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

If subs make it to randoms. lets discuss balance.

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

75
[APOC-]
Beta Testers
328 posts
4,076 battles

I've been thinking about the way subs in game would function given what we have seen thus far. 

I understand this is a very alpha WIP but that shouldn't stop us from discussing the finer points of how they will work. I don't mean whinging or hand ringing. I mean discussing potential problems and possible solutions. Also I would like to say this is a arcade game made for fun, and while historic accuracy is important, game play must be the chief concern. Please attempt to stay away from "but history!", type posts.

There are a few points I would like to discuss with the player base and come up with ideas to make for some balanced game play. 

Vision:

My main concern is spotting and how that would work in a team setting.

Submerged: My thoughts about it are that while submerged no data is transferred between the sub and team. So you get last known positions on the minimap until you resurface(to para-scope depth) and resume radio contact with your team. This prevents subs doing the exact same thing that was wrong with CVs  by being vision gods. I think that keeping the minimum spotting didtance for both the sub and the ship in contact with them could be interesting but I'm still on the fence about it. The only way to be spotted would be by hydro and the possible introduction of active sonar.

Para-scope: Low max view range ~10km , I don't know how it works now but you shouldn't be about to spot a ship if it is outside your max view range. Very low detectability ratings, probably between 4km and 5km. Cannot be spotted by radar but planes, hydro, and distance all would work. This would let the sub function as a spotting beacon.  You can spot everything in a 10km radius from your boat but you better not be too close to a hidden DD or a plane overhead. There is an opportunity cost here where you are risking your boat or at least your location. It also keeps subs from being long range spotters that go mostly undetected.

Surfaced: Like every thing else in the game, has an air and sea detect rating. Between 5 and 6km, slightly lower for planes. Radar, hydro,  planes, and distance can spot them. Yes that is low but with the amount of HP subs will have (very low)and the prevalence of radar, planes, (new CVs?), and DDs, I feel that if you get spotted it is a death sentence if stuck on the surface for more than a second.

Capping:

This one is relatively simple,  no capping/de-capping/ or contesting unless fully surfaced. Then as normal.

Counter play:

Pretty much all DDs and CLs should have depth charges, I would also like to see CVs have a ASW squadron where they could set a sonar buoy, and have 3 sets of depth charge dropping planes.

Hydro; some changes to current ships may be necessary to provide enough ships able to counter subs. But I think with CVs, DDs, and CLs, it may be enough.

Sonar gimmick:

Range in between radar and hydro 8km max. Spots subs and surface ships, but also reveals your location to the enemy for the duration. Can be used submerged.  Given to some/most/all subs and very select few DD or CLs. This may be too much but just throwing it out there.

 

Please discuss my ideas or post some of your own, I'm interested in hearing how you guys would want subs to work if they make into randoms.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[PIZZA]
Members
22 posts
1,248 battles

I think that is a pretty good start. How do you see depth charges working? (I know nothing about how they work in real life). Do I have to select the depth or something? Do they fire off at range or just drop by the side of the boat?

18 minutes ago, FirstOfOne said:

Sonar gimmick:

Range in between radar and hydro 8km max. Spots subs and surface ships, but also reveals your location to the enemy for the duration. Can be used submerged.  Given to some/most/all subs and very select few DD or CLs. This may be too much but just throwing it out there.

There's like a 99% chance that they will have some kind of vision consumable like that, since that's what they do with everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[APOC-]
Beta Testers
328 posts
4,076 battles
5 minutes ago, Recury said:

I think that is a pretty good start. How do you see depth charges working? (I know nothing about how they work in real life). Do I have to select the depth or something? Do they fire off at range or just drop by the side of the boat?

There's like a 99% chance that they will have some kind of vision consumable like that, since that's what they do with everything. 

