World of Warships – Submarine & ASW Gameplay [WiP]

40,466 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1,389 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...

From World of Warships Gamescom stream, first look at and ASW gameplay.

99 Comments:

  1. I’m still not convinced how this will turn out. It’s interesting to be sure, but the question is if it can be balanced correctly. Considering how ‘well’ balancing has worked out so far, WG is definitely not making it easy on themselves by adding this new class that requires a whole new dimension to be added into the game that wasn’t there before.

    • How destroyer suppose to be in the first place. It look like it change from team point playing to mole hunt game. It change the whole gameplay of destroyer I think…Cuz submarine have better concl that mean better spotter also better point capper and large target hunt like battleship cuz it homing torp. And how you prevent your flood damage while this thing around you?

      And also this new class will be the neft of CV in a process (cuz CV can’t baby sitting damage dealer anymore that make it look good)

    • @May Shiratoshi In the trailer, it seemed CV’s had anti-submarine aircraft

      Balance will be crucial in 1 area= amount of submarines.

      One, maybe 2 subs per team maximum is really needed

    • May Shiratoshi maybe add mines to rhe destroyers

    • @May Shiratoshi Good point, but the same dynamic already applies to DDs and cruisers – in the beginning DDs take point and try to scout and screen, once a DD gets into your back line you can either ignore it or send a CL or one of your own DDs out to hunt it down. It will however yet another thing for DDs to do which may lead to them becoming the most overworked and underappreciated class in the game.

    • @Rags Almighty DD is easier to hunt in this situation. Cuz DD need to evade radar while stay stealth in the same time. Most radar cruiser when get spotted by unknown reason always use radar. That why you don’t seem much DD try to going to back line. But this thing is another cuz it better concl when surface and more better concl in driving. And look like radar or 2km proc is unavailable to this thing when driving. It can pass the whole fleet of ship to kill CV (Cuz new CV gameplay it hard to find even destroyer that turn off there AA).

  2. Will the French tier 10 sub be that monstrosity with a single dual 8″ gun turret?

    • Zeydaan The Dragon

      @Fluxthelycanroc ikr, quite a shame… it was a better game than WoWs but every time I think of going back the low population online is a overpowering deterrent

    • @Zeydaan The Dragon its die to ppl assumme irs wows clone and those graphic whore always looked down on game with no over prasing ‘ graphic ‘ and also its was made by chinese company this made ppl didnt touch it even more but lik really like that game it is throw back to the navyfield 1 where the skill is matter not the RNG

    • @Zeydaan The Dragon And she will probably be spotted from as far as a large DD.

    • @Fluxthelycanroc unless they increase the number of aircraft those (I think it was 3) floatplane dive bombers will be shot out of the sky easily. Remember they were there to bomb a non-moving target (the canal).

    • Colonel Overkill it better be.

  3. Way too fast above and below the surface and they dive and surface WAY too fast.

    • @Caden Grace well the only historical us battle ship that could do 30 knots was the iowa class, guess what in game it can do 33 knots… its already there

    • @Caden Grace sorry, but your wrong again sir, the i 17 to 21 class were cruiser submarines, and on average hit 21 knots. They were requored to keep pace with most of their battleships at the time. And had to have longer range.

      Japan ised its submarines as fleet support, and sank meny surface vessels with theirs. Below surface ment of the i class still hit speeds of 12 to 14 knots

    • @robert goodman Iowa hit 35.1 knots in a light condition. She was rated for 33 knots for most of her life and usually exceeded when called upon. But, at this point none of that matters, we have French battleships that can be set up to approach 40 knots when the fastest ship they ever put in the water was sweating to break 30. The game is broken because to trick players into buying the next premium it has to do more of everything.

    • TheNerfPlayer12321

      Well it is WiP but I do hope they listen and implement community’s opinion during open sand box and what not before they go live so that experience on live servers won’t be that affected

    • @RedXlV did we watch seperate videos red… these subs did nowhere near 30 knots.

  4. The sub can always proxy spot surface ships. Check out the news article on the mechanics. It explains a lot

  5. *Twenty-one knots under water.*
    ’nuff said.

    • @Emre Yamangil no, a virginia and los Angeles class submarine can easily do 32 knots under water.

