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

I don't believe I have said we're doomed at all. 

My point is OWSF was removed because players hated being shot by invisible ships. Adding subs is contrary to that philosophy.

They can be well designed and balanced; players will still hate stealth attacks

 

I'm just saying it would be a bad idea to go to that level of overreaction.

My point is:

1) This is a test scenario, in which the only thing on display is the handling mechanics (steering, weapons, diving-time limitations). The subs we see are probably hideously more powerful than anything we will see in the main game, because in Halloween mode they have to be.

2) There has been no work on surface vs submarine counters demonstrated, and until there is, we don't know just how easy or hard it will be to detect them.

3) I hate stealth attacks enough when they are delivered by stealthy high-tier destroyers, which can deliver FAR more torpedoes at one go than almost any submarine ever could. The big problem with OWSF was the continuous rain of gunfire it made possible (often relighting double fires that had just been extinguished), but an Atlanta can still do that behind hard cover if they have a spotter and can adjust their fire with sufficient skill.  Submarine torpedoes will require reload time and have a very narrow launch angle adjustment requiring the whole ship to be turned (possibly not all that quickly), and there's no guarantee that this will not provide significant balance in itself. It's a very different kettle of fish even from a fast IJN or pan-Asian destroyer that can zip into torp range (but still beyond your detection), dump a couple of five-tube racks from freely trainable launchers, and then skedaddle the hell out of there.

4) There is no guarantee that subs will make their way through to unrestricted PvP play. Until they do, best to think about all the things that would have to be dealt with and put them forward for discussion in a sane and rational manner.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,714
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,583 posts
11,524 battles
1 hour ago, Wombatmetal said:

OWSF bad

Invisible subs good

I don't get it

I was thinking the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[A-D-F]
Members
1,182 posts
5,240 battles
4 hours ago, puxflacet said:

Further discourage battleships to push...a good change you say?

 

3 hours ago, FirestormMk3 said:

No, it will discourage camping alone in the back.  Without being near your destroyers and light cruisers and their depth charges you will just be food for submarines.

 

3 hours ago, _Caliph_ said:

A completely irrelevant argument at this point. There is nothing that is going to compel BBs to push when you give them fantastic accuracy from long range, the best tank ability, and healing. Each and every crumb of the ships capability can be abused from long range and always will be until you make hit rates from long range next to nil. The days of BB players stranglehold on the development of the game is coming to an end and it has been needed for a very long time. Subs are coming. End of discussion.

 

3 hours ago, Komrade_Rylo said:

 

Pretty sure bbs are going to be even less likely to push if subs are in the game.

 

3 hours ago, FirestormMk3 said:

Then they will be food.  If they don't have an escort from something with actual anti-submarine capabilities they will be defenseless.  Battleships that push with their cruisers though will have an ally to help deal with subs.

@FirestormMk3 , I doubt the implementation of submarines into WoWs will affect current BB gameplay significantly. I think a number of people fail to take into account why a number of BB players have resorted to camping and sniping at the back of the map and that is lack of team play.

Your suggestion that if BBs don't want to be picked off by subs is that they group up with the DDs and cruisers is good and sound, but the problem is that in Co-Op or Random battle modes, unless said BB player is divisioned up with DD and cruisers, they will likely not get much support from their teammates. The lack of team play has been a consistent problem for players in WoWs. 

As it stands now, if you play 100 Co-Op and/or Random battles, you would be able to count on two hands where DDs and CLs screened for enemy DDs and provided AA for heavy cruisers and BBs. But if that happens, for example in 10 battles out of 100, in five of those 10, when the group starts coming under fire, the DDs and cruisers will disengage and leave the BB player alone. People complain all the time about BB players camping and sniping, but this is a big reason why they do so. I'm not saying all BB players camp due to this and I'm not saying it is good for the game or helpful to the team, but as @CO_Valle pointed out, the majority of players that camp and snipe are going to continue to do so. Those of us who play BBs and push and try our best to help the team will continue to do so.

1 hour ago, CO_Valle said:

With regards to the camping BB issue, those that camp will keep camping... adding subs changes nothing; those BBs that push already know better so...

I welcome the addition of subs, I do however think they have to be carefully balanced.

 

Edited by daVinci761st
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,536 posts
10 battles
22 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Which would be another example of WG being fixated on their "VISION" to the detriment of the actual game.

They need to concentrate on the quality of the actual gameplay and controls, removing bugs, coming up with a "punishment" system that actually works (see sig), etc, and stop getting their undies in a bunch about the players not following WG's precious "vision". 

Just let people play the damn game, and stop trying to force things.

 

 

Well the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Overall this game has under performed. It has a pathetically small player base, it does not retain players that well, and new players are rare. You can't blame them for trying to find that sweet spot that will help the game not only sustain itself but grow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,020
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
8,203 posts
Just now, UssIowaSailor said:

Well the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Overall this game has under performed. It has a pathetically small player base, it does not retain players that well, and new players are rare. You can't blame them for trying to find that sweet spot that will help the game not only sustain itself but grow. 