Im not exactly sure how they would work. In the event video they said right now they have a randomized depth to make the subs have "vertical torpedo beats" minigame which sounds fun for the sub, but I usually prefer choice over RNG. As far as how they are launched, I think the smoke comsumables are a great comparison. The duration, cooldown and radius all seem about right to me. But except for smoke it is underwater doom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,235 posts
1,817 battles

DD players are overloaded with tasks, and DDs never conducted anti-submarine warfare while under fire from other DDs, cruisers and BBs.  In addition, if only DDs, and perhaps CLs, can fight submarines what happens when those high skill requirement types all die early due to a team with lower skilled players in them?  Does the team just have to play "don't go where the submarine is?"

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[PIZZA]
Members
22 posts
1,248 battles
17 minutes ago, FirstOfOne said:

Im not exactly sure how they would work. In the event video they said right now they have a randomized depth to make the subs have "vertical torpedo beats" minigame which sounds fun for the sub, but I usually prefer choice over RNG. As far as how they are launched, I think the smoke comsumables are a great comparison. The duration, cooldown and radius all seem about right to me. But except for smoke it is underwater doom!

Maybe you could have the depth charges automatically go off at the correct depth and then whether they hit or not is just dependent on aim. Would probably require a weird overhead camera angle for when you have them active and are trying to aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
Members
1,590 posts
4,356 battles

* periscope. Sorry, I had to.

Re: depth charges, anti-sub rockets, mines...

Generally, these are proximity weapons. They use different mechanisms for fusing, but the idea is get close to the target and use the effectively incompressible nature of water to transfer massive pressure to the hull of the target sub, followed by a vacuum once water collapses back into the void created by the initial explosion. Uncontrollable flooding is a win. 

Implication is that you need to get over top of a submerged sub to use a depth charge. Set to the proper depth, naturally. Replicating that in game while under fire is going to be....interesting. 

Th flip side is you have a ship that has...what... 4-6 tubes? Those better be some monster torps. One tiny little deck mounted gun when surfaced? The firepower is pretty pathetic compared to the current in game standards for surface warfare. I’d consider giving them the option to launch deep water and standard torps the way surface ships get HE and AP. Sort of a binary depth setting, but you could tweak performance further for balance. Do you bring in running electric versus snorkeling? I know it’s been brought up, but how do you work that meaningfully into the game when it lasts 20 minutes? Why surface the ship at all if anything that needs doing can be done at periscope depth? Does sonar, convergence zones, etc. factor into sub only spotting when submerged? Is the sun completely blind? 

It’ll be interesting to see, if it ever makes it live, that’s for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[TDRB]
Members
1,073 posts
4,118 battles
1 hour ago, FirstOfOne said:

I've been thinking about the way subs in game would function given what we have seen thus far. 

I understand this is a very alpha WIP but that shouldn't stop us from discussing the finer points of how they will work. I don't mean whinging or hand ringing. I mean discussing potential problems and possible solutions. Also I would like to say this is a arcade game made for fun, and while historic accuracy is important, game play must be the chief concern. Please attempt to stay away from "but history!", type posts.

There are a few points I would like to discuss with the player base and come up with ideas to make for some balanced game play. 

Vision:

My main concern is spotting and how that would work in a team setting.

Submerged: My thoughts about it are that while submerged no data is transferred between the sub and team. So you get last known positions on the minimap until you resurface(to para-scope depth) and resume radio contact with your team. This prevents subs doing the exact same thing that was wrong with CVs  by being vision gods. I think that keeping the minimum spotting didtance for both the sub and the ship in contact with them could be interesting but I'm still on the fence about it. The only way to be spotted would be by hydro and the possible introduction of active sonar.

Para-scope: Low max view range ~10km , I don't know how it works now but you shouldn't be about to spot a ship if it is outside your max view range. Very low detectability ratings, probably between 4km and 5km. Cannot be spotted by radar but planes, hydro, and distance all would work. This would let the sub function as a spotting beacon.  You can spot everything in a 10km radius from your boat but you better not be too close to a hidden DD or a plane overhead. There is an opportunity cost here where you are risking your boat or at least your location. It also keeps subs from being long range spotters that go mostly undetected.

Surfaced: Like every thing else in the game, has an air and sea detect rating. Between 5 and 6km, slightly lower for planes. Radar, hydro,  planes, and distance can spot them. Yes that is low but with the amount of HP subs will have (very low)and the prevalence of radar, planes, (new CVs?), and DDs, I feel that if you get spotted it is a death sentence if stuck on the surface for more than a second.

