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

It would be hilarious if submarines were in the game...

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,650
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts

It would be hilarious if submarines were introduced into the game and the power of the ships types was balanced so that the damage inflicted would correspond to real life. US submarines, by far, sank more total Japanese ships than any other US ship type. Carrier and land-based aircraft came in second and surface craft, in comparison, sank relatively few ships. Wouldn't there be an outcry then!

1435056886371.jpg

Not that when military craft are considered alone, the carrier comes in first, submarines second, and surface ships third.

We need mine-layers and minesweepers in the game too. Of course, the DDs will need depth charges to deal with the subs as well. Some players might want to opt to play from an island airbase and fly either unarmed scouting planes or heavy bombers. They could even fly fighters like the P-38. The island airbase would be susceptible to building, plane, and runway damage or even destruction if not guarded well.  This actually would make for a much more diverse and interesting game. 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
540
[A_51]
Members
961 posts

We also need freighters, troop ships and oil tankers for submarines to sink.  Anyone want to buy a premium Tier X Liberty ship for $80?

Edited by Seaneroo
  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[A-D]
Beta Testers, Alpha Tester
2,638 posts
12 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

 US submarines, by far, sank more total Japanese ships than any other US ship type.

sank more total merchant Japanese ships than any other US ship type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[SF-13]
Beta Testers
67 posts
1,877 battles
2 minutes ago, Carrier_Ikoma said:

sank more total merchant Japanese ships than any other US ship type.

I see you too can read a graph properly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,650
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts
3 minutes ago, Carrier_Ikoma said:

sank more total merchant Japanese ships than any other US ship type.

Note that I said total, which includes both merchant and naval vessels. If you had continued to read my post I later differentiated the two types. This shifted the majority of ships sunk to the carrier, with the submarine coming in second.

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,650
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts
16 minutes ago, Seaneroo said:

We also need freighters, troop ships and oil tankers for submarines to sink.  Anyone want to buy a premium Tier X Liberty ship for $80?

I really would like to see a PVP game mode where a convoy escort took place through hostile waters. One team would play as surface ships and the other as submarines. I think this would be a lot of fun.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
191
[NAUTY]
Members
614 posts

They say, that that's what Warthunder is.

 

See my opinion is combine Tanks, boats, and planes. I mean Can you imagine the havoc of wows, wot, and wowp all in the same map. Obviously Tanks would just keep getting annihilated nonstop, they really wouldn't stand a chance. Tanks got picked on bye planes constantly and LOST BAD.

 

Obviously Air power was the name of the game. But still it COULD be balanced.

Wowp has quite limited gameplay in what you can do, and THAT game needs major development. They could have portions where you need to land on a CV, and maybe drop off survivors from an island about to erupt, and you gotta shoot planes. I mean ANY imagination would be good in that game.

 

iI WOT, they could have portions where you need to rampart through entire towns, and EVERYTHING is destroy able.

Which could lead to a SAVE the DUNKIRK mission where you sea based CV needs to support bb's and dd's near shore while the evacuees make it onto the ships. While the opposing team could be heralded in via TANKS from the opposite side to try and stop all of that.

There's so much more that can be done between these 3 games, Wargaming is missing  a HUGE opportunity keeping these games isolated from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,650
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts
Just now, drakoolia said:


There's so much more that can be done between these 3 games, Wargaming is missing  a HUGE opportunity keeping these games isolated from each other.

Since WG owns WOWS, SOT, and WOWP and soon will be porting everything to 64-bit I'd really like to see an epic combo game that included all of the units types. WOWS is fun but sometime I find the 20-minute game a bit lacking. I came here from an epic civilization-type RTS in which the games could last for hours. I realize that not everyone would have the time for this but perhaps games could be saved and then played again at later dates. If a player failed to join then a random player could be allowed in.

While WOWS has campaigns and directives of a sort, I'd really like to see more historically-oriented ones. In these epic campaigns the teams would compete for resources and territories over a large scale. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
191
[NAUTY]
Members
614 posts
6 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Since WG owns WOWS, SOT, and WOWP and soon will be porting everything to 64-bit I'd really like to see an epic combo game that included all of the units types. WOWS is fun but sometime I find the 20-minute game a bit lacking. I came here from an epic civilization-type RTS in which the games could last for hours. I realize that not everyone would have the time for this but perhaps games could be saved and then played again at later dates. If a player failed to join then a random player could be allowed in.

While WOWS has campaigns and directives of a sort, I'd really like to see more historically-oriented ones. In these epic campaigns the teams would compete for resources and territories over a large scale. 

TO start off with I suggested Frontline mode comes to boats, as it exists in Tanks, and those battle modes can take DAYS to complete with HUGE 9 MAP battle regions combined.

 

Certainly this could be done in wows, and could be done well. With huge asymetrical maps, even historical ones where battles could take days, and you can spawn in as many tier 8 ships as you have one after another. ITs the essence of Frontline in Tanks, and I love it.

The credit earning potential is amazing in frontline. And far more fun then random battles over and over again..lasting as long as they do.

Edited by drakoolia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[SYN]
Members
301 posts
12,067 battles

 Hilarity not needed - Subs not needed either

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,913
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,374 posts
10,918 battles

while it would be interesting for subs to be in the game, there would be multiple problems that would need solving
1. Submarine speeds would need to be insanely buffed as subs from the era this game covers were lucky to hit 25 knots surfaced, and thats probably from the fastest subs in the era this game covers
2. Subs would be extremely vulnerable when surfaced, a few DD shells would be enough to blow one out of the water, to say nothing of what a cruiser or battleship shell would do to them
3. Only DDs and maybe some cruisers carried depth charges, CVs had planes sure but thats it, and BBs would be utterly defenseless against them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,027 posts
6,033 battles
42 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I really would like to see a PVP game mode where a convoy escort took place through hostile waters. One team would play as surface ships and the other as submarines. I think this would be a lot of fun.

Only if I could opt out, I wouldn't find it fun playing an operation type mode in pvp anymore than I want a " battle royal" type mode for pvp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,089
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

It would be hilarious if submarines were introduced into the game and the power of the ships types was balanced so that the damage inflicted would correspond to real life. US submarines, by far, sank more total Japanese ships than any other US ship type. Carrier and land-based aircraft came in second and surface craft, in comparison, sank relatively few ships. Wouldn't there be an outcry then!

1435056886371.jpg

Not that when military craft are considered alone, the carrier comes in first, submarines second, and surface ships third.

We need mine-layers and minesweepers in the game too. Of course, the DDs will need depth charges to deal with the subs as well. Some players might want to opt to play from an island airbase and fly either unarmed scouting planes or heavy bombers. They could even fly fighters like the P-38. The island airbase would be susceptible to building, plane, and runway damage or even destruction if not guarded well.  This actually would make for a much more diverse and interesting game. 

Except, of course, that the submarines in question played little-to-no role in fleet engagements in either World War, and something on the order of 90 percent of that tonnage sunk was merchant.

But, hey, who needs facts when you've got a "hilarious" point-that's-not-really-a-point to make?

Edited by Battleship_Elisabeth
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles
37 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

while it would be interesting for subs to be in the game, there would be multiple problems that would need solving
1. Submarine speeds would need to be insanely buffed as subs from the era this game covers were lucky to hit 25 knots surfaced, and thats probably from the fastest subs in the era this game covers
2. Subs would be extremely vulnerable when surfaced, a few DD shells would be enough to blow one out of the water, to say nothing of what a cruiser or battleship shell would do to them
3. Only DDs and maybe some cruisers carried depth charges, CVs had planes sure but thats it, and BBs would be utterly defenseless against them 

BBs are already defenseless against unspotted DDs and it's not really an issue. Many ships do sub 25 knots, that's easy enough to address with spawn locations and tweaks.

Subs will be balanced via their reload, ability to stay submerged (limiting their total stealth), and the alpha they can unleash.

Main problem is that they would be boring to play against as a surface combatant.

 

Edited by harikari25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[YARRR]
Members
660 posts
5,395 battles

During the war, Japanese submarine doctrine was to concentrate on warships.  US doctrine was to concentrate on merchant ships.

US doctrine helped to strangle Japanese industry, Japanese doctrine by and large only got Japanese submariners an early grave.

How can that possibly pan out in the game?  Submarines will be even harder to balance than CVs are.

Edited by ElAurens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,697 posts
8,726 battles
1 hour ago, Seaneroo said:

We also need freighters, troop ships and oil tankers for submarines to sink.  Anyone want to buy a premium Tier X Liberty ship for $80?

You know someone would.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,650
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts
33 minutes ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

Except, of course, that the submarines in question played little-to-no role in fleet engagements in either World War, and something on the order of 90 percent of that tonnage sunk was merchant.

But, hey, who needs facts when you've got a "hilarious" point-that's-not-really-a-point to make?

"Hilarious" was in reference to the response that subs will cause when they are introduced. I speak of total shipping destroyed and then you turn around and say "fleet engagements" which is sort of moving the goalposts. There is a reason who submarines didn't participate in fleet engagements much. Care to venture a guess as to what that was? Ask yourself why nuclear submarines even today try to remain undetected, even by our own ships. Submarines don't sally forth on their white steeds, armor flashing in the sun, and banners flying -- they are silent assassins and scouts. Even so, US submarines sank 200 IJN warships in addition to the 1300 merchant vessels they sank. Submarines also played an important role in landing and retrieving commando units and rescuing downed air crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,567
[WOLF2]
Members
4,985 posts
18,607 battles
2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

It would be hilarious if submarines were introduced into the game and the power of the ships types was balanced so that the damage inflicted would correspond to real life. US submarines, by far, sank more total Japanese ships than any other US ship type. Carrier and land-based aircraft came in second and surface craft, in comparison, sank relatively few ships. Wouldn't there be an outcry then!

1435056886371.jpg

Not that when military craft are considered alone, the carrier comes in first, submarines second, and surface ships third.

We need mine-layers and minesweepers in the game too. Of course, the DDs will need depth charges to deal with the subs as well. Some players might want to opt to play from an island airbase and fly either unarmed scouting planes or heavy bombers. They could even fly fighters like the P-38. The island airbase would be susceptible to building, plane, and runway damage or even destruction if not guarded well.  This actually would make for a much more diverse and interesting game. 

Sure, why not … couldn't get any worse at this point and might actually be an improvement 

Sign me up!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
240
[SFOR]
Members
996 posts
7,846 battles
2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

It would be hilarious if submarines were introduced into the game and the power of the ships types was balanced so that the damage inflicted would correspond to real life. US submarines, by far, sank more total Japanese ships than any other US ship type

Your are talking about quantity over quality? Doens't make any sense. What is the point ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,798 posts
4,869 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

while it would be interesting for subs to be in the game, there would be multiple problems that would need solving
1. Submarine speeds would need to be insanely buffed as subs from the era this game covers were lucky to hit 25 knots surfaced, and thats probably from the fastest subs in the era this game covers
2. Subs would be extremely vulnerable when surfaced, a few DD shells would be enough to blow one out of the water, to say nothing of what a cruiser or battleship shell would do to them
3. Only DDs and maybe some cruisers carried depth charges, CVs had planes sure but thats it, and BBs would be utterly defenseless against them 

More than a couple battleships carried depth charges, and many cruisers do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,408
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,162 posts
14,021 battles

Submarines will be introduced to the game eventually. The Halloween submarine scenarios was the live test. Like electrical storms in Space Battles (Space Balls) now are storms and snow storms in the regular game.

Edited by Capt_Ahab1776
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,233
[TWFT]
Members
1,282 posts
35,796 battles

Oh yes!  Absolutely!  Lets put subs in the game and WG can do a bang up job balancing them like they did CV"S!

Subs in this game would be the stupidest dam thing other then CV's.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[PVE]
Beta Testers
326 posts
4,167 battles

DD will need depth charges, ASDIC and Hedgehog launchers if you british DD. 

Also the only sound i need to hear lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126
[SYN]
Members
5,769 posts
13,144 battles
2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

It would be hilarious if submarines were introduced into the game and the power of the ships types was balanced so that the damage inflicted would correspond to real life. US submarines, by far, sank more total Japanese ships than any other US ship type. Carrier and land-based aircraft came in second and surface craft, in comparison, sank relatively few ships. Wouldn't there be an outcry then!

Not that when military craft are considered alone, the carrier comes in first, submarines second, and surface ships third.

We need mine-layers and minesweepers in the game too. Of course, the DDs will need depth charges to deal with the subs as well. Some players might want to opt to play from an island airbase and fly either unarmed scouting planes or heavy bombers. They could even fly fighters like the P-38. The island airbase would be susceptible to building, plane, and runway damage or even destruction if not guarded well.  This actually would make for a much more diverse and interesting game. 

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of ships sunk by submarines were merchants, something most interested in the subject already know.

Ignoring the fact that most of the proportionally few warships who met their demise via submarine did so near harbor or at anchor, in transit, while incapacitated, or just simply not initially at quarters and set to Condition Z.  Certainly not in the middle of a running fight.  Subs merely attempting to engage full-alert warships actively engaged in a fight were rare, even for the Japanese submarine force, and would be as correspondingly ridiculous to try to implement into the game.

Minelayers and minesweepers were passive strategic assets, not active tactical ones, with absolutely no business getting involved with destroyers, cruisers, and battleships mixing it up.  We're not even talking about the same league here.  Completely irrelevant.  There were a myriad of supporting vessels that were armed.  Floatplane tenders, motor launch vessels, harbor tugs, etc.  They were in the war.  Think we should include those, too?

It would be nice to have these kinds of assets in a game (and those games do exist in one form or another) but that game has to be right for it, and we all know WoWS is definitely not it.

 

EDIT:  PvE Scenarios could work, but certainly not PvP

Edited by Kuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×