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

German and American Submarine tech tree models

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,501
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,284 posts
9,171 battles

List of known to be rendered and present submarine models in 0.8.7 game files

American and German submarines will be the initial release playable tech trees.


American submarine models that appear to be ready for testing (Cachalot, Salmon, Balao, Gato.) :

Cachalot (tech tree tier VI)

  • Spoiler
    • image.thumb.png.d07ec37186e112618433e277f7dd062c.png
    • 490d0f6c-c41a-11e9-bbfb-d89d6715223c_120
    • 41ZIAAMvMmL.jpg
    • https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/2950.html
    • https://fleetsubmarine.com/cachalot-class.html
      Spoiler

      Cachalot Class Specifications

      Lead Boat: SS-170, U.S.S. Cachalot
      Length: 274′
      Beam: 24′ 1″
      Draft: 13′ 10″ (Surface trim)
      Displacement: 1,100 tons (surfaced); 1,650 tons (submerged)
      Speed: 17 knots (surfaced); 8 knots (submerged)
      Diving Depth: 250′ (test depth)
      Range: 14,000 miles
      Crew: 6 officers, 39 enlisted
      Deck Gun: 1-3″/50-calibre
      Anti-Aircraft Weapons:
      Torpedoes: 4-21″ torpedo tubes (bow), 2-21″ torpedo tubes (stern), 16 torpedoes
      Engines: 2-1,535 hp main engines, 1-350 kw auxiliary
      Motors: 2-800 hp

       

Salmon (tech tree tier VIII)

  • Spoiler
    • image.thumb.png.d31e587fc6510cb8d550fe02177abe86.png
    • 492988ae-c41a-11e9-87eb-d89d6715223c_120
    • salmon-class-submarine.jpg
    • https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/2934.html
    • https://fleetsubmarine.com/salmon-class.html
      Spoiler

      Salmon Class Specifications

      Lead Boat: SS-182, U.S.S. Salmon
      Length: 308′
      Beam: 26′ 1″
      Draft: 15′ 8″ (Surface trim)
      Displacement: 1,430 tons (surfaced); 2,198 tons (submerged)
      Speed: 21 knots (surfaced); 9 knots (submerged)
      Diving Depth: 250′ (test depth)
      Range: 11,000 miles
      Crew: 5 officers, 54 enlisted
      Deck Gun: 1-3″/50-caliber
      Anti-Aircraft Weapons:
      Torpedoes: 4-21″ torpedo tubes (bow), 4-21″ torpedo tubes (stern); 24 torpedoes
      Engines: 4-1,535 main engines, 2-330 kw auxiliaries
      Motors: 4-665 hp

       

Balao (tech tree tier X)

  • Spoiler
    • image.png.702750e82d18ab57d58d2e7a3138e678.png
    • 48d20994-c41a-11e9-b47f-d89d6715223c_120
    • ss_uss_bumper_333.jpg
    • https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=147
    • https://fleetsubmarine.com/balao-class.html
      Spoiler

      Balao Class Submarine Specifications

      During World War 2, the Balao class of diesel-electric submarine used for attack missions.  There were 120 completed and were involved with a total of 10 patrols from July 1943 to August 1945.  The Balao Class Submarines were superior to the previous generation Gato class submarine, both of which were the primary ships used by the United States Navy in WW2.  The Balao class subs were able to dive deeper due to a thicker and stronger steel in the hull.

      Lead Boat: SS-385, USS Balao
      Length: 312′
      Beam: 27′
      Draft: 17′ (Surface trim)
      Displacement: 1,800 tons (surfaced); 2,400 tons (submerged)
      Speed: 20-1/4 knots (surfaced); 8-3/4 knots (submerged)
      Diving Depth: 400′ (test depth); 600′ (emergency)
      Range: 20,000 miles
      Endurance: 75 days
      Crew: 10 (officers); 70 (enlisted)
      Deck Gun: 1 3″/50-calibre, or 1 4″/50-calibre, or 1 5″/25-caliber
      Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 1 or 2-20mm Oerlikons, or 2-40mm Bofors, or 1-20mm and 1-40mm
      Light Weaponry: 6-mounting points for 30-caliber, 50-caliber, or combination
      Torpedoes: 10-21″ torpedo tubes (6 bow, 4 stern); 24 Mark-14 torpedoes; Mark III Torpedo Data Computer
      Engines: 4 GM-Winton V-16, or 4 Fairbanks-Morse 9 or 10-cylinder opposed-piston diesel/generator sets.
      Motors: 4 DC high-speed electric motors, reduction gear drive, two per shaft, or 4 variable speed DC direct drive motors
      Radar: Short range SD air detection radar; SJ surface search radar; ST periscope radar
      Sonar: JP hydrophone, upper deck; JK/QC, QB Sonar under bow
      Wartime Modifications: Enhanced electronics suites, radar, sonar.

       

Gato (premium tier X)


German submarine models that appear to be ready for testing : U-69 (VIIc), U-190 (IXC/40), U-2501 (XXI), U-4501 (XXVIW)

u-69 (tier VI tech tree)

  • Spoiler
    • image.png.938dcdd3ad22e13a094407f1bfebad60.png
    • 491fda2a-c41a-11e9-90ea-d89d6715223c_120
    • ger_ss6.jpg
    • https://uboat.net/types/viic.htm
    • https://uboat.net/boats/u69.htm
      Spoiler

      U-69

      Type

      VIIC

       

      Ordered30 May 1938

      Laid down11 Nov 1939F. Krupp Germaniawerft AG, Kiel (werk 603)

      Launched19 Sep 1940

      Commissioned2 Nov 1940Kptlt. Jost Metzler (Knights Cross)

      Commanders

      2 Nov 1940-28 Aug 1941  Kptlt. Jost Metzler (Knights Cross)

      24 Aug 1941-28 Aug 1941  Oblt. Hans-Jürgen Auffermann (German Cross in Gold)

      28 Aug 1941-31 Mar 1942  Kptlt. Wilhelm Zahn

      31 Mar 1942-17 Feb 1943  Kptlt. Ulrich Gräf

      Career
      10 patrols

      2 Nov 1940-31 Jan 1941  7. Flottille (training)

      1 Feb 1941-17 Feb 1943  7. Flottille (active service)

      Successes17 ships sunk, total tonnage 67,515 GRT
      1 ship damaged, total tonnage 4,887 GRT
      1 ship a total loss, total tonnage 5,445 GRT

      Fate

      Sunk on 17 February 1943 in the North Atlantic east of Newfoundland, in position 50.36N, 41.07W, by depth charges from the British destroyer HMS Fame. 46 dead (all hands lost). (FDS/NHB, April 1997).

       

U-190 (tier V III tech tree)

U-2501 (tier X tech tree)

u-4501 (premium tier X)

  • Spoiler
    • image.thumb.png.682ca6199296b87cd696ce01fab856fc.png
    • 4ae0858a-c41a-11e9-a684-d89d6715223c_120
    • photo is of XXI "Elektroboot" Wilhelm Bauer (U-2540), as no XXVIW were ever completed. Hull design shared many elements in common.
       300px-2004-Bremerhaven_U-Boot-Museum-Sic 320px-Uboot_Wilhelm_bauer.jpg
    • http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_ss_xxviw.htm
    • https://uboat.net/boats/nc_4501.html
      Spoiler

      U-4501

      This boat was not commissioned into the Kriegsmarine

      However she had been ordered and was, at least at one time, planned for commission.

      U-boat

      U-4501

      Type XXVIW
      Cancelled  
      Suspended  
      Launched  
      Laid down  
      Ordered 27 Sep 1944
      Shipyard Blohm & Voss, Hamburg
      Werk 4501
        No keels laid, only prefabricated sections in development.
       
      Spoiler

      Displacement standard, t

       

      Displacement normal, t

      842 / 926

      Length, m

      56.2

      Breadth, m

      5.45

      Draught, m

      5.90

      No of shafts

      1

      Machinery

      1 MWM diesel + 1 MAN diesel-generator / 1 Brückner & Kanis -Walter geared hydrogen peroxide steam-gas turbine / 1 AEG electric motor + / 1 SSW crouching electric motor

      Power, h. p.

      580 + 265 / 7500 / 536 / 71

      Max speed, kts

      11 / 24 / 10 (main electric motor) / 5 (crouching electric motor)

      Fuel, t

      diesel oil 65 + Walter fuel 97

      Endurance, nm(kts) 7300(10) / 158(22) or 45(6) or 107(4)

      Armament

      10 - 533 TT (4 bow, 6 aft amidships, 10)

      Sensors FuMO 61 radar, GHG, Balkon-Gerät hydrophones, FuMB 3 Bali, FuMB 6 Palau ECM suites

      Complement

      33

      Diving depth operational, m 135

       


Some Soviet submarine models appear to be ready, and are present in 0.8.7 pts game files. (S class, Leninets, S-189 (currently a museum ship), K class) 

S Class (actual designation = ShCh (Scuka) class)

  • Spoiler
    • image.thumb.png.b1955d7fe2a5ed969e6cf1757b582444.pngss_ussr_sc-110.jpg
    • this S Class in this case is a confusing misdesignation, the correct and usual designation is ShCh (Scuka) class, which is why it took me a bit of tiem to track it down.
    • https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=213
      Spoiler
      Displacement 577/704 BRT 
      Length 57,00m 
      Complement 38 men 
      Armament 4 bow and 2 stern torpedo tubes, 10-12 torpedoes
      2x45mm semi-automatic guns  
      Max speed 12,5 / 6,3 knots (surfaced/submerged)
      Notes on class

      There were 3 modifications of this class, types II, III and IV. Each was slightly improved (longer, more range). The figures here we give for the original boats.

      These submarines were designed to ‘execute positioning service on closed theatres’ and might be determined as medium submarines. The concept was adopted by USSR Revolutionary Military Council (Revvoensoviet) on January 23, 1930 and a huge program of their building for all four fleets of a giant country began in February, 1930. There were plans to build up to 200 Schukas of three main series - III (third series); V, V-bis, V-bis-2 (fifth series);X, X-bis (tenth series), so, this boats had to be the most numerous units of the Soviet Navy during WWII (really 86 units were commissioned before or during WWII). Seven yards were involved in this program - No189, 190, 194 in Leningrad, No112 in Gorky, No200 in Nikolaev and No202 in Vladivostok. Each series had several improvements vs. previous one.

      The name of these boats was taken (traditionally in Russia and USSR) from the individual name of the first boat Sch-301 ’Schuka‘ (Ùóêà) - Pike. Their numbers depended on destination fleet: 1XX-Pacific fleet, 2XX-Black sea fleet, 3XX-Baltic fleet and 4XX-North fleet. Pacific fleet Schukas resisted Japans without losses (excluding non-battle damages and incidents), but Baltic, Black Sea and North Schukas suffered great losses during war (70% of front-line boats). The figures here we give for the original boats of III series.

Leninets

  • Spoiler
    • image.thumb.png.aeeb182014745ddf735b6832c82930fa.png300px-L-4_Garibaldiec.JPG
    • https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=211
      Spoiler
      Displacement 1040/1335 BRT 
      Length 77,90m 
      Complement  
      Armament 6 torpedo tubes (12 torpedoes)
      1 10cm deck gun
      1 4.5cm gun 
      Max speed 14/9 knots (surfaced/submerged)
      Power 2600/1250  (surfaced/submerged)
      Notes on class The boats of this class were designed to recover the idea of underwater mine-layers with a help of modern technical base of the end of 1920s.

      After conferences between seamen, submarine commanders and naval engineers it was decided to install rather powerful torpedo and artillery together with mine weapons. Soviet naval command approved this project (II series) to be universal long-range minelayer/attack sub, intended to install mine defences onto fairways and enemy naval activities routes, to inflict attacks upon enemy warships and transport ships with a help of torpedoes and artillery. Mines were carried inside the inner hull in two long tubes of special design with hatches aft the boat. 20 mines were secured in dry condition inside this tubes until exact installation. First series of L class, built in 1929-30 (type II), had considerably long time of submerging (about 3 min.).

      Latter submarines (type XI, XIII and XIII-1938) had many improvements in equipment, weapons and range. They became really universal boats, fighting on all wartime theatres. Most success in score was achieved by minefields of this boats. 

S 189 (Nato designation "Whiskey" class, Projects 613, 644, 665) (Premium, tier not stated)

K Class (series XIV tier X tech tree)

I will add screenshots when I get time./ links to wiki and navpedia will follow, along with basic known real world stats. (which as concerns submarines, can be considered unreliable). As for in game stats, they will be even more unreliable, probably "placeholder" stats, so I am not posting information about that for now.

Information from (mostly) respected websites that compile historical data on ww2 era submarines has been added, along with links to a summary of individual submarine operational histories. 

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,669
[POP]
Members
2,235 posts
19,576 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

U-69 (VIIc),

The wait is unbearable for this :Smile_izmena:

Image result for U - 96

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,284 posts
9,171 battles
1 minute ago, tm63au said:

The wait is unbearable for this :Smile_izmena:

Image result for U - 96

the type VIIC is etched into the imagination of so many of us, mythical/ I have added a bit of info to u-69, including a link to it's profile on uboat.net, which has a map of its last known position (when sunk), and a short summary of its operational history.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,669
[POP]
Members
2,235 posts
19,576 battles
8 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

the type VIIC is etched into the imagination of so many of us, mythical/ I have added a bit of info to u-69, including a link to it's profile on uboat.net, which has a map of its last known position (when sunk), and a short summary of its operational history.

Well I'm glad U - 69 is the tech tree ship ( nothing  against her of course ) as I feel quite a few people would be spitting blood had they made it U - 96, now hopefully WG has the good sense to make Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock ship a premium if not there could be pitch forks and bonfires. :Smile_veryhappy: 

Edited by tm63au
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,284 posts
9,171 battles
9 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Well I'm glad U - 69 is the tech tree ship ( nothing  against her of course ) as I feel quite a few people would be spitting blood had they made it U - 96, now hopefully WG has the good sense to make Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock ship a premium if not there could be pitch forks and bonfires. :Smile_veryhappy: 

I wouldn't take any of the naming as final, for now treat them as placeholders. I am a teeny bit disappointed by the fact that WG seems to be following the CV rework nonsense of even tier subs only (perhaps a mistaken impression, but we should follow that closely.) There should be more than enough submarine variants for complete tech trees, starting with tier 2 or 3.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
521
[POP]
Members
1,526 posts
19,039 battles

I'll take Richard O'Kane or Eugene Fluckey for USN skippers NP.

Edited by Alabamastan
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
445
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
783 posts
4,393 battles

Well... Soviet subs... I would have suggested, complete the "Regia Marina" trees, then IJN, Italian, Soviet & French subs... French Surcouf or IJN I400 are very interesting ships, Surcouf can be a kind of "Underwater Battleship", I400 "Underwater CV".
By "historical" importance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,284 posts
9,171 battles
9 minutes ago, franz_von_goltz said:

Well... Soviet subs... I would have suggested, complete the "Regia Marina" trees, then IJN, Italian, Soviet & French subs... French Surcouf or IJN I400 are very interesting ships, Surcouf can be a kind of "Underwater Battleship", I400 "Underwater CV".
By "historical" importance.

this is not totally fair. The Soviets had the biggest sub fleet in 1941 (by number of hulls, not total tonnage), while the post (cold) war Whiskey class was built in more numbers than the Gato class. True, throughout ww2, most Soviet sub designs were small, short range, adapted to littoral and estuary (Baltic and North Sea) tasks, with questionable effectiveness. Notwithstanding this, for once, not a single paper design from a teenagers bedroom fantasy is required (compare to Soviet bb tech tree).

True I'd rather see some models of the IJN, and/or Italian submarine designs, A British T (and A!) boat, and of course, a premium French Surcouf. But it is hard to argue (seriously) that there is no historical argument for pushing a Soviet sub tech tree as a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,614
[RKLES]
Members
11,005 posts
12,551 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

I wouldn't take any of the naming as final, for now treat them as placeholders. I am a teeny bit disappointed by the fact that WG seems to be following the CV rework nonsense of even tier subs only (perhaps a mistaken impression, but we should follow that closely.) There should be more than enough submarine variants for complete tech trees, starting with tier 2 or 3.

They may be testing the waters with them for now, because remember what happened for those of us that had full or close to full tech tree lines of CVs on hand? ( I had all USN, IJN CVs tiers 4-9 ) Very generous compensation of all the XP put into those CVs was paid back in full in the form of Free XP, I had captains able to be reset freely and freed up for use on other ships, and all my credits returned to me. Which while it was the right thing for WG to do under the circumstances, it is on the other hand a bit costly for them in terms of loss of potential profits as far as players needing to convert Doubloons into Free XP and Credits. 

So if they did start out with partial submarine lines it could be their way of seeing how they fare first, while minimizing the potential compensation payouts if the subs needed to be pulled back out again. Plus it is early yet so they may be just adding in some of the more prominent subs first for greater interest, and then filling in the rest of spots later as things progress.

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,614
[RKLES]
Members
11,005 posts
12,551 battles
5 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

this is not totally fair. The Soviets had the biggest sub fleet in 1941 (by number of hulls, not total tonnage), while the post (cold) war Whiskey class was built in more numbers than the Gato class. True, throughout ww2, most Soviet sub designs were small, short range, adapted to littoral and estuary (Baltic and North Sea) tasks, with questionable effectiveness. Notwithstanding this, for once, not a single paper design from a teenagers bedroom fantasy is required (compare to Soviet bb tech tree).

True I'd rather see some models of the IJN, and/or Italian submarine designs, A British T (and A!) boat, and of course, a premium French Surcouf. But it is hard to argue (seriously) that there is no historical argument for pushing a Soviet sub tech tree as a priority.

I can make a sound argument for not having Soviet Subs be added as a priority ahead of other nations. In WWII Soviet Navy was pretty much merely a coastal defense force that had difficulty with Blue Water naval operations. The Soviet focus was appropriately on Land based military power thanks to the size of Soviet Union and it’s  geographical  position. If you had massive tank armies you could not only police the Soviet Union, but could invade much of Europe, Africa, China, India, and parts of a Mediterranean such as Italy. And if you also prioritized Soviet Air Force as well then you could make do with a less powerful Navy unless you needed to wage war on Japan, UK or North America which were not  necessary for Soviets during WWII. Another thing was Soviets had major issues with subs having all sorts of technical and mechanical issues during WWII and even beyond. 

So bottom line is if subs are coming to WOWs, it’s far better to release the big name sub nations first such as Germany, America, and Japan. Then you start releasing subs from the other nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,284 posts
9,171 battles
3 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

I can make a sound argument for not having Soviet Subs be added as a priority ahead of other nations. In WWII Soviet Navy was pretty much merely a coastal defense force that had difficulty with Blue Water naval operations. The Soviet focus was appropriately on Land based military power thanks to the size of Soviet Union and it’s  geographical  position. If you had massive tank armies you could not only police the Soviet Union, but could invade much of Europe, Africa, China, India, and parts of a Mediterranean such as Italy. And if you also prioritized Soviet Air Force as well then you could make do with a less powerful Navy unless you needed to wage war on Japan, UK or North America which were not  necessary for Soviets during WWII. Another thing was Soviets had major issues with subs having all sorts of technical and mechanical issues during WWII and even beyond. 

So bottom line is if subs are coming to WOWs, it’s far better to release the big name sub nations first such as Germany, America, and Japan. Then you start releasing subs from the other nations.

A sound argument as long as we restrict ourselves to WW2 and overlook the sheer size of the Soviet submarine force and that the game encompasses the 1950s (Korean War) - minus  Cold War cruise missiles and jet airplanes. We cannot seriously pretend the K class were a coastal defence force when they had the range to extend operations beyond the North Sea, or that the post war Whiskey class subs were of little/no consequence, (212 built). If the game were only about ww2 era blue water navies, I'd agree 100% with you, but it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,614
[RKLES]
Members
11,005 posts
12,551 battles
Just now, LoveBote said:

A sound argument as long as we restrict ourselves to WW2 and overlook the sheer size of the Soviet submarine force and that the game encompasses the 1950s (Korean War) - minus  Cold War cruise missiles and jet airplanes. We cannot seriously pretend the K class were a coastal defence force when they had the range to extend operations beyond the North Sea, or that the post war Whiskey class subs were of little/no consequence, (212 built). If the game were only about ww2 era blue water navies, I'd agree 100% with you, but it isn't.

For the most part Wargaming games are WWI-WWII era. They do however grandfather in some vehicles that were used in 50s and 60s if said vehicles were in development during WWII or near end of the war like the Centurion tank was. Problem you can run into with officially saying yes Cold War Vehicles are included and welcome is you end up with some of the high tech weapons systems that came with them.

But even when some Cold War era vehicles are added in, it typically is much later on when WG adds them. So I am not denying that Soviets had large Sub force on the Cold War, on the contrary I will be one of the first to agree that they had a large submarine force. And in time WG will more than likely add Soviet Subs. But with their games being pretty much focused on WWI-WWII the Soviet Subs will have to wait until probably 2021 or 2022 I would say if I had to make an estimated guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
445
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
783 posts
4,393 battles
34 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

this is not totally fair. The Soviets had the biggest sub fleet in 1941 (by number of hulls, not total tonnage), while the post (cold) war Whiskey class was built in more numbers than the Gato class. True, throughout ww2, most Soviet sub designs were small, short range, adapted to littoral and estuary (Baltic and North Sea) tasks, with questionable effectiveness. Notwithstanding this, for once, not a single paper design from a teenagers bedroom fantasy is required (compare to Soviet bb tech tree).

True I'd rather see some models of the IJN, and/or Italian submarine designs, A British T (and A!) boat, and of course, a premium French Surcouf. But it is hard to argue (seriously) that there is no historical argument for pushing a Soviet sub tech tree as a priority.

Ok, I agree except for the teenager dream... Stalin was not a "teenager in his bedroom":).

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,146
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,478 posts
16,267 battles

What a lot of people forget is that from an economic standpunt it makes a lot of sense to cater to one of their biggest markets, WG had never cared much about historical size of influence of navies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,958
[TMS]
Beta Testers
3,500 posts
13,406 battles

So long as they make an IJN 2 man mini sub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,284 posts
9,171 battles
1 minute ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

So long as they make an IJN 2 man mini sub

which require 2 players to operate, one driving, the other on the harpoon.

 

5 minutes ago, Lert said:

What a lot of people forget is that from an economic standpunt it makes a lot of sense to cater to one of their biggest markets, WG had never cared much about historical size of influence of navies.

which is why I don't understand why the Irish navy is still absent from WOWS. They had some nice ships too, they are nice people, from a lovely island country, with good beer. SO WHY?!

Although a (full!) Dutch submarine tech tree is quite possible, and would make a nice replacement/alternative to the USN tech tree. Won't take them long to model, subs don't require so many polygons, or as much detail as surface warships (less clutter).

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,630
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
12,500 posts
18,037 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

But it is hard to argue (seriously) that there is no historical argument for pushing a Soviet sub tech tree as a priority.

How about the fact that ONE German U-Boat commander sank more tonnage in his two year career than the entire Russian sub fleet did during the entire war?

57 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

We cannot seriously pretend the K class were a coastal defence force when they had the range to extend operations beyond the North Sea

Wasn't it a "K" class that sank in the Pacific with a load of nukes aboard? We're adding nuke subs (SSBNs) to the game now?

1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

the post war Whiskey class subs were of little/no consequence

Because the Russians couldn't build nuclear subs yet, so they built older, second rate technology ships.

1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

If the game were only about ww2 era blue water navies, I'd agree 100% with you, but it isn't.

It pretty much is for every nation EXCEPT Russia, who throughout WW2 had a crap navy, so later era ships had to be added for them so they could feel good about their lack of a real navy during the time of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,741
[YORHA]
Members
4,535 posts
8,693 battles
1 hour ago, franz_von_goltz said:

Well... Soviet subs... I would have suggested, complete the "Regia Marina" trees, then IJN, Italian, Soviet & French subs... French Surcouf or IJN I400 are very interesting ships, Surcouf can be a kind of "Underwater Battleship", I400 "Underwater CV".
By "historical" importance.

I would have suggested fixing the aiming bug, the magnetic island bug & the steering bug but I guess you can't make money on that so...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,134
[5BS]
Members
8,862 posts

So I suspect they are doing even tiers only? Like with CV's they initially only posted the RN CV's with Tier's 4, 6, 8, and 10, and we initially thought 5, 7, and 9 would follow but then it dropped that odd tiers were being removed, I suspect subs will be similar? Not that I agree but those ship choices (mostly) coincide with what I had assumed to be the tiers for 4, 6, 8, and 10, in most cases. Other than the US. They are nuts if they think the Balao/Gato should be a T10. T8 tops.

On 11/5/2018 at 9:00 PM, _RC1138 said:
Spoiler

 

So with most people seemingly embracing subs as fun, and, while of course tweaks would be needed (I mean in general, do any of the ships in the Halloween Ops work 1:1 the way normal ships in normal modes work?) I think it can be safe to say that Wargaming has proven that, within the established mechanics, subs can work. The rest, aka the most difficult part, is balancing between each other/other classes/broader rebalancing around them. But let's pretend, for a moment, such a thing is 'easy' and rectified; what do you see the tech trees looking like? When you stop and consider it, there are actually an abnormally high amount of sub classes and members of those classes, to say nothing of famous outliers like the Surcouf. And yes, there are MORE than enough subs for a few nations (US and RN especially) to have more than 1 line (how they would differentiate them, perhaps with different torp types or things of that nature, is anyones' guess). The beautiful thing about subs is, baring a few cases, almost NO paper ships are required, more than can be said of almost ANY surface ship line.

Now the trees I propose, obviously take with a grain of salt, are predicated on one common idea: that *historical* submarine speeds will not be adhered to and instead artificial speeds will be chosen on the basis of balance; so for example a Gato couldn't go at 27 knots on the surface, but for balance purposes, if it's at T8/9, it probably should. My justification for this change? If DD's can get unlimited torps (as would subs), and DD's get stealth field generators, and BB's get (mostly) the unique ability to heal, and (soon) CV's will have unlimited planes, and it's HE, not AP, that starts fires, and the million or so OTHER things ignored for balance purposes, I feel giving subs a little kick in the [edited]for surface speeds is NOT a huge ask.

So to start, because I know this is where WGing would, my proposed RU Sub tree is as follows:

Tier III: Osetr Class; a good semi-mini Sub with 3 tubes, 2 fore, 1 aft, typical of what I assume a TIII sub would have to be (much like how TIII DD's are).

Tier IV: My gut says the Akula, but they may want that for a Premium, so failing that the Kaiman class could fit at T4, although it's still more of a mini-sub than a full patrol sub.

Tier V: Bars Class; about as big of a WWI sub as you'd expect to see and slow diving will make her interesting at T5

Tier VI: Dekabrist Class; very likely the T6 (in fact the one I am most sure of) as this is kinda exactly what a Post WWI RU Sub would be expected to be like; for reference, it's very close to an S-Boat in capability, and was fairly modern in design for the time.

Tier VII: Shchuka Class; solid Tier VII; very much a pre-War boat, not flashy, but fairly modern layout for the year of launch

Tier VIII: S-Class; basically a German Type IX. This isn't supposition either; these boats were developed alongside Germany and really were basically a Soviet made Type IX. Likely a solid T8 based on the size of the torp armament and the assumed jump in underwater ability/range

Tier IX: K-Class; honestly this is a tough one; they were great boats, but at TIX might be a bit too far for them. It's not hard to expect Russian subs to get some fantasy upgrades beyond that of their peers, but the K-Class is tough to place; either a strong T8 or a weak T9. The Whiskey, although much newer, could fit here with the Zulu after but that might require some downgrading.

Tier X: Zulu Class; I imagine most of the Tier X's would be soon-ish post war designs, and most, if not all, of them will CLOSELY resemble the Type XXI's, because of how influential these were, and the Zulu's are basically the Soviet version of the Type XXI. If the Zulu's are too large/too many tubes, then a Whiskey Class can fit in snugly for largely the same reasons.

Royal Navy

Tier III: D-Class; heavier than most Tier 3's but it can be balanced with so-so torps

Tier IV: E-Class; stereotypical WWI era RN Boat

Tier V: L-Class; On par with other Tier V's, especially by having the RN Mk II 21" Torp

Tier VI: S-Class; one of the most work-horse like subs in the world

Tier VII: T-Class; a hard to maneuver but hard hitting Alpha strike capable sub

Tier VIII: V-Class; what else would be the RN T8?

Tier IX: Amphion Class; about as heavy of a WWII sub as you're going to find outside an Axis Nation

Tier X: Again, as usual, it's a Type XXI derivative, the Porpoise Class

KM

Tier III: Has to be U1. A bit underpowered for Tier III? Yep, but the first German boat HAS to be the U1.

Tier IV: Type 19; ironically a bit more powerful perhaps than the other Tier 4's (and more flexiable with equal aft and fore tubes)

Tier V: Type UBIII; heavy for a Tier V with a big old deck gun, but this is the stereotypical WWI era U-Boat.

Tier VI: Type IA; although newer than most T6 boats, she was basically a rebuild of WWI era boats

Tier VII: This is the tough spot. Do you make it the Type VIIC? Is a Type VIIC op for Tier 7? It might be, but here it goes

Tier VIII: If the Type VIIC is too strong for T7, then it goes here (with the Type IID at T7); otherwise, this might be the only Paper sub needed; either a Type VIII or Type IX with some kind of downgrade for balance

Tier IX: Type IXC; similar to, but far more flexible than, the Gato class.

Tier X: Obviously, the Type XXI; it keeps coming up for a reason

USN

Tier III: C-Class; oh how I want the Holland to be in the game, but the sad fact is she would struggle at T2, much less T3; the C-Class is the earliest USN Sub class that resembles a WWI era sub

Tier IV: L-Class; rare Tier IV with a deck gun (which I think will be the US 'thing')

Tier V: S-Class; these were great boats, serving all the way into WWII. Could be OP for T5 depending on how they are implemented (otherwise it would be an R at T5 and the S at T6).

Tier VI: Salmon Class: This is when the US started designing boats as 'Fleet Boats' and were comparatively heavier armed than most other nations.

Tier VII: Tambor Class; very heavy torp armament for a T6 and super long ranged, probably one of the most successful interwar Subs

Tier VIII: Gato; yeah this one's tough too, as a Gato can be tuned to be very powerful at T8 or T9, but I think of T8 as when the 'real' ships show up and future USN Subs followed the Gato (with a Guppy upgrade) example for many decades to follow

Tier IX: Balao w/ Guppy IIA upgrade; while technically post war, compared to other T9's this sub will be trading any chance of AA/surface fighting ability for longer undersea time w/ the USN standard of very heavy armaments

Tier X: Part of me really thinks it should be the Nautilus, although balancing an SSN at even TX would be hard due to 'unlimited' dive time (but for fairness, light for T10 torp armaments to say nothing of being oversized and an easier target). There might be a way to do it but that's up to WGing, the Tang-Class is the most appropriate probably because, you guessed it, it's basically an americanized Type XXI.

IJN

Tier III: You *maybe* could do a Type I, with some futzing with torps/spotting to make it fair, otherwise it's a bit underpowered at T3; it's basically a Holland (spoiler alert: until ~WWII, almost all IJN subs are basically 1:1 copies of foreign made subs)

Tier IV: Ha-3 Class; a C-Class (Royal Navy) sub. Very much what I would expect a Tier 4

Tier V:  Ha-7 Class; Basically a home-made Ha-3; give it better torps

Tier VI: S7 Type; kinda small, but it gets Type 93's so it's hard to complain

Tier VII: Kaidai Type II, very heavy deck gun and torp armament, as the IJN Subs start to transfer into being oversized

Tier VIII: J1; the IJN would never look back from basically building undersea cruisers

Tier IX: I-400; oversized? Yes. TX material? Maybe. Should it be a Tier 9 though? Yep

Tier X: I-201, although not STRICTLY a Type XXI it was basically developed on a parallel course and might as well just be a Type XXI; a speed demon in her own right, this is a *solid* TX boat, even compared to post war entries.


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles

20 knots or less top speed while surfaced and 7-8 while submerged, people whine about ships being less that 30knots now......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,768
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,094 posts

imo and fwiw anyhow... I do so hope they don't make a joke out of their sub implementation. Many a good man fought and gave their lives in subs. I'm fine with adjustments to parameters to fit into the game (compressed time/speed/range/etc) but I do hope the implementation when we see it generates comments like "what a joke". 

I figure this is their make it or break it move. 

OP I like the lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,134
[5BS]
Members
8,862 posts
1 minute ago, Herr_Reitz said:

I figure this is their make it or break it move. 

For long term success, likely; the Submarine Gaming Community FAR outnumbers the WoWs community and is very well established. Getting their buy in, literally and figuratively, will be very important for WoWs moving forward and WoWs is positioned to both offer something familiar and unique: an Arcade-y Submarine experience. There are plenty of Sim style Sub games, but very few true arcade-y ones still grounded in historical ships (last one I can think of was TC's:SSN in 1996) so that positions WGing well to both get the Sub-Gamer's attention *and* offer them something they can't get by just reinstalling Silent Hunter 2 for the 1000th time.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,583
Members
2,075 posts
4,466 battles

i really don't see how they are going to do subs in this game. single torps with insane damage? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[AK]
Members
298 posts
8,342 battles

I personally don't see a sub rollout going very smoothly. For example, the CV is much maligned because "it doesn't belong in a surface ship game." Nor, given how CVs were nerfed almost to unplayable levels after the rework, am I confident in WG's ability to balance subs. They'll either be too weak and slow or too fast and powerful. Perhaps I'm cynical but I foresee the introduction of subs akin to a car crash. And not the seamless integration WG hopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×