Capping:

This one is relatively simple,  no capping/de-capping/ or contesting unless fully surfaced. Then as normal.

Counter play:

Pretty much all DDs and CLs should have depth charges, I would also like to see CVs have a ASW squadron where they could set a sonar buoy, and have 3 sets of depth charge dropping planes.

Hydro; some changes to current ships may be necessary to provide enough ships able to counter subs. But I think with CVs, DDs, and CLs, it may be enough.

Sonar gimmick:

Range in between radar and hydro 8km max. Spots subs and surface ships, but also reveals your location to the enemy for the duration. Can be used submerged.  Given to some/most/all subs and very select few DD or CLs. This may be too much but just throwing it out there.

 

Please discuss my ideas or post some of your own, I'm interested in hearing how you guys would want subs to work if they make into randoms.

Sounds to me like you want to give subs the advantage. While subs did manage to sink a warship from time to time they were mostly used against cargo ships. Sub loss rates were very high. The USA, having cracked Japanese code enabling US subs to ambush Japanese ships, still lost 20%. Serving on a U-boat was almost as suicidal as flying a Kamikaze.

BTW, depth charges & hedge hogs are useless without sonar to spot the enemy. You want surface ships to have a very limited ability to detect subs. You post clearly shows the monumental problem of balancing ships with totally different styles of combat in the game & why WG should drop CV's & forget about subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[APOC-]
Beta Testers
328 posts
4,076 battles
14 minutes ago, Mahrs said:

 

Th flip side is you have a ship that has...what... 4-6 tubes? Those better be some monster torps. One tiny little deck mounted gun when surfaced? The firepower is pretty pathetic compared to the current in game standards for surface warfare. I’d consider giving them the option to launch deep water and standard torps the way surface ships get HE and AP. Sort of a binary depth setting, but you could tweak performance further for balance.

 

 

Do you bring in running electric versus snorkeling? I know it’s been brought up, but how do you work that meaningfully into the game when it lasts 20 minutes? Why surface the ship at all if anything that needs doing can be done at periscope depth? Does sonar, convergence zones, etc. factor into sub only spotting when submerged? Is the sun completely blind? 

 

I agree with the depth adjustable torps, that would be a fine way to add "Depth" to game play. Using the small number of tubes efficiently for the sub would add to game play IMO.

 

Back in Alpha all ships had 2 health bars IIRC, hull health and flooding. They deemed it too complicated and switched to the hp only system and made flooding cause DoT.  Having an Air/oxygen bar and an electrical power bar seems about the same to me. I think you could just tweak the way oxygen recharges and depletes to maintain balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[APOC-]
Beta Testers
328 posts
4,076 battles
2 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Sounds to me like you want to give subs the advantage. 

BTW, depth charges & hedge hogs are useless without sonar to spot the enemy. You want surface ships to have a very limited ability to detect subs. You post clearly shows the monumental problem of balancing ships with totally different styles of combat in the game & why WG should drop CV's & forget about subs.

I felt that what I wrote would make life very tough for them, not give an advantage.

After testing you could always give sonar and hydro to more ships if they were too OP.  Not to mention that if you are dropping ASW munitions you will be in proxy spot range.

 

I don't necessarily think they (subs) do belong in the game, but I feel that after the work WG has done it is inevitable, and would rather discuss options that may make them more balanced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[FGNE]
Members
344 posts
2,467 battles

I agree that a sub would have very limited vision ranges when at periscope depth, and slightly larger when surfaced (after all the masts aren't that tall), and that while submerged they shouldn't get updates on the actual location,... but perhaps an estimate based on latest known position and direction.

I agree that a sub should have different torpedo types, but I propose that these aren't controlled in the same way of AP/HE, but rather current depth, that is, "normal" torpedos while surfaced/PD, and deep water while fully submerged. Another point for this is that there has to be some form of sub vs sub warfare so the sub's torpedoes might be required to stay at launch depth.

The idea of active sonar is interesting... you can get spot/vision while submerged at the cost of revealing your position... interesting... but would it be useful?

Also, I think that all ships (that were equipped to) should have some form of ASW weaponry, but that DDs and CLs should be the most effective ASW platforms. So I say that "normal" torps should be able to hit subs while surfaced or at PD, while DWTs be able to hit submerged subs.

As for depth charges... there could be two types, aft-launched and hedgehog... how would these operate?, auto firing like secondaries or manually aimed?.

EDIT:

I was reading that MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detectors) were already in use in WWII, perhaps a special MAD upgrade could allow to extend the assured detection range of subs for the ship that mounts it.

Edited by CO_Valle
MAD
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RNG]
Members
269 posts
2,508 battles

How the [edited] do you delete a post?  This was a fustercluck

Edited by TheBeefKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RNG]
Members
269 posts
2,508 battles

Apparently hitting control enter sends the post

Edited by TheBeefKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RNG]
Members
269 posts
2,508 battles
2 hours ago, FirstOfOne said:

Please attempt to stay away from "but history!", type posts.

 

33 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

 While subs did manage to sink a warship from time to time they were mostly used against cargo ships. Sub loss rates were very high.

iN ReAl LiFe ThEy WeRe MoStLy UsEd AgAiNsT cArGo ShIpS.

 

At any rate, good ideas OP, I hope WG implements subs in a way that's along these lines.  I'm worried about them breaking the game or at least turning it into something that is either no longer fun for me, the general populace, or both.

I've always wanted to see a torp DD line that has mediocre damage torps with quick reloads, rather than alpha torps with mediocre reloads like the japanese.  The rest of the torp stats could be similar to the japanese except they wouldn't have astronomical detection.

Submarines could potentially fill that role with few torp tubes, but speedy reloads, their concealment allowing them to stay in torp range and firing longer.  This could also help counterplay by allowing people to figure out where the subs are by backtracking the frequent torps.

Edited by TheBeefKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[DRAH]
Members
99 posts
3,388 battles
57 minutes ago, Mahrs said:

* periscope. Sorry, I had to.

Re: depth charges, anti-sub rockets, mines...

Generally, these are proximity weapons. They use different mechanisms for fusing, but the idea is get close to the target and use the effectively incompressible nature of water to transfer massive pressure to the hull of the target sub, followed by a vacuum once water collapses back into the void created by the initial explosion. Uncontrollable flooding is a win. 

Implication is that you need to get over top of a submerged sub to use a depth charge. Set to the proper depth, naturally. Replicating that in game while under fire is going to be....interesting. 

Th flip side is you have a ship that has...what... 4-6 tubes? Those better be some monster torps. One tiny little deck mounted gun when surfaced? The firepower is pretty pathetic compared to the current in game standards for surface warfare. I’d consider giving them the option to launch deep water and standard torps the way surface ships get HE and AP. Sort of a binary depth setting, but you could tweak performance further for balance. Do you bring in running electric versus snorkeling? I know it’s been brought up, but how do you work that meaningfully into the game when it lasts 20 minutes? Why surface the ship at all if anything that needs doing can be done at periscope depth? Does sonar, convergence zones, etc. factor into sub only spotting when submerged? Is the sun completely blind? 

It’ll be interesting to see, if it ever makes it live, that’s for sure.

Exactly, Depth charge attacks are basically rams with no collision damage. The implications for sub hunting are that the hunter needs a good speed advantage of close to 50% to be able to close the range which will make the subs very slow like US battleships even at Tier X

There is also the issue that in this game charging a torp armed opponent is a very risky move because of how the game works.

I believe them when they say that they have put very little thought into the ASW counterplay exactly because they are saying the primary attacks are Depthcharges. I suspect they will need to give all ships anarchronistic depth charge projectors so point blank rams are not required or other counterplay approaches will need to be designed.

Given all the work on maps, DC lauch animations and weapon modelling and refining a very underdeveloped ASW concept that we will be lucky (or unlucky depending on point of view) to see mainline Subs before 2020.

