Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Admiral_Thrawn_1

Poll about adding my Subs

Adding Subs to WOWs?  

122 members have voted

  1. 1. Please consider carefully, but following is how you feel about subs getting added?

    • Yes I think subs are awesome idea!
      22
    • Maybe, but only if subs are properly balanced so they fit well with gameplay instead of a disaster like CVs have been for many.
      45
    • No!
      54
  2. 2. If you voted “No” please clarify why here...

    • Feel that subs will be overpowered and no way Wargaming could ever balance them.
      39
    • Feel that subs will be too vulnerable or underpowered to be of use in Random gameplay
      23
    • Voted “Yes” so this question does not apply.
      59

83 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,227
[RKLES]
Members
7,113 posts
8,767 battles

Got curious as to how many would like subs as well as why some are against them being added. So decided to get some poll data. :fish_book:

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,540 posts
697 battles

If you vote maybe on the first part of the poll, the second part answers are not applicable, and the poll can not be completed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[INTEL]
Members
6,632 posts
25,386 battles

Flawed poll. Second part is incomplete (and I do not mean add Bacon).

How about No! It is not a submarine game?

How about No! If I wanted submarines I would be playing Silent Service or some other game where submarines are well modeled and controls and planning are closer to realistic? Definitely not one with the crappy subs in the Op.

How about No! They lied to us and I do not like to be lied to with a straight face.

How about No! BBs have enough trouble with low-vis DDs and low-vis torps to have another set against them?

How about No!. Do we need this?

How about No! Are depth charges coming next?

 

I do not know if I am clear on this. If any doubts, please let me know and I can rustle a few more reasons (Hint: NO will feature strongly in them).

 

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,561
[HINON]
Supertester
18,979 posts
12,488 battles

I feel that there are some problems with the inclusion of subs in random battles that preclude them from being either fun or competitive.

  • Slow speed. Most era appropriate submarines would be slower both surfaced and submerged than the current slowest ship in the game, with only late war subs really breaking that barrier, and then only when surfaced. I see so many people complaining about the idea of sailing a 21 knot standard type US BB at T8 that I wonder if they even realize that a great many submarines of that era would drool at the ability to go 21 knots.
  • Range and angle of attack. Related to the above point. The example 21 knot standard type US BB has long range guns that can attack in any direction, making lack of speed less of an issue. Submarines have forward and rearward firing tubes that can't aim left or right. Torpedoes are by design slower than shells and have less range, plus - if we take existing game mechanics into account - would not be able to be aimed much off the axis of the launching submarine. So, unwieldy, short range, slow weapons on a slow platform.
  • Anti Submarine Weapons. Destroyers have them, most of them at least. Some cruisers do as well. But what about other cruisers, that don't have things like depth charges? What about battleships that - AFAIK - never had them? And if there were BBs with ASW, they would be very few. Do we really want a ship type in game that is, by design, invulnerable to at least half the ships in the game when submerged?
  • Detection. Hydro would find them, yes. But more ships in this game don't have hydro than there are that do. Most destroyers don't have hydro, most battleships don't, carriers don't.
  • Capturing bases. How would that work? Would / should submerged submarines be able to cap? How would you stop them capping if your team's only two ASW carrying DDs suicided near the start of the match?

Some solutions could be found for these problems, yes, but they would come with their own problems:

  • Forward spawns. That would at least ensure they were closer enough to the initial action. But what about after initial action? Ok, so, this flank is won, and the battle that will decide victory is happening on the other side of the map now. Enjoy being too slow to make yourself count.
  • See above. As said, submarines carry shorter range, slower weapons than our example 21 knot standard type US BB, and weapons that cannot aim significantly off the ship's axis, like the BB can.
  • Could give every ship type ASW like depth charges. Problem here is historicity. Giving ships weapons that they never historically carried is something I would personally hope never happens. A-historical gun upgrades don't fall under this, they're still guns, just of a different model than ones carried historically - a-historical gun upgrades don't fall under "adding whole weapon systems the ship never carried".
  • Could give every ship hydro, but the problems here should be self-evident. Hydro is both a national flavor and a balancing tool. Adding hydro to every ship in the game would upset that balance and remove the national flavor aspect.
  • Could make it so that submarines cannot cap while submerged. I actually think this is a viable, workable solution. While the capture progress would halt when the submarine submerges, it can still submerge to escape detection or try to make an exit to escape being sunk.

