Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Saphira123456

Ise-class mechanics for Sen-Toku class problems

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles

As recently revealed by Zoup, the Ise-class "aviation" battleships are soon to come to this game, along with Tone.

This got me to thinking: Perhaps some of the Ise/Tone-class mechanics can be used to solve potential issues with another hybrid aircraft-carrying vessel.

The Sen-Toku class submarines, to be precise.

As you may know, the SenToku-class subs (I-400, 401, 402) carried up to three Seiran seaplane bombers, each carrying a single 500-pound HE bomb. (They could fit five in there without the floats for the seiranww2222f) This can be done similarly to the Ise/Tone-class mechanic.

Here is how I propose this working:

When a player launches aircraft, his or her submarine surfaces. They then leave control of the submarine and assume control over the aircraft. Once the squadron is airborne, the submarine automatically does a crash dive and goes as deep as possible.

Once the Seirans have delivered their bombs, they return to the submarine which surfaces to recover them.
 

Now, as for the submarine, when you don't have planes in the air players control all functions of the sub, just like normal. Secondary armament (IE deck guns) still function automatically, but torpedo tubes, steering and depth are under player control.

However, with aircraft in the air, the player only has map control of the submarine, and will be able to plot its' course away from any seeking destroyers. However, they will not be able to control depth (remains at max depth, only rising up for air; see below) or submarine weapons.

Air replenishment will also be automatic, with the submarine rising to periscope depth periodically along its' route to snorkel, and then crash-diving once again after its' air tanks are full, to avoid detection.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,701
[WPORT]
Members
7,149 posts
12,161 battles

There have been a number of proposed methods for handling aircraft by non-CV ships.

1.  As a consumable, similar to catapult-launched fighters
2.  As the proposed ASW planes for Battleships:  BB activates a "consumable" and targets a submarine or map area where a submarine is suspected to be, and the "consumable" flies to the target area and orbits until a valid target is found and attacked OR the timer runs-out and the "consumable" aircraft is forced to return to ship/base/whatever. 
In the wording for the proposal (as I remember it) the planes don't have to be catapult launched, they can be called by radio message and flown from a nearby (but off the map) airfield on a base of some sort.  Which grants access for this method to pretty much any ship, in theory, provided WOWs enables it.
3.  The method used for handling aircraft already implemented in WOWs-Blitz for the hybrid ship already operating there, the Ise.
4.  Add a "toggle switch" to the player's control panel for the ship.  (1 for HE guns, 2 for AP guns, 3 for torpedoes, 4 for aircraft)  Toggling the appropriate switch allows the player to control the vehicle/weapon/aircraft and the player can switch back & forth to make course corrections to the ship while planes continue on last course & speed until the player resumes control of the planes or hits the "F" key to recall the planes.  This method is derived from and similar to how the RTS CV's toggled between controlling their ship or a selected squadron that was in the air.  

Another consideration is the time required to remain on surface for a Submarine to launch or recover the planes.  Launch/Recovery operations would leave a Submarine in a vulnerable state, until completed.

Also, how would the plane notify the mother-sub for a recovery?  The mother-sub would have to be at periscope depth (or more shallow) in order to receive/send radio messages.
[Deep dives would prevent communication.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,484 posts
14,823 battles

Not enough strike power to make it worth the effort of having these in game. The strike power of the two hybrids already mentioned are questionable as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,968
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,181 posts

Can we all stop, take a collective breath, exhale slowly then vocalize "NOT NOW!!!" so we get heard in WoWS/WG HQ? 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
5 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Not enough strike power to make it worth the effort of having these in game. The strike power of the two hybrids already mentioned are questionable as it is.

Just because the historical record only said five aircraft, doesn't mean they can't be fudged to give at least a full bomber squadron (10 aircraft.) And don't forget, unlike the RTS days, you can't run out of planes as a carrier any more.

Also, don't forget, these submarines wouldn't be too easy to kill. They'd have the HP pool of a battlecruiser or battleship due to their large size (largest in the world, until the Russian Akula/Typhoon showed up in the 1990s.)

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:


Another consideration is the time required to remain on surface for a Submarine to launch or recover the planes.  Launch/Recovery operations would leave a Submarine in a vulnerable state, until completed.

Also, how would the plane notify the mother-sub for a recovery?  The mother-sub would have to be at periscope depth (or more shallow) in order to receive/send radio messages.
[Deep dives would prevent communication.]