Edited by Ellyh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,648 posts
4,917 battles
54 minutes ago, FirstOfOne said:

Also I would like to say this is a arcade game made for fun, and while historic accuracy is important, game play must be the chief concern. Please attempt to stay away from "but history!", type posts.

Well, the problem is you really can't discount or run away from this one. 

What is the draw for WOWS?  Game play is a part of this but it's not what is going to draw players to the game nor is it just interest in gameplay that is going to maintain it.  There are all sorts of other games out there than make no pretensions to having any historical basis, what makes WOWS different from those is that it's based on ships that actually existed (or which largely existed in plans or in incomplete instruction).  It's that historical basis that draws players to this game and largely keeps them.  They come because they are interested in these ships and often the history behind them. 

If you make WOWS the type of game based solely on game play and for arcade style "fun", the reason that this game exists and the draw it has will largely evaporate as will a significant number of it's players.  If these are players primary concerns, then WG offers at least two non-historically based game systems where you can concentrate on arcade non-historical game play issues all you want.  

If submarines are added to the game, then their gameplay will have to have a semblance of historical accuracy or it's going to be like adding Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters and Nuclear Parachutes Toads to the game.

I reviewed the sample video of how submarines are incorporated into the game in WG's test of them for the upcoming Halloween event and I drew the following conclusions. 

1) Submarines operate in three different modes, submerged, periscope depth and surfaced. 

2) It appears that Submarines are immune to any surface weapons systems while submerged and it also appeared as if this is also the case with periscope depth.  It appeared that the only time a submarine can be damaged by normal WOWS weaponry is if it is surfaced. 

3) It's doesn't appear that submarines have use of any of their surface guns.  It appeared that the only weapons system used were torpedoes. 

4) Torpedo firing arcs were limited and appeared to be very narrow so much of the aiming has to be the sub actually turning to place it's targets within these narrow arcs which is historically accurate. 

5) There is some video showing enemy ships using depth charges against submerged subs.  This of course is a PVE view where things like this are easier to manage (sort of like the star shells in operation Cherry Blossom and minefields and torpedo boats in Operation Dynamo). If this were to migrate to Random Battles, this is a capability which other ships will need to have otherwise a submerged submarine is virtually immune to attack. 

You're going to find very few examples of cruisers being equipped with ASW weapons.  Dealing with submarines, both in WWI and WWII was chiefly the responsibility of destroyers and their smaller cousins, the Destroyer Escorts, Frigates and Gunboats of the various navies.   To retain any semblance of realism, these weapons should be limited to destroyers and only allocated to larger vessels if those vessels actually had an ASW weapons fit in real life. 

6) Spotting distances are largely governed by the height of the vessel.  For submarines, their ability to spot any target at periscope depth will be a function of the height of the periscope and the height and size of the target it is attempting to spot.  When a submarine is surfaced, the height of it's periscope is increased and so would the range at which it can spot targets. 

7) Submarines which are fully submerged can not spot any target which is not virtually on top of them and can not engage other vessels while fully submerged. 

8) Radar should work fine against surfaced submarines and it's also possible that it could detect submarines at periscope depth at a much reduced rate. 

9) Hydroacoustic search should be able to detect submarines at their normal range. 

10) Carriers tended to use torpedo bombers for ASW work although Dive Bombers could be used as well.  Torpedo bombers were preferred however because they tended to be larger and able to house the radar systems needed by most planes to locate surfaced submarines while still carrying an effective payload.  You'd need an option to equip your torp bombers with depth charges instead of torpedoes.  With the upcoming examples of changes in carrier operations, this might be difficult unless the carrier commander is interested in using their entire airgroup for ASW operations. 

11)  For those players concerned that the early loss of ASW capable surface ships might create a situation in which submarines would dominate the late game, there are two historical counters (no need to send out the Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters with a bunch of new consumables. 

  a) Speed:  Submerged submarines are slow with a Capital S.  A good average submerged speed with fresh batteries would be around 8 to 10 knots which severely limits what a submerged submarine can accomplish by the mere fact that it's going to have trouble getting to where it wants to be while under water. 

