World of Warships – Submarines Coming in 0.9.4 – Thoughts from PTS

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (415 votes, average: 4.84 out of 5)

With subs coming to the live server in patch 0.9.4 in the form of submarine battles, here’s some thoughts when I tried them on the PTS server. Definitely some improvements over the previous version, but more work needs to be done.


  1. Sorry if there’s any audio glitches during this video. Had to try out Krisp AI as a way to try and mitigate some background noise from my neighbours…loud af during the day T_T also reason for my horrible middle of the night streaming times. But hopefully you all get a sense of what subs are like in the PTS, the good and the bad and what possibly needs to be done next

    • @Christopher Wilson i believe they dont unless on surface

    • so if your sub hunting ships die quickly, because the still unbalanced CV’s will just take them out at the beginning of the game, then the subs have no counter at all… and to be able to fire torpedoes from multiple depths, is just wrong… they are re-introducing stealth firing that they removed from destroyers, years ago…

    • Soviet heal means the deep diver consumables downside ia nullified

    • “WG learned their lesson” you know that this sentence doesnt make any sense whatsoever? Do you rember the Naival training center fiasco? Did they learned from it , no , they just put the legendary upgrades into it , making exactly what they wanted in the first place and everybody just …. Same thing is with PR BS .

    • @mowtow90 that’s the whole point. they never learned from wot and they are doing the same with wows.

  2. Big Boy Of Boys

    “Torpedoes will ignore intended game play style “

  3. Ichase hoping Wargaming learned from the CV rework! Oh you sweet summer child 😉

    • I for one am hoping there’s a class of submarines that will present an effective counter to carriers. Probably the American class since they have the speed boost. If you think about the current meta, competent CV players are impossible to counter. Perhaps the American subs, with their speed boost, will make CV players worry for a change

    • @7th Legion no they aren’t, there’s a thing called AA

    • @Randallator
      Go ahead. Tell me about this AA, can it shoot down a whole squad before it can attack? Does this mythical DFAA consumable do anything? Do carriers even notice that ships have AA? All to shoot down planes that regen with AA mounts that suffer permanent damage l

    • Lord of Lasagne

      @Anivicuno Yes it absolutely can. I started playing CV and am only up to t8 so far but I can tell you a few things (because you probably didn’t play them yourself): you don’t get more than two squadrons of each type at the start. While you do generate some more during the match, this is so slow that you effectively only have two squadrons of a type during one game. So it is still very possible to deplane a CV. And yes, AA is working very good. If you attack a bb with good AA , you’re going to lose more than half of your squadron. Yes, you’ll get one drop through, but it isn’t worth risking a quarter or more of my available planes just for that. And you can be sure I’m not going to attack any ship that is together with 2 or more other ships, because than my planes get shredded and I’m done. So yes, aa works, very effectively even, but you won’t be able to shred a whole squadron just with your ship alone. So if you get killed by a CV next time instead of saying “CV OP PLS NERF” maybe think about if you were a little alone somewhere on the map, if you could have dodged better, etc. Because CV really isn’t a “play this and instawin class as much as most people tend to think.
      Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

    • @Anivicuno I’ve had even the Bismarck take out a full squadron before I can launch 1 attack, so yes we do notice, if anything AA needs nerfing

  4. I have no faith at all in this.

    80% of my clan (including me) plays this game for the “gunboat” action. If we’d wanted to play subs then there are better games out there.

    • @iChaseGaming And so WG gives up the biggest advantage they have, a unique game. I know WG wont be able to balance this because its “unbalancable” due to the nature of a submarine. If WG had listened when they first popped the idea then they might not had pourded all that money into someting that, in my mind, will kill the game. “It’s cold outside. Dont lick the ironfence.” WG: “Wooo. Ironfence!”

    • @Dustin Spiegel I am. It’s called “World of Warships.”

    • @Hans Hedén Weird. None of the descriptions call it a “gun boat” game. “World of Warships is a naval action MMO, dipping into the world of large-scale sea battles of the first half of the twentieth century. ” – according to the wiki.

    • @Dustin Spiegel Battleships are “Ships of the line”. CVs and subs didn’t come into main use untill the last quater of the first half of the twentieth century. So 3/4 of the timeperiod you mention is “Gunboats”.

    • @Hans Hedén That’s weird. Pearl Harbor was an attack by CV Aircraft in 1941. Also, the Germans employed the use of submarines in in WW1 to blockade Britian so between 1914 and 1918. If the century is 1900 to 2000 wouldnt that be in first and second quarter?

  5. Leonard Collins

    In before “The Great Submarine Rework Of 2021”.