If viable, workable solutions can be found for all of these issues, then, sure add them. But honestly? I don't think it's possible to do so without making the submarines completely fantastical submarine-shaped sci fi ships.

Those are just mechanical issues though. There are also other issues I would like to bring up:

  • Historically, submarines for the most part avoided fleet action. This game is about fleet action. They were by design raiders and ambushers, because of pronounced weaknesses outlined above. Slow speed, cumbersome to attack with, vulnerable.
  • What niche would they fill? The sneaky, stealthy torpedo ambusher niche is already taken by torpedo boat destroyers, and even there it's a game style Wargaming has been trying to move away from. Plus, destroyers would still be better at it, even in their current state. They have the speed to flank and get into position, plus a heavier torpedo output. Good luck getting into an ambush position when your team has ships that go twice as fast to try the same thing you're trying and good luck smashing your ambush target to bits with less torpedoes per salvo than an even tier destroyer.

 

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[WOLFB]
Members
2,600 posts
4,981 battles

I do not like the idea but I am willing to see what WG does with this and if it will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,004 posts
10,057 battles
18 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

If you vote maybe on the first part of the poll, the second part answers are not applicable, and the poll can not be completed.

Exactly, the second part of the poll if you vote no are loaded answers, thus forcing either a yes vote, a pre-ordained answer or not voting at all. 

Sorry OP, your poll whether intended or not, is coming across as heavily bias.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,062
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,240 posts
8,815 battles

I voted maybe but I also want the subs to have the proper feel and from what I have seen on the PT they do not feel at all like subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,042
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,134 posts
9,231 battles

Fully on board and ready to Dive Dive Dive Dive!

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
597
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,760 posts
11,146 battles

I hope they don't have an auto surface so I can suffocate my crew so I don't let anyone get the kill on me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
705 posts
15 minutes ago, Lert said:

I feel that there are some problems with the inclusion of subs in random battles that preclude them from being either fun or competitive.

  • Slow speed. Most era appropriate submarines would be slower both surfaced and submerged than the current slowest ship in the game, with only late war subs really breaking that barrier, and then only when surfaced. I see so many people complaining about the idea of sailing a 21 knot standard type US BB at T8 that I wonder if they even realize that a great many submarines of that era would drool at the ability to go 21 knots.
  • Range and angle of attack. Related to the above point. The example 21 knot standard type US BB has long range guns that can attack in any direction, making lack of speed less of an issue. Submarines have forward and rearward firing tubes that can't aim left or right. Torpedoes are by design slower than shells and have less range, plus - if we take existing game mechanics into account - would not be able to be aimed much off the axis of the launching submarine. So, unwieldy, short range, slow weapons on a slow platform.
  • Anti Submarine Weapons. Destroyers have them, most of them at least. Some cruisers do as well. But what about other cruisers, that don't have things like depth charges? What about battleships that - AFAIK - never had them? And if there were BBs with ASW, they would be very few. Do we really want a ship type in game that is, by design, invulnerable to at least half the ships in the game when submerged?
  • Detection. Hydro would find them, yes. But more ships in this game don't have hydro than there are that do. Most destroyers don't have hydro, most battleships don't, carriers don't.
  • Capturing bases. How would that work? Would / should submerged submarines be able to cap? How would you stop them capping if your team's only two ASW carrying DDs suicided near the start of the match?

Some solutions could be found for these problems, yes, but they would come with their own problems:

  • Forward spawns. That would at least ensure they were closer enough to the initial action. But what about after initial action? Ok, so, this flank is won, and the battle that will decide victory is happening on the other side of the map now. Enjoy being too slow to make yourself count.
  • See above. As said, submarines carry shorter range, slower weapons than our example 21 knot standard type US BB, and weapons that cannot aim significantly off the ship's axis, like the BB can.
  • Could give every ship type ASW like depth charges. Problem here is historicity. Giving ships weapons that they never historically carried is something I would personally hope never happens. A-historical gun upgrades don't fall under this, they're still guns, just of a different model than ones carried historically - a-historical gun upgrades don't fall under "adding whole weapon systems the ship never carried".
  • Could give every ship hydro, but the problems here should be self-evident. Hydro is both a national flavor and a balancing tool. Adding hydro to every ship in the game would upset that balance and remove the national flavor aspect.
  • Could make it so that submarines cannot cap while submerged. I actually think this is a viable, workable solution. While the capture progress would halt when the submarine submerges, it can still submerge to escape detection or try to make an exit to escape being sunk.

If viable, workable solutions can be found for all of these issues, then, sure add them. But honestly? I don't think it's possible to do so without making the submarines completely fantastical submarine-shaped sci fi ships.

Those are just mechanical issues though. There are also other issues I would like to bring up:

  • Historically, submarines for the most part avoided fleet action. This game is about fleet action. They were by design raiders and ambushers, because of pronounced weaknesses outlined above. Slow speed, cumbersome to attack with, vulnerable.
  • What niche would they fill? The sneaky, stealthy torpedo ambusher niche is already taken by torpedo boat destroyers, and even there it's a game style Wargaming has been trying to move away from. Plus, destroyers would still be better at it, even in their current state. They have the speed to flank and get into position, plus a heavier torpedo output. Good luck getting into an ambush position when your team has ships that go twice as fast to try the same thing you're trying and good luck smashing your ambush target to bits with less torpedoes per salvo than an even tier destroyer.

 

Well done, sir. Excellent reasoning.

 

BZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,852 posts

I would vote NO, but my reason is both of the reasons you give -- they'll either be useless and painful to play if represented faithfully within the framework of WOWS... or they'll be cartoonish caricatures, blow up the framework, and ruin the game for everyone else if made fun and interesting to play. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,990
[PVE]
Members
8,982 posts
7,315 battles
19 minutes ago, Lert said:

I feel that there are some problems with the inclusion of subs in random battles that preclude them from being either fun or competitive.

  • Slow speed. Most era appropriate submarines would be slower both surfaced and submerged than the current slowest ship in the game, with only late war subs really breaking that barrier, and then only when surfaced. I see so many people complaining about the idea of sailing a 21 knot standard type US BB at T8 that I wonder if they even realize that a great many submarines of that era would drool at the ability to go 21 knots.
  • Range and angle of attack. Related to the above point. The example 21 knot standard type US BB has long range guns that can attack in any direction, making lack of speed less of an issue. Submarines have forward and rearward firing tubes that can't aim left or right. Torpedoes are by design slower than shells and have less range, plus - if we take existing game mechanics into account - would not be able to be aimed much off the axis of the launching submarine. So, unwieldy, short range, slow weapons on a slow platform.
  • Anti Submarine Weapons. Destroyers have them, most of them at least. Some cruisers do as well. But what about other cruisers, that don't have things like depth charges? What about battleships that - AFAIK - never had them? And if there were BBs with ASW, they would be very few. Do we really want a ship type in game that is, by design, invulnerable to at least half the ships in the game when submerged?
  • Detection. Hydro would find them, yes. But more ships in this game don't have hydro than there are that do. Most destroyers don't have hydro, most battleships don't, carriers don't.
  • Capturing bases. How would that work? Would / should submerged submarines be able to cap? How would you stop them capping if your team's only two ASW carrying DDs suicided near the start of the match?

