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

Latest Submarines Q&A

163 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,271
[PVE]
Members
9,798 posts
7,485 battles

I still think using battery would work better than oxygen. Then you could tie speed underwater to battery. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,126
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,564 battles

Excellent Q & A.

Really liked this point. I have been trying to explain this in the forums for years lol.

"We always wanted to have submarines eventually, because being naval warfare enthusiasts we are naturally also fans of submarines. We'd always told the community they did not fit into World of Warships, because we did not have a good concept of how to make them fit without breaking things."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles

If they put subs into the game people will be looking back at history like they do with Navyfield and saying remember when they killed the game by introducing subs.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[SOUTH]
Members
242 posts
2,443 battles

But they're still totally different games with totally different mechanics.

In WoWS, I hope Subs work as they could really be fun. Ambush and hit-and-run predators, which are crazy vulnerable if someone chases them down. This differs from DDs, which do have multiple roles as both torpedo boat, anti-DD, and scout. Now, also ASW platform.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,710 posts
8,135 battles
1 hour ago, Kizarvexis said:

I still think using battery would work better than oxygen. Then you could tie speed underwater to battery. 

Yes! This is so much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,710 posts
8,135 battles
10 minutes ago, rustydawg said:

Now, all we need is PT Boats...LOL

Yes we do, but there would need to be a major refork on armor layouts first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,126
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,564 battles
50 minutes ago, Theokolese said:

If they put subs into the game people will be looking back at history like they do with Navyfield and saying remember when they killed the game by introducing subs.

Well in Navyfield they were crazy OP. I have more faith in WG to balance them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[-S-R-]
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
271 posts
1,798 battles

What's going to be amazing is if a sub tries to surface not realizing ships have moved and surfaces into an enemy vessel and immediately blows up.  Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,271
[PVE]
Members
9,798 posts
7,485 battles
Just now, FlakKnight said:

What's going to be amazing is if a sub tries to surface not realizing ships have moved and surfaces into an enemy vessel and immediately blows up.  Lol

The 2km (3km with slot 5 upgrade) assured acquisition range will mean that both ships will see the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[-S-R-]
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
271 posts
1,798 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

The 2km (3km with slot 5 upgrade) assured acquisition range will mean that both ships will see the other.

Yes but if an enemy ship rounds an island behind you and you are focused on a target in front you might not realize it based on the camera angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,657 posts
4,930 battles
14 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

What's going to be amazing is if a sub tries to surface not realizing ships have moved and surfaces into an enemy vessel and immediately blows up.  Lol

Unless it's a Russian sub, in which case it will destroy the other vessel.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[-PVE-]
Members
166 posts
8,546 battles
2 hours ago, rustydawg said:

Now, all we need is PT Boats...LOL

Actually, I think we could. In the Dunkirk Operation, we have the German Fast Boats. Imagine commanding a small flotilla of Fast Boats using the same mechanic as the in the upcoming CV reboot. The commander of the flotilla would guide his ships towards a target and a couple at a time would move in for the attack. The Fast Boats would take damage as do the aircraft in the new CV mechanic. Very fast action, very good concealment, very vulnerable to secondary fire or rapid fire guns of DD's. Historically DD's were actually developed to counter fast attack torpedo boats... so the inclusion of Fast Boats in the game would give the dd's another role.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,847 posts
17,666 battles
1 hour ago, Kizarvexis said:

The 2km (3km with slot 5 upgrade) assured acquisition range will mean that both ships will see the other.

Yes...but subs have an automatic "forced surfacing" mechanic that may give them limited maneuverability at a time when they are going underneath a ship & even though they see them they can't stop the auto surfacing. Should definitely be an auto flood (or 2 or more even...depending on where they make contact) when that happens though...no torpedo armor belt to lessen the floods from a ram to the bottom of a ship...thus the better flood chance from a deep water torp.

I might try that against Rasputin on the PT part 2 & see what happens. Of course it will be hard to tell whether it causes any extra flooding as opposed to any fires & flooding already going on if you aren't paying particular attention to the numbers right beforehand...which might be kind of difficult to do while trying that from underwater where you can't see those numbers.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,271
[PVE]
Members
9,798 posts
7,485 battles
Just now, lewellenfawr said:

Actually, I think we could. In the Dunkirk Operation, we have the German Fast Boats. Imagine commanding a small flotilla of Fast Boats using the same mechanic as the in the upcoming CV reboot. The commander of the flotilla would guide his ships towards a target and a couple at a time would move in for the attack. The Fast Boats would take damage as do the aircraft in the new CV mechanic. Very fast action, very good concealment, very vulnerable to secondary fire or rapid fire guns of DD's. Historically DD's were actually developed to counter fast attack torpedo boats... so the inclusion of Fast Boats in the game would give the dd's another role.

As if DDs need another role. They are the scouts and will only be more so when the CV rework is done. They are seen as the cappers. They will be the anti-sub ship and they will also be the anti-PT boat ships as well? DDs have enough on their plate as it is.

 

1 minute ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Yes...but subs have an automatic "forced surfacing" mechanic that may give them limited maneuverability at a time when they are going underneath a ship & even though they see them they can't stop the auto surfacing. Should definitely be an auto flood (or 2 or more even...depending on where they make contact) when that happens though...no torpedo armor belt to lessen the floods from a ram to the bottom of a ship...thus the better flood chance from a deep water torp.

I might try that against Rasputin on the PT part 2 & see what happens. Of course it will be hard to tell whether it causes any extra flooding as opposed to any fires & flooding already going on if you aren't paying particular attention to the numbers right beforehand...which might be kind of difficult to do while trying that.

Should cause a high chance of flooding to the surface ship hit yes, but be instant death on the sub. I think flooding should be WAY more dangerous to subs than it appears it will be. Subs have very little reserve buoyancy as they are supposed to sink on command. So it should not take much flooding damage to doom a sub.  Or damage period to keep a sub on the surface, unable to dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[-S-R-]
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
271 posts
1,798 battles
13 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

As if DDs need another role. They are the scouts and will only be more so when the CV rework is done. They are seen as the cappers. They will be the anti-sub ship and they will also be the anti-PT boat ships as well? DDs have enough on their plate as it is.

 

Should cause a high chance of flooding to the surface ship hit yes, but be instant death on the sub. I think flooding should be WAY more dangerous to subs than it appears it will be. Subs have very little reserve buoyancy as they are supposed to sink on command. So it should not take much flooding damage to doom a sub.  Or damage period to keep a sub on the surface, unable to dive.

 

The chances of a sub surviving a torpedo with the current hp levels make it seem irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,094 posts
17,761 battles
3 hours ago, paradat said:

Excellent Q & A.

Really liked this point. I have been trying to explain this in the forums for years lol.

We always wanted to have submarines eventually, because being naval warfare enthusiasts we are naturally also fans of submarines. We'd always told the community they did not fit into World of Warships, because we did not have a good concept of how to make them fit without breaking things.

Who is this "we" to whom you refer?  This "we" would rather not see subs in the game, if I had my druthers.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,126
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,564 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

Who is this "we" to whom you refer?  This "we" would rather not see subs in the game, if I had my druthers.

This is a quote from the Q & A the "We" Is the developers and Lesta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,736
Members
18,271 posts
5,224 battles
3 hours ago, Theokolese said:

If they put subs into the game people will be looking back at history like they do with Navyfield and saying remember when they killed the game by introducing subs.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Steel Ocean, even though a crap game in general, actually had reasonable sub gameplay.

I have no doubt that, just as WoWS is far superior to Steel Ocean, they could make superior sub gameplay that works reasonably well. 

The question is, will they?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,094 posts
17,761 battles
2 minutes ago, paradat said:

This is a quote from the Q & A the "We" Is the developers and Lesta.

Ah.  You didn't have that section of your post in quotes when I wrote that previous reply, so I thought that it was your comment, not a quote from the Q&A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,126
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,564 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

Ah.  You didn't have that section of your post in quotes when I wrote that previous reply, so I thought that it was your comment, not a quote from the Q&A.

Yeah sorry just added the quotes. Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,126
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,429 posts
9,564 battles
11 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Steel Ocean, even though a crap game in general, actually had reasonable sub gameplay.

I have no doubt that, just as WoWS is far superior to Steel Ocean, they could make superior sub gameplay that works reasonably well. 

The question is, will they?

So Much this ^^

As far as will they? I have always thought that if the could the would. So the question is can they? I think that they think the answer to that is yes.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×