Submarines

[[email protected] 682]

3 hours ago, Fireraid233 said:

Is there a list of WT:E submarines?

^{( I should probably start @-ing  you when I find new WT submarine-related info, sorry abt that !  )}

Yes, per the datamine the submarines in War Thunder: Edge are

USA: USS Balao, USS Tang

Germany: Type VII, Type XXI

USSR: K-class, Pr. 613 Whiskey-class

Spoiler

The datamine in question: ( https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/564899-yamato-is-coming-in-war-thunder-edge-and-more-updated-v4/&do=findComment&comment=9450836 )

 

IN WT 's own files, there 's been evidence for the Amphion-class( the 102mm Mk.XXIII I posted last week ). The Type M Mk.II tube-launched mine and the G 7e(T IIIa) pattern-running torpedo have also appeared, but having been used by multiple classes of sub these don't point to any one type in particular.

Edited March 11 by [email protected]

[[email protected] 682]

@[email protected] @Fireraid233 Big news ! The War Thunder Mobile game is releasing soon: ( https://gamingonphone.com/news/war-thunder-mobile-a-military-action-game-is-now-open-for-pre-registration-for-android/ ) ( https://www.jeumobi.com/en/news/war-thunder-mobile-preregister/ )

We might be seeing how submarines will be implemented there very soon, might give us a clue to how they'll perform here.

[Fireraid233 4,251]

28 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

@[email protected] @Fireraid233 Big news ! The War Thunder Mobile game is releasing soon: ( https://gamingonphone.com/news/war-thunder-mobile-a-military-action-game-is-now-open-for-pre-registration-for-android/ ) ( https://www.jeumobi.com/en/news/war-thunder-mobile-preregister/ )

We might be seeing how submarines will be implemented there very soon, might give us a clue to how they'll perform here.

Besides submarines I'm interested in seeing carrier gameplay as well. If I'm not mistaken they also had carriers data mined for the game right?

Edited March 16 by Fireraid233

[[email protected] 682]

3 minutes ago, Fireraid233 said:

Besides submarines I'm interested in seeing carrier gameplay as well. If I'm not mistaken they also had carriers data mined for the game right?

That 's correct, and there 's also battleships much stronger than the ones we currently have ingame.

Carriers:

Spoiler

IJN Kaga
IJN Zuikaku
HMS Illustrious
HMS Implacable
USS Lexington
USS Essex
USS Forrestal

Battleships:

Spoiler

Tirpitz(1944 refit)
IJN Yamato
HMS King George V(1945 refit)
HMS Vanguard
HMS Warspite
USS Iowa(1957 refit)
Stalingrad BC
Pr.23 Sovetskyy Soyuz

You might recognize that some of the carriers are the ones which were added here in WT as AI units back in the Apex Predators update, except for Forrestal which had appeared here first in update " New Power ". Another sharing of assets is found in the battleships, w/ Tirpitz(1944) and Stalingrad BC having been leaked in 2.7.0.55( the former was also present in the pre-Closed Beta game trailer, and the latter appears as the cover image to one of the Open Beta press releases ).

It 's that sharing of assets that leads me to believe something similar will happen w/ the selection of submarines to appear here later, being related to the ones present there.


Depending on what we see of player-controlled aircraft carriers during or after the Open Beta, it might be worth opening another vehicle-type discussion thread
 

[[email protected] 1,771]

1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

IJN Kaga
IJN Zuikaku

 

Yes please! Seeing subs, carriers, and the end-of-the-line battleships appearing there definitely gives me hope for them being added to the main game too.

[PL_Andrev 7,375]

On 16/03/2023 at 18:08, Fireraid233 said:

Besides submarines I'm interested in seeing carrier gameplay as well. If I'm not mistaken they also had carriers data mined for the game right?

 

What's funny with carrier playing?

Huge target, poor maneuverability, main target for all enemy team's units...

 

At subs gameplay, the hunt big target is an award, and gameplay like cat-mouse with DD may be interesting. 

