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

Carriers/Subs/Surface Fleet, can it work?

Carrier gameplan, Surface gameplay, Subsurface gameplay.  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Can they all get along?

    • Neither sub nor carriers will work with surface gameplay.
      16
    • Carrier gameplay and surface gameplay can co-exist well. Subsurface, not so much.
      11
    • Sub gameplay and surface gameplay will work just fine. Go away Sky Cancer.
      0
    • Carriers AND sub will work out just fine. GIve me my smorgasbord.
      23

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

498
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
1,037 posts
4,722 battles

I think that you can have a great carrier game OR a great surface warfare game OR a great submarine game.  Once you start putting them together it becomes exceedingly difficult to make the gameplay fun and enjoyable for everyone.  Balance becomes nightmarish.

You can't have it all.  It's too tough to balance the gameplay.

I have played great carrier warfare games and I have played great submarine warfare games.  I have yet to see a game that successfully incorporates all three.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[PNP]
Members
397 posts
3,189 battles

Although I would like to see everything, I'm too worried that it will cause some balance issues. However, I trust the balance team in this game compared to WoT which is a dumpster fire right now. We will see how the CV rework will affect overall gameplay and perhaps we can ask this question again from a new perspective. 

If WG does somehow add CVs and subs without too much of an issue which may be unlikely, with proper advertising the game's player base will benefit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
1,037 posts
4,722 battles
58 minutes ago, J30_Reinhardt said:

People expect forum use and thus polls to mean something still?

Answers to questions are usually pretty interesting.  Especially if they are answers to MY questions.  That's something.

This isn't some kind of statistical analysis.  It's just exactly what it appears to be.  A straw poll.  A Venn diagram of the statistical sample would be exceedingly small.  Players of WOWS that read these forums AND look in this thread AND decide to choose AND decide to let us know what they have chosen.  So, no.  Not statistically valid.  It is, however, still interesting to note the results.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,265 posts
4,602 battles
6 minutes ago, Captain_Slattery said:

Answers to questions are usually pretty interesting.  Especially if they are answers to MY questions.  That's something.

This isn't some kind of statistical analysis.  It's just exactly what it appears to be.  A straw poll.  A Venn diagram of the statistical sample would be exceedingly small.  Players of WOWS that read these forums AND look in this thread AND decide to choose AND decide to let us know what they have chosen.  So, no.  Not statistically valid.  It is, however, still interesting to note the results.

:)

Knock yourself out then I guess, but don't be shocked with the lack of replies given how saturated the rework polls there have been already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,038
[KNMSU]
Members
4,852 posts
5,133 battles

As others have pointed out numerous times, submarines and surface ships did not coordinate in fleets in either world war because it was not only impossible, but a detriment to the overall mission of the submarine - a type of vessel that operated via stealth rather than speed. 

Most of the submarines in WWI could make, at best, 8 knots when submerged, and 15-16 on the surface - no fleet was going to slow down to allow them to keep up. Even in WWII, America's ubiquitous Gato-class could make 21 knots surfaced, and still just 9 submerged. Germany's type XXI u-boats - introduced right near the end of the war, and widely regarded as the finest of their kind to see action in the conflict - could move at an impressive 17.2 knots submerged, but only 15.6 above water.

This is why a lot of us find the entire notion of submarines in WoWs essentially adding insult to injury. Not only did the aircraft carrier really mark the downfall of the type of warfare we like to celebrate (and, therefore, their inclusion in the game has always - from day one - been a mistake), but submarines played no significant role in any type of surface engagement in either world war. Submarines were scavengers there to pick off strays, and to wreak havoc with trade... not to charge headlong into the middle of a pitched battle spraying torpedoes everywhere.

Their addition to the game, in a word, stinks. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
641
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,341 posts
4,551 battles

Egh... iDunno. The subs in the Halloween update were fun to play as, but we still don't know how they would be countered in-game other than just waiting to blast them when they surface. Add that to the looming, impending, utterly terrifying, and ominous CV rework... Yeah, chances are looking pretty slim right now. All three elements can, THEORETICALLY, all work together to make a fun game, but that's gonna be a tough target to meet. I'll reserve final judgement until the rework is out, but right now I'm seriously debating if grinding out the credits for the Hakuryu is worth the effort, or if I'm going to have to call my progress in those two lines a massive waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
114 posts
2,322 battles