      The papa class, of the akula class in the 1980s hit almost 50 knots under water. The first post war subamrine hit 28 knots under water.

      If you think this is un realistic, then 70 percent of the tech tree in game should be deleted for the same reason.

      The gneisnau, the british ships after the vanguard, americans ships after iowa, lol most of the french ships 80 percent of the soviet tree

    • The Japanese I201 class almost reached 20 knots underwater…

    • @Zack I love how people in the same string of comments are criticizing that it’s too fast and so unrealistic but also saying that hunting circles is realistic but not fun so shouldn’t be that way. This is why realism arguments suck, because people only use them when it benefits what they want to say and nobody actually cares. They are empty arguments that are ignored when convenient by the very people using them. End of the day none of that matters. People either enjoy the gameplay or they don’t. Gameplay is what is important and people defend alot of things already in the game that are unrealistic like bow tanking.

    • @Emanuel Gonçalves Santos And it was boring as hell for endless hours.

    • @南官軒浪 Type XVII (U-792) reached submerged speed of 25knost in June 1944

  6. Fun and engaging gameplay…chasing the circle!

    I really wonder how to balance it: in reality subs where way to slow to actively chase fleets: you had to wait out on the shipping routes or expected fleet assembly points and hope you will be lucky. In this game you need the speed to keep the sub-play interesting. Looks like there is only limited need for subs to stealth up and crawl away, so counter play seems difficult to balance

    • “I really wonder how to balance it” – Hmmm, Hidro? Even implementing a CV ASW role like an “Air Hydro” would do the thing but nah, let’s chase the circle and think “How to balance it”…

    • Im not really knowledged in war stuff but planes that drop depth charges to counter sub activity in a larger area sounds cool, gives the cv a role apart from throwing its planes into an AA wall. More fun for cv players, they can then save their planes for later when AA mounts are damaged so theybat least stand a chance

    • Actually, what subs would do (mainly American and German ones) was surface out of visual range, run at flank speed to outpace the convoy, then get in front of the convoy and submerge, then attack. Some submarines were famous for doing this endlessly to an entire convoy.

    • Would be cool if cv still like the old one another job for cv plane to come rescuing battleship that is being harrassed by sub

    • @SaltyWaffles true, but still by or being guided into the shipping lane, or by staking out. And you are talking slow 10/14 knt convoys, not turbine driven warships that will cruise 20+knt in battle conditions. No way a ww2 sub could use speed and stealth at the same time. Even modern subs, while being a lot faster submerged than ww2 subs where on the surface, loose their stealth (against ASW units) when running faster than crawling speed. I haven’t seen this stealth play in action yet, and I wonder if they can get it to work.

  7. and people complained about cv rework…

    • Well, at least the sub wont be on the other side of the map while killing you… And its not like you cant dodge his torps. The only hard part really is finding the fucker. I dont have high hopes for this at all balance wise, but I would be lying if I said that I didnt want to play it.

    • @Ima Popo “And its not like you cant dodge his torps.” – homing torps in multiple spreads from different directions, as displayed in the video?

    • dodging them is probably not too hard for a well experienced DD player, but doing any kind of close torp evasion shenanigans in a cruiser or BB? nope. Looks to me like a BB will only be safe-ish with subs in the game, if a DD stays close to them to babysit, but if the DD does that, then who will do the other things the DD should do, like capping and scouting? WG has a lot of work ahead of them with this idea, I think…

    • Th. K. Can a battleship really dodge torps tho? No not really…

  8. probably will not see these things until mid to late 2020….. be patient and test the BLEEP out of them

    • They already tested it twice, once was an april fools joke, that the games coding could support the ship, second time was halloween special to test features.

      Now it is just fine tuning game play and which will fit in what tier.

    • I heard they also intend to release subs only for a special game mode, not any of the already existing game modes, at first and over a longer time period in order to observe and fix balancing and other issues before allowing subs in the other game modes, so a wait and see approach makes the most sense at this time, imho

    • Bert_the_Cosh ziggybass

      Ooooops!

    • Ahahahaha….oh wait you’re serious.

      Its Wargaming bro…you really think they’re going to be thorough or smart about this?

