Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/366-official-sub-thread-why-are-submarines-being-left-out/

 

One of WoWs most controversial decisions to exclude submarines.

 

So, after almost a year of Lazar and assorted uninformed badpoasters and sometimes a few gudpoasters vs. Jutland Enthusiasts, the thread is still going strong despite attempts to derail it.

 

What does the rest of the world that isn't ex-Navy and is less informed about ships think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Total rewrite of post, as I was very flip the first time:

 

 

Honestly, my views haven't changed a single bit since the first thread.  I simply do not think that they fit the game, and would present game balance issues that make the current WoT issues with Arty look minor and simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that supper is cooking I can type a bit more.

 

The first and biggest problem of putting subs in the game is that only certain ships of the era had meaningful ASW capabilities.  Destroyers and some other smaller ships (DE, Corvettes and the like) and then Carrier Air groups had the ability to attack subs.

 

So, in that case, if you put Subs into the game, then you have one of two things

 

Either

1) Any time a single sub remains when all the enemy ships are CL or larger, the best the other side can do is flee for the draw. (Unless the sub is dumb enough to stay at ramming depth)

-or-

2) You have to start adding ASW capability to whole classes of ships who did not have it.

 

There are other issues as well.  Subs are slow.  20ish kts for a surfaced sub, less than half that if it is submerged, so there would always be a high chance of a sub player missing the battle outright (exciting!)

 

So, overall, they would create so many problems, and force "twisting" the game so much, it's better that they are out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These would be fun to play: (English captions are available)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that supper is cooking I can type a bit more.

 

The first and biggest problem of putting subs in the game is that only certain ships of the era had meaningful ASW capabilities.  Destroyers and some other smaller ships (DE, Corvettes and the like) and then Carrier Air groups had the ability to attack subs.

 

So, in that case, if you put Subs into the game, then you have one of two things

 

Either

1) Any time a single sub remains when all the enemy ships are CL or larger, the best the other side can do is flee for the draw. (Unless the sub is dumb enough to stay at ramming depth)

-or-

2) You have to start adding ASW capability to whole classes of ships who did not have it.

 

There are other issues as well.  Subs are slow.  20ish kts for a surfaced sub, less than half that if it is submerged, so there would always be a high chance of a sub player missing the battle outright (exciting!)

 

So, overall, they would create so many problems, and force "twisting" the game so much, it's better that they are out.

Oh, I forgot. You were there for the beginning, but didn't stay.

 

1. There are plenty of subs fast enough for the purpose. GUPPY for the US, I-class and derivatives for the Japanese, even the Russians have submarines that work adequately/

2. HE on top of a sub at periscope level is going to hurt.

3. So what if subs have to be adjusted a little bit. Carriers have basically taken historical accuracy and used Darik's Boot and Nuke on it. They launch planes at speed, in any direction, can only have a limited amount of planes in the air, launch planes at ridiculously fast rates, and will have fantasy plans for the tier 10s, and possibly lower, even. The best Italian carrier the people against subs could find was the Aquila, which barely matches the Soryu-class carriers. And then you have fantasy planes for those fantasy ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's the thing.  Too make it work, you've got to deeply twist regular ships, or subs, or both in order to shoehorn them into the game.

 

I just don't see it as a worthwhile addition.  The more you need to twist, the more that should be a sign of "bad idea"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's the thing.  Too make it work, you've got to deeply twist regular ships, or subs, or both in order to shoehorn them into the game.

 

I just don't see it as a worthwhile addition.  The more you need to twist, the more that should be a sign of "bad idea"

 

I posted this on the WoWs forums in that topic:

 

One's an anomaly, two's a trend. World of Tanks certainly doesn't line up with reality, and neither does World of Warplanes.

This game is arcade. If you think it's going to be a simulation, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

They're going to take some liberties (rather large, I might add) with other classes. Saying you can't do the same with submarines is a double standard.

All ships are getting:

Gimped view ranges.

Improved torpedo reload rates.

Torpedoes become infallible but do less damage.

Between these two...

Carriers need:

An artificial limit to the number planes in the air at a time.

Ridiculously fast launching times compared to reality.

Removal of the requirement to turn into the wind to launch planes, in some cases making it the arty from hell; an enemy that can stay of out range of you indefinitely but still hit you.

God's eye view.

Fantasy end tiers for some nations.

Fantasy planes for some nations.

Submarines need:

Faster torpedo loading speeds.

Slight stealth buff.

Slight speed buff.

Half-trees, with a few paper subs. Some nations may not require paper subs.

Which one is more reasonable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I THINK SUBS R GUD BECUZ THEY R LONG HARD AND FULL OF SEAMEN

 

If they introduced subs to teh game, wouldn't it be the next Arty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why Subs would be so difficult to balance.

 

-In order to have decent mobility they'd have to remain surfaced, therefore vulnerable (lolnoarmor).

 

-Submerging takes time.

 

-They are too slow submerged to give pursuit.

 

-Large caliber guns will still fuck a sub up at periscope depth (this happened on a few occasions in both World Wars).

 

-In good weather subs can be spotted at periscope depth from the surface.

 

-Most ASW ships are fast + aircraft, so there are your hard counters.  Also, minelayers could perfom area denial if they were added.

 

-Most torpedoes were propelled by compressed air so their tracks were easy to spot; a vigilant ship player can maneouvre out of the way.

 

-The vast majority of submarine attacks (back in the diesel/electric days) were performed from the surface at night.

 

In gameplay terms, I would see subs performing a comparable role to the high-alpha, low-armor ambush TDs perform in WoT.  They will be slow, vulnerable, but with great "camo" which will lead to a high risk/high reward playstyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks. In addition to having to warp the game to include them they weren't really a fleet engagement vessel in WW2. Same goes for arty in WoT. Tanks weren't meant to take high angle hits, add arty that does exactly that and its retarded. Simply adding subs and expecting it to work is senseless. They need to have been added and general mechanics designed already. Dumping them in later is a recipe for fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they weren't really a fleet engagement vessel in WW2.

 

Not true.  Japanese submarine strategy was to use them in combined fleet operations, Yorktown and Wasp were both sank by Japanese submarines and North Carolina and Saratoga were heavily damaged by submarine attacks during major battles.  Later in the war they concentrated their submarine resources to attacking landing forces.  From a strategic standpoint the would have better been put to use as commerce raiders, but my point is to illustrate that not all nations adopted the German strategy.

 

US fleet submarines adopted a dual-role of commerce raiding and participating in fleet operations when needed.  US submarines obtained eight confirmed carrier and twelve confirmed cruiser sinkings.  The most famous example is when Dace and Darter ambushed the Japanese Center Force at Leyte.

 

WG's unwillingness to include submarines in an early to mid-century naval combat game strikes me as a lack of imagination on their part.  I've listed several drawbacks earlier that can be applied to even arcade submarines.  They won't be like arty because (a) they will need a direct line of fire and (b) from a scale standpoint torpedoes will be a very short-ranged weapon in an arcade shooter.  If WG doesn't add subs in WoWS, you can bet dollars to doughnuts Gaijin will when player-controlled ships are added to WT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If WG doesn't add subs in WoWS, you can bet dollars to doughnuts Gaijin will when player-controlled ships are added to WT.

 

Probably, remembering that they think ships and tanks in the same battle is a good plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, remembering that they think ships and tanks in the same battle is a good plan.

If I remember right World War mode is going to be Historical/Full Real modes only so it's going to be far different than what people like to imply it will be like. I don't see where people get that that will be hard to pull off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, adding subs would definitely remove a layer of the arcady feel. In all fairness though, adding aircraft carriers does as well. Pretty debatable as to which of the two would cause more nerd rage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't confuse today's modern submarine capabilities with the capabilities of  WWII era subs. 

 

WWII era subs were generally slow, both surfaced and submerged (15-20 knots surfaced, and about 5-7 knots submerged).  Their batteries gave them short endurance.  WWII subs had to surface frequently (generally at night) to run their diesels and recharge their batteries.  There were no homing torpedoes of any substance in widespread use.  Sonar was woefully lacking.  Subs had passive and active sonar, but the capabilities of both were not suited for any kind of long range listening, unlike today's submarines.  Most subs in WWII relied on spotting while surfaced (i.e. looking for smoke columns, masts on the horizon, etc.) and then using their surface speed to make a run around the front of a slow convoy, perhaps, and then, either submerge ahead and attack, or shadow the convoy until nightfall, and run in for a surface attack.  Since the sub's profile on the surface was rather small, they were difficult to spot. 

 

In addition, the diving depth wasn't very deep either. Somwhere on the order of 300 to 350 feet max. Most of today's subs can dive to 1000 feet or so.   

 

Submarines, unless WG gave them modern capabilities, would not be all that huge of an addition to the game.  Their use would be limited, and would take some skill, foresight, and forethought to employ properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torpedo boats will probably be the "arty" of WoWS, so a submarine would just be a really hard to see and really hard to kill "arty".  I honestly think they did the right thing excluding them.  While they were a well known and important part of the battlefield in history, I can't see them being anything than a hard to balance, often abused, wildly overpowered or woefully underpowered class for a game.  The balance would be nearly impossible and probably game breaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the pro-submarine side, and I think it would be much more of a concern that subs could be under-powered and infuriating to play than over-powered and infuriating to face.

 

I'm assuming that WoWS will have similar time and engagement-range compression to WoT. I don't expect aircraft carriers to be launching planes from a distance that would take a destroyer 12 hours to reach, and I don't expect battleships to be shooting targets across the entire map without leaving the spawn area. If submarines were designed to fit within those relative engagement distances, their torpedoes would have very short ranges.

 

In real life...

The range of the Japanese and American dive- and torpedo bombers was ~600 miles.

The range of the 14" guns used by American and Japanese BBs was something like 15 miles.

The range of the American Mark 14 torpedo, running at low speed, was something like 5 miles - half that at high speed - and left a trail of bubbles on the surface of the water.

The German G7e was an electric torpedo that left no visible trail but had a range of only 3 miles. 

 

Also, hitting a target with a torpedo wasn't easy. A head-on shot could deflect or miss altogether. A chasing shot fired at the torpedo's low-speed/high-range setting (trying to damage the ship's propellers, let's say) could be outdistanced by a 30-knot cruiser or aircraft carrier, and would stand no chance of catching a 36-knot destroyer. Basically the only thing a chasing shot would reliably hit with the long-range speed setting would be a battleship.

 

So a submarine essentially needs to find a close-range flanking position to have a good shot. Which brings us to their speed, which would be among the the worst in the entire game. The American Gato-class and Japanese B1 had surface speeds of ~20 knots and submerged speeds of less than half that. The German Type VII U-Boat was even slower. Only the American battleships would be as slow as a surfaced submarine; the British and Japanese BBs could outrun a sub with one turbine tied behind their backs.

 

And as the tech trees progress, the power-curve goes against submarines. An early Cold War submarine would be a marvel compared to an inter-war submarine, but it would be worse when compared to Cold War ASW ships and planes. In that respect, submarines would be akin to Heavy Tanks in WoT, where a KV-1 is a beast but a Maus is a joke.

 

US submarines in particular could be horrible, because early versions of the Mark 14 torpedo were so, so bad. To avoid driving American submarine players to thoughts of suicide, I might make the Mark 14 a low-damage torpedo and remove the duds, mimicking the overall American need to fire massive spreads of torpedoes in order to inflict serious damage (and a single, low-damage impact could be said to mimic a premature or low-depth detonation, which also happened a lot with Mark 14s).

 

While there were ships without ASW capabilities, no team would need to be, and I'm assuming that WoWS will have some way to win the game besides destroying the enemy, as WoT and WoWP do. The naval equivalent of capturing the enemy flag, whatever that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reasoning didn't stop arty.

Looks like they learned :verysmug:

 

Too many players play arty, arty gets nerfed. Too many players would play subs, nerf the subs till subs player levels are normal.

 

they chose not to do that becuase of the shitstorms that would erupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The range of the American Mark 14 torpedo, running at low speed, was something like 5 miles - half that at high speed - and left a trail of bubbles on the surface of the water.

 

Mk14's low speed was 31kts. High speed at approx. 46kts. A warship needed to detect them from a good distance to be able to get enough revs to out-run or move an enemy torpedo.

 

IRL that trail of gas-bubbles was noticed all too late by some knuckledragger hanging out the bridge wings having a smoke. Plus the ones that weren't dud weapons were quite good, set to magnetic and a 640lb warhead will ruin your day.

 

I think the biggest issue would be how wargaming make the weapons as un-realistic as possible to work. Most WWI - WWII etc torpedoes needed to be fired from outside of 400 yards for the exploder to arm itself, or else you just get a nasty ding in your hull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've expressed why I don't think they would work in this setting before, but to drive home my main points again:

 

1) The speed curve for subs is all wrong.  5 submerged and 20 surfaced (with all the risks being surfaced around warships creates) makes them far, far too immobile to be useful on a battlefield where pretty much everyone else is doing 24kts+ (and only older BB are 24kts. Most stuff is around 30+)  If you're lucky, you'll be close enough to fire.  If you're not, you'll have the most boring game imaginable.  Only way this can "work" is if they utterly and entirely throw the relative range curves of most weapons out the door (making torps nearly as effective at long range as shells.  Ugh)

2) you have to create unhistorical ways for anything CL and bigger to actually damage a sub.  Otherwise a single sub could threaten the remains of a team without meaningful counter.  (And no, firing shells at a periscope depth submarine at long range doesn't count.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've expressed why I don't think they would work in this setting before, but to drive home my main points again:

 

1) The speed curve for subs is all wrong.  5 submerged and 20 surfaced (with all the risks being surfaced around warships creates) makes them far, far too immobile to be useful on a battlefield where pretty much everyone else is doing 24kts+ (and only older BB are 24kts. Most stuff is around 30+)  If you're lucky, you'll be close enough to fire.  If you're not, you'll have the most boring game imaginable.  Only way this can "work" is if they utterly and entirely throw the relative range curves of most weapons out the door (making torps nearly as effective at long range as shells.  Ugh)

2) you have to create unhistorical ways for anything CL and bigger to actually damage a sub.  Otherwise a single sub could threaten the remains of a team without meaningful counter.  (And no, firing shells at a periscope depth submarine at long range doesn't count.)

 

Ram the bastards?

Pretty much ensured one-hit-kill for anything CL or bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...