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

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

72
[LAH]
[LAH]
Members
35 posts
12,875 battles

I am sorry to say that after participating in the tests of subs over the past years, eagerly waiting for this new ship I have come to the following conclusions:

1) Each new re-design is even worse than before. 

2) Subs become less fun the more unrealistic the gameplay becomes

3) The team can't seem to figure out what to do, there is no direction and no clear vision on how to introduce this new ship in the context of a surface action warship themed game. 

4) I believe that there are probably so many fingers stuck in this sub pie that the dev team doesn't know which way is up. The changes in direction are bewildering and show a complete lack of leadership and vision. 

5) The test re-enforce this sonar pinging gameplay which DOES NOT WORK. It is boring and it sucks for all, targets and subs. 

6) The balancing of the various nationalities is completely farcical. The Balao is a 1930s design and it completely outclasses the U-2501, a 1940s electroboat design with Radar, stealth and hydraulic loading torpedo tubes. The germans developed acoustic homing torpedoes before anyone else had them. US had two torp types, that is it. 

7) From the latest test I have concluded that I have absolutely no interest in playing subs, and the longer I watch their development the more clear it becomes that WG has no clue how to make them fun. 

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,281
[RLGN]
Members
16,841 posts
29,512 battles
13 hours ago, MegadethLAH said:

7) From the latest test I have concluded that I have absolutely no interest in playing subs, and the longer I watch their development the more clear it becomes that WG has no clue how to make them fun.

The closest thing to this I've seen was when they first appeared in Halloween Mode.

I couldn't stand them then, but everything since has been WORSE.

That version at least I eventually got a loose handle on. All the current versions have been effectively unusable; mostly due to the ping mechanic, and effectively having to aim that, and the torpedoes, without a 'suggested course' reticle guide similar to what surface torpedoes use.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,679
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,762 posts
6,907 battles
19 hours ago, MegadethLAH said:

1) Each new re-design is even worse than before. 

2) Subs become less fun the more unrealistic the gameplay becomes

You think the first iteration with subs moving faster underwater than they could surfaced was more realistic than the current iteration?  That being limited in submerged time due to oxygen was less realistic than being limited by battery power?  That being able to recharge batters while submerged was more realistic than having to be on the surface?

You're off your rocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[LAH]
[LAH]
Members
35 posts
12,875 battles
On 7/21/2021 at 3:34 PM, Helstrem said:

You think the first iteration with subs moving faster underwater than they could surfaced was more realistic than the current iteration?  That being limited in submerged time due to oxygen was less realistic than being limited by battery power?  That being able to recharge batters while submerged was more realistic than having to be on the surface?

You're off your rocker.

You should re-read my post. The homing torpedo gameplay is complete fantasy, the space battle gameplay that happens underwater is totally bonkers. Submarines in WW2 remained surface attack vessels, the only reason to dive was to escape counter attacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,730 battles
6 minutes ago, MegadethLAH said:

You should re-read my post. The homing torpedo gameplay is complete fantasy, the space battle gameplay that happens underwater is totally bonkers. Submarines in WW2 remained surface attack vessels, the only reason to dive was to escape counter attacks.

Wrong.

Submarines attacked on the surface only when they were free from retaliation. To an unarmed Merchantman, even a 3" gun was deadly. However, when faced with even a suspected Armed Merchantman, it was thought too dangerous to attack surfaced, and thus the submariners would proceed with a torpedo attack. Even if the Merchantman in question was unarmed, there was still the chance that it could wheel around and ram the sub, so that had to be taken into consideration.

Submarines were ambush hunters, as when they are detected, they became the hunted. RN Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes, and Sloops and USN DE and DD hundreds of U-Boats. The rather light emphasis of anti-surface capability seem in most of the designs point to this. The lack of torpedo armament on all of the RN Sloops, Corvettes, and Frigates, save for the Hunt Type III (at least to my knowledge), and the lack of such armament on many of the DE of the USN point to this, as well.