Some solutions could be found for these problems, yes, but they would come with their own problems:

  • Forward spawns. That would at least ensure they were closer enough to the initial action. But what about after initial action? Ok, so, this flank is won, and the battle that will decide victory is happening on the other side of the map now. Enjoy being too slow to make yourself count.
  • See above. As said, submarines carry shorter range, slower weapons than our example 21 knot standard type US BB, and weapons that cannot aim significantly off the ship's axis, like the BB can.
  • Could give every ship type ASW like depth charges. Problem here is historicity. Giving ships weapons that they never historically carried is something I would personally hope never happens. A-historical gun upgrades don't fall under this, they're still guns, just of a different model than ones carried historically - a-historical gun upgrades don't fall under "adding whole weapon systems the ship never carried".
  • Could give every ship hydro, but the problems here should be self-evident. Hydro is both a national flavor and a balancing tool. Adding hydro to every ship in the game would upset that balance and remove the national flavor aspect.
  • Could make it so that submarines cannot cap while submerged. I actually think this is a viable, workable solution. While the capture progress would halt when the submarine submerges, it can still submerge to escape detection or try to make an exit to escape being sunk.

If viable, workable solutions can be found for all of these issues, then, sure add them. But honestly? I don't think it's possible to do so without making the submarines completely fantastical submarine-shaped sci fi ships.

Those are just mechanical issues though. There are also other issues I would like to bring up:

  • Historically, submarines for the most part avoided fleet action. This game is about fleet action. They were by design raiders and ambushers, because of pronounced weaknesses outlined above. Slow speed, cumbersome to attack with, vulnerable.
  • What niche would they fill? The sneaky, stealthy torpedo ambusher niche is already taken by torpedo boat destroyers, and even there it's a game style Wargaming has been trying to move away from. Plus, destroyers would still be better at it, even in their current state. They have the speed to flank and get into position, plus a heavier torpedo output. Good luck getting into an ambush position when your team has ships that go twice as fast, and good luck smashing your ambush target to bits with less torpedoes per salvo than an even tier destroyer.

 

 

You forgot one. They had very little reserve buoyancy as they are supposed to sink on command. So damage that caused even minor flooding could doom a sub. Major flooding from a single large caliber shell or worse torpedo, would doom a sub assuming it survived the hit. Also, while ships can sail around with holes in the hull, it is kinda hard for a sub that has been holed by a large caliber shell to submerge. So with subs being fragile to gun fire, they should have very little health, which brings its own problem to subs in a fleet action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,561
[HINON]
Supertester
18,979 posts
12,488 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

You forgot one. They had very little reserve buoyancy as they are supposed to sink on command. So damage that caused even minor flooding could doom a sub. Major flooding from a single large caliber shell or worse torpedo, would doom a sub assuming it survived the hit. Also, while ships can sail around with holes in the hull, it is kinda hard for a sub that has been holed by a large caliber shell to submerge. So with subs being fragile to gun fire, they should have very little health, which brings its own problem to subs in a fleet action.

That's solved by the hitpoint / health system WoWS uses and Wargaming's choice to make 1 hp ships just as combat effective as that same ship at 50k hp. Everything you say is correct, but I personally do not consider it an unsolvable issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,418 posts
5,424 battles
51 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

If you vote maybe on the first part of the poll, the second part answers are not applicable, and the poll can not be completed.

2nd THAT STATEMENT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,990
[PVE]
Members
8,982 posts
7,315 battles

 

6 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

You forgot one. They had very little reserve buoyancy as they are supposed to sink on command. So damage that caused even minor flooding could doom a sub. Major flooding from a single large caliber shell or worse torpedo, would doom a sub assuming it survived the hit. Also, while ships can sail around with holes in the hull, it is kinda hard for a sub that has been holed by a large caliber shell to submerge. So with subs being fragile to gun fire, they should have very little health, which brings its own problem to subs in a fleet action.