    • fine, still test the bleep out of it

  9. I do not like the ASW aspect. For one it seems to be pretty much just automated, but also it requires the DD to make themselves perma-spotted on purpose to try and have a chance at sinking the sub. That is such a bad idea. No one would want to do that.
    Imagine doing that when you are the only dd on your team. Suddenly every ship on the enemy team is targeting you and you have to bail or die. This model might work alright in a 1v1 DD against sub, but not if there is any kind of team support. Which, since everyone wants to kill the DD’s, there would be.

    • @Sawyer AWR what about the DDs that dont have enough torp range.U only responded to the arcade part.

    • That’s why cruisers and CVs should be able to do it too. Right now this is just overloading dds with tasks other ships just shoot each other while dds have to spot, cap and torp, hiw much you shoot depends on a lot of stuff and now a class appeared that only the dd can fight, and young can’t really do it when you are proxi spotted and focused.

    • I agree. As a dd i find that i have enough roles to fill and as wows is now im always 1st target no matter how damaged my teammates r

    • @Sawyer AWR that’s mainly because the US used Seaplanes for it’s anti sub warfare. That’s nothing to do with the fact that the ships came with anti sub armaments.

    • @TheyCallMe 47 That’s also wrong. CVE/DD hunting packs were a thing late war, but again, only 3-4 classes of cruiser in the entire war had full ASW suites and only a handful more had ASW armament of any kind. a CL is just too cumbersome to track a tightly maneuvering SS.

  10. Makes no sense if they keep the same game mode/maps. They should have like a convoy game mode. 1 team with dds try to protect the convoy and the subs team try to sink X amount of ships

  11. Yay, more automated rng based game modes….

  12. Oh wow …. I guess (at release) WoW will be based on CV’s and subs then, as any other class is nothing but a big pool of XP.
    Yes, I know its “work in progress”
    So, another task added on the DD’s “to do” list …. Yeah, why not, just need a new camo, one with a big red bulls-eye and a txt saying “Im here, shoot me”

    • Destroyers and Cruisers were, are and will always be the backbone of every navy. They are inexpensive, easy to build and in large numbers for flexibility and versatility. So if you want a single-role surface ship, play a Battleship and sniff glue at the edge of the map whit IQ below 35 whit the rest of the muppets that complain how hard an arcade game is as it requires you think think and breed at the same time…

    • @dominges Im not looking for a single-role ship, im looking for a balanced game, as it was in the “old” days with the Rock/paper/scissor concept.
      Look at the game today, here on the Asian server we have literally nobody playing the DD any longer, it is by big majority games that consist of 2 CV’s a side, one maybe 2 cruisers and the rest is battleships (AA build), who all cuddle up behind a rock or so far back that it appear they are looking for a different map.
      I can somehow not see how the introduction of a Sub class is going to resolve problems we see today…..
      ….. But as WG clearly have indicated “according to the spreadsheet we are having fun” ……
      So now we are getting Sub’s, more premium ship/sub sales and next I bet is Gold Ammo ….

    • @Claus Larsen oh i would take huge advantage of that with a DD, i would main a DD like i do on the american servers. Why because the versatility of a destroyer is amazing, yes is there more jobs for you to do yes.

      But you are often times the factor for a win.

      Setting smoke screens, screening your forces against other destroyers, blocking paths with tour torpedos. Going on stealth attacks by creeping close to your detection point to get a hogher percentage torpedo strike.

      And my prefered, playing the gun boat, sitting at 12 to 13kms in my grozovoi and burn you to death.

  13. Any similarity between WoW’S and WWII naval warfare is purely coincidental.

    • I know, its like WoWs is… a game….

    • @noobtotale hahaha you scrub you do know submarines sank more warships in world war 2 than battleships did? The only battleship to sink a carrier was the sharnhorst and gneisnau.

      There was 4 instances i can call off the top of my head where a submarine sank a carrier.

      And not from the same navies.

      Dont get your panties in a not, because something that should have been in the game is finally coming to it.

      Submarines control the seas and have been the biggest threat to anything on the surface since ww1.

    • @TheyCallMe 47 are you insane, taffy 3 was one in a million and showed the vast technology superiority of the us naval gunnary, as radar and advance firing controls was able to take 5 inch shells from the uss johnston to shell the torpedo decks of IJN CA
      The oxygen filled type 99 long lances exploded on impact the only ship that faced taffy 3 to have radar was the yamato, and its radar was from 1939, the advantage of taffy 3 is most of the force hid in smoke and water rain clouds that masked the ships, what the uss johnston did was suicidal but it worked. The example of this going wrong is the gneisnau and sharnhorst hunting down the curageous, and its 3 destroyer escorts from norway.

      Or hms warspite entering into norway and sinking 12 german destroyers with a single shot.

    • @robert goodman WWII submarines are ambush boats that need their target to be cruising right in front of them; put one in an actual battle, even a Wyoming can outrun her.

      So either WG can make subs incredibly boring, or incredibly game-breaking. There’s no good way to put them in.

  14. ASW looks like a dreadful mini game

    • @aBoogivogi : Submarines in WWII were limited by O2 as well, not just battery charge. The submarines of that time did not have CO2 scrubbers.

    • @aBoogivogi WW2 subs were DEFINITELY limited by O2 supply. Also, MUCH slower when submerged and as for ‘resting’ on the bottom, forget it – while it may have happened on the odd occasion, ‘the bottom’ in most areas of conflict was over 12,000 feet… 🙂

    • @steve Q I never said O2 supply wasn’t limited. I’m just saying of the two power was probably a far bigger issue than O2 given the battery technology available at the time. As for resting on the bottom obviously I wasn’t talking about the subs that were out at sea. I mean the ones operating closer to the shoreline. I know from people in the service that at least modern diesel/electric subs can do this as staying on the seabed is practical both for training and disaster simulation and because you need a smaller crew compliment on watch then if the sub is actually moving. I assume this means they can power down more stuff as well.

    • Beatings will continue until morale improves

    • looks more like another russian money scam grab with rng being the crack cocaine to me.

  15. surface speed is fine, but underwater is not. Subs use electric engines and they were like 10knots max.

  16. Just watched one of Drach’s videos on the development of ASW a few days ago, and literally one of the most efficient methods was to just steam away from the sub, as there was no hope it could keep pace with any surface vessel, including the USN Standard battleships. They definitely need to slow subs down from their current point.

  17. Too fast underwater. ASW needs a lot of work.

  18. Not to be the a critic but those speeds are not the ones that Uss cachalot had(even for a wip and a game as world of warships).That calls for an early fix(at least slower than that).Jeesus thats a fast boi for a sub.

  19. TimeLord Victorious

    Most cruisers had anti-sub capabilities, as well as aircraft carriers with depth charge bombers. There is plenty of historical sub counterplay, it’s just a matter of how well wargaming implements them.

    • @Sawyer AWR Agreed! Nowadays cruisers can do that but not WW2.

    • Yeah while that is true, it doesn’t mean that they were very effective. Even now in the modern era where we’ve had decades to develop anti submarine warfare, the only thing that can reliably and effectively take on a sub, is another sub.

    • TimeLord Victorious

      Inked With Blood
      A lot of things that weren’t very effective then are portrayed so now. Gun accuracy, sonar, radar, aircraft performance, torpedo reliability, ship speed, ship resilience, etc. most of these things are made to perform better in game because just that, it’s a game. Wargaming takes what exists, reworks it, then makes game features out of it putting historical accuracy on the back burner.

    • Incorrect on most cruisers. Only light cruisers carried ASW weapons. Heavy cruisers didn’t due to their speeds being relatively slow, and the majority of them lacking sonar.

    • @TimeLord Victorious You kinda missed the point what he was saying. Cruisers in WW2 were both too slow, and severely lacking in detection methods. Namely, the majority, save perhaps for a small handful of light cruisers, didn’t even have sonar.

  20. So now DDs have to hunt subs, contest caps, spot for the team, torpedo BBs and fight other DDs…… but CV players can’t control more then 1 squadron or control their ship? perfect WG logic!

    • I think they are going to add a depth charge squadron for the CV later on. I would like them to give cruisers (or at least some) slightly weaker depth charges.
      Right now the random battke meta is mostly populated by BBs so maybe subs are going to counter that a Little bit, although they obviously need a lot of balancing down the line

    • I really hated controlling 1 squadron from the CV

      And that is why I want the old tactical CV gameplay

      Oh I miss this tactical mode of it

    • @Flak 8 I actually stop playing CV after they change it. My CV just sit in port do nothing now

Leave a Reply

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