World of Warships – Subs and Carriers

9,181 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (434 votes, average: 4.76 out of 5)
Loading...

Close ×

Discussing the recent video releases for submarines and carriers with some thoughts on both situations. Hope you have a wonderful day and I’ll catch you next time!

Tier X Replay

https://playtogether.worldofwarships.com/invite/OwzqAkj – Warships Friend Invite

https://discord.gg/33xzEjR – Discord Server

Related Rage!

57 Comments:

  1. Hey, is this notser?

  2. Submarine hype!!!

  3. I absolutely love this! Submarines if done right could be amazing. I use to play silent hunter like crazy as a kid. Subs can provide a viable alternative to those pesky island camping DMs.

    • SecretIdentity well, closer it is, more dangerous it is.

    • Agreed! This is some serious progression and I really appreciate that. This will be so f***ing cool if they can make this right and really listen to testers and the community. I’m super excited about hunting in my ninja boat under the ocean. DD’s were kind of Ninjas, but really not that great. These are true assassins.

    • Franklin Van Valkenburg

      Am I the only one who thinks that the submarine players will become the island campers themselves?

    • I so hope they make it Into the game. People like us will be the ones missing out when they don’t get into the game due to all the anti submarine players…

    • Damn… The fucking silent hunter franchise. Whatever happened to that… loved that shit when i was young

  4. I want uboats now

    • The biggest problem I can see is really obvious: of the nations currently represented in WoWS, how many have a well-developed line of submarines?

      (1) US of A. Has the most logical progression of steps between classes, perhaps minus the Narwhal; has no less than 20 classes of ship, picking the arbitrary start date of 1914. That’s 10 more than the Tier System allows for.

      (2) Germany has a similar number of base classes (approximately 20) with multiple variations on “Key” designs, like the Type VII.

      (3) Japan had over 20 types, from Heavy subs to Midget Subs.

      (4) The British had 8 main classes of combat submarine, and then several special purpose mini or midget subs.

      The remainder of the combatants …? Used derivatives of these types, or used the decommissioned subs of WW1.

    • Underbird [former X8X8]

      Sadly, historical strength hasn’t stopped Wargaming so far, just take a look at all the paper ships.
      They will find a way to fill the tech tree, the bigger questions is how subs, who rarely worked in conjunction with a fleet, work in the game.

  5. Underbird [former X8X8]

    Not a big fan of these changes, to be honest.
    If there is anything this game needs then it’s a more strategic and open gameplay (think of the Silent Hunter series), not more toys to seal club

    • Underbird [former X8X8]agreed. They haven’t even waited for the dust to settle with these new CV changes, but let’s start a new class and see if it balances out.

    • Nota fan of the new CV gameplay they simply could have rebalanced them, RTS is a better way to play carrier than this “third person/action” gameplay. I want my free XP and my coins back that I invested in the CV-lines

    • I agree, what I’d have done with the CV “rework” would be to A. reduce high tier CV hangars, B. buff DD AA/give them a special Def AA that just buffs DPS so they can defend themselves and kill spotters without scattering drops, C. reduce DD air detection range so they can always fight back if a plane spots them, and D. nerf the CV T9-10 upgrade slots that increase strike plane HP.

    • Tiago Casquinho I was expecting change, but keeping the rts for cv. I have the Kaga and Saipan and I’m looking forward to selling them if they offer a buyback.

    • I play all other class than “CV”, in all of them I don’t bother put any perks for AA, because the CV games are so rare so hydro-acoustic is more useful that defAA, an I’m play in EU server. Something is wrong if CV is so much powerful than everything else, so why there are only a few players? Is it too hard to play for someone who can’t do multiple thing in same time? Either you are good or bad, but there is no average between them.

  6. Im worrying about performance, and I bet a lot of you are as well. Adding underwater layer to every single map in the game and water transparency will cause performance drop by at least some amount.

    • I wouldn’t worry too much
      Water is already sort of transparent on the surface and doesn’t need to be changed (you’re not supposed to see DDs that are underwater)
      There is already an underwater layer (though it will need to be made a bit more complex)
      Surface ships won’t need to render anything underwater more than they already do
      Seeing underwater adds a render distance, so you can’t see the whole map unlike how you can at the surface (so being underwater might improve performance)

      Of course I don’t know how much they’ll change, but I’m guessing that there won’t be many change to performance. I could easily be wrong, though, so only time will tell.

  7. Carriers should have a limited amount of planes.
    Otherwise it’ll just be a spam fiesta.

    • Destroyers should have a limited number of torpedoes Otherwise it’ll just be a spam fiesta.

      (Or we can make it a game, and allow DD’s and CV’s to participate for more than 6 minutes.)

    • The carrier should stay real-time-strategy, it suits him more, otherwise you are not playing as a carrier commander but as a plane commander

    • the new CVs will definitely need a plane cap, theres nothing reducing their effectiveness into the lategame past where current CVs would run out of planes. There’s also no anti-CV counterplay for a CV player, you push fighter consumable and pray the AI doesn’t mess up, you can’t manually protect your team like you can with the RTS.

  8. imagine that situation: there is one submarine left in team 1 and one battleship in team 2. how the heck could battleship win this fight without deep charges? this is what i’m worring about

    • same problem with DD. They would just fire torp, then move behind island or simply wait for ambush then run off because Bb is so big and sluggish, slow and heavy, can’t even maneuver to dodge or chase down a DD that play catchy catchy chasy chasy sinky sinky.

      Sub are slow when they are submerge, maybe even slower than a bb. Atleast BB can chase them down with “Absolute acquisition range”, unlike DD with their superior speed.

    • You will also have to consider that submarine will have absolute horrible vision due to their low “vantage point” or something i forgot the name, even worse when using scope. They NEED someone to spot for them, and they can’t even spot without being too conspicuous when there are absolutely nothing in spotting range.

      Imagine a Kurfust, or any tier 8 and above German ship…They would just fire up a Hydro and simply “Oh ho ho, imma getchu, imma get chu” and sub will have no way to out run a 2 minute hydro.

    • well i didn’t take that in count

    • remember, if you suddenly see torp pattern that look like UK destroyer or UK CL lines but there are nothing of that type around, it’s a sub nearby, better fire up those hydro lol.

      I seriously hope they would let CA take both DFAA AND Hydro if they intent to put subs in the game. Because having to deal with CV and DD then a Sub is just too much for CA to handle.

    • Bbs are faster than subs. The battlesheep will just chase down the sub until the latter’s O2 runs out

  9. We’re trying to add a very slow paced ship into a higher paced game. This won’t or can’t work and it will simply make ships camp harder Notser. Not break up the logjam.

    • I think you’ve got this backwards — the slowness of Subs doesn’t make them unplayable, or the game too slow. *This is the best way to rebalance Radar* and the *only* way to make it fair is to spawn the Subs in the front of the team.

      Subs don’t need speed to get into position — the enemy team is already pointing at them, and coming their way. They only need to be able to *FLANK* once in a while, to get a better angle for torpedoes, and that’s that. This won’t make people camp harder; at least, *it won’t make DDs and CLs camp harder than they already do,* and in fact, will force them to move more than they already do. *LULZ*

    • +Tripp Corbin and this is a problem. You practically have to give them abilities almost on par with fast attack subs.

    • +jamespfp no it will make it so BBs won’t go anywhere near those areas and then with no backup cruisers will hide way the hell away from those areas and you’ll end up with people camping near the back till the subs are ferreted out.

      You guys really think this is going to force more mobile close range combat? With more threats that can’t be seen?

      You’re absolutely out of your mind.

      But DD mains might be happy since they can go about doing as they like without interference.

      Like Notser said. As a campaign or mode on its own, subs could be ok. In standard battle, it turns into a fuster cluck.

    • The top speed of a wwii era sub was no more than 20 knots, so after the initial rush they’d be struggling to keep up with everyone else

    • +Danny Perez wasn’t till the experimental USS Albacore(which had no torpedo tubes mind you) that tested the tear drop shape all subs use today that subs truly got fast above and below the water.

  10. I agree. When I heard that WG said they’d never put subs in the game, I straight up just didn’t believe that. I knew they’d come eventually.

  11. They need to fix the radar and hydro problem that they can see through solid objects like ilands.

  12. Tbh I think they are worried Submarines will brake the game and make people leave, like it did in Navy Field 1 and 2 . But I guess since they have issues figuring our carriers they want to try something else. It’s that 5th class conundrum. Like Artillery in World of Tanks. I just hope carriers wont disappear and exchanged with submarines.

    • what about steel ocean no problems there

    • Navy Field 2 I’d not count in here because in the end it was just crappy attempt of bringing NF into WoT format except they made claustrophobic maps ontop of all other changes….

      as for NF1 their sub implementation was fairly decent with only one issue – due to how high level meta was panning out the only real counter to a sub – was a nother sub – and best sub at that would be german sub because of proximity fuse torpedoes being unique german gimmick.

      now how it’d compare in WoWs scenario – if we assume WoWs decide to pretty much copy past the solutions of NF1 for subs (could be a case considering what we’ve seen so far – oxygen tank running out, 3 states of submerge (surfaced, periscope deptht, deep dive) there is one big factor that changes WoWs situation drastically in ASW warfare – the ships that were actually built for ASW are present in high tier meta of WoWs – NF1 high tiers do not have any DDs nor light cruisers (and no one bring them to end game battles because they are being oneshot by blockshotting BBs)

      they have a chance to work well, and personally I am curious how it will pan out

  13. Personally I do not want subs. I like the surface actions. I am wondering if the new subs in the Halloween event are really being used as a test platform for the new plane controls that are coming with the CV rework. I mean a plane and a sub move very similarly.