    • I don’t know why they would want to put submarines on the live server, it’s broken in so many ways.

  6. Simple comment. 12 ships per team is too few adding a 5th class of ship. There needs to be an increase in the number of boats per team in random battles prior to Subs being in game, say 15 vs 15 or something.

    • With the way WG programs things, i wouldnt be surprised if the engine cant handle more players in a game

  7. If WG wanna add subs, then they should increase the number of players to 14 per team.

    • And thereby increase the time it takes to get a game going? No thank you. Just limit the number of subs in a battle to one. Or just don’t play submarine mode.

  8. Personally, i am not enthusiastic about it especially as someone who play a lot of destroyers and battleship, as a destroyer player, they are already stretched so thin without subs into the mix. Between spotting, capping , hunt other dd, harrass ships, spot torpedoes for battleship all the while avoid he spamming ships, radar ships and carrier plus will a pure gunboat and highly detectable dd like a khab , haragumo or Kleber be willing to hunt those subsmarine vs a stealthy shimakaze? And on a battleship perspective, those that will suffer the most are ww1 era 21 knots dreadnought who are expected to fend off guided torpedoes that are more in line with mark 48. especially considering that these subs do not even have their historical speed

    Personally, i would remove either the guided torpedoes, or give them their historical speed and the torpedoes in order to home would need to double ping the target, and it will not bypass any torpedoes reduction system ,i think it would be more fair in my opinion. To be honest, i would be content without subs.

    I will probably keep playing in random and pve while there is no sub then reevaluate my options once the subs get shoved into random, whether i keep playing, stick to pve or simply take my leave.

    • Some random guy from the beyond

      lets be real Submarines do not and can not fit with the core gameplay of WoWs

    • They originally were going to have real speed but testers said they were boring to play so the made them more like modern subs

    • @Some random guy from the beyond They could if they were reasonably realistic to WW II era subs maybe fudging underwater speeds some.

    • @SNIPERFILMS I get that but Torps shouldn’t home fire spreads say 4 to 6 torps, re-load kind of slow but make them harder to kill but let depth charges be more speculative with limited uses say 3 volleys for cruisers, a couple extra for destroyers. You use them they are gone out of ammo.

    • can we make torpedo more realistic like the WW2 ones where some turn around and sink the sub that fired it. example like USS Tang SS-306

  9. Josh VerSchneider

    BBs are really going to sit at the back now.

  10. i played a few matches as sub and have to say it gets really boring after a short while. and its just a terrible experience if you are a bb.
    i sure hope they get their own game mode, they are by far no fleshed out enough to be in the main game / game modes.

  11. CV’s being able to drop sonar buoy’s from planes would help solve the end game sub issues.

    • You’re expecting the majority of CV players to spend time hunting for subs in a support role when they can just fly around and blap stuff for damage…

    • Matthew Carberry first one was used in July 1942 and earlier versions of radio bouts in the 40’s. I’m driving the Friesland commissioned in 1951 so the time frames work out.

    • Matthew Carberry

      @MMShaggy The acoustic homing torps they are using are well beyond historical WWII tech in actual practice, the sonobuoys should be too, is my point.

    • Matthew Carberry oh yeah, I see now that I went back and read it again. My bad.

    • Matthew Carberry

      @MMShaggy No worries, I was surprised sonobuoys went back that far.

  12. Subs being the last alive and left to decide the match will be a huge problem.

  13. Ree! No one will play BB anymore!

    Hmm, think i heard that phrase since game launch.

  14. I just don’t trust WG to not turn sub into another kind of power creep.

  15. Jugoslav Cvitkovac

    Homing torpedoes….. baaad idea man. this is game breaking mechanic. i really dont like this.

  16. Navy Field vet here, too. Subs were terribly implemented in that game.

  17. US BBs get historically accurate 21 knot speed – subs travel twice faster than they ever could in WW2. Is called balans. WG garbage …again

    • Fluffy Slippers

      This has been in my top 3 huge issues with this sub fiasco. This game has the same balance as a capsized ship. Its still afloat, its just upside down like WGs thinking

  18. Kevin Reed-Jones

    So: unbalanced, bugged, screwing game dynamics. Hence perfect for WG.
    After the CVs rework, Russian bias, Puerto Rico, etc., WG intend to gift us with one more pearl.
    Time to change game, sadly.
    Thx for your vids iC!

  19. They should add a vote option to surrender based on the consensus of the majority of players in a team so that battles that are lost causes won’t waste players’ time.

  20. Albert Einstein

    Why they don’t add depth charges to planes that are mounted on battleships? That would be consumable

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.