 

[Balance_Enjoyer 72]

They havnt even figured surface vessels out properly, and people are already discussing submarines. What could possibly go wrong?

 

The usual cycle of players asking for things without thinking about them, Gaijin adding them because they think players wanted it (but f***ing it up), and then wondering why players complain when they do finally add thing XYZ.

 

Keep asking for more stuff, that'll fix things surely. 

 

 

smh

Edited March 21 by Balance_Enjoyer

[kkang2828 1,426]

9 hours ago, Balance_Enjoyer said:

They havnt even figured surface vessels out properly, and people are already discussing submarines. What could possibly go wrong?

 

The usual cycle of players asking for things without thinking about them, Gaijin adding them because they think players wanted it (but f***ing it up), and then wondering why players complain when they do finally add thing XYZ.

 

Keep asking for more stuff, that'll fix things surely. 

 

 

smh

 

1000% agreed. Same for "modern" naval and carriers.

Edited March 22 by kkang2828

[[email protected] 682]

@[email protected] @Fireraid233 I've gotten in touch w/ " TZZV ", who 's datamining the War Thunder Mobile client. Appearently there was an update to it shortly after it opened for pre-registration on Google Play, which included the addition of the icons for many vehicles:

Spoiler

...including, finally, the submarines !! This Pr.641 Foxtrot-class wasn't previously datamined, I'll keep this thread up-to-date as I learn more.
 

Spoiler

and there 's a lot to learn

 

Edited March 22 by [email protected]

[Shadow__CZ 2,182]

6 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Well naturally subs would shake up the meta, yes. And yeah, they would primarily engage battleships and cruisers (if brought up to those BRs; I'd expect their own BRs to be in the Coastal range), while destroyers and frigates would in turn counter them. It's a proper rock-paper-scissors triangle.

Unlike missiles in an Air/Ground context which are fast, torps are so slow that it doesn't really matter whether they were launched by a cruiser, destroyer, or sub. Most "counter-play" with regards to torpedoes is about proactively being a difficult target, paired with watching for torpedo wake; the sub being "invisible" has relatively little impact.

I don´t think the rock paper scissors is in general good idea. Let me explain - it creates unnecesarly frustrating gameplay for all sides and is inherently really unbalanced. And I believe your counterplay idea is extremly tone deaf. Your idea of just "dodge" really only works for long range engagements or the ones where player has some prior info that torpedoes are comming (plane attacking, boat performing attack maneuver) all of these hardly apply to submarine gameplay. 

 

Moreover there are still other issues with gameplay if they are suposed primarily engage battleships and cruisers where is their spawn is it placed near the spawn? If yes that is quite problematic (and I am aware that I was previosly suggesting that) and if not that I don´t see how that gameplay is viable since then it is bassicaly 5-10 minutes of doing absolutely nothing while tossing a coin if the torps hit. 

 

Lets describe the 1st scenario (spawns near enemy) - Imagine BB player freshly out of spawn and suddenly torpedoes appear just 100 or so metres what can you do? BBs have no way how to counter this situation. That is precisely why the subs in WOWS are hated. I really don´t like this idea

 

 

But I agree that being at boat BRs could work but I am not sure if that is something what others are expecting. 

 

I still feel like that subs really really need more dynamic AI based gamemode like small scale convoys.

 

[[email protected] 1,771]

4 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

I don´t think the rock paper scissors is in general good idea. Let me explain - it creates unnecesarly frustrating gameplay for all sides and is inherently really unbalanced.

 

That's... an interesting perspective, given it's one of the single most basic forms of balance in games and game-like things.

 

 

4 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

And I believe your counterplay idea is extremly tone deaf. Your idea of just "dodge" really only works for long range engagements or the ones where player has some prior info that torpedoes are comming (plane attacking, boat performing attack maneuver) all of these hardly apply to submarine gameplay.

 

Of course we're mainly talking about longer ranged engagements, and I specifically brought up cruisers because for all intents and purposes a battleship is never going to notice/know that they've launched at them, having taken place out to potentially 10km away and minutes beforehand. Primary counterplay to torpedoes has always been proactive evasive manoeuvres (both to make actual launched torps miss, and just to make yourself a less appealing target so the enemy doesn't pick you in the first place) coupled with watching for incoming torpedo wake.

 

The difference between cruiser-launched torps and sub-launched torps is minimal.

 

Yes, destroyers can and do launch torps in very close engagements to either hit or often force the enemy to evade (further taxing them on top of managing whatever damage they have and basically preventing return fire for a moment), but that sort of torpedo fighting is less relevant at larger ship BRs (which is what's most relevant here).

 

 

4 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

Moreover there are still other issues with gameplay if they are suposed primarily engage battleships and cruisers where is their spawn is it placed near the spawn?

 

At destroyer spawns, most likely; this would be the most balanced for everyone.

 

 

4 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

I don´t see how that gameplay is viable since then it is bassicaly 5-10 minutes of doing absolutely nothing while tossing a coin if the torps hit.

 

Lots of vehicle types require setup and/or periods of "doing nothing", that should be expected in a game like WT. And that "hunter" aspect is a massive part of the appeal of subs for most people who want them.

 

 

4 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

Lets describe the 1st scenario (spawns near enemy) - Imagine BB player freshly out of spawn and suddenly torpedoes appear just 100 or so metres what can you do? BBs have no way how to counter this situation.

 

You mean a battleship "can't do anything" against a sub that has somehow managed to get all the way to within one hundred metres of their spawn and is still alive? Yeah. I would hope that the sub would be able to get that kill in such an extreme scenario. Not every engagement is supposed to be ten-paces-at-noon entirely in a vacuum; the absurd amount and number of ways a team would have to screw up for a sub to be literally in their spawn is so incredibly high that they clearly lost that matches ages beforehand. It's just not a reasonable scenario.

[[email protected] 1,771]

5 hours ago, [email protected] said:

@[email protected] @Fireraid233 I've gotten in touch w/ " TZZV ", who 's datamining the War Thunder Mobile client. Appearently there was an update to it shortly after it opened for pre-registration on Google Play, which included the addition of the icons for many vehicles:

Hide contents

...including, finally, the submarines !! This Pr.641 Foxtrot-class wasn't previously datamined, I'll keep this thread up-to-date as I learn more.
 

Hide contents

and there 's a lot to learn

 

 

Oooo awesome! As you note we had previously heard of most of these, but to put them into text form, I spy:

• Type VII
• Type XXI
• USS Balao
• USS Tang
• pr. 613
• pr. 641
• Type K

 

As well as:

• Bismarck
• Tirpitz (1944)
• Yamato
• Fubuki (is this Ayanami who we have, or a proper Fubuki?)
• HMS King George V (1945)
• HMS Vanguard
• HMS Warspite
• USS Iowa
• Stalingrad

• Sovetsky Soyuz

 

Still no Japanese, Italian, or British subs unfortunately, and it's interesting that two of the three USSR subs are Cold War.

[Shadow__CZ 2,182]

8 hours ago, [email protected] said:

That's... an interesting perspective, given it's one of the single most basic forms of balance in games and game-like things.

Let me clarify, I don't like the hard counter version of rock paper scissors. The "soft" version I am fine with. 

And what you are suggesting is the version of "hard" one which is actually hardly ever used in games or player has access to all sides of the chain (RTS and other types of strategy games). Having hard system is symply bad design for games like WT.

 

8 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Of course we're mainly talking about longer ranged engagements, and I specifically brought up cruisers because for all intents and purposes a battleship is never going to notice/know that they've launched at them, having taken place out to potentially 10km away and minutes beforehand. Primary counterplay to torpedoes has always been proactive evasive manoeuvres (both to make actual launched torps miss, and just to make yourself a less appealing target so the enemy doesn't pick you in the first place) coupled with watching for incoming torpedo wake.

 

The difference between cruiser-launched torps and sub-launched torps is minimal.

 

Yes, destroyers can and do launch torps in very close engagements to either hit or often force the enemy to evade (further taxing them on top of managing whatever damage they have and basically preventing return fire for a moment), but that sort of torpedo fighting is less relevant at larger ship BRs (which is what's most relevant here).

Ok, while I agree with you on that long range sub torpedoes aren't problem I still don't see how relying on RNG and several minutes between results makes for a good gameplay. For all other ships the torpedoes are secondary weapons so this isn't issue. 

 

8 hours ago, [email protected] said:

At destroyer spawns, most likely; this would be the most balanced for everyone.

That is quite good compromise but all other problems still apply.

 

8 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Lots of vehicle types require setup and/or periods of "doing nothing", that should be expected in a game like WT. And that "hunter" aspect is a massive part of the appeal of subs for most people who want them.

Should be expected we all know that isn't how wider playebase operates. We see it air battles, we see it in ground battles. Although naval playerbase is much more tolerant towards this the subs are extreme in this.

 

8 hours ago, Bl[email protected] said:

 

You mean a battleship "can't do anything" against a sub that has somehow managed to get all the way to within one hundred metres of their spawn and is still alive? Yeah. I would hope that the sub would be able to get that kill in such an extreme scenario. Not every engagement is supposed to be ten-paces-at-noon entirely in a vacuum; the absurd amount and number of ways a team would have to screw up for a sub to be literally in their spawn is so incredibly high that they clearly lost that matches ages beforehand. It's just not a reasonable scenario.

And what happens when if noone spawns DD? I think you are underestimating how relatively easy would be for sub to pass by DD if they want to avoid them - crash dive, pass under and float up to periscope depth only when reaching BB spawns. It doesn't make for interesting gameplay but isn't hard to do.

 

 

It isn't like I don't want to see subs at all but I don't think it is good to shoehorn them into current gameplay. And implementing would be best done after better suited gamemode is present.

 

[[email protected] 682]

9 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Fubuki (is this Ayanami who we have, or a proper Fubuki?)

Nice catch, I missed that one. There 's also a Fletcher-class USS Nicholas, which a quick search reveals underwent an extensive renovation into a dedicated Anti-Submarine escort in the latter part of it 's career. This included the replacement of the torpedo tubes w/ ones for the Mk 44 torpedo, two of the main gun turrets being swapped for Mk 108 ASW rocket-launchers, and the addition of a flight deck for a torpedo-carrying drone helicopter.

However it 's icon is entirely identical to the one used by USS Fletcher atm, so we'll have to wait to see how it actually appears in the game.

 

 

9 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Still no Japanese, Italian, or British subs unfortunately,

The Italian 's only having tanks there is unusual, I expect we'll see their aircraft and naval component added soon.

We've seen parts of GB subs in the files here in WT, so theirs might be in a similar position to the missing techtrees for Italy.


 

[[email protected] 1,771]

3 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

Let me clarify, I don't like the hard counter version of rock paper scissors. The "soft" version I am fine with. 

And what you are suggesting is the version of "hard" one which is actually hardly ever used in games or player has access to all sides of the chain (RTS and other types of strategy games). Having hard system is symply bad design for games like WT.

 

That's a fair perspective, I'm not personally opposed to it though. Many bombers and SPAAs and such fall into the "hard" definition, and similar examples.

 

 

3 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

Ok, while I agree with you on that long range sub torpedoes aren't problem I still don't see how relying on RNG and several minutes between results makes for a good gameplay. For all other ships the torpedoes are secondary weapons so this isn't issue.

 

Depends how you define secondary; a solid half my kills in Japanese heavy cruisers are torp kills. But again, it's just inherent to the nature of subs, and people who want to play subs want that playstyle.

 

 

3 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

And what happens when if noone spawns DD?

 

Same thing that happens if no one spawns an SPAA in Ground. Or no one spawns opposing PT boats to cap early. Or no one uses their scout planes to cap early. Or no one climbs in Air RB. Teams making obvious mistakes tend to get punished for it.

 

Or, on this note, not spawning scout planes to look for subs, since subs are actually quite easy to see from the air.

 

 

3 hours ago, Shadow__CZ said:

I think you are underestimating how relatively easy would be for sub to pass by DD if they want to avoid them - crash dive, pass under and float up to periscope depth only when reaching BB spawns. It doesn't make for interesting gameplay but isn't hard to do.

 

See above, and also sonar, and eyeballs, and general common sense. No, subs "just going under DDs" and then sitting inside BB spawns is not going to be common nor easy, it's a very unhelpfully niche scenario.

[[email protected] 1,771]

3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Nice catch, I missed that one. There 's also a Fletcher-class USS Nicholas, which a quick search reveals underwent an extensive renovation into a dedicated Anti-Submarine escort in the latter part of it 's career. This included the replacement of the torpedo tubes w/ ones for the Mk 44 torpedo, two of the main gun turrets being swapped for Mk 108 ASW rocket-launchers, and the addition of a flight deck for a torpedo-carrying drone helicopter.

However it 's icon is entirely identical to the one used by USS Fletcher atm, so we'll have to wait to see how it actually appears in the game.

 

Oh neat, there's a familiar name haha. And, wow that would be a heck of an interesting setup, especially the drone heli!

 

 

3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

The Italian 's only having tanks there is unusual, I expect we'll see their aircraft and naval component added soon.

We've seen parts of GB subs in the files here in WT, so theirs might be in a similar position to the missing techtrees for Italy.

 

Ah good, that's all rather encouraging then. Hopefully we get the full roster for the mobile version soon.

[[email protected] 682]

13 hours ago, [email protected] said:

and it's interesting that two of the three USSR subs are Cold War.

It is, from the previous datamines I had thought we were going to stay w/ subs that have deck guns atleast to start w/.

On a related note, there appears to be a considerable difference between the icons for USS Balao and USS Tang, much more than might be expected for ships of the same class. It 's hard to make out since that 's in the big gallery image, so I've requested an upscaled version of USS Tang 's images from TZZV. It might mean nothing, but there 's more than one sub that 's borne the name USS Tang ...

 

 

25 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Hopefully we get the full roster for the mobile version soon.

Appearently there was another update to the game today, I'll keep the thread up-to-date if anything else sub-related appears

Edited March 23 by [email protected]

[[email protected] 1,771]

18 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

It is, from the previous datamines I had thought we were going to stay w/ subs that have deck guns atleast to start w/.

On a related note, there appears to be a considerable difference between the icons for USS Balao and USS Tang, much more than might be expected for ships of the same class. It 's hard to make out since that 's in the big gallery image, so I've requested an upscaled version of USS Tang 's images from TZZV. It might mean nothing, but there 's more than one sub that 's borne the name USS Tang ..

 

 

I hadn't looked closely enough at the icon, but it's funny you should bring this up as I almost mentioned in my previous post that I thought it odd the (supposedly) Balao-class Tang would be the only one of these subs to be a duplicate and not simply having the lead ship of each class. But when confirming the names I happened across the later Tang, lead ship of the first post-war class and first American class designed for underwater performance (the design style we expect from Cold War / modern subs) as opposed to for surface performance (the boat-like style of WWI/II).

 

Given we also have Cold War Russian subs, I bet you're right about her being a Tang-class.

 

 

18 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Appearently there was another update to the game today, I'll keep the thread up-to-date if anything else sub-related appears

 

Much appreciated! Not just for the sub info, but your posts here are the only place I know of to get info on the mobile version.

[[email protected] 682]

29 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Much appreciated! Not just for the sub info, but your posts here are the only place I know of to get info on the mobile version.

Glad to be of help !

Abt WTM, appearently Oliviia was able to download yesterday 's " current " version to PC from this website:

Spoiler

https://apkvision.org/games/action/war-thunder-legends-97627/

It 's a two-step process, I haven't been able to do it myself yet. The structure seems very similar to what regular WT now has, though. Which makes it easier to sort and identify vehicles

Spoiler

though not to view them, TZZV is using another program to unpack them for that afