Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Vanav

Submarines...........

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

138
Members
134 posts
383 battles

I see that War gaming is beta testing subs........... I have a request, how about my Tin Cans have depth charges please?

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[MEIST]
Members
1,505 posts
5,746 battles
5 minutes ago, Vanav said:

I see that War gaming is beta testing subs........... I have a request, how about my Tin Cans have depth charges please?

They have depth charges in the beta test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[GOOF]
Members
671 posts
5,900 battles

Yes it would seem DDS get depth charges. cruisers battleships carriers........oh well fun and engaging.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,010
[RLGN]
Members
14,310 posts
25,245 battles
2 hours ago, grorg said:

Yes it would seem DDS get depth charges. cruisers battleships carriers........oh well fun and engaging.

Ramming and HE?

Didn’t Warspite get credit for a probable ram? Or maybe I’m thinking about Queen Mary.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
22,442 battles
57 minutes ago, Vanav said:

how about my Tin Cans have depth charges please?

Using an automated Wylie Coyote system instead of manual control like all the other ordnance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
138
Members
134 posts
383 battles

Would be nice

But to keep it more "historic" only launch them if you see a periscope

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,795
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,578 posts
25 minutes ago, Vanav said:

Would be nice

But to keep it more "historic" only launch them if you see a periscope

 

Ships used sonar or technology of the same family and dropped charges on submerged subs all the time.  That said, this video is not really "historic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[CUTER]
Members
224 posts
1,675 battles
2 hours ago, Vanav said:

I see that War gaming is beta testing subs........... I have a request, how about my Tin Cans have depth charges please?

You don't read much do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,350 battles
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Ramming and HE?

Didn’t Warspite get credit for a probable ram? Or maybe I’m thinking about Wueen Mary.

Dreadnought is the only battleship confirmed as having rammed and sunk a submarine. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,920
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,116 posts
19,208 battles
1 hour ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

Using an automated Wylie Coyote system instead of manual control like all the other ordnance.

Except AA, of course, which is also broken, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,010
[RLGN]
Members
14,310 posts
25,245 battles
4 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Dreadnought is the only battleship confirmed as having rammed and sunk a submarine. 

(Bleagh... fixed that W/Q typo in my original post.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,350 battles
2 hours ago, grorg said:

Yes it would seem DDS get depth charges. cruisers battleships carriers........oh well fun and engaging.

I watched a replay done by The Mighty Jingles.  As it stands now, DD's are good against subs, aircraft of GREAT against subs, cruiser and battleships are practically helpless against them unless they are scooting around on the surface.

With these highly a-historical subs, WG may have completely unintentionally created an actual historical reality (I know, shocking isn't it).  Cruisers and Battleships were helpless against subs and needed aircraft and dd's to deal with the little menaces for them.

I wonder what fictitious game mechanic WG is going to come up with to solve this one.  Oh, I know, we need the Battleship Yamato with a Wave Motion Gun, or perhaps a main underwater battery firing trained dolphins or something equally realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[KERMT]
Members
1,008 posts
26 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

I watched a replay done by The Mighty Jingles.  As it stands now, DD's are good against subs, aircraft of GREAT against subs, cruiser and battleships are practically helpless against them unless they are scooting around on the surface.

With these highly a-historical subs, WG may have completely unintentionally created an actual historical reality (I know, shocking isn't it).  Cruisers and Battleships were helpless against subs and needed aircraft and dd's to deal with the little menaces for them.

I wonder what fictitious game mechanic WG is going to come up with to solve this one.  Oh, I know, we need the Battleship Yamato with a Wave Motion Gun, or perhaps a main underwater battery firing trained dolphins or something equally realistic. 

I just hope some of the cruisers like Atlanta and flint get depth charges later on as they are modeled on the ships currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,350 battles
1 hour ago, Salvo_Creative said:

I just hope some of the cruisers like Atlanta and flint get depth charges later on as they are modeled on the ships currently. 

Well they really are more overgrown destroyers than cruisers and were intended to operate with them, so that would make some sense.  I'm just waiting for the depth charges on the Yamato to make this game complete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[KERMT]
Members
1,008 posts
16 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Well they really are more overgrown destroyers than cruisers and were intended to operate with them, so that would make some sense.  I'm just waiting for the depth charges on the Yamato to make this game complete. 

I 100% agree with the 'overly large destroyers' I believe they were classed as a Heavy destroyer? or Destroyer Escort? 

I was looking for a video where I heard this however unable to find this. 

 

I was not aware of Yamato having depth charges? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,350 battles
14 minutes ago, Salvo_Creative said:

I 100% agree with the 'overly large destroyers' I believe they were classed as a Heavy destroyer? or Destroyer Escort? 

I was looking for a video where I heard this however unable to find this. 

 

I was not aware of Yamato having depth charges? 

 

Nope, the Atlanta's were classed and Light Cruisers but their intended function was to operate as essentially fire support vessels for the destroyer screens in a fleet action that could also be used effectively in anti air actions. 

Unfortunately for them, they did have to fill the role of a light cruiser and both the Atlanta and Juneau were lost in battles with IJN cruisers while acting in that role.  

You really should study up on the use of Battleships as one of the principle anti-submarine warfare types during ... pretty much every phase of their existence.  Yep, ASW battleships, big thing coming to a WOWS tech tree near you soon (still like the idea of underwater trained dolphin cannons better but BB depth charges fits right in there so tomatoe, tomato).   