If a submarine wants to actually get anywhere, it's going to need to surface which will make it vulnerable to the fire of enemy vessels. 

  b) Lack of Alpha Strike capability.  In observing the video, subs only had a couple of torpedoes they could launch before having to reload.  A spread of a couple of torpedoes, even if all of the torpedoes strike home, is going to hurt rather than sink most ships.  This lack of ability to launch devastating strikes from hiding is very limited and would, with the capping rule in place, serve to balance a enemy submarine vs surface ships that may not be able to threaten it while submerged. 

12) Depth Charge Depth:  To really add this level of detail to ASW operations really should be the stuff of a dedicated game to ASW operations where details like this can be better added.  It's also relatively a non-issue since it doesn't appear that submerged submarines have any control over how deep they are actually driving, they are simply submerged at whatever depth the "submerged" option is.  Using an ASW consumable aboard DD's and a RNG determined depth should work just fine, sort of like the auto drop function of carrier strike craft. 

How could this benefit the game?

1) Campers:  Every get frustrated by camping battleships and cruisers hiding behind rocks?  Well, this could be an ill advised strategy when enemy submarines are present.  I can see submarines on the surface trying to get into position and then submerging to visit the happy hunting grounds of bow on BB's sitting behind rocks.  

2) Introduction of ASW specialists:  Having submarines in the game might allow the introduction of types of vessels which currently have no real place in the WOWS universe, namely the host of Destroyer Escorts, Escort Destroyers and Frigates which were built both during WW I and WW II as well possibly of some additional DD classes not in the game but which could be added in a ASW heavy configuration. 

How could this hurt the game?

1) Subs in a combat setting like that depicted in WOWS is a-historical.  They simple don't belong in the kinds of combat portrayed by the game.  Then again, Carriers being regularly hunted down be enemy destroyers is also a-historical.  However, adding too much a-historical content destroys much of what players are attracted to in the first place.  As such, when implementing subs into the game, the urge to "game balance" the ships to a non-historically supportable degree should be resisted.  For the most part, subs didn't participate in surface battles, however if they are added to WOWS, they should be added with historical qualities so that players can get a feel for "what would it be like if a submarine was involved in these battles" standpoint.

If the Arcade non-historical approach suggested by the OP is implemented, it will simply add another heavy element of a-historical elements to the game further reducing the attraction which the game has for new players as well as many existing players and could easily drive a significant number of players out of the game.   

2) Subs could be added in such a way as to create more a-historical game play.  Things are bad enough already.  I'm pretty sure the Hood and Bismark didn't face each other bow on and hit reverse nor did cruisers hide behind rocks and HE spam everything in reach.  Improperly implemented, subs could create additional elements where a-historical game play is rewarded and more historical game play is punished. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[WOLF6]
[WOLF6]
Members
65 posts
2,136 battles

As a voracious reader of history, especially WWII, just the thought of putting subs into this game and keeping it balanced gives me a headache what with figuring detection ranges (surface boats as well as subs), target designation (for surface & submerged targets)...oy vay...

I've noticed that some CL's do have depth charges on them already (the barrels all lined up on both sides of the rear of the boat is the depth charges) on the ingame renderings and they're set to go boom at a certain depth then simply dropped overboard for the most part. A few ships had a "launcher" that was mid-ship somewhere, but either way, it's a set it and run weapon since if can crack your own hull if you're too close the same way an underwater mine would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RNG]
Members
269 posts
2,508 battles
5 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Well, the problem is you really can't discount or run away from this one. 

What is the draw for WOWS?  Game play is a part of this but it's not what is going to draw players to the game nor is it just interest in gameplay that is going to maintain it.  There are all sorts of other games out there than make no pretensions to having any historical basis, what makes WOWS different from those is that it's based on ships that actually existed (or which largely existed in plans or in incomplete instruction).  It's that historical basis that draws players to this game and largely keeps them.  They come because they are interested in these ships and often the history behind them. 

If you make WOWS the type of game based solely on game play and for arcade style "fun", the reason that this game exists and the draw it has will largely evaporate as will a significant number of it's players.  If these are players primary concerns, then WG offers at least two non-historically based game systems where you can concentrate on arcade non-historical game play issues all you want.  

