Submarines

[Crag_r 8,620]

And as i pointed out before, spawning submarines on their own next to the enemy is going to cause more issues.

 

If they spawn on the surface then by the height of some battleship masts and radar ect they are going to need to be 30Km or so away in order to not be spot. If they spawn underwater they will be at the mercy of enemy aircraft (like say if the enemy has carriers, cruiser or Battleships in their range) when closing that distance, one thing SH did not represent too well was the ability to spot them underwater. 

[JohnnyThunder 238]

That is very true. In Silent Hunter 4 as soon as you were just bellow the surface enemy planes could not see you, although their are mods to address this issue, I agree it is unrealistic, however I don't really know the exact amount of depth that a submarine can be spotted at, and dependent on the water, time of day and other factors, it can be very easy or very hard for enemy planes to spot you.

In the image you posted that submarine is fairly easy to spot, yet in a image like this:

You can imagine that if the periscope was down on this submarine, that target is going to be like finding a needle in a hey stack.

This is defiantly an issue that requires some balancing on the Dev's part. Personaly I don't think a submarine should be able to be spotted at anything less then 90 feet (30 meters) in the game, ever. But that is just how I would balence this issue, the Devs are of course free to do whatever they feel gives the game the right balance.

Also, with the idea about submarines being able to spawn wherever they like, I was thinking that they would always spawn underwater, maybe even that they would always spawn at test depth in order to give the impression that the submarine had sneaked into the battle zone before the battle started and had gotten itself into a good position to attack when the battle starts, and was not able to be detected until of course, enemy ships or planes detect the submarine.

With the limitation of say, not being able to spawn with-in 8000 yards (7300 meters) of the enemy base and say about 4500 yards (4100 meters) from any enemy ship of battle formation, players could just spawn themselves ahead of the enemy task force and be well within attack range within the first 7 minutes of game play. It would totally work.



 

[Crag_r 8,620]

That that means that potentially some of the larger ships are going to be stealth killed within the first 7 minutes of the game, they would have the highest repair cost as well. That does not really seem to be too beneficial to the game. I mean there is a very good reason as to why most other PVP warship and submarine games have failed in the past.

[JohnnyThunder 238]

So first submarines were too weak? Now they are too OP?

This is sounds more like a personal issue with submarines, rather then an objective analysis of whether or not they should be in the game.

Edit: You yourself have stated all the things that a submarine will need to put up with in order to even get into range of a battleship or carrier. If a submariner is able to dodge all that, don't you think they deserve to sink a battleship or carrier?

One torpedo is not going to be enough to sink a battleship or carrier in most cases, I think the Yamamoto took 17 torpedoes before it keeled over, but if the escorts don't do their jobs, and their air cover fails miserably, yeah I'm gonna sink your battleship.

Which is why I stated before that escorts will most likely seek out submarines first and try and sink them, it's what destroyers were designed to do. They aren't designed to take on battleships or cruisers, destroyers were designed to sink submarines, it's why they were created in the first place.

Edited December 13, 2013 by JohnnyThunder

[Crag_r 8,620]

Not at all, just the idea of having them camp around a spawn does not seem to fix the issue either. Its like saying that carriers will be so unbalanced they will have to start the match already in range of enemy guns, or that we need to spawn a Sabre right in a Chaikias gun sight.

 

Now to note as well with torpedoes we are talking about airborne dropped vs surface/subsurface launched, the airborne ones often packing considerably less payload.

 

And also to note that Destroyers are not primarily designed for ASW, though that is the role they were often forced into. They are designed to screen from enemy torpedo boats, then they took that role attempting to force the line of battle to displace against with massed torpedo strikes while been able to suppress enemy fire on the way in. Like that of Taffy 3 or Bismarck skirmishes... Destroyers actually going toe to toe with much heavier units. Then an anti aircraft role as they were relatively hard to hit with airborne strikes and could often mount a notable dual purpose battery. The ASW role was given to them due to their speed and maneuverability, primary ASW was often given to Aircraft as well as Corvettes and Frigates.

 

...Hence the name [Torpedo boat] Destroyer

 

Forcing Destroyers to focus on ASW will mean that they are unable to do their primary function.

[JohnnyThunder 238]

I guess the makes sense, I always assumed destroyers were intentionally made to combat submarines because they seem to be the best unit for the task. They are the fastest, the hardest to hit, and the most well armed, but what you said, when I consider that Silent Hunter's deck gun is notoriously over powered, makes sense.

All that means though is that instead of destroyers being the primary ASW unite, Frigates, Corvettes and airplanes would be. Which as we know, all of those have been confirmed to be in the game.

 

[Crag_r 8,620]

Yeah, another issue with the SH series with the Deck gun.

 

IRL if a submarine is on the surface in range of the enemy guns its dead, it does not have the surface maneuverability, armor or speed to avoid counter fire.