When I see a Carrier coming at me I get deflated and when I see 12 torpedoes from one small boat coming at me I feel the same. I can't imagine it being much of a challenge in either circumstance to just wipe me out. It is hard to get motivated when you are so easily beaten. When this happens often I just quit for a couple of days (hours) and come back when I start to miss the game again. I don't think this is normal behavior. There are some matches in the game that are just absurd and not fun at all. CWs are not the only boats that have an unfair advantage. I can see myself pulling the plug on matches in the future if it is simply a swarm or torps and planes. Time is too precious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[RED]
Members
164 posts
9,988 battles
3 hours ago, Captain_Slattery said:

I think that you can have a great carrier game OR a great surface warfare game OR a great submarine game.  Once you start putting them together it becomes exceedingly difficult to make the gameplay fun and enjoyable for everyone.  Balance becomes nightmarish.

You can't have it all.  It's too tough to balance the gameplay.

I have played great carrier warfare games and I have played great submarine warfare games.  I have yet to see a game that successfully incorporates all three.

1. Janes Fleet Command

2. Dangerous Waters 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[ADPT2]
Beta Testers
587 posts
1,640 battles

I see no reason why all can't co-exist provided players can get past pre-conceived notions based on real life capabilities.  Sure, the dawn of the aircraft carriers marked the end of the battleship but they can both still be effective in a game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,248
[5BS]
Members
5,971 posts

The garbage fire that is balance in this game is borne of WGing not undersanding the fundamentals of the recreational mathamatics of Rock Paper Scissors: you can add weapons to >3, but you MUST keep the total number of weapons odd, in order to ensure every weapon has (n-1)/2 crosses. So a 3 way fight (classic RPS) has (3-1)/2 =1 cross, which works, each weapon is countered by 1, and exactly 1, weapon. If you do 5, you get (5-1)/2 = 2 or two crosses for each weapon type, meaning each weapon counters and is countered by 2 weapons. When you try an even number, like 4, you get (4-1)/2 = 1.5 so every ship get's.... 1 and a half counters? So you end up in a situation where BB's counter Cruisers, Cruisers counter DDs... and sorta CV's? And DD's counter BB's and sorta CV's but not really, and CV's counter just BB's? See, this is the problem with the RPS Model and an even number of weapons.

Adding in Subs and maintaining CV's allows for a proper dynamic and really just varies as a matter of taste:

BB's Countered by CV's and Sub's (makes both practical and logical sense as both of those counters negate a BB's armour and range by striking it away from it's range or from a position where it's armor (and poor maneuverability) don't help)

CA/CL's Countered by BB's and CV's (also makes practical and logical sense; as they are not maneuverable enough to dodge an air strike nor carry the armor to withstand a BB (under my proposed change, CA/CL's lose DFAA)

DD's Countered by CA/CL's and BB's; (Makes sense as the faster firing CA/CL's and the Powerful guns of a BB can just vaporize the tiny escort)

SS's Countered by DD's and CA/CL's; DD's are SUPPOSED to counter SS's by their nature and CA/CL's are fast enough and maneuverable enough to be too difficult of a target (and also carry fast firing, sonar directed guns to further hamper their ability)

CV's Countered by SS's and DD's (makes sense as an SS can reach a CV without having to fight its way through the enemy battle line and DD's carry a disproportional amount of AA for their hull and are super maneuverable, making the CV's ability to land hits neigh impossible.

Each ship type has two counters and two targets. Exactly the way a 3+ RPS game is SUPPOSED to work. We *need* subs.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,248
[5BS]
Members
5,971 posts

0pb4EHK.jpg

Here's a visual aid from thousands of ours in paint to describe what I'm talking about. Every ship get's two Crosses and has two crosses. When you do it with an even number you get a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[OKM]
Members
214 posts
2,382 battles
2 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

0pb4EHK.jpg

Here's a visual aid from thousands of ours in paint to describe what I'm talking about. Every ship get's two Crosses and has two crosses. When you do it with an even number you get a mess.

That is true, but I would change it a little bit.

BB countered by Subs and Carriers is fine. It will require to go back on the AP nerf/ boost secondaries but it seems fine.

Cruisers are countered by BB (as for now) but I would argue that they should still be strong against CV: the mix of Defensive Fire, strong AA and maneuverability works for them. Instead, Sub should be their counter.

DD should be countered by CA-CL and BB.

Sub should be weak against CV and DD. They do not have the speed to sneak easily on CV and CV can easily keep their plane in the area of the subs, waiting for it to go take some air. CV could also have a ''depth bomb'' on one of their aircraft. And DD are the ''natural'' counter of Subs. 

 

All in all, it's only a ''core'' and each ships are quite different. Gunboat would be far better against cruisers than normal DD, CL would be far better against DD than CA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,248
[5BS]
Members
5,971 posts
4 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

That is true, but I would change it a little bit.

BB countered by Subs and Carriers is fine. It will require to go back on the AP nerf/ boost secondaries but it seems fine.

Cruisers are countered by BB (as for now) but I would argue that they should still be strong against CV: the mix of Defensive Fire, strong AA and maneuverability works for them. Instead, Sub should be their counter. 

DD should be countered by CA-CL and BB.

Sub should be weak against CV and DD. They do not have the speed to sneak easily on CV and CV can easily keep their plane in the area of the subs, waiting for it to go take some air. CV could also have a ''depth bomb'' on one of their aircraft. And DD are the ''natural'' counter of Subs. 

 

All in all, it's only a ''core'' and each ships are quite different. Gunboat would be far better against cruisers than normal DD, CL would be far better against DD than CA...

That's why I said "A matter of taste" in my post. CA/CL's can be counter/countered by two different sets based on your interpretation of CV's and Subs. Personally, I think it makes more sense given the historical perspective that Cruisers be countered by CV's and lose AA prowess in all but isolated cases (Worcester, Minotaur, Atlanta, ext). But the BIGGER point I'm making is that it is *far* easier, INFINITY easier to balance a game with 5 classes, Subs being the new one, than with 4. I know people oft resist it, but the universe REALLY is governed by mathematics and there IS a maths associated with Rock Paper Scissors type games; and a key part of that maths is that the number of weapons MUST be an odd number; it's not a complex governing equation, but in order to provide a proper *BALANCE* of crosses (aka counters) the equation:

(n-1)/2 = c

where c is the number of crosses and n is the number of weapons. You cannot have a 'half' or partial cross, and try to force one renders the MESS we have right now where a ship counters another ship... sorta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,248
[5BS]
Members
5,971 posts

Ah, found a maths paper describing the RPS model in more detail and why it must be an odd number:

http://www.math.grin.edu/~chamberl/papers/rps.pdf
 

Quote

 

Let’s start with the two-player game rock-paper-scissors or RPS(3). The
players simultaneously put their hands in one of three positions: rock (fist),
paper (flat palm), or scissors (fist with the index and middle fingers sticking
out). The winner of the game is decided as follows: paper covers rock, rock
smashes scissors, and scissors cut paper.
Mathematically, this game is referred to as a balanced tournament: with
an odd number n of weapons, each weapon beats (n−1)/2 weapons and loses
to the same number. This mutual dominance/submission connects RPS(3)
with a seemingly disparate object: Borromean rings.

 

 

 

As is often the case in Maths (especially recreational maths) most things can be explained algebraically ((n-1)/2), linearly ([0,1,0;0,0,1;1,0,0]), or graphically:

F0B8E259-4A08-46A1-96649CF39A3A7EC8_sour

You can't have a Borromean ring with an even number of crosses; it's not possible to do that in a 3 dimensional space (the one we exist in).

So, put very (overly) simply: World of Warships, right now, is *broken* by mathematical definition. And the only way to fix it is either 1) Remove a class (ahem, DD's) or 2) Add a class, SS's.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[OKM]
Members
214 posts
2,382 battles
15 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Ah, found a maths paper describing the RPS model in more detail and why it must be an odd number:

http://www.math.grin.edu/~chamberl/papers/rps.pdf
 

As is often the case in Maths (especially recreational maths) most things can be explained algebraically ((n-1)/2), linearly ([0,1,0;0,0,1;1,0,0]), or graphically:

F0B8E259-4A08-46A1-96649CF39A3A7EC8_sour

You can't have a Borromean ring with an even number of crosses; it's not possible to do that in a 3 dimensional space (the one we exist in).

So, put very (overly) simply: World of Warships, right now, is *broken* by mathematical definition. And the only way to fix it is either 1) Remove a class (ahem, DD's) or 2) Add a class, SS's.

Or, or, splitting a class. CL and CA could be more ''hard split''  for every nation to add an other class of ships.  Or it could be to add a proper Battlecruiser line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,248
[5BS]
Members
5,971 posts
1 minute ago, Y_Nagato said:

Or, or, splitting a class. CL and CA could be more ''hard split''  for every nation to add an other class of ships.  Or it could be to add a proper Battlecruiser line.