If submarines are added to the game, then their gameplay will have to have a semblance of historical accuracy or it's going to be like adding Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters and Nuclear Parachutes Toads to the game.

 

I think you're overestimating the importance of historical accuracy in this game and underestimating fun.

You say that the ships themselves are what draw people to this game, so how would have them not be super realistic have an effect on the draw if we still have those ships anyways?  If we had to sacrifice enjoyment of the game for realistic subs, I'd rather just not have the subs in at all.  Not to mention that the game is already extremely unrealistic.

Also, on realism vs. fun:  WT boats took the route of prioritizing realism, and speaking as someone who has played the WT naval forces beta and spent 50$ to get access, that makes WT boats so much less fun than WoWs.  I regret my 50$ buy in to the beta, having only played like 20 matches, despite spending hundreds on WoWs.  Both games have the allure of famous, historical ships, but WoWs is way more fun, and better overall.

I think subs would be fine having a similar level of realism to the current ships in WoWs.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,785
Members
9,958 posts

You're going from rock, paper, scissors to rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock. There is no good answer to balance.:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
[T-RIP]
[T-RIP]
Members
1,044 posts
8,052 battles
2 minutes ago, awiggin said:

You're going from rock, paper, scissors to rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock. There is no good answer to balance.:Smile_teethhappy:

+1 lol Man I love your reply's sometimes, I read that and burst out laughing.. seriously thank you! :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[HCH]
[HCH]
Beta Testers
875 posts
7,230 battles

This is the cluster-cuss of balancing issues and theories why most players didn't want subs in the game.

Only destroyers and some cruisers being able to hunt subs, subs being as slow as molasses, no real way of detecting subs except at suicidally close ranges.

I am still hoping that these subs stay in this PVE mode. For the love all things decent, and for this game's continued existence, don't let these subs hit the mainstream. Just play IJN torpedo-botes if you really need your submarine fix.

Edited by sulghunter331

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,648 posts
4,917 battles
2 hours ago, Mahrs said:

Th flip side is you have a ship that has...what... 4-6 tubes? Those better be some monster torps. One tiny little deck mounted gun when surfaced? The firepower is pretty pathetic compared to the current in game standards for surface warfare. ... ... ... ... Do you bring in running electric versus snorkeling? I know it’s been brought up, but how do you work that meaningfully into the game when it lasts 20 minutes? Why surface the ship at all if anything that needs doing can be done at periscope depth? Does sonar, convergence zones, etc. factor into sub only spotting when submerged? Is the sun completely blind? 

It’ll be interesting to see, if it ever makes it live, that’s for sure.

I don't think the surface guns are being factored into at least the version of submarine combat shown in the example.  The very good reason for that is that most subs carried maybe one 4 or 5 inch gun in an open mount.  The idea behind mounting these weapons wasn't primary to engage surface ships but was instead to sink cargo ships using far less expensive shells rather that hard to manufacture and expensive to acquire torpedoes. 

There were some exceptions and these were called the "cruiser" type submarines. 

The Germans were the first to apply this concept during WW I with their U-139 and U-151 designs which carried two deck mounted 6 inch guns.  During the 1920's and 1930's most other navies experimented with the concept and built at least a few prototype models (many of which saw combat in WW II).  The largest of these was the French Surcouf and British M-1 which mounted two 8 inch/50 caliber guns and one 12 inch/40 caliber guns respectively. 

In general, snorkeling was only operationally applied by German U-Boats during the last year of WWII and for most of the classes, the snorkel had to be erected or retracted while on the surface and with some of the crew on deck (to erect or dismantle the device)  Only with the late war XXI and XXII classes where the snorkels on retractable masts mounted with the periscope array. The submarines of other navies only adopted this innovation following the examination of German U-Boats post war so the use of snorkels in WOWS submarines would probably be fairly rare and only available to select high tier vessels. 

Oh, and @Lert will be pleased to know that the Germans actually got the idea from the Dutch submarines O-25 and O-26 which were captured and examined by the Germans after their conquest of the Netherlands in 1940. 