Personally, I'm waiting for the Seaview to be released as a premium especially with that yellow flying sub thingee, its going to be awesome. :crab: :cat_cool::crab:

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[KERMT]
Members
1,008 posts
51 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Nope, the Atlanta's were classed and Light Cruisers but their intended function was to operate as essentially fire support vessels for the destroyer screens in a fleet action that could also be used effectively in anti air actions. 

Unfortunately for them, they did have to fill the role of a light cruiser and both the Atlanta and Juneau were lost in battles with IJN cruisers while acting in that role.  

You really should study up on the use of Battleships as one of the principle anti-submarine warfare types during ... pretty much every phase of their existence.  Yep, ASW battleships, big thing coming to a WOWS tech tree near you soon (still like the idea of underwater trained dolphin cannons better but BB depth charges fits right in there so tomatoe, tomato).   

Personally, I'm waiting for the Seaview to be released as a premium especially with that yellow flying sub thingee, its going to be awesome. :crab: :cat_cool::crab:

Oooo thank you, yeah I'm gonna go spend some time on Wiki and Youtube today :) 

I'm finishing off the USS California video at the moment so I will queue up some ASW on BB's for this afternoon :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,230
[PIMPS]
Members
1,496 posts
5 hours ago, Vanav said:

I see that War gaming is beta testing subs........... I have a request, how about my Tin Cans have depth charges please?

umm were you in a bomb shelter locked away for a couple of months or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,017
[SBS]
Members
5,903 posts
1 hour ago, Salvo_Creative said:

I 100% agree with the 'overly large destroyers' I believe they were classed as a Heavy destroyer? or Destroyer Escort? 

I was looking for a video where I heard this however unable to find this.

The Atlanta/Oakland class were originally planned to be destroyer leaders, which just meant they were intended to be the lead ships in a small destroyer flotilla.  Destroyer leaders could be destroyers, or cruisers.  As far as I could tell the Atlanta/Oakland class were always intended to be light cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[KERMT]
Members
1,008 posts
15 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

The Atlanta/Oakland class were originally planned to be destroyer leaders, which just meant they were intended to be the lead ships in a small destroyer flotilla.  Destroyer leaders could be destroyers, or cruisers.  As far as I could tell the Atlanta/Oakland class were always intended to be light cruisers.

Ah yes, that is where i was getting confused :) 

Thank you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
138
Members
134 posts
383 battles
1 hour ago, Chain_shot said:

umm were you in a bomb shelter locked away for a couple of months or something?

No I just started playing and I don't read the news, I just try to get on teams that can tie their own shoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[GOOF]
Members
671 posts
5,900 battles
4 hours ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

I watched a replay done by The Mighty Jingles.  As it stands now, DD's are good against subs, aircraft of GREAT against subs, cruiser and battleships are practically helpless against them unless they are scooting around on the surface.

With these highly a-historical subs, WG may have completely unintentionally created an actual historical reality (I know, shocking isn't it).  Cruisers and Battleships were helpless against subs and needed aircraft and dd's to deal with the little menaces for them.

I wonder what fictitious game mechanic WG is going to come up with to solve this one.  Oh, I know, we need the Battleship Yamato with a Wave Motion Gun, or perhaps a main underwater battery firing trained dolphins or something equally realistic. 

These subs are not historic they are much faster and their homing torpedoes are questionable.

Yes DDS are great but most DD players I see are to busy knifefighting to death in the caps. They also get focused by event cv. So how do DDS in a random setting fight subs too? What happens when cruisers and CV are done killing off the dds subs run free?

    What do BBS do in this new meta are they just Torpedo fodder now are we making this the end of BBS in torpedoes soup? 

  Yes we all understand historical relevance but this is a game and it's no fun to anybody when you can't affect another player, it's no fair when you are just fodder and it's bad for the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,230
[PIMPS]
Members
1,496 posts
3 hours ago, Vanav said:

No I just started playing and I don't read the news, I just try to get on teams that can tie their own shoes

I feel you pain not many players even know what shoe laces are now a days.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,350 battles
16 hours ago, grorg said:

These subs are not historic they are much faster and their homing torpedoes are questionable.

Ya think??

Should honestly change the name to World of Whatever the Blink I Think the Arcade Players Want Them to Be.

I understand the next phase for WOWS development is to be this ... 

Definitely at least Tier 11, I mean the game has to grow somewhere once they run out of skins or stuff they drew up on napkins right? 

But they still need to get this beauty into the game before they go there. 

Btw, the yellow one flies.  Submarines and Carriers all in the same handy package!!! 

Rush right out ... 

But yes to answer your second question, WG will have to come up with some type of capability for Cruisers and Battleships that will allow them to hunt and kill submerged subs.  Chances are WG will come up with a totally fictional capability that will allow surface guns to destroy submerged submarines.  That's probably the easiest most straight forward approach. 

And I thought people were unhinged about carriers.  This is going to be entertaining to watch at least. 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,878 posts
11,515 battles
On 9/28/2019 at 4:58 PM, Umikami said:

Except AA, of course, which is also broken, of course.

by broken you mean requires user to come out of binoc and actually point and hit a single key then sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×