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

5,129
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,894 posts
8,457 battles
2 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I have an love it, especially because it is super Mod friendly (love the Trafalgar mod; just wish they would let people change the models as well) but I'd call that about a middle-way between Sims and Arcade-y and more on the Sims side. They added in mini-games that make it feel arcade-y been when you step back, they actually make sense even in a Sim concept; I mean how else are you going to replicate the realities of modern SSN warfare where passive sonar plays such a crucial role in acquiring a target? The minigame of fixing and relating a signature against a known database of potential targets makes a LOT of sense and is ground more in reality than it is not. And the torpedo guiding is very realistic, especially in how their attack modes ACTUALLY work in relation to the physics of fluid dynamics, which is the other major part that I feel diverges from Aracade to sim; the physics of the game is spot on. The subs MOVE like subs, the torpedoes MOVE how torpedoes move. You cannot just travel straight up and expect to maneuver, something even other sims have gotten wrong.

Really the biggest 'arcade-y' aspect to Cold Waters is the damage system; yeah no modern sub is taking more than a single direct hit (or even close detonation) from a submarine launched torpedo. But baring that I would say it is far closer to a Sim than an Aracade game. Especially on the harder difficulty settings.

The most common arcade complaint I have seen for Cold Waters is forming knuckles. Apparently IRL knuckles are neither that easy to form or that effective in disabling sonar. Infact the entire dodge torpedoes thing seems pretty ridiculous, I played through the 60s campaign in a skipjack and used soviet torps to sink soviet subs because the mk 37 was completely inadequate. Especially since at least at the time I played subs without towed arrays would react when torps went active even in their blind spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,105
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,836 posts
9,171 battles
13 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Well WGing seems to be, shocker, throwing a wrench in their own works by trying to force the Gato/Balao's into T10. That is a huge mistake. It's pretty well established that tiers represent phases of Modern Naval Building history:

T1: WWII Era Gunboats/Frigates/Corvettes/Cruiser Auxiliary (Best as I can tell that is what the German one is)

T2: Turn of the Century Designs

T3: Dreadnought Years (shift from Protected and Armoured cruisers to the later traditional CA/CL's and all big gun BB's)

T4: Pre-WWI Arms Race (massive Cruiser and destroyer Expansion and finalized Dreadnought designs/some shifts to super Dreadnoughts)

T5: Super Dreadnoughts and End-War WWI designs (New York Class, Iron Duke Class, ect)

T6: Interwar designs/pre-Treaty warships

T7: Treaty-Warships/Pre-War builds

T8: Entry to WWII designs/final treaty warships (typically violators/escalation clause ships)

T9: End War Launches (launched prior to August 1945)

T10: Post War designs

There are a few exceptions, like Atlanta at T7, KGV at T7, Warspite/QE at T6, but this is LARGELY the rule by which ships fit in. So following that, the Gatos/Balaos should be solidly at T8, and with Guppy I upgrades, T9 at the most. T10 should be, yes somewhat boringly, all the Type XXI clones since that was largely what post WWII Sub designs were. It's important to remember, that between the Balao and the first SSN Nautilus, there's only 3 classes of Conventional subs, the Trench which are basically just Balao's with a different floor plan, the Barracuda's, which were are basically Type XXI clones, and the Tang, which are improved USN versions of the Type XXI. And while I do believe the Nautilus could work as a T10 given its light armament, that's about the lowest SSN possible. So it really does mean you would be, logically, for a post WWII design, need to be either the Tang (my vote) or a Barracuda.

And as far as other nations; Germany logically gets the Type XXI for tons of reasons. UK gets the Porpoise. IJN gets the I201. And the RU either the Whisky or the Zulu (and my vote would be for Zulu).

I was surprised to see Gato at tier 10, but then again, it may just be there for place holding reasons unknown. I had always assumed Gato to be the tier 8 fit, Balao a tier 9, possibly 10. But absence of odd tiers, and debuting subs at tier 6, has sort of made a mockery of my assumptions. (and disappointed me).

edit : agreed on barracuda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,165
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
8 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

But absence of odd tiers, and debuting subs at tier 6, has sort of made a mockery of my assumptions. (and disappointed me).

Me too. I was very much hoping for at least Mid WWI era subs as there are some interesting boats there.

10 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

The most common arcade complaint I have seen for Cold Waters is forming knuckles. Apparently IRL knuckles are neither that easy to form or that effective in disabling sonar. Infact the entire dodge torpedoes thing seems pretty ridiculous,

Ehh I didn't find that to be the case, and knuckles are very good for disabling passive sonar due to how the pressure differential will effect acoustics. Ease of forming is a bit tougher to quantify, as things like water temperature and depth will have a bigger influence than object size and angle of attack. And otherwise, the dodge mechanic I feel is accurate; it's far easier than I think most people appreciate to dodge a torpedo, even modern ones, due to how flow works; we don't often think of it, but the same issues that arise in Air-to-air missile combat exist in the water, and torpedoes are just as subject to stalling as missile are, as is high angle attacks. In reality, a standard maneuver for surface ships subject to high angle torpedoes is to 'dodge' at the last possible moment as in the final attack run a high angle torpedo effectively has zero ability to maneuver.