    • its not the planes cant go up and down on command the submarine mechanic is made for submarines

      the planes only have 2 modes of flight

      dropping mode they fly to the sea level or fly up to drop bombs and then reticle shows and u drop

      submarines go up and down and STAY there

  14. US CAs and CLs, or any CL for that matter, camp behind islands because they CANNOT take a hit from most Battleships.. they don’t have the armor thickness to bow tank the BB 16 inch shells… That’s Why they hide behind islands, playing out in the open is right next to impossible.

    • ARC I have to disagree with you. Cruisers don’t camp behind islands because they can’t take hits. They’re cruisers. They should never be able to take hits from BB guns. Ships that hide and fight from behind islands, do so *because they can* !!! Who wouldn’t want to be able to shoot at the enemy without being seen or being able to be shot at? Some cruisers can’t do this because their shell velocities are too high and shell arcs too low to easily clear many islands.

      Cruisers *can* fight in the open. Will they occasionally deleted or take heavy damage, etc.? Of course. Will they be more vulnerable to heavy damage than battleships? Of course. That’s the nature of the beast. Cruisers were never meant to be able to “repel firepower of that magnitude” (to quote Admiral Akbar). But good cruiser drivers can make their ships more difficult to hit when they learn combat maneuvers, i.e. good dodging and annoying speed changes. Some cruisers with particularly good acceleration can be shockingly difficult to hit when the player sits still at a pretty good range and all but dares you to shoot at him. That player will instantly go forward or back when he sees you shoot at him, and as long as the distance and shell flight time is great enough, they’ll just move out of the way of your shells and laugh at you. (Been there, done that, and missed those guys often enough.)

      Furthermore, the simplest answer to why people hide behind islands is because they can. Put islands on any map and someone will try to use that terrain to their advantage, which means hiding behind it completely or maybe just use the island to limit the number of enemies that can shoot at them. (The latter is more common, IMO.)

    • crucisnh Try playing a USN cruiser in ocean. With no island cover, your effectiveness instantly reduces by 50%. Technically any ship can do anything they want because they can. There is nothing stopping a battleship from rushing into a cap 3mins into the game and show broadside or a dd rushing into radar cruisers, it just does not end well for them or do the team any good. It is not that they CAN hide behind islands, but it is be the only effective strategy for some cruisers.

    • Crucisnh
      Go play Cleveland, or Baltimore on Ocean with a bunch of battleships on the enemy team.. and tell me how the fuck you like it.. CRUISERS CAN NOT BOW TANK.. THEREFORE THEY MUST USE ISLANDS TO SURVIVE.. Don’t believe me? Go fucking try it.

  15. Instead of forcing subs on us to address the camping radar ship meta, why not just fix radar. Line of sight radar and the campers stop camping

    • Exactly my thought!!!!

    • Subs might kinda make camping worse, except instead of island camping it would be as far in open water as possible so subs couldn’t close the distance while underwater and would have to leave their arses in the breeze to get close enough to torp something.

  16. Notser? Seriously? The CV gameplay looks absolutely horrible… There is 0 verticality, you have utter crap of control over the hull, you have NO damage control party, the camera is all over the place (especially after you execute the drop) the aiming reticules that you get in the “drop” don’t line up with those you get in the normal view, TX CVs don’t have infinite planes (according to the latest info) the whole summon magic fighters thing… And the action that is happening outside of the camera? Have you even watched the whole video wg leaked? When you execute the last drop or when your squadron gets wiped out, the camera simply cuts off to the hull with not a second to spare… And you can absolutely see the effects of defensive AA consumable… The reticules don’t get smaller the longer you hold the drop, or you get the wide spread drop pattern…

  17. How about we wait and see how it actually works before condemning it. Not like WG has ever messed up the introduction of new content before. ….um…oh…I eeeee ah…um…yeah.
    Seriously though I would like to see anything that can stop the higher tier campfests. I am hopeful that subs could help. All we can do is wait and see.

  18. Why should people who sail soft, easily citadeled ships not be allowed to use the landscape and distance to their advantage just because you prefer open water aggression Notser?

  19. No to subs. We have enough stealth torp flingers as it is.

  20. Looking forward to the sub hopefully they will give the war in the Atlantic some focus in the game. With the CV’s I know they are going to rework ship AA but I hope they will not have the AA being knocked out as it is now vs unlimited planes? Also with unlimited planes how do you balance the number of planes carried (Uk CV’s had less planes but where far tougher due to the environment they where designed for with US and Japanese CV focusing more on deep water combat so could carry more planes)?

Leave a Reply

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