In almost all cases, what I saw was that the anti-surface guns were dual-purpose guns, though I will admit I did not look at every single mount to see if that was dual-purpose, as well. The sole exception to that was the Banff-Class Sloops, which were US Coast Guard Lake-Class Cutters loaned to Britain for anti-submarine warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[SF-13]
[SF-13]
Members
604 posts
9,573 battles
On 7/20/2021 at 7:44 PM, MegadethLAH said:

I am sorry to say that after participating in the tests of subs over the past years, eagerly waiting for this new ship I have come to the following conclusions:

1) Each new re-design is even worse than before. 

2) Subs become less fun the more unrealistic the gameplay becomes

3) The team can't seem to figure out what to do, there is no direction and no clear vision on how to introduce this new ship in the context of a surface action warship themed game. 

4) I believe that there are probably so many fingers stuck in this sub pie that the dev team doesn't know which way is up. The changes in direction are bewildering and show a complete lack of leadership and vision. 

5) The test re-enforce this sonar pinging gameplay which DOES NOT WORK. It is boring and it sucks for all, targets and subs. 

6) The balancing of the various nationalities is completely farcical. The Balao is a 1930s design and it completely outclasses the U-2501, a 1940s electroboat design with Radar, stealth and hydraulic loading torpedo tubes. The germans developed acoustic homing torpedoes before anyone else had them. US had two torp types, that is it. 

7) From the latest test I have concluded that I have absolutely no interest in playing subs, and the longer I watch their development the more clear it becomes that WG has no clue how to make them fun. 

It would be hard for me to say this better.  I just said during a battle in the PTS that this new (recycled) sub was the worst one ever.

This is what happens when you farm out an important game mechanic to an independent contractor, whose name you can find on Google.  They simply recycled the old "oxygen depletion" mechanic from the second round of testing that occurred in the Fall of 2019 and called it "dive depletion"! 

In other words, they did less work on it than before!  Wow!  I wonder how much this company got paid for recycling the oxygen meter thing?  We've just gone back in time to the gameplay of two years ago!

WG is not going to allow a real submarine in this game.  That is to say, a ship type that will travel underwater, try to sneak up on a surface ship (not a sub), and fire torpedoes at it from periscope depth and then dive to avoid detection or depth charges.  That's a submarine.

And here is what the emergency blow thing does (screenshot from 2019):

678514999_Capture.JPG3.thumb.JPG.f5a9459b2c9c681683b842df36012f86.JPG

I've been testing subs now since the Fall of 2019 and I am just exhausted with it.  I don't even want to play them since they are basically fast surface torpedo boats now.  That's what they are.  The lack of imagination at WG is breathtaking.

Edited by Nordlaender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,679
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,762 posts
6,907 battles
3 hours ago, MegadethLAH said:

You should re-read my post. The homing torpedo gameplay is complete fantasy, the space battle gameplay that happens underwater is totally bonkers. Submarines in WW2 remained surface attack vessels, the only reason to dive was to escape counter attacks. 

You said, and I quote,:

On 7/20/2021 at 6:44 PM, MegadethLAH said:

I am sorry to say that after participating in the tests of subs over the past years, eagerly waiting for this new ship I have come to the following conclusions:

1) Each new re-design is even worse than before. 

2) Subs become less fun the more unrealistic the gameplay becomes clue how to make them fun. 

You said nothing about homing torpedoes being a pet peeve.  You are right, they are not realistic, but that hasn't changed from initial implementation to now.  The things that have changed have very often been towards realism rather than away from it, which you strongly implied.

Also, you are wrong about WWII submarines only attacking when surfaced.  Read up on the subject.  They were not true submarines that could stay underwater for their entire cruise, true, but they could definitely attack while submerged.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[LAH]
[LAH]
Members
35 posts
12,875 battles
19 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You said, and I quote,:

You said nothing about homing torpedoes being a pet peeve.  You are right, they are not realistic, but that hasn't changed from initial implementation to now.  The things that have changed have very often been towards realism rather than away from it, which you strongly implied.

Also, you are wrong about WWII submarines only attacking when surfaced.  Read up on the subject.  They were not true submarines that could stay underwater for their entire cruise, true, but they could definitely attack while submerged.