That all said, I find that if this is the height of 'arcade-y' complaints, that is pretty good considering some of the issues in some more well established sims.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,129
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,894 posts
8,457 battles
22 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Ehh I didn't find that to be the case, and knuckles are very good for disabling passive sonar due to how the pressure differential will effect acoustics. Ease of forming is a bit tougher to quantify, as things like water temperature and depth will have a bigger influence than object size and angle of attack. And otherwise, the dodge mechanic I feel is accurate; it's far easier than I think most people appreciate to dodge a torpedo, even modern ones, due to how flow works; we don't often think of it, but the same issues that arise in Air-to-air missile combat exist in the water, and torpedoes are just as subject to stalling as missile are, as is high angle attacks. In reality, a standard maneuver for surface ships subject to high angle torpedoes is to 'dodge' at the last possible moment as in the final attack run a high angle torpedo effectively has zero ability to maneuver.

That all said, I find that if this is the height of 'arcade-y' complaints, that is pretty good considering some of the issues in some more well established sims.

A lot of the torps you can encounter are active sonar in the terminal phase at least. That said I thought that Cold Waters did a good job of balancing sim and not making the game a days long boring exercise. It makes me nervous about how much of nuance WG will remove from the sub play to fit it in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,105
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,836 posts
9,171 battles
7 hours ago, Alabamastan said:

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

 I want Fluckey just for the name. And Fluck anyone who gets in my way.


For all those that complain about submarine slow speeds, can I have this beauty?

300px-Explorer_class_submarine.jpg

46 kmh submerged!

hydrogen peroxide fuelled, so liable to suffer tragic incidents. but this is WOWS, not reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer-class_submarine

Spoiler

The two Explorer-class submarines were experimental vessels built for the Royal Navy to test a propulsion system based on the use of highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide (high-test peroxide, HTP) and diesel fuel to achieve high underwater endurance and speeds.

Germany had started experimenting with this technology early in the Second World War and developed it into the Walter cycle. They had built some experimental boats. One of these, the U-boat German submarine U-1407, which had been scuttled at the end of the war, was salvaged and eventually recommissioned into the Royal Navy as HMS Meteorite.

This eventually led to the construction of the two Explorer-class experimental vessels, which used steam turbines, the steam being generated using heat from the catalysed interaction of HTP and diesel oil. They used the Porpoise-class hull, modified with retractable superstructure fittings to help streamlining. Being purely experimental craft they had no torpedo tubes or radar fitted, only one periscope and were equipped with backup diesel engines to recharge the batteries and propel them on the surface.[1]

The first, Excalibur, was commissioned in March 1958. They were very fast boats, with a top underwater speed of around 49 km/h (26.5 kn) for period up to 3 hours and 22 km/h (12 kn) for 15 hours on one turbine.[1] Because of the use of hydrogen peroxide as a hair bleach, the submarines were nicknamed the Blonde class. As well as providing experience with this type of technology, they also allowed the Royal Navy to practise against fast moving underwater targets. However the use of HTP was not successful, and there were several explosions, which resulted in the second nickname of Exploder being applied to the class and Explorer in particular, while Excalibur had the nickname "Excruciater".[2] The subsequent use of HTP to power torpedoes led to the loss of HMS Sidon and the loss of the Russian submarine Kursk.

When the United States developed a nuclear reactor which could be installed in a submarine, the HTP project was abandoned. It was decided that it was not worth converting the class into normal diesel submarines. As a result, Explorer was sold for £13,500 to Thos W Ward for breaking up; Excalibur in turn was also subsequently sold to Thos W Ward.[3]

Other countries have since developed the concept of the non-nuclear air-independent propulsion submarine to the point where it is a safe technology albeit as an auxiliary power source to a conventional diesel-electric drive, although hydrogen peroxide has long been abandoned and liquid oxygen is generally now preferred.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,165
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
2 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

A lot of the torps you can encounter are active sonar in the terminal phase at least. That said I thought that Cold Waters did a good job of balancing sim and not making the game a days long boring exercise. It makes me nervous about how much of nuance WG will remove from the sub play to fit it in this game. 

Well I feel, given that post-War designs are likely limited to at most, Type XXI Clones, ASW from Subs is likely to be very limited; surface-to-surface for sure, but I doubt there will be any appreciable submerged ASW combat; only 1 sub ever pulled that off in WWII and was as much luck as skill. And I doubt homing torps will be a major thing, if at all, as it raises further issues to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,912 posts
10,422 battles

i think Subs will do fine, because WG KNOWS that if they screw up here, its over for them, so theyre going to do everything possible to make sure that this comes in, at the very least, decent, the CV rework was a bit of a gamble, but THIS will be the biggest gamble that WG will EVER pull with WOWS, and its either going to make the game even more popular or its going to kill the game with a point blank shot to the head

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,688
[RKLES]
Members
11,231 posts
12,618 battles
On 8/19/2019 at 7:39 AM, Legio_X_ said:

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

Single fire  or torp salvoes and possibly relatively fast torp reload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,105
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,836 posts
9,171 battles
15 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Single fire  or torp salvoes and possibly relatively fast torp reload.

A redditer has leaked details of the torpedo gameplay. Subs will lhave semi homing torps, with a "lock on" feature when they get close to enemy ships. I am expectign we will see details in today's twitch stream from Gamescom.

0SXRNgL.png.70af2bf1f155b4a0da9b23d96eb6

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/170283-submarines/?do=findComment&comment=4649076

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
772 posts
On 8/19/2019 at 10:44 AM, _RC1138 said:

And I doubt homing torps will be a major thing, if at all, as it raises further issues to balance.

today's news flash ... the torps home to target when pinged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,688
[RKLES]
Members
11,231 posts
12,618 battles
14 minutes ago, Ozium said:

today's news flash ... the torps home to target when pinged

Lol can see it now... No I did not team kill my team, the Torps simply got confused and homed in on them instead of the enemy ships... :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,105
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,836 posts
9,171 battles

updated with official pics, (nicer resolution) from official web news portal, showing bottoms/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×