Submarines that do this would be much like existing carriers. They'd launch when they were in the back, out of the danger zone, before they can be targeted by enemy units. For recovery operations, the mother-sub would have a complement of AA weapons and deck guns which operate as secondary weapons. Additionally, don't forget torpedoes.

Also, as I stated before, the submarine would periodically pop up to periscope depth for air (snorkeling). At those times they would raise the radio mast and contact their planes.

Alternatively, they could use the waypoint system. Mission planners would tell the pilots where the sub was expected to be along the route, and give primary, secondary, tertiary, and/or emergency recovery points.

3 hours ago, custer_14 said:

Sub should stay surfaced while aircraft is in the air.

That would leave the submarine vulnerable, allowing the other team to eliminate it with impunity. After it's gone, the planes have nowhere to return to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,701
[WPORT]
Members
7,149 posts
12,161 battles

For the record, I've previously posted that I want the I-401 available (possibly as a premium) for my Arpeggio of Blue Steel Commander Iona to be assigned to as Captain.

I'd like some form of a workable and plausible WOWs version of the historic capabilities of Japanese Submarines to complement the submarines already play-tested and eagerly awaited to permanently arrive in the game.
Many nations operated submarines and the tech-trees could use some fresh products.

Submarines could stay at depth far beyond 20 minutes.  So the need for replenishing air is a non-starter for me.
Besides, the communication needs for information exchange and map-updating among all players on a team will keep a submarine surfacing often in order to maintain radio contact.
When a submarine dives long enough and deep enough, they lose map awareness and do not contribute map awareness for their team, at least during play-testing, thus far.
Combine that with the requirement for submarines to be at periscope depth or higher in order to capture an area, and one has plenty of incentives for submarines to operate near the surface most of the time.
Lastly, they need to keep their batteries charged in order to be effective for attack & defense activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,484 posts
14,823 battles
45 minutes ago, Saphira123456 said:

Just because the historical record only said five aircraft, doesn't mean they can't be fudged to give at least a full bomber squadron (10 aircraft.) And don't forget, unlike the RTS days, you can't run out of planes as a carrier any more.

Also, don't forget, these submarines wouldn't be too easy to kill. They'd have the HP pool of a battlecruiser or battleship due to their large size (largest in the world, until the Russian Akula/Typhoon showed up in the 1990s.)

Planes are not unlimited but unless someone is wasteful with their planes they will have something to send up but maybe not what they want, torpedo planes vs a DD or rocket planes vs a BB for example and as a match goes on what they have will likely be less than full squadrons.

No they would not and should not have that kind of HP pool. What we have seen so far with them is more like DD's and they are much more brittle than any DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Submarines could stay at depth far beyond 20 minutes.  So the need for replenishing air is a non-starter for me.
Lastly, they need to keep their batteries charged in order to be effective for attack & defense activity.

You're right about the depth, and the batteries are also a big thing, though not quite true as you don't need batteries to operate deck guns and AAA on the surface.

However, when I played subs on the main server, your batteries weren't as big an issue so long as you kept your speed low (1/3 if I'm not mistaken.)
Additionally, while at scope depth, the snorkel also serves as an exhaust stack, allowing submarines to run their diesel engines and recharge their batteries far more rapidly.

 

23 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Besides, the communication needs for information exchange and map-updating among all players on a team will keep a submarine surfacing often in order to maintain radio contact.
When a submarine dives long enough and deep enough, they lose map awareness and do not contribute map awareness for their team, at least during play-testing, thus far.

Aircraft would alleviate these issues as their secondary function. Like attack aircraft on carriers, they can spot enemy ships and relay this info to allied players.

Additionally, there may be another solution. Instead of going deep after launch as I proposed earlier, 401 will dive to medium depth or shallow, then if it's detected it automatically triggers a "deep dive" consumable and crash-dives to avoid being depth-charged while it gets out of Dodge.

That way it can still spot ships and even aircraft on return, mitigating one of the other problems mentioned earlier. The mechanics for this would be similar to how Damage Control Party and CAP Fighter are automatically triggered when a regular carrier is spotted

26 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

.

 

31 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

For the record, I've previously posted that I want the I-401 available (possibly as a premium) for my Arpeggio of Blue Steel Commander Iona to be assigned to as Captain.
 

Same here. Right now she's assigned to Musashi, but that will likely change if and when 401 comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WAMMY]
Members
2,515 posts
13,983 battles

Hey

My thoughts for the Hybrids is this.  Instead of having the aircraft fly like a normal carrier.  Why not use them like a quad fighter/spotter aircraft, allowing them to have up to four aircraft in the air at once allowing them to flying a little further out from the ship than what we see with catapult aircraft now.  This gives them defensive capabilities or spotting ability which is good with DD's late game and/or subs if they hit the server.  Otherwise they play like any other BB or cruiser.  Some raised the question about offensive capability due to reduced guns, but this could be compensated by increased sigma and/or reduced reload, especially when aircraft are on cooldown.  Bring on the IJN Tone/ISE.  Just don't give them the usual IJN treatment that we see so often (or Germany for that matter).

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

No they would not and should not have that kind of HP pool. What we have seen so far with them is more like DD's and they are much more brittle than any DD.

I'm referring solely to the I-400s (SenToku-class) for this. They're massive ships (as previously stated, largest in the world at the time) so logically they'd have an equally-massive HP pool.

5 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Planes are not limited but unless someone is wasteful with their planes they will have something to send up but maybe not what they want, torpedo planes vs a DD or rocket planes vs a BB for example and as a match goes on what they have will likely be less than full squadrons.

True. However, what I said is still the case. HE Bombers are useful vs. pretty much everything. Even if they don't penetrate they can still start fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
4 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

My thoughts for the Hybrids is this.  Instead of having the aircraft fly like a normal carrier.  Why not use them like a quad fighter/spotter aircraft, allowing them to have up to four aircraft in the air at once allowing them to flying a little further out from the ship than what we see with catapult aircraft now.  This gives them defensive capabilities or spotting ability which is good with DD's late game and/or subs if they hit the server.  Otherwise they play like any other BB or cruiser.  Some raised the question about offensive capability due to reduced guns, but this could be compensated by increased sigma and/or reduced reload, especially when aircraft are on cooldown.  Bring on the IJN Tone/ISE.  Just don't give them the usual IJN treatment that we see so often (or Germany for that matter).

 

Pete

It's already been stated that the aircraft are to be bombers, not fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,484 posts
14,823 battles
2 minutes ago, Saphira123456 said:

I'm referring solely to the I-400s (SenToku-class) for this. They're massive ships (as previously stated, largest in the world at the time) so logically they'd have an equally-massive HP pool.

True. However, what I said is still the case. HE Bombers are useful vs. pretty much everything. Even if they don't penetrate they can still start fires.

The I-400's were massive by submarine standards but even then they were only 6500 tons, CL territory.

Since they have stated that they are slowing the dive speeds which were on the ridiculous side, you could have your secondaries locked on and they could pop up, fire, and dive away safely before the guns fired dive bombers could be useful against them. A good argument for AP being useful against them is any penetration of the pressure hull was a death warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

The I-400's were massive by submarine standards but even then they were only 6500 tons, CL territory.

Good point, but still more armor and HP than the DDs you take them for.

2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Since they have stated that they are slowing the dive speeds which were on the ridiculous side, you could have your secondaries locked on and they could pop up, fire, and dive away safely before the guns fired dive bombers could be useful against them. A good argument for AP being useful against them is any penetration of the pressure hull was a death warrant.

That's what a crash-dive is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,484 posts
14,823 battles
Just now, Saphira123456 said:

Good point, but still more armor and HP than the DDs you take them for.

That's what a crash-dive is for.

HP wise but subs were terribly brittle because penetrating hits were death so even with that much tonnage I would still keep the HP down but still much higher than other subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
5 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

HP wise but subs were terribly brittle because penetrating hits were death so even with that much tonnage I would still keep the HP down but still much higher than other subs.

Still, my point remains. 401 would be a much tougher nut to crack than other submarines.

That high HP pool and her aircraft launch capabilities would be ideal "quirks" for a premium sub.

Edited by Saphira123456
Additional material/clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,484 posts
14,823 battles
8 minutes ago, Saphira123456 said:

Still, my point remains. 401 would be a much tougher nut to crack than other submarines.

That high HP pool and her aircraft launch capabilities would be ideal "quirks" for a premium sub.

And would have a tiny plane pool. Even if doubled it would be a short squadron. That is still too small to be useful against high tier AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

And would have a tiny plane pool. Even if doubled it would be a short squadron. That is still too small to be useful against high tier AA.

True, but her planes would be more useful as an anti-destroyer (early-game) force, and a land-attack unit (for certain scenarios.)

She'd be great against destroyers, as they don't have that good of AA, even at high tiers.

However, against cruisers and heavier ships, she'd use her torpedoes. 8 forward tubes and four aft tubes make for an armament that's not too shabby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,469
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,484 posts
14,823 battles
6 minutes ago, Saphira123456 said:

True, but her planes would be more useful as an anti-destroyer (early-game) force, and a land-attack unit (for certain scenarios.)

She'd be great against destroyers, as they don't have that good of AA, even at high tiers.

However, against cruisers and heavier ships, she'd use her torpedoes. 8 forward tubes and four aft tubes make for an armament that's not too shabby.

They would be good for what the Tone's were for, scouting and DD's at high tier can bite hard particularly against slow float planes. Your idea to take of the floats would turn them into one way attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WAMMY]
Members
2,515 posts
13,983 battles
1 hour ago, Saphira123456 said:

It's already been stated that the aircraft are to be bombers, not fighters.

Hey

The Tone class had no aircraft hangar, but there was a comprehensive arrangement of transport rails and turntables on the aircraft catapult and quarterdecks. Two gunpowder-propelled catapults were located on the beam abaft the mainmast. A maximum of four Kawanishi E7K2 'Alf' three-seat floatplanes and four Nakajima E8N1 'Dave' floatplanes could be carried, the normal complement being six, of which four were to be E8N1s. In practice, no more than five were ever embarked. As the war progressed these types were superseded by the Aichi E13A1 'Jake' and Mitsubishi F1M2 'Pete'.      While none of these aircraft are fighters, they are also not bombers, but rather were spotting aircraft, which works better in the idea that I mentioned about how they could be used.  This was for Tone only, ISE may have been different.

According to wiki: ISE was to have attack aircraft and spotting aircraft; so it was completely different in it's role for aircraft usage, as compared to Tone.  

 

Pete

Edited by sasquatch_research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles

Not my idea. It's a historical one.

The Seirans (which were custom-designed for 401 and her sisters) were designed to be assembled inside the mother-sub's water-tight hangar just prior to launch.

They could either launch with floats for a return journey or kamikaze into their target.

They carried a single 500 lb high-explosive bomb each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
1 minute ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

The Tone class had no aircraft hangar, but there was a comprehensive arrangement of transport rails and turntables on the aircraft catapult and quarterdecks. Two gunpowder-propelled catapults were located on the beam abaft the mainmast. A maximum of four Kawanishi E7K2 'Alf' three-seat floatplanes and four Nakajima E8N1 'Dave' floatplanes could be carried, the normal complement being six, of which four were to be E8N1s. In practice, no more than five were ever embarked. As the war progressed these types were superseded by the Aichi E13A1 'Jake' and Mitsubishi F1M2 'Pete'.      While none of these aircraft are fighters, they are also not bombers, but rather were spotting aircraft, which works better in the idea that I mentioned about how they could be used.  This was for Tone only, ISE may have been different.

 

Pete

Ise was different. She was a so-called aviation battleship, the design of which included a hangar.

She and her sister Hyuuga, were the basis for ships like the Andromeda-class aviation battleship Apollo Norm in Space Battleship Yamato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
498
[WAMMY]
Members
2,515 posts
13,983 battles
1 minute ago, Saphira123456 said:

Ise was different. She was a so-called aviation battleship, the design of which included a hangar.

She and her sister Hyuuga, were the basis for ships like the Andromeda-class aviation battleship Apollo Norm in Space Battleship Yamato.

Hey

Indeed.  I just added an additional statement to my comment before you posted.  Given the difference in the two ships and they way they were intended to be used; Tone for spotting and ISE for spotting and attack roles, they would have been fitted out differently and served different roles.  I would question the playstyle of playing the BB/Cruiser side of the ship gameplay versus that of carrier based play and how they get balanced; I think the suggestion I made makes the easiest solution from a playstyle aspect.  I look forward to the Tone especially since it has been requested for a very long time.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[SANC]
Members
184 posts
2,965 battles
5 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Indeed.  I just added an additional statement to my comment before you posted.  Given the difference in the two ships and they way they were intended to be used; Tone for spotting and ISE for spotting and attack roles, they would have been fitted out differently and served different roles.  I would question the playstyle of playing the BB/Cruiser side of the ship gameplay versus that of carrier based play and how they get balanced; I think the suggestion I made makes the easiest solution from a playstyle aspect.  I look forward to the Tone especially since it has been requested for a very long time.

 

Pete

Your family name wouldn't happen to be "Mitchell" would it?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×