I think part of the cause for that is that they fixate on how players play the game -- "Too many ________!", "Too few ______!", "Players not brawling enough!", etc -- instead of whether the game is enjoyable and high-quality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[NMKJT]
Members
3,857 posts

 

7 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

4) There is no guarantee that subs will make their way through to unrestricted PvP play. Until they do, best to think about all the things that would have to be dealt with and put them forward for discussion in a sane and rational manner.

Subs are the most requested feature in the game Devs have said. I cannot imagine teasing them, not to mention all of the background work to make them function, without WG intending to add them to the regular game.

With all the radar through islands, hydro, OWSF nerf, all the changed to minimize stealth, this class runs contrary to the direction of the game.

Nothing I have said has been hyperbolic.  I am discussing in a sane manner.

I think the "no one has said it will make it into pvp" is disingenuous. It takes a ton of programming to render 3d directional movements and I think they have more payback in mind than a holiday event; especially one that historically has been used as a test bed in past.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
627 posts
3,208 battles
6 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

With all the radar through islands, hydro, OWSF nerf, all the changed to minimize stealth, this class runs contrary to the direction of the game.

Now that you mention... wouldn't subs be a hard counter to island campers? (i.e. radar cruisers hiding behind an island), subs might force them out where they are vulnerable... subs as a counter to radar

....

chewing on it

...

of course there is hydro... but usually you have to sacrifice Def AA in order to get hydro.... and with the CV rework...

:cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,020
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
8,203 posts
16 minutes ago, daVinci761st said:

 

@FirestormMk3 , I doubt the implementation of submarines into WoWs will affect current BB gameplay significantly. I think a number of people fail to take into account why a number of BB players have resorted to camping and sniping at the back of the map and that is lack of team play.

Your suggestion that if BBs don't want to be picked off by subs is that they group up with the DDs and cruisers is good and sound, but the problem is that in Co-Op or Random battle modes, unless said BB player is divisioned up with DD and cruisers, they will likely not get much support from their teammates. The lack of team play has been a consistent problem for players in WoWs. 

As it stands now, if you play 100 Co-Op and/or Random battles, you would be able to count on two hands where DDs and CLs screened for enemy DDs and provided AA for heavy cruisers and BBs. But if that happens, for example in 10 battles out of 100, in five of those 10, when the group starts coming under fire, the DDs and cruisers will disengage and leave the BB player alone. People complain all the time about BB players camping and sniping, but this is a big reason why they do so. I'm not saying all BB players camp due to this and I'm not saying it is good for the game or helpful to the team, but as @CO_Valle pointed out, the majority of players that camp and snipe are going to continue to do so. Those of us who play BBs and push and try our best to help the team will continue to do so.

 

 

I like winning. 

So when playing a ship with fast-firing guns, I consider it my job to focus on visible DDs first, and either destroy them or put them in a bad place in terms of damage and "criticals". 

And when playing a ship with strong AA, I at least try to anticipate where enemy bombers will attack and get into their path or near enough their target to take down some of the planes. 

But when playing a BB, I feel like I usually have little choice but to hit "1, 1" and engage visible enemy DDs myself, hoping to score a crippling HE hit and/or at least drive the DD off, because I can rarely count on friendly cruisers to engage that DD, even if they're nearby... they're usually trying to farm damage by lighting cartoon fires on enemy BBs at max range.   

At least once a night, I'll see a friendly CL or CA who obviously has their head stuck up their butt sniper view, and is ignoring their mini-map, get sunk by a DD that runs right up on them unchallenged and fires off a full wall of torps while they're lobbing away at some distant BB hoping to farm damage.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,020
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
8,203 posts
3 minutes ago, CO_Valle said:

Now that you mention... wouldn't subs be a hard counter to island campers? (i.e. radar cruisers hiding behind an island), subs might force them out where they are vulnerable... subs as a counter to radar

....

chewing on it

...

of course there is hydro... but usually you have to sacrifice Def AA in order to get hydro.... and with the CV rework...

:cap_hmm:

Given how slow most subs would be, especially while submerged, I don't see them being able to get behind the lines and into position to take those shots in a timeframe that will really affect the game. 

Honestly, I see subs being all-or-nothing ships that do a lot of garbage-time damage-farming after the battle is over, after having scared the rest of the players (overall) into an even more stagnant and cover-based gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[NMKJT]
Members
3,857 posts
8 minutes ago, CO_Valle said:

Now that you mention... wouldn't subs be a hard counter to island campers? (i.e. radar cruisers hiding behind an island), subs might force them out where they are vulnerable... subs as a counter to radar

....

chewing on it

...

of course there is hydro... but usually you have to sacrifice Def AA in order to get hydro.... and with the CV rework...

:cap_hmm:

I think it all comes down to speed. Can a sub get behind enemy lines in a time manner. 

I think they will contest caps more. I can take that cap and Radar can't see me.

Edited by Wombatmetal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×