World of Warships- My Thoughts On Submarines

1,509 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (95 votes, average: 4.74 out of 5)
Loading...

So WG has announced that it is going ahead with the development and implementation submarines into the game. And I have some opinions on that.

Outro Music- Stranger Think by C418

Have a replay?

Join the Discord here!: https://discordapp.com/invite/QA7G9pr

24 Comments:

  1. Your first hunch was correct. DCs were never on BBs nor on any CAs. The Japanese did have some of their CLs armed with DCs though. Although, as far as I know, no other nations mounted ASW weapons on their cruisers. Great info to know. Love the commentary Sir!

    • Nope…
      I’m not 100% sure about BBs, but CL and CA carried (at least some of them) depth charges. E.g. depth charges racks on HMS York and Exeter (one rack on tern facing port), Admiral Hipper (six chutes on the stern), …

  2. Evangeline Anovilis

    Not everything that had a big impact on WWII should be in the game. For one, the biggest impact subs had was sinking commercial ships. Only in the Pacific had subs great success in sinking warships, though mostly on unsuspecting targets that were far away from combat (e.g. Shinano, Taihou, Shoukaku) or were already crippled and or otherwise immobile (Yorktown and Hammann). And even then, most of the Japanese losses were due to piss-poor damage control. If you can make a case for subs based on that, then you could as well make cases for minelayers, detonations (most fun and engaging mechanic that everybody wants in the game, right?) and land-based aircraft.

    And yes, they handle it better than before, but for all we know, they’ll go through with it anyway, according to schedule, just like NTC and CV rework, reinterprete their spreadsheet stats to make it fit a narrative of a successful implementation and it’ll be unbalanced cancer, because if they cannot even balance CVs properly, what gives anyone the confidence to state they’d be able to balance subs?

    And there’s a lot of potential issues, from how these ships interact with other classes. e.g. DDs. After all, it can range from subs being just free kills (very fun…) to subs being incredibly potent (if the torps are actually good and stealthy, nothing reacts worse to torp hits than a DD atm) to DDs becoming even more of a vital, yet unrewarding and mentally taxing class if they are the main counters while for example BBs cannot do a thing. Getting shittalked by BB mains about how it is my job as a DD to kill subs, as well as cap, scout, screen for enemy DDs, evade CV attacks, not die to radar cruisers etc. is kind of a bit much? Not to mention that subhunting with a DD can very much become a challenge akin to playing a RN cruiser with radar, where you can pretty much murder any DD that comes close, but only if you don’t get murdered instead for being spotted. And this is just one aspect of the whole matter. Subs are going to be hard to balance and if the CV rework taught us anything, then that WG is nowhere competent enough to meet that challenge.

  3. I like the idea for them for this reason. Just watched a 550k Haku game and the fella just parked behind an island and made torp run after torp run. If he had to scout around his own ship everytime he takes off he will make fewer runs. Parked CVs will be the subs job. Subs have to have the ability to get behind the enemy and this will put campers in sheer terror.

  4. Sir Raint, Knight of Silverwing

    WG could add the Cold War-era missile cruisers as well since they don’t seem to keep their words. Even those can be balanced more easily.

  5. I think wargaming could add new destroyer lines completely dedicated to ASW. The fletcher class had an ASW variant.

  6. No thanks!!!

  7. Now can we get Light Cruisers, DD’s, Corvettes, Frigates, Sub-Chasers, and Motor Torpedo Boats with depth charges, hedge hogs, Y-guns, K-guns, and ASROCS? And Sea Plane Tenders with Consolidated PBY Catalina’s in ASW configuration?

    With submarines in the game, DD’s can go back to their original prime roles… destroying torpedo boats and submarines.

    The Friesland with those ASROC launchers should be able to shred submarines.

    I hope we get U.S.S. Holland, HMS E-11, U-234, and I-400 in game… And deck guns and AA guns

    As for the typical U.S. Navy WW2 Pacific Fast Carrier Task Force… Here’s the general complement of ships during 1944-1945:

    17 carriers
    6 battleships
    13 cruisers
    58 destroyers
    1,100 aircraft

    Constant Radar, Constant Sonar…

  8. The announcement worries me. I used to play NavyField, and that game added submarines despite saying earlier “no subs”. The result? The higher tier subs were overpowered. WG had better take their sweet time with this, especially with their handling of the CV rework fresh in mind. Now WG needs to develop counter measures for all ship types to combat them.

  9. Well 6 Destroyers per side is possible so why not subs?

  10. Are they going to put convoys in then for the subs to chance other wise subs had far far less impact on war ships

  11. Well I know Cod class US subs had a test depth of only 90m, so maybe you don’t need to worry that much about going too deep on maps or worrying very much about hydro range.

  12. They’ll have to implement depth charges for destroyers

  13. UNprofessional Reviews

    If you think that BBs and some cruisers played passively before, hold on to your sailing hats.

  14. The Leander’s and other RN Destroyer Escorts had Anti Submarine Mortars.

  15. Real hydro had a depth limit in the early days. There was not enough acoustic signal to reflect off deep objects. Also thermal layers in water can reflect the sound waves as well. One possible solution to the depth issue would be to make the hydro effect a sphere with the radius as max range but as you go underwater the max range reduces the deeper you go. If WG can’t model a sphere then they can maybe do it via layers with reduced range corresponding to the various depth setting of the subs…

  16. They couldn’t balance CVs despite years of trying.
    Now they’ll introduce a whole new load of mechanics and resulting balance challenges.
    What could possibly go wrong? LOL

  17. I think submarines would be a great addition to the game

  18. After months of trying to get CV’s balanced, which they have not done yet, they are thinking about introducing Subs, try sorting the existing game first then progress

  19. after playing the u boats last year,, I can see where the limits on the boat are,, needing to surface every 2 to 3 minuets in the game would make the player plan their attack more than a DD or Cruiser.
    I am looking forwards to playing them,,,, something about sneaking up on a ship and launching torps attracts my attention.

  20. My thoughts are that they are panicked because AT LAST their abuse of the game for monetization and ignoring the community have resulted in both lower player counts and profits in both WOT and WoW. So instead of fixing rhe game they are spamming content. This will fail just like in Navyfield

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *