Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
db4100

My 2¢ For Improving Submarine Game Play

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,236
[LWA]
Members
1,351 posts
15,592 battles

1)  Battery recharging underwater needs to be removed so that submarines are forced to surface giving capital ships like battleships a chance to shoot back.

2)  Submarine spotting.  The submarines should not be able to spot for the team while underwater.  They can't use RDF under water, so how can they relay spotting information to team mates under water?

3)  Submarines should be damaged by depth charges while near the surface.  Maybe reduce the damage like when the submarine is being depth charged at maximum depth?

4)  Friendly submarines should be able to take damage from friendly depth charges.  So a good tactic to avoid being depth charged by a destroyer would be to get in tight with an enemy submarine.  The attacking destroyer will have to decide if it is worth going "pink" over trying to kill the enemy submarine.  Reduced damage from friendly depth charges apply just as any other naval ordnance in game.

5)  And for God's sake reduce the speed on these submarines.  They should be no faster than the slowest ship at their tier like the USN battleships.  18-20 knots should be plenty fast given the submarine's starting positions.

6)  Airborne depth charges.  Aircraft carriers should be able to choose the ordnance for their aircraft.  IE, arming the planes with depth charges for one sortie then switching to AP or HE bombs for the next.  Bombers should be able to carry rockets (at a reduce efficiency) and fighters should carry bombs/depth charges (again at reduce efficiency).  Torpedo bombers should be able to carry a depth charges, AP, or HE bomb load out to conduct level bombing at a higher altitude than dive bombing.  High altitude bombing has less AA damage, but will give the target more time to wiggle away with no damage.  A well deserved penalty for those targets whom like to drive in a straight lines or beach themselves.

7)  The detectability of submarines from aircraft should be increased substantially from where it is now.  Destroyers and aircraft should be the main counter to submarines.  As it is now in the game it is the destroyers and other submarines that are the main counter.  If the enemy aircraft carrier is busy chasing down submarines, then they will be leaving YOU alone and unmolested from the air.

8)  Submarines just under the surface (depth to be determined) should take percussion damage by large caliber guns like the ones on battleships (AP shells included but at reduced damage from HE) as if the submarines was being depth charged.  AP battleship/large cruiser shells should damage a submerge submarine as if a light cruiser was doing the depth charging, and the HE shells to do damage as if being depth charged by a destroyer.

 

Discussion highly encouraged since this is just open testing, hopefully WG is listening......

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,768
[KWF]
Members
6,386 posts
7,152 battles

Introduce  full trees without the whole 6-8-10 deal. Add WWI stuff chrissakes.

Subs only for Scenarios and an objective based PvP mode. Operations should be pretty interesting and range from convoy attacks with WWI subs to ambushing carrier groups in WWII

Instead of trying to balance subs against all classes, balance them around DDs. Create a mode around convoy defence/attack, with subs being the attackers versus a limited number of DDs, with AI vessels playing the role of the objective. Subs win if a certain percentage of ships is sunk, DDs if the convoy reaches it's destination or all subs are sunk.

Call me an insane pessimist or whatnot, but the last thing Randoms and potentially competitive modes need is one more class shoehorned in.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,904
[CVLUL]
Members
5,441 posts
12,514 battles
37 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Introduce  full trees without the whole 6-8-10 deal. Add WWI stuff chrissakes.

Subs only for Scenarios and an objective based PvP mode. Operations should be pretty interesting and range from convoy attacks with WWI subs to ambushing carrier groups in WWII

Instead of trying to balance subs against all classes, balance them around DDs. Create a mode around convoy defence/attack, with subs being the attackers versus a limited number of DDs, with AI vessels playing the role of the objective. Subs win if a certain percentage of ships is sunk, DDs if the convoy reaches it's destination or all subs are sunk.

Call me an insane pessimist or whatnot, but the last thing Randoms and potentially competitive modes need is one more class shoehorned in.

WG didn't spend all that money just for a PvE mode.

Edited by Pulicat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,220
[SIM]
Members
5,848 posts
9,315 battles
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

Introduce  full trees without the whole 6-8-10 deal. Add WWI stuff chrissakes.

Subs only for Scenarios and an objective based PvP mode. Operations should be pretty interesting and range from convoy attacks with WWI subs to ambushing carrier groups in WWII

Instead of trying to balance subs against all classes, balance them around DDs. Create a mode around convoy defence/attack, with subs being the attackers versus a limited number of DDs, with AI vessels playing the role of the objective. Subs win if a certain percentage of ships is sunk, DDs if the convoy reaches it's destination or all subs are sunk.

Call me an insane pessimist or whatnot, but the last thing Randoms and potentially competitive modes need is one more class shoehorned in.

:Smile_great: All of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,768
[KWF]
Members
6,386 posts
7,152 battles
2 hours ago, Pulicat said:

WG didn't spend all that money just for a PvE mode.

No idea how much money was spent, but sadly it's mostly true. Still, one can always hope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,612 posts
10,688 battles
47 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

No idea how much money was spent, but sadly it's mostly true. Still, one can always hope...

