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

191 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

221
[-DS-]
Beta Testers
185 posts
1,197 battles

Hello, good day to everyone. I was playing some co-op to test out the subs, and I've noticed a pattern; CV(s) have no way to kill a sub unless the subs resurface, which is just awful. CV(s) historically had depth charge bombers to sink subs that felt bold enough to attack near them. There is nothing to stop a sub that wants to tunnel a cv at the start of the game; the sub would like deep dive, and if the cv noticed, he wouldn't be able to bomb the sub to oblivion for doing such a brazen strategy. CV(s) need a way to make subs treat them like they were a minefield, meaning not worth getting close to and not worth the risk. Not to mention CV(s) don't have a way to dodge those homing torps unless they use their repair function, which is a temporary solution to the problem. Still, the sub will ping again, and the CV will spend the entire map trying to hide behind mountains and trying to avoid subs, which is bad gameplay. Finally, to rebut all the future people who will say, "What about my class? They still don't all have counter ways to deal with subs?" Well, I'm not a dev, so I can't answer those questions; all I can do is call attention to its problems for CV(s). Also, the addition of sonobuoys to locate the subs that want to hide would be a great addition to counter the subs.

 

TLDR: CV(s) need their historical depth-charge loadout to counter subs and prevent sub tunneling.

Main Points:

  • Historical Loadout for CV(s).
  • This post primarily concerns CV(s), not the other classes.
  • Subs need a reason to treat CV(s) as a threat, not as if they were a free kill.
  • Auto repair isn't a proper counter to sub pings; they are a temporary solution to a single ping salvo(The double ping).
  • Sonobuoys to locate subs that want to hide and prevent early game rushes in case they try to deep dive at the start.

Disclaimer: I'm heavily biased toward the usage of CV(s). I'm primarily a CV player, and these suggestions are toward the benefit of CV(s), which may potentially make subs a weaker class as a whole if a CV is participating during said matches. This wouldn't be unrealistic, but it may harm the experience of sub players. Still, it will give them a reason to be careful instead of overly brazen and bold because they can quickly sink a Yamato and escape nearly Scott-free. My mindset is primarily on tier X gameplay. However, the devs should consider the other tiers for what the CV(s) can bring historically to counter the enemy subs. Thank you for reading, and have a wonderful day.

  • Cool 4
  • Haha 9
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,129
[WORX]
Members
14,330 posts
20,890 battles

CVs can perma spot a sub for the whole 20 min and let the team kill the sub.. With this ability, Subs are no treat to no one... Trust me, I've seen it happen in PTS

 

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
895
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,387 posts
5,589 battles

"Oh no! My class has absolutely no defense from another class in the game! How terrible!"

Ironic how this is coming from a CV player.

Also CV damage control lasts 60 seconds. If you can't manage to turn your ship around and start making yourself a very hard target for the sub, I don't know what to tell you.

  • Cool 10
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,060
[WOLFG]
Members
13,394 posts
12,820 battles
2 minutes ago, Darkshadow86 said:

 

Disclaimer: I'm heavily biased toward the usage of CV(s). 

You don't say.

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[SOFW]
Members
182 posts
14,202 battles
44 minutes ago, Darkshadow86 said:

Hello, good day to everyone. I was playing some co-op to test out the subs, and I've noticed a pattern; CV(s) have no way to kill a sub unless the subs resurface, which is just awful. CV(s) historically had depth charge bombers to sink subs that felt bold enough to attack near them. There is nothing to stop a sub that wants to tunnel a cv at the start of the game; the sub would like deep dive, and if the cv noticed, he wouldn't be able to bomb the sub to oblivion for doing such a brazen strategy. CV(s) need a way to make subs treat them like they were a minefield, meaning not worth getting close to and not worth the risk. Not to mention CV(s) don't have a way to dodge those homing torps unless they use their repair function, which is a temporary solution to the problem. Still, the sub will ping again, and the CV will spend the entire map trying to hide behind mountains and trying to avoid subs, which is bad gameplay. Finally, to rebut all the future people who will say, "What about my class? They still don't all have counter ways to deal with subs?" Well, I'm not a dev, so I can't answer those questions; all I can do is call attention to its problems for CV(s). Also, the addition of sonobuoys to locate the subs that want to hide would be a great addition to counter the subs.

 

TLDR: CV(s) need their historical depth-charge loadout to counter subs and prevent sub tunneling.