If you did work snorkeling into the game, it would substantially increase the speed of a submarine operating at periscope depth and allow it to operate submerged for the entirety of the game.  It would only be vulnerable to ASW equipped vessels but it would be easier to spot due to the wake it would make moving through the water at high speed. 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[TDRB]
Members
1,073 posts
4,118 battles
Quote

I think you're overestimating the importance of historical accuracy in this game and underestimating fun.

We all know this is just a video game and balancing takes top priority. With that being understood to many, including me, the closer in game historical accuracy is the more fun the game is. Introducing another class with a completely different play style will create impossible balancing issues as the CV's have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[ISLA]
Beta Testers
334 posts
7,132 battles

This is how i see the game ATM and the RED indicates the roll I put for sub and counter to subs.

 

DD>BB/SUB  

CL/CA/BC>DD/CV/CL/CA/SUB

BB>CL/CA/BC 

CV>BB/DD/SUB

SUB/BB/BC

There always some exceptions to the classes like some gun boat DD (IE. Khab.) acting more like a CL

  And Battle cruiser might not fully be a class at the moment, but they are in the game just lacking the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[DRAH]
Members
99 posts
3,388 battles

If they make it to randoms they will almost certainly need to revamp the captians skill tree... Again. After just revamping it for the carrier gameplay and add both sub focussed skills and antisub focussed skills will need to be added or grafted onto existing skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,648 posts
4,917 battles
38 minutes ago, TheBeefKid said:

I think you're overestimating the importance of historical accuracy in this game and underestimating fun.

You say that the ships themselves are what draw people to this game, so how would have them not be super realistic have an effect on the draw if we still have those ships anyways?  If we had to sacrifice enjoyment of the game for realistic subs, I'd rather just not have the subs in at all.  Not to mention that the game is already extremely unrealistic.

Also, on realism vs. fun:  WT boats took the route of prioritizing realism, and speaking as someone who has played the WT naval forces beta and spent 50$ to get access, that makes WT boats so much less fun than WoWs.  I regret my 50$ buy in to the beta, having only played like 20 matches, despite spending hundreds on WoWs.  Both games have the allure of famous, historical ships, but WoWs is way more fun, and better overall.

I think subs would be fine having a similar level of realism to the current ships in WoWs.

As I said, there will be some people who won't care one way or the other and there will be a large number that do.  WG has a lot of competition out there for people looking for that arcade experience you are talking about, what makes them different from most of these is the historical nature of the subject.  Take that away to a certain degree and you lose these players, many of which are somewhat older and have the bank accounts to more easily purchase WG's offerings.  As such, this is a substantial and important group of players for WG to consider since their loss will translate into significantly reduced revenues.  

To be honest, I don't think most players with the arcade mindset care one way or the other.  As long as it's playable and fun then you aren't going to lose them.  On the other hand, those who are interested in the historical subject matter and wanted to get a feel of what they ships were like to command and take into battle do care.  So lets say that 1/2 of those out there don't care and 1/2 do ... or lets even say that 3/4 don't care and 1/4 do.  What happens when you lose that 1/2 to 1/4 of your players, especially a 1/2 to 1/4 which are the most likely to have the disposable cash to invest in the game.  

It means WOWS turns into WOWPs and that means a lot of cash that WG isn't going to receive. 

Granted, to you it doesn't matter much so you aren't the segment of gamers that changes like this put at risk, but it's probably unwise to believe that everyone believes and looks at things like you do because there is a large segment of WOWS players which most certainly do not.  If such players were such an insignificant minority, why in the original post state that the historical aspects of the game not be addressed.  In this statement, this recognizes that there is a significant and vocal segment of the community which does believe it's important. 

I'm pretty sure WG understands this and also understands the risks of going too far down the Laser Armed Scuba Hamsters route. There is a certain tipping point where moving that direction will harm them and WOWS and so each step down that path needs to be carefully considered because it's hard to judge exactly where the tipping point is until after you've crossed it.  As such, both the game play and historical content must be considered and not pushed to the side. 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×