3 minutes ago, Lert said:

That's solved by the hitpoint / health system WoWS uses and Wargaming's choice to make 1 hp ships just as combat effective as that same ship at 50k hp. Everything you say is correct, but I personally do not consider it an unsolvable issue.

 

The very little damage a sub can take is a major concession for subs and I would hope that torp angles, sub speed and the like would be held to more historical values. Not to mention that a submerged sub on fire would very quickly use up the oxygen for the crew, so a sub on fire would have a surface.

 

 Of course, submerged time will have to be unhistorical, just like catapult plane times are unhistorical for game balance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,692
[TBW]
Members
6,354 posts
11,905 battles

I really don't care much because WG is going to do what they do. I just don't like wishy washy people and I guess that extends to corporations. If you say never, you should mean never.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,561
[HINON]
Supertester
18,979 posts
12,488 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

... and I would hope that torp angles, sub speed and the like would be held to more historical values.

Same. My fear is that if WG holds true to those things, submarines would be underpowered, un-fun ships looking for a niche that's already been filled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,561
[HINON]
Supertester
18,979 posts
12,488 battles
1 minute ago, LoneWolfMarine said:

I'd rather see PT Boats.

^

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,597
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,763 posts
6,737 battles

My main concern is with speed, honestly. Either WG makes sub basically a submersible version of current DDs, giving them 2-3 times their IRL speed, or they'll be a pain to play and will mostly be used for camping at spots where the enemy ships tend to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,692
[TBW]
Members
6,354 posts
11,905 battles
2 minutes ago, LoneWolfMarine said:

I'd rather see PT Boats.

WG never said they wouldn't ever put PT boats into the game. I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,990
[PVE]
Members
8,982 posts
7,315 battles
1 minute ago, LoneWolfMarine said:

I'd rather see PT Boats.

Pt boats would be worse off than subs. The largest gun a PT boat had was a dual 40mm gun. That is not going to do much of anything to anything but a DD, IF that. You have 2 to 4 torps and then no more. They ships were largely made of wood and less than 100ft long, so would have very little health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,042
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,134 posts
9,231 battles
2 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Pt boats would be worse off than subs. The largest gun a PT boat had was a dual 40mm gun. That is not going to do much of anything to anything but a DD, IF that. You have 2 to 4 torps and then no more. They ships were largely made of wood and less than 100ft long, so would have very little health.

If WG did ad PT boats they would likely let them reload the torps like other ships. The guns would only be for AA if even that.

CV Rework 

Subs

DE

PT

ben stiller jewish GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,227
[RKLES]
Members
7,113 posts
8,767 battles
29 minutes ago, Lert said:

I feel that there are some problems with the inclusion of subs in random battles that preclude them from being either fun or competitive.

  • Slow speed. Most era appropriate submarines would be slower both surfaced and submerged than the current slowest ship in the game, with only late war subs really breaking that barrier, and then only when surfaced. I see so many people complaining about the idea of sailing a 21 knot standard type US BB at T8 that I wonder if they even realize that a great many submarines of that era would drool at the ability to go 21 knots.
  • Range and angle of attack. Related to the above point. The example 21 knot standard type US BB has long range guns that can attack in any direction, making lack of speed less of an issue. Submarines have forward and rearward firing tubes that can't aim left or right. Torpedoes are by design slower than shells and have less range, plus - if we take existing game mechanics into account - would not be able to be aimed much off the axis of the launching submarine. So, unwieldy, short range, slow weapons on a slow platform.
  • Anti Submarine Weapons. Destroyers have them, most of them at least. Some cruisers do as well. But what about other cruisers, that don't have things like depth charges? What about battleships that - AFAIK - never had them? And if there were BBs with ASW, they would be very few. Do we really want a ship type in game that is, by design, invulnerable to at least half the ships in the game when submerged?
  • Detection. Hydro would find them, yes. But more ships in this game don't have hydro than there are that do. Most destroyers don't have hydro, most battleships don't, carriers don't.
  • Capturing bases. How would that work? Would / should submerged submarines be able to cap? How would you stop them capping if your team's only two ASW carrying DDs suicided near the start of the match?

Some solutions could be found for these problems, yes, but they would come with their own problems:

  • Forward spawns. That would at least ensure they were closer enough to the initial action. But what about after initial action? Ok, so, this flank is won, and the battle that will decide victory is happening on the other side of the map now. Enjoy being too slow to make yourself count.
  • See above. As said, submarines carry shorter range, slower weapons than our example 21 knot standard type US BB, and weapons that cannot aim significantly off the ship's axis, like the BB can.
  • Could give every ship type ASW like depth charges. Problem here is historicity. Giving ships weapons that they never historically carried is something I would personally hope never happens. A-historical gun upgrades don't fall under this, they're still guns, just of a different model than ones carried historically - a-historical gun upgrades don't fall under "adding whole weapon systems the ship never carried".
  • Could give every ship hydro, but the problems here should be self-evident. Hydro is both a national flavor and a balancing tool. Adding hydro to every ship in the game would upset that balance and remove the national flavor aspect.
  • Could make it so that submarines cannot cap while submerged. I actually think this is a viable, workable solution. While the capture progress would halt when the submarine submerges, it can still submerge to escape detection or try to make an exit to escape being sunk.

If viable, workable solutions can be found for all of these issues, then, sure add them. But honestly? I don't think it's possible to do so without making the submarines completely fantastical submarine-shaped sci fi ships.

Those are just mechanical issues though. There are also other issues I would like to bring up:

  • Historically, submarines for the most part avoided fleet action. This game is about fleet action. They were by design raiders and ambushers, because of pronounced weaknesses outlined above. Slow speed, cumbersome to attack with, vulnerable.
  • What niche would they fill? The sneaky, stealthy torpedo ambusher niche is already taken by torpedo boat destroyers, and even there it's a game style Wargaming has been trying to move away from. Plus, destroyers would still be better at it, even in their current state. They have the speed to flank and get into position, plus a heavier torpedo output. Good luck getting into an ambush position when your team has ships that go twice as fast to try the same thing you're trying and good luck smashing your ambush target to bits with less torpedoes per salvo than an even tier destroyer.

 

Actually subs in WWII did take part in Fleet actions, I am finding more and more instances of that happening with my most recent discovery  being the surprisingly heavy submarine presence at Midway.

The Niche they would fill would be replacing the CV as the weekend weapon of choice after Wargaming potentially destroys CV gameplay. And the ways I predict Wargaming would add subs would make them effective again weekend players, but far less so again the better teams during the week since Subs do have time limits and will be vulnerable to coordinated gameplay as well. But with weekend camping radar lines a sub could get through beneath the radar and either sink some of the radar or proceed farther back to engage the camping BBs or the CV. But you would have to time your dive and surfaced times well most likely since as I said time spent submerged will be limited.

ASW weapons can be placed on any ship apparently, since USS Little Rock up in Buffalo, NY I noticed it had anti sub weapons mounted on the deck as a type of add on system. They were mounted in such a way that it was clear they were not part or original design, but added in after the ship was built. So if that’s the case then more ships than anticipated may carry historically based ASW than we realized. Because prior to visiting that ship I had not realized a Cleveland CL carried ASW. So that might just leave the BBs possibly without it. And MM I have been seeing a lot of is 4 DDs, 4 CAs, and 4 BBs with sometimes losing some BBs for CVs and/ or more CAs. So at least most of the ships will be ASW capable including the CV historically speaking.

I doubt the subs will be able to cap submerged, and they can’t stay submerged all that long either. And once surfaced the BBs can shred them with main guns, secondary guns, and even Torps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×