Main Points:

  • Historical Loadout for CV(s).
  • This post primarily concerns CV(s), not the other classes.
  • Subs need a reason to treat CV(s) as a threat, not as if they were a free kill.
  • Auto repair isn't a proper counter to sub pings; they are a temporary solution to a single ping salvo(The double ping).
  • Sonobuoys to locate subs that want to hide and prevent early game rushes in case they try to deep dive at the start.

Disclaimer: I'm heavily biased toward the usage of CV(s). I'm primarily a CV player, and these suggestions are toward the benefit of CV(s), which may potentially make subs a weaker class as a whole if a CV is participating during said matches. This wouldn't be unrealistic, but it may harm the experience of sub players. Still, it will give them a reason to be careful instead of overly brazen and bold because they can quickly sink a Yamato and escape nearly Scott-free. My mindset is primarily on tier X gameplay. However, the devs should consider the other tiers for what the CV(s) can bring historically to counter the enemy subs. Thank you for reading, and have a wonderful day.

:Smile_Default:-->:Smile_teethhappy:--->:Smile_veryhappy:

You don't really expect any sympathy here do you?  With the amount of hate that people have for CVs as they're currently implemented?

Does anyone else miss the days when CVs actually had a limited hangar/CVW size and could run out of planes, or is it just me?

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[RFF]
[RFF]
Members
39 posts
4,125 battles

I find this an interesting post, only because a ship class which has been buffed to the max, now finds itself against a ship class from which it appears it has no way to attack.

Payback is a bit_ch, and her stripper name is Karma. :Smile_smile:

Considering CVs have unlimited aircraft now, a full minute of repair, a resistance to fires that surpasses all other classes, an apparent shell bounce and ricochet off their hulls superior to many BBs, and now rockets and parabombs.....well, its hard to drum up much sympathy. (sorry, I'm slightly biased against CVs)

Anyway, subs are slower than most CVs (especially when submerged), so keeping them spotted with aircraft, and running away is a good tactic. Also convincing a DD to stick around the CV is a smart move at game start, altho good luck with that, considering the 'no cap, kill all' mentality prevalent in the game. And if the sub decides to surface during attack to keep you in torp range longer, why now you can attack them like any surface ship CVs regularly stomp. (of course, you have to dodge those dragster torps subs have......)

(IF I were a sub captain tho.....I'd start teaching those CV captains that like cruising out of range along the boarder, or parking behind islands, that those tactic are gonna be a BIG mistake going forward...just saying)

Edited by PlainOldSam
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,451
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,351 posts
12,316 battles

Honestly, once the subs are fully in the main game, I fully expect 1) Bogue to be reintroduced as VI Bogue with depth charges instead of rockets. 2) Later, I fully expect the alt US CV line (VI Independence, VIII Yorktown, and X Essex) to be brought back with the aforementioned buoys as a consumable.

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,030
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,698 battles
9 minutes ago, PlainOldSam said:

(IF I were a sub captain tho.....I'd start teaching those CV captains that like cruising out of range along the boarder, or parking behind islands, that those tactic are gonna be a BIG mistake going forward...just saying)

Why? DDs are hard enough for many CVs to deal with now, and the rocket nerf didn't lead to a lot of extra CV sinkings.

Sub players going out of their way to hunt CVs are going to be a burden to their team about as much as DD players doing the same thing currently.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,086
[PVE]
Members
7,573 posts

CVs broke sub testing so bad in the first round that WG had to removed CVs from the next couple of rounds of testing.  That was without depth charges.  The point is CVs/planes would be just too strong against subs.  Seriously, what would stop CV players from flying right up to an area where they know, or suspect a sub and dropping it?  The answer is nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[-DS-]
Beta Testers
185 posts
1,197 battles
36 minutes ago, LTC_Tiger said:

:Smile_Default:-->:Smile_teethhappy:--->:Smile_veryhappy:

You don't really expect any sympathy here do you?  With the amount of hate that people have for CVs as they're currently implemented?

Does anyone else miss the days when CVs actually had a limited hangar/CVW size and could run out of planes, or is it just me?

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I don't desire it. All I desire is for a historical implementation of a component that CV(s) had historical; if it doesn't get added then, that's ok. However, if you don't ask for something on a public forum, you can't expect the devs to know that it is something that devs could implement.

 

19 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:
3 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

Honestly, once the subs are fully in the main game, I fully expect 1) Bogue to be reintroduced as VI Bogue with depth charges instead of rockets. 2) Later, I fully expect the alt US CV line (VI Independence, VIII Yorktown, and X Essex) to be brought back with the aforementioned buoys as a consumable.

You're probably right that it will be a consumable, but it would be nice if it were the fourth option.

 

24 minutes ago, PlainOldSam said:

I find this an interesting post, only because a ship class which has been buffed to the max, now finds itself against a ship class from which it appears it has no way to attack.

Payback is a bit_ch, and her stripper name is Karma. :Smile_smile:

Considering CVs have unlimited aircraft now, a full minute of repair, a resistance to fires that surpasses all other classes, an apparent shell bounce and ricochet off their hulls superior to many BBs, and now rockets and parabombs.....well, its hard to drum up much sympathy. (sorry, I'm slightly biased against CVs)

Anyway, subs are slower than most CVs (especially when submerged), so keeping them spotted with aircraft, and running away is a good tactic. Also convincing a DD to stick around the CV is a smart move at game start, altho good luck with that, considering the 'no cap, kill all' mentality prevalent in the game. And if the sub decides to surface during attack to keep you in torp range longer, why now you can attack them like any surface ship CVs regularly stomp. (of course, you have to dodge those dragster torps subs have......)

(IF I were a sub captain tho.....I'd start teaching those CV captains that like cruising out of range along the boarder, or parking behind islands, that those tactic are gonna be a BIG mistake going forward...just saying)

That isn't how karma works. Here is a quote from dictionary.com of what karma is; "the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation. (Dictionary.com) " If you're going to use karma, please understand what it means and the connotations behind its usage. CV(s) don't have unlimited planes, CV(s) do have a limit to the number of fires they can take, some CV(s) are built off the hull of a BB. Their ability is unrelated to a BB with poor protection compared to the many CV(s) that try to have adequate protection. If you were a sub captain with that intention, you would still get sunk; people would post in chat, "Has anyone seen a sub? It seems he hasn't tried to cap. Most likely, he is heading toward our CV." I do not doubt your battling plans, but I am doubting how functional they are without harming your team's chances of winning by trying to, in a summarized version of your own words, "teach them a lesson." There also isn't a hive mind to how one CV behaves, and that the entire community is a cosmic balancing system.

 

13 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Why? DDs are hard enough for many CVs to deal with now, and the rocket nerf didn't lead to a lot of extra CV sinkings.

Sub players going out of their way to hunt CVs are going to be a burden to their team about as much as DD players doing the same thing currently.

He is welcome to try that, but there are always signs when a DD tries to hunt a CV. I'm sure there will be similar signs to when a sub tries to hunt a CV.

 

7 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

CVs broke sub testing so bad in the first round that WG had to removed CVs from the next couple of rounds of testing.  That was without depth charges.  The point is CVs/planes would be just too strong against subs.  Seriously, what would stop CV players from flying right up to an area where they know, or suspect a sub and dropping it?  The answer is nothing. 

The sub could deep dive and be untouched by any surface ship.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
692 posts
18,125 battles

Even as a CV advocate, I am not buying this one. With the battery limits currently, you will have ample opportunity to blast some subs on the surface. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,270 posts
8,362 battles

Call out in game chat for your friendly DD , he's sure to come running to help you out!   :Smile_trollface:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
10,380 posts
26,826 battles

I care little about carriers and CV play but wouldn't the "depth charge aircraft" or whatever they are called, be more appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[SOFW]
Members
182 posts
14,202 battles
9 minutes ago, Darkshadow86 said:

I'm not asking for sympathy, and I don't desire it. All I desire is for a historical implementation of a component that CV(s) had historical; if it doesn't get added then, that's ok. However, if you don't ask for something on a public forum, you can't expect the devs to know that it is something that devs could implement.

In that case, sir, I'm all for it....that is, as soon as the devs return CVs to a state where they have limited airframes aboard, which is also a historical truth.  CVs had a limited airwing of 30-90 planes (depending on the class/size of the CV), which was previously modeled in game, and which was done away with in the CV rework.  Returning to a limited number of airframes would go back to the "historical implementation" you desire and would further justify the devs' insistence on repair/ammo costs as part of the game economy.

  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[-DS-]
Beta Testers
185 posts
1,197 battles
8 minutes ago, Telastyn said:

Even as a CV advocate, I am not buying this one. With the battery limits currently, you will have ample opportunity to blast some subs on the surface. 

 

5 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

I care little about carriers and CV play but wouldn't the "depth charge aircraft" or whatever they are called, be more appropriate?

The last post for a while, then I must return to my readings. Another reason this got me thinking about this idea is that BB(s) can call a depth-charge aircraft, yet the carriers don't have the ability? I assume it is so BB(s) can test the subs without too much interference and that the devs will add the same capability to use depth charge aircraft once the testing is over, but it is still strange when you notice it.

 

2 minutes ago, LTC_Tiger said:

In that case, sir, I'm all for it....that is, as soon as the devs return CVs to a state where they have limited airframes aboard, which is also a historical truth.  CVs had a limited airwing of 30-90 planes (depending on the class/size of the CV), which was previously modeled in game, and which was done away with in the CV rework.  Returning to a limited number of airframes would go back to the "historical implementation" you desire and would further justify the devs' insistence on repair/ammo costs as part of the game economy.

Assumption: This is probably because all ships don't have a hard set of specific AA configurations and can be heavily modified to be CV-oriented to the point where they can knock out aircraft without a second thought. This can be seen on many tier X ships, and even those of lower-tier such as North Carolina, Texas, and many more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[XXX]
Members
744 posts
1,698 battles

Actually...you know I wouldn't mind them taking away the rocket planes and replacing them with Depth charges...:Smile_trollface:

Edited by Yandere_Roon
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[BB35]
[BB35]
Members
666 posts
18,217 battles

Subs cant ping a CV. The dcp on a carrier makes it nearly impossible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[SOFW]
Members
182 posts
14,202 battles
6 minutes ago, Darkshadow86 said:

Assumption: This is probably because all ships don't have a hard set of specific AA configurations and can be heavily modified to be CV-oriented to the point where they can knock out aircraft without a second thought. This can be seen on many tier X ships, and even those of lower-tier such as North Carolina, Texas, and many more.

No, actually...they did away with the limited hangars because CVs would regularly run out of planes and then be forced to attempt to cap (defenselessly) or ram to assist their team.

I know this because I ground through Tiers IV, V and VI on both US and Jap CVs when there WAS a Tier V to grind through and when you could run out of planes.

Edited by LTC_Tiger
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[GT3]
Members
232 posts
8,283 battles

This makes me like subs now.. Finaly something to counter the class with no counter.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[UNHLY]
Members
3,480 posts
26,609 battles
1 hour ago, Darkshadow86 said:

Sonobuoys

Are you serious ? 

Are You Serious Spiderman GIF - Are You Serious Spiderman Meme - Discover &  Share GIFs

And I'm Pro CV, I know some ships class are 50's but please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,260
[RLGN]
Members
16,820 posts
29,471 battles
1 hour ago, LTC_Tiger said:

Does anyone else miss the days when CVs actually had a limited hangar/CVW size and could run out of planes, or is it just me?

Yes?

But mostly because I think FPS carriers are garbage, and prefer RTS; even if I actually sucked really bad a RTS manual attacks.

Wanna be Spruance, not Best.

1 hour ago, Skpstr said:

Sub players going out of their way to hunt CVs are going to be a burden to their team about as much as DD players doing the same thing currently.

Big time. Subs are so slow, actually getting to a carrier is a huge waste of time.

45 minutes ago, Telastyn said:

Even as a CV advocate, I am not buying this one. With the battery limits currently, you will have ample opportunity to blast some subs on the surface. 

This.

Subs or ships, a CV sits still and gets caught, that’s on them.

CV should be able to outrun subs. CV can spot a sub and force them down or risk attack.

Saying a CV has no means to defend itself shows no understanding of carriers; and one might argue;  no understanding on either side of the issue.

Conversely; if you’re a sub and spot a carrier, stop trying to chase it down. Just keep it spotted, if possible. Plenty of folks should be willing to shoot at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[TF16A]
[TF16A]
Modder
711 posts
881 battles
1 hour ago, Telastyn said:

Even as a CV advocate, I am not buying this one. With the battery limits currently, you will have ample opportunity to blast some subs on the surface. 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,695 posts
2,059 battles
3 hours ago, PotatoMD said:

If you can't manage to turn your ship around and start making yourself a very hard target for the sub, I don't know what to tell you.

You imply that the CV player has noticed the sub before it can fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
692 posts
18,125 battles
3 minutes ago, black_hull4 said:

You imply that the CV player has noticed the sub before it can fire.

Yes? I mean, paying attention to your “ship detected” alert is one of the first skills a CV driver learns. It’s no different from being aware of DDs on the map, even though they’re not constantly spotted. 
 

If the sub wants to (and manages) to cross the entire map submerged and undetected - blowing its entire battery reserves - just to fire torps at a ship that it can’t (profitably) ping, and will run as soon as it is directly detected… thanks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×