Why not both, add SS's, and have a 7 Cross.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[OKM]
Members
214 posts
2,382 battles
Just now, _RC1138 said:

Why not both, add SS's, and have a 7 Cross.

Doing it would maybe demand an increase in the number of player in random (12 players per team would make it hard for MM I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
205 posts
6,722 battles
1 minute ago, Y_Nagato said:

Doing it would maybe demand an increase in the number of player in random (12 players per team would make it hard for MM I think).

Honestly, If we start to see more than 1 CV at the higher tiers post 8.0, and WG decides to add subs I think it's gonna have to get larger - maybe to 15 units like WOT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,248
[5BS]
Members
5,971 posts
6 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Doing it would maybe demand an increase in the number of player in random (12 players per team would make it hard for MM I think).

I don't think so, because you have games like WoW or TF2 with greater than 3 crosses (but still RPS based (TF2 is 9 based for a total of 4 crosses each)) that can still be playable even when the total player count is low in a match. The reason is because as  you add weapons, and thus crosses, each weapon has MORE than 1 cross, thus the necessity to have at least 1 of each weapon present decreases. So right now, if you have a match with only BB's and DD's and CV's, the BB's are getting ganged up on two sides, and the DD's are getting 1, but the CV's are getting essentially 0. But with 5 classes, if no CA's a present, that's still okay because at least 1 cross is still present for each ship. This is ANOTHER reason the game needs at least 1 more class: it actually will HELP ease MM woes because it increases the chance (or really, guarantees) that every match has every ship have at least 1 counter present, even as you reduce the number of potential players because you have FULL, not partial, crosses.

Maths can be funny; when you actually stop and break the problem down you can see it simplifies things greatly. The Maths of WoWs shows that we need another class as it will fundamentally simplify (and more importantly, improve) a great many things. Even MM.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
751
[STAR]
Members
3,176 posts
8,081 battles

IMO, no. CVs are frustrating to play agaisnt simple because they can strike you anywhere on the map, you cant run, you cant hide and you cant fight back. You are being attacked by a ship that is a across the map and there is nothing you can do. 

 

In a surface vs surface combat i can try to shoot and fight back, or just try to run and hide. Also, its much easier for any allied ship try to help me. Even if it doesnt work, at least i had the chance to do something, to try something. CVs are frustrating because there is nothing you can do agaisnt them, a few heavy AA ships might survive, but If they have DF consumable down or lose some AA they can also be attacked by the CV. 

 

Depending on how WG introduce subs, they might be as frustrating as CVs, other ships will be fighting a ship that they cant see or fight back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,395
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,404 posts
10,687 battles

Vote for all. This is the Naval Warfare Dream. 

I know WG wants to do it. I think that WG can do it. It is likely WG will do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[RED]
Members
164 posts
9,988 battles
12 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

0pb4EHK.jpg

Here's a visual aid from thousands of ours in paint to describe what I'm talking about. Every ship get's two Crosses and has two crosses. When you do it with an even number you get a mess.

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizards, Spock

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Members
709 posts
1,616 battles

I think subs could work very well if balanced correctly.  Look at them as "U Boats" or Light Destroyers.  Ultra High Risk with High Reward.

  • Half the Armor and Half the HP as same tier destroyers.  (Real Paper Ships)
  • 35 knots on surface and 5-10 knots submerged for limited time
  • DD concealment on surface, full concealment submerged (Unless Hydroed - give even more importance to hydro now that radar is out)
  • 2 to 6 torps forward / 0-4 torps rear depending on tier (hard hitting torps with 4km range)  One pathetic gun.
  • Give DD's 3 new ammunition (shallow depth charge / medium / deep depth charge)

The sub would be an uber stealth ship.  It would have to be on the surface most of the time and one CA salvo would wipe it out.  They would live in constant fear of being detected.  If detected and submerged it would need to make a kill because surface ships would know they would have to come up for air eventually and their slow speed means they could not get far away.  It would really have to plan out its route and get very close to ships to sink them.

Yes it would be a real pain to get torped by a ship underwater but if the sub had to take serious precautions and plan everything out right, then they deserve it.  It may also promote more DD and BB cooperation.

The Sub was the highest causality ship by far in WW2 for good reason.  It should be the same in the game, a real high risk ship but one that attracts the most daring players.  It would be nice for another ship to replace DD's as the ship with the lowest survivalibility rating in the game.

Edited by SJ_Sailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×