[JohnnyThunder 238]

I think they did that because of 8 years old's like myself, when I played the original Silent Hunter, I couldn't do a torpedo solution to save my life, so all I did in that game was sink ships with the deck gun.

Edited December 13, 2013 by JohnnyThunder

[catastrophy 25]

Not at all, just the idea of having them camp around a spawn does not seem to fix the issue either. Its like saying that carriers will be so unbalanced they will have to start the match already in range of enemy guns, or that we need to spawn a Sabre right in a Chaikias gun sight.

 

Now to note as well with torpedoes we are talking about airborne dropped vs surface/subsurface launched, the airborne ones often packing considerably less payload.

 

And also to note that Destroyers are not primarily designed for ASW, though that is the role they were often forced into. They are designed to screen from enemy torpedo boats, then they took that role attempting to force the line of battle to displace against with massed torpedo strikes while been able to suppress enemy fire on the way in. Like that of Taffy 3 or Bismarck skirmishes... Destroyers actually going toe to toe with much heavier units. Then an anti aircraft role as they were relatively hard to hit with airborne strikes and could often mount a notable dual purpose battery. The ASW role was given to them due to their speed and maneuverability, primary ASW was often given to Aircraft as well as Corvettes and Frigates.

 

...Hence the name [Torpedo boat] Destroyer

 

Forcing Destroyers to focus on ASW will mean that they are unable to do their primary function.

The submarine is actually a sort of torpedo boat.

[Crag_r 8,620]

The submarine is actually a sort of torpedo boat.

 

No.

[JohnnyThunder 238]

http://youtu.be/zm0ZQfzN7yI?t=25m52s

Edited December 18, 2013 by JohnnyThunder

[Tarskin 1,496]

I am sorry to say this but submarines have no place in the open seas engagements that the majority of the naval battles are (Historically, there was only 1 such engagement where a submarine engaged and sank a warship and that is already questionable as they just waited in a 'passing' between two islands while the surface fleet forced the hostiles to move towards said 'passing').

 

I have suggested what MadWolf said before in this thread and that is that the only way to make submarines viable in this game would be to introduce a unique mode called 'convoys' where FF, DD,  CL and MAC/CVE ships have to protect a convoy from several subs. This mode could have the convoy starting at point A and has the objective to get at least 50% of the transports to point B, the submarines could then 'spawn' in a certain corridor/area along the path (not close to A at all however, to allow the convoy group to get in positions).

[Solid_Snake01 974]

Truth is for you to shoot a torpedo you have to be a certain depth.

[Madwolf 10,218]

Truth is for you to shoot a torpedo you have to be a certain depth.

 

Not true. You can still shoot down to a certain depth from most areas these subs can go. The Germans actually attacked most convoys on the surface when they could avoid the warships.

[Crag_r 8,620]

Not true. You can still shoot down to a certain depth from most areas these subs can go.

 

Well there would be various pressurization issues with what ever type of Torpedo ram was used when attempting a launch from below "attack" (periscope) depth meaning that the torpedo would not make it out of the tube or worse a tube door failure. Then there are the notoriously faulty depth keeping devices from all sides that would only have issues exacerbated to the point of failure if the torps had to climb to running depth from 200 meters or so. And finally there is the issue of actually hitting anything, all torpedoes of the time required a visual bearing and ranging for accurate fire, when ever either German or US captains attempted to try a blind fire based on active or passive sonar alone even with the use of acoustic homing torpedoes always ended in a non-hit.

 

So typically they were limited to attack depth - surface torpedo launches.

[Solid_Snake01 974]

Well there would be various pressurization issues with what ever type of Torpedo ram was used when attempting a launch from below "attack" (periscope) depth meaning that the torpedo would not make it out of the tube or worse a tube door failure. Then there are the notoriously faulty depth keeping devices from all sides that would only have issues exacerbated to the point of failure if the torps had to climb to running depth from 200 meters or so. And finally there is the issue of actually hitting anything, all torpedoes of the time required a visual bearing and ranging for accurate fire, when ever either German or US captains attempted to try a blind fire based on active or passive sonar alone even with the use of acoustic homing torpedoes always ended in a non-hit.

 

So typically they were limited to attack depth - surface torpedo launches.

I also forgot the torpedos are somewhat slow just watch a torpedo plane drop one in the water its slow the chance of missing is high unless your close.

[MrBossMan 11]

Myself i am not sure that subs will fit into this game. I can see to many balance problems tbh Hunting down AI subs in missions maybe but playable i don't think will work.

[Ghost0616 7]

if submarines are introduced then it will be very great as it will become very interesting to play.WW2 was the war in which most submarines took part and were sunk

especially German ones.But submarines will be hard to control and map design for them will be a tough challenge for Gaijin. As submarine fight under water it will be difficult to make their maps. But we can hope that Gaijin will introduce   submarines.

[II_RED_II 6,672]

if wargaming put subs in world of warship gaijin would have no choice

i guess we have to wait and hope competition does its job

[Crag_r 8,620]

if wargaming put subs in world of warship gaijin would have no choice

i guess we have to wait and hope competition does its job

 

WarGamming have said no repeatedly to adding them. And if they add subs badly it would be more reason not to have them here...

[II_RED_II 6,672]

what exactly would be the problem with subs

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmXHqtvhw0E

 

tell me what's wrong with this

 

i don't get why people don't want them they nearly change history in ww2

[duza9999 18]

Just have them work like Battle Stations Pacific run on the surface while out of combat and dive when you need to.

[Crag_r 8,620]

what exactly would be the problem with subs

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmXHqtvhw0E

 

tell me what's wrong with this

 

i don't get why people don't want them they nearly change history in ww2

 

Well one of the big things is notice its underwater speed?  Notice it simply batting away destroyer fire and still fully operational? Notice it simply batting away bombs and staying afloat? Notice it simply surfacing and diving in seconds? Notice how its somehow invisible to all the enemies while been quite shallow? Notice how it can be on the surface only a few KM away from the enemy carrier group?

 

If it was realistic that submarine would have not got in range of the first few ships in that 12 minutes let alone survive the aircraft. AND if it even though of surfacing it would be dead in seconds.

 

That level of realism is a joke by WG standards, I don't think that sort of balancing will happen here...

 

The reason why people don't want subs is that they are horrific to balance and not as fun as you would think PVP against warships. Adding submarines is quite a complex task if you want a shred of realism...

[TheSleeper 17]

what exactly would be the problem with subs

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmXHqtvhw0E

 

tell me what's wrong with this

 

i don't get why people don't want them they nearly change history in ww2

For starters there is no fog of war if a sub can be invisible 200 meters down as mentioned before how can they see a ship while under water and 500-10,000 meters away from it. If like suggested before a ship can be a “needle in a hey stack” from a 10 meters down then should the ship showing up at 500 meters be a needle in 50 “hey stacks”?

 

Point 2 the torpedoes instantly detected the ship and course corrected to hit it and continued to track it even though the sub should not be able to see it.

 

Point 3 As mentioned before a sub can basically kill ONE thing then they are done that does not make a good game playing a whole match to kill one ship.

 

Point 4 in ability to target the wider field, bombers can target Air, land and sea. Tanks can target planes with AAA, tanks with cannons and arty strikes, and ships with cannons and arty strike’s While subs can only target ships and not all ships ships that are slow and don’t have sonar. Sub scope is way too limited to be useful.

 

Point 5 Subs will not add much and we will have random people taking up space not helping there team win trolling around in the water thinking they are doing ”awesome” when in fact they are mostly waiting there time. Get 4-5 “leet” sub pilots on your team and you may have to fight 10 planes/tanks with your 5 planes/tanks all the while the guy’s in the subs saying stop sucking I am doing my part do yours.

 

Point 6 Effort put into making a very small part of the game playable would be better put into making the already existing parts better planes and tanks are both going to need a lot of work.

 

point 7 At 9 knots it takes a sub 3:36 to cover each Km of distance that's 25:20 to cover a short 7 km while making the most noise they can. Spawning at close range to large ships puts the large ship at a disadvantage.

 

Point 8 at 52 knots it still takes a bit more then 37 seconds for a torpedo to cover 1 km distance. Giving even a BS a lot of time to move out the way.

 

Point 9 using a player vs. bad AI as an example why you should do PVP is just bad.

 

Point 10 That game has you deluded that sub should of died quickly in a game that is balanced similar to how it was historically would see you die a lot and not wanting to play your sub.

 

Point 11 There's already a game where you can play a sub its right there in that video.

 

 

Subs make as much sense as nuclear weapons. Sure they were there and they changed the course of the war but glass cannon’s don't make for good play.

[TheD3rp 1,269]

Well one of the big things is notice its underwater speed?  Notice it simply batting away destroyer fire and still fully operational? Notice it simply batting away bombs and staying afloat? Notice it simply surfacing and diving in seconds? Notice how its somehow invisible to all the enemies while been quite shallow? Notice how it can be on the surface only a few KM away from the enemy carrier group?

 

If it was realistic that submarine would have not got in range of the first few ships in that 12 minutes let alone survive the aircraft. AND if it even though of surfacing it would be dead in seconds.

 

That level of realism is a joke by WG standards, I don't think that sort of balancing will happen here...

 

The reason why people don't want subs is that they are horrific to balance and not as fun as you would think PVP against warships. Adding submarines is quite a complex task if you want a shred of realism...

A while back when I was playing SH4, I attacked an IJN task force(With most of the realism settings on), sunk a Kongo and a Fuso, and successfully got away.

Edited January 12, 2014 by TheD3rp