Submarines

[Crag_r 8,620]

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.

 

How long did that mission take?

[TheD3rp 1,269]

How long did that mission take?

Roughly 10 minutes.

[Crag_r 8,620]

Roughly 10 minutes.

 

Time compression? Realistic torpedo reload time?

[TheD3rp 1,269]

Time compression? Realistic torpedo reload time?

I would actually bump it up to 20 minutes, the Kongo went down from two torpedoes, while the Fuso took the other 3(One missed).

[Crag_r 8,620]

I would actually bump it up to 20 minutes, the Kongo went down from two torpedoes, while the Fuso took the other 3(One missed).

 

How close were you spawned to the enemy?

[TheD3rp 1,269]

How close were you spawned to the enemy?

It was in actual gameplay, I was headed to do a photo recon mission in Japan when I stumbled across the task force.

Edited January 12, 2014 by TheD3rp

[Crag_r 8,620]

It was in actual gameplay, I was headed to do a photo recon mission in Japan when I stumbled across the task force.

 

Ok, so how close were you when you first detected them? 

[TheD3rp 1,269]

Ok, so how close were you when you first detected them? 

I can't remember that, this was from a little over a year ago.

[Crag_r 8,620]

I can't remember that, this was from a little over a year ago.

 

And is that 10-20mins actually with them in sight in the periscope or from first detection?

 

Because most of the challenge that a submarine will face is actually getting to target, not when it gets there.

[Tarskin 1,496]

I can't believe that people are still arguing that they want submarines in... they are useless in fleet actions due to their entire concept. I mean the fact that submarines have never successfully taken part in any open waters engagement says enough (Battle of Leyte Gulf doesn't count since they were lying in wait in a narrow strait).

 

The only possibility to have them in is to make a game made dedicated to them (ie ambushing an escorted convoy (escorts would be FF, DD, CL and CVL/E class vessels)).

 

PS: I am expecting a floral storm of people now coming forth with bad examples of a sub sinking ships in port, at anchor and other stuff ;)

Edited January 14, 2014 by Tarskin

[TheSleeper 17]

Historically WWII subs would attack unarmed ships as warships, even the small ones would out gun out maneuverer and out armour a sub a few times over.

 

The entirety of WWII navel commands + Sub captains > someone that played a badly balanced video games

[Spitfire_ 7,305]

Anyone remember the Battlestation series?

[Alpha_Wave 188]

I'm  pretty disappointed that both WarGamming and now War Thunder can't rise to the challenge of coming up with a way to include submarines.

If you limited them to historically accurate performance, had them surface for air and limited the number on each side like they do of artillery in World of Tanks

I don't see why they are a problem.

 

In the past the problem with submarines is that they allowed them to put on buffs/equipment that had them running well past their historical speed/ and performance.

 

No this pretty much comes down to lazy programming and the unwillingness to add an underwater environment. "In short too much work.."

If War-Thunder did get submarines working right they would have an avalanche of new players. Lots of sub fans out there.

[Freeborn 12,815]

No this pretty much comes down to lazy programming and the unwillingness to add an underwater environment. "In short too much work.."

If War-Thunder did get submarines working right they would have an avalanche of new players. Lots of sub fans out there.

 

 

I am all for submarines but in the end I prefer a running game, getting all that stuff balanced, somewhat historical into one MMO is a huge effort and some hard decisions had to be made.

[StasRaskolbas 8,397]

 

No this pretty much comes down to lazy programming and the unwillingness to add an underwater environment. "In short too much work.."

If War-Thunder did get submarines working right they would have an avalanche of new players. Lots of sub fans out there.

 

No, they aren't lazy.  They are, however, smart enough to realize submarines in fleet battles would be a stupid idea and require a lot of silly, gamey mechanics to make them fun and viable. 

[KuroNyra 135]

Anyone remember the Battlestation series?

 

Of course I do!

I can't even play it because of that shitty Game For Window Live system now! :(

[Spitfire_ 7,305]

Of course I do!

I can't even play it because of that xxxx Game For Window Live system now! :(

:( It was always fun unleashing a supported Yamato strike with Cruisers torping everything:3

[Majulio 63]

Submarines have already been confirmed to not be playable I believe. Silent Hunter will probably the best your going to get.

SDEnternet said that Navy Field would never have Subs, and a few years later everyone was in one. Just wait :D

[Crag_r 8,620]

SDEnternet said that Navy Field would never have Subs, and a few years later everyone was in one. Just wait :D

 

And submarines there were regarded by most as an utter failure. Some often said adding them was the death of Navy Field if i am not mistaken.

 

;edited for sentence structure

Edited January 30, 2014 by Crag_r

[Ni_Meleth_Li 709]

And submarines there were regarded by most as an utter failure. Some often said the death of Navy Field if i am not mistaken.

have to agree. losing my montana to a ss3 going 80 knts with 10s reload speed was bullshit.

[PL_Andrev 7,375]

Some often said adding them was the death of Navy Field if i am not mistaken.

 

What about high popularity of Silent Hunter series? I've heard that SH3 was sold in 2 million copies...  this is a big value for sim game.

Secondly the way was shown by SH modders:

• create own mission / scenarios (will be here in future)
• control "classical" navy ships (will be here in future)
• more submarines (?)

 

 

 

The funny story is that many subsim players expected new Destroyer Command to cooperate with SH3 - nothing more.

Instead this they've got next more bugged Silent Hunters...

:facepalm:

[Crag_r 8,620]

What about high popularity of Silent Hunter series? I've heard that SH3 was sold in 2 million copies...  this is a big value for sim game.

Secondly the way was shown by SH modders:

• create own mission / scenarios (will be here in future)
• control "classical" navy ships (will be here in future)
• more submarines (?)

 

 

 

The funny story is that many subsim players expected new Destroyer Command to cooperate with SH3 - nothing more.

Instead this they've got next more bugged Silent Hunters...

:facepalm:

 

Thats because a game designed around submarine warfare is balanced and tailored incredibly differently then a game designed around naval warfare as a whole. Simply trying to "add submarines" as many are calling for is a highly complex task and one that can easily lead to game failure when one wrong.

 

I'm not saying that subs shouldn't be added, im just calling for pause for thought and full consideration given before and if they were to be added to all players involved and potential issues they will cause when added either by historical accuracy or balance.

 

NavyFeild proves that when done wrong it will lead to game failure.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Crag_r

[PL_Andrev 7,375]

Found at WT page: http://warthunder.com/en/game/features/5/current/

 

Destroyer:

A light warship designed mostly to fight against enemy submarines and aircraft.

 

Hope dies last?

:crazy:

[Crag_r 8,620]

Found at WT page: http://warthunder.com/en/game/features/5/current/

 

 

Hope dies last?

:crazy:

 

For ship types i see Battleships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers.

 

 

Submarines?  :Ps

[Madwolf 10,218]

I have Destroyer Command around here somewhere. May be I'll do a "Lets Play" on youtube with it. The game was fun and incredibly frustrating all at once. It's in my parents garage somewhere, so next time I'm up there I'll grab it.