Only the US had a attack doctrine that involved firing torps while submerged using active sonar and their computer. This was their pre-war doctrine and though attempted a few times at the beginning of the war, it never resulted in a successful attack, nor even a single torpedo hit. It was quickly abandoned. WW2 submarines were surface attackers, the was no technology that enabled them to blind fire torps using sonar pings in any effective way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,679
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,762 posts
6,907 battles
11 minutes ago, MegadethLAH said:

Only the US had a attack doctrine that involved firing torps while submerged using active sonar and their computer. This was their pre-war doctrine and though attempted a few times at the beginning of the war, it never resulted in a successful attack, nor even a single torpedo hit. It was quickly abandoned. WW2 submarines were surface attackers, the was no technology that enabled them to blind fire torps using sonar pings in any effective way.  

I think you're conflating "At periscope depth" for "on the surface".  They are not the same thing.

Also, the only submerged sub kill of a submerged sub in WWII was done by a British sub against a German sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[LAH]
[LAH]
Members
35 posts
12,875 battles

My suggested re-design:

Submarines should have a tiny spotting range on the surface: 3km from other ships, 2 from aircraft, 1k at periscope depth if moving. 500m if at PD if stationary

Speeds should be closer to realistic: around 12 knots underwater, 18 surfaced at max. 

Sub detection under water should depend on their speed, 

silent running: 5knots  undetectable

Normal speed: 12 knots 2km 

Time underwater is unlimited 

Active sonar: reveals targets within 5km (similar to current visual treatment)

Passive acoustic: shows all ships within 10km as a noise track, similar to the Radio Direction Finder but with a more linear indicator. 

 

Torpedo attack:

Must have visual target locked (just like the current torpedo tracking system) from either surface or periscope depth. 

Torpedoes do citadel damage if the target is tracked for 30s 

Higher tiers unlocks better torpedoes according to country: 

US: Steam torps upgrade to electrical

Japan: Long lance 

Germany: Wakeless, Programmable, acoustic homing, anti-destroyer

Map placement:

Submarines were strategic assets, deployed well in advance to deny an area to enemy shipping. They should start close to the caps, so they can capture quickly or hide near the cap and wait for their team and support them, or act as a scout. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,679
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,762 posts
6,907 battles
7 hours ago, MegadethLAH said:

My suggested re-design:

Submarines should have a tiny spotting range on the surface: 3km from other ships, 2 from aircraft, 1k at periscope depth if moving. 500m if at PD if stationary

Speeds should be closer to realistic: around 12 knots underwater, 18 surfaced at max. 

Sub detection under water should depend on their speed, 

silent running: 5knots  undetectable

Normal speed: 12 knots 2km 

Time underwater is unlimited 

Active sonar: reveals targets within 5km (similar to current visual treatment)

Passive acoustic: shows all ships within 10km as a noise track, similar to the Radio Direction Finder but with a more linear indicator. 

 

Torpedo attack:

Must have visual target locked (just like the current torpedo tracking system) from either surface or periscope depth. 

Torpedoes do citadel damage if the target is tracked for 30s 

Higher tiers unlocks better torpedoes according to country: 

US: Steam torps upgrade to electrical

Japan: Long lance 

Germany: Wakeless, Programmable, acoustic homing, anti-destroyer

Map placement:

Submarines were strategic assets, deployed well in advance to deny an area to enemy shipping. They should start close to the caps, so they can capture quickly or hide near the cap and wait for their team and support them, or act as a scout. 

 

 

 

 

Speeds of WWII subs varied more than that.  Your underwater speed is faster than most, not all, could do (Germans and Japanese each had subs that could do almost 20 knots underwater) and the US Gatos could do 21 knots on the surface.

Surface sprints to get into position followed by submerged stalking were the bread and butter of WWII submarine tactics.  Limited submerged time enforces that.  The whole battle mechanic in WoWS is compressed in terms of time so it makes sense for submarines too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,730 battles

I believe there was a German Sub at the end of the war that was actually faster underwater than surfaced.

*Does some quick research.*

Ah, yes, the Type XXI Elektroboot. 15.6 kts (Surfaced) 17.2 kts (Submerged).

I proposed something similar a long time ago and it was brought to my attention that realistic speeds would render subs effectively stationary in a game like WoWs. Do me a favor at take a South Carolina to a trying room and cruise around a medium tier map. That's what it'll be like to move in a surfaced sub... Except South Carolina is a bit faster than most submarines.

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.

×