Not sure why one would bother hoping for anything at this point. I'm starting to think they have made the Sub "testing" phases as long as they have just to let the dumpster fire subside a bit before they dump truck gas onto it when this stuff hits randoms.

Thankfully I can just watch now...

tenor.gif?itemid=3579864

 

Finally found WoWs replacement. :Smile_coin:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,129
[4HIM]
Members
3,290 posts
15,633 battles

Not that I disagree with any of those, but if WG implemented all of them subs would simply be targets.  I've yet to play a sub, but played surface ships to get the extra XP.  Fully ground past a couple T6's that I'd not played in a while (RN CA and French DD).  I do agree that having a ship that has a permanent method of invulnerability is poor game design.  So they need to have some vulnerability.  Right now, all they need do is vary their depth by 0.2 meters (about 8") to become invulnerable to either DC or guns.  

But so far I haven't seen a lot of good play by sub drivers.  I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a SS top the scoreboard on a winning team.  Don't know how many times I've simply driven up to a submerged SS and DC'd it without it even attempting to torp me.  Given time, that will change as players learn to use them better.  But most of the SS play I've seen has been pretty bad.  In one game our team had 2 SS die from DD torps.  

But the worst thing I've seen is when the game gets down to only SS left in the game.  It's a snore-fest at that point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[H2O]
Members
57 posts
11,778 battles

This testing is a total joke. Of the 5 games I had yesterday there was a max of 3 people driven ships other than Subs on each side. The Subs are almost the last ships alive after the game ends just like carriers. I agree with the subs losing the ability to charge under water and they need to be on the surface to be shot at or under water to be subject to depth charge damage. The ability to have homing torps to seek a target needs to go or at least limited to the requirement of two pings one on each target. Yesterday I followed a Sub that just went from 5m to 8m  so not to be damaged. Subs will have the same effect but worse on the game as carriers do now. We get to worry about battleships, planes, subs, cruisers and DD torps all at once. Subs basically only have to worry about other subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,381
[BLKRS]
Alpha Tester
1,155 posts
3,015 battles
5 hours ago, db4100 said:

1)  Battery recharging underwater needs to be removed so that submarines are forced to surface giving capital ships like battleships a chance to shoot back.

2)  Submarine spotting.  The submarines should not be able to spot for the team while underwater.  They can't use RDF under water, so how can they relay spotting information to team mates under water?

3)  Submarines should be damaged by depth charges while near the surface.  Maybe reduce the damage like when the submarine is being depth charged at maximum depth?

4)  Friendly submarines should be able to take damage from friendly depth charges.  So a good tactic to avoid being depth charged by a destroyer would be to get in tight with an enemy submarine.  The attacking destroyer will have to decide if it is worth going "pink" over trying to kill the enemy submarine.  Reduced damage from friendly depth charges apply just as any other naval ordnance in game.

5)  And for God's sake reduce the speed on these submarines.  They should be no faster than the slowest ship at their tier like the USN battleships.  18-20 knots should be plenty fast given the submarine's starting positions.

6)  Airborne depth charges.  Aircraft carriers should be able to choose the ordnance for their aircraft.  IE, arming the planes with depth charges for one sortie then switching to AP or HE bombs for the next.  Bombers should be able to carry rockets (at a reduce efficiency) and fighters should carry bombs/depth charges (again at reduce efficiency).  Torpedo bombers should be able to carry a depth charges, AP, or HE bomb load out to conduct level bombing at a higher altitude than dive bombing.  High altitude bombing has less AA damage, but will give the target more time to wiggle away with no damage.  A well deserved penalty for those targets whom like to drive in a straight lines or beach themselves.

7)  The detectability of submarines from aircraft should be increased substantially from where it is now.  Destroyers and aircraft should be the main counter to submarines.  As it is now in the game it is the destroyers and other submarines that are the main counter.  If the enemy aircraft carrier is busy chasing down submarines, then they will be leaving YOU alone and unmolested from the air.

8)  Submarines just under the surface (depth to be determined) should take percussion damage by large caliber guns like the ones on battleships (AP shells included but at reduced damage from HE) as if the submarines was being depth charged.  AP battleship/large cruiser shells should damage a submerge submarine as if a light cruiser was doing the depth charging, and the HE shells to do damage as if being depth charged by a destroyer.

 

Discussion highly encouraged since this is just open testing, hopefully WG is listening......

1) Playing around Batteries is something which should happen. Going a quarter speed underwater should make your batteries stay where they are (for balance resaons) but not recharge.

2) Submarines already cannot spot while underwater. Unless you're talking about periscope depth, in which case they can be hit with regular gunfire by anyone.

3) That's not how depth charges work. Submarines at the surface can already be shot by regular weapons, and are already extremely vulnerable due to the fact they can stay set on fire underwater, and have a stupid small amount of health, and can be shot by anything in range even before they are on the surface. (periscope depth).

4) I can see where you're coming from, but due to the way submarines play, not sure how well it'd work out.

5) That is about how fast they go underwater...

6) I like the idea of CV planes just being regular planes, and you choose the ordnance. Depth charges though may be a serious problem and quickly neuter the submarines.. Imagine the DD"s complaints right now that there is nothing they can do against CV's... now you want to add that same problem to another class who is even more helpless against CV's? Seems like a catch 22...

7) Again you want to add the DD problem to Submarines..

8) Again, that's not how depth charges work...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,236
[LWA]
Members
1,351 posts
15,592 battles
1 hour ago, ZARDOZ_II said:

Not that I disagree with any of those, but if WG implemented all of them subs would simply be targets.  I've yet to play a sub, but played surface ships to get the extra XP.  Fully ground past a couple T6's that I'd not played in a while (RN CA and French DD).  I do agree that having a ship that has a permanent method of invulnerability is poor game design.  So they need to have some vulnerability.  Right now, all they need do is vary their depth by 0.2 meters (about 8") to become invulnerable to either DC or guns.   

Yeah, I agree if all of my suggestions were actually implemented, it would effectively neuter the submarines.  This is a shotgun blast of suggestions hoping one or two would strike home.

 

1 hour ago, Lady_Athena said:

1) Playing around Batteries is something which should happen. Going a quarter speed underwater should make your batteries stay where they are (for balance resaons) but not recharge.

2) Submarines already cannot spot while underwater. Unless you're talking about periscope depth, in which case they can be hit with regular gunfire by anyone.

3) That's not how depth charges work. Submarines at the surface can already be shot by regular weapons, and are already extremely vulnerable due to the fact they can stay set on fire underwater, and have a stupid small amount of health, and can be shot by anything in range even before they are on the surface. (periscope depth).

4) I can see where you're coming from, but due to the way submarines play, not sure how well it'd work out.

5) That is about how fast they go underwater...

6) I like the idea of CV planes just being regular planes, and you choose the ordnance. Depth charges though may be a serious problem and quickly neuter the submarines.. Imagine the DD"s complaints right now that there is nothing they can do against CV's... now you want to add that same problem to another class who is even more helpless against CV's? Seems like a catch 22...

7) Again you want to add the DD problem to Submarines..

8) Again, that's not how depth charges work...

1)  good idea....neutral battery

2)  Yay

3 & 8)  As it stands now a submarine about to be depth charged can surface to 5.9 meters to avoid all damage, and when the destroyer is done or out of depth charges the submarine can just dive 0.1 meter to avoid surface fire.  This is a broken game mechanic for subs, and the submarine players are starting to figure this out and take advantage of this "loophole".  These submarines in the game ascend and descend very fast....something else WG could "nerf" to address this issue.

5)  These submarines are way too fast.....especially when some of their prey (battleships) are way slower.  The main defense of a battleship is to speed away from a submarine.

6)  If CVs get the depth charge armaments, then just keep the detection by aircraft where it is at about 1.5 km.  For aircraft to spot a sub with a 1.5km detection, it is like finding a needle in a hay stack, and when you do spot a sub with an aircraft it would be too late to attack as you already flew over it.  The submarine would have to be pre-spotted and that would give the sub driver plenty of time to dive and avoid air attacks.  Most aircraft historically only carried a few depth charges to begin with, and the air borne depth charge attack would be nothing like the destroyers attack with three racks of 7-8 depth charges.  With a destroyer it takes at least two racks and sometimes three racks of depth charges to kill a submarine.  An aircraft would have four at the most, not enough to kill a healthy submarine in this game.  A aircraft carrier arming its planes with depth charges can't attack surface ships to include destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,602
[FORM]
Members
2,382 posts
13,548 battles
6 hours ago, db4100 said:

1)  Battery recharging underwater...

2)  Submarine spotting..

3)  Submarines should be damaged by depth charges while near the surface...

4)  Friendly submarines...

5)  And for God's sake reduce the speed on these submarines...

6)  Airborne depth charges...

7)  The detectability of submarines...

8)  Submarines just under the surface...

Discussion highly encouraged since this is just open testing, hopefully WG is listening......

1. I mostly agree. And I think the sub ability to stay 99% hidden at 5.9km while recharging (and moving at full speed,) is at least 50% of the issue I have with subs. I would like to see batteries not drain nor recharge if the sub is at "periscope" depth (up to 6m deep.) Since at that depth subs are spotted, and can be hit by HE, but can also flee deeper, I think that would be a better balancing point. But I do agree that fully above surface for recharging is an essential change.

2.  Agreed.

3. Agreed, perhaps 50% dmg, but definitely should take damage.

4. Absolutely. Are you sure they don't already? 

5. Hrm. I don't agree with this. Especially if we slow them a bit when submerged up to 5.9km 

6. Agreed 100% - I think adding some kind of ASW to aircraft (both ship launched and CV launched,) is essential to having some kind of balance to the game. I would prefer if it were done with the deployable fighters. It would mean they have a very limited impact on the play, but at least giving all ship types some kind of method of actually warding off subs even if only for very short terms periods.

7. I don't think I agree, but if there were modifications along items 1 & 6, I would definitely want to see how that plays out first.

8. I believe they already do take damage like that from HE. Though with 99% of the sub underwater, it is extremely hard to aim at them with any success, especially if they are moving. 

  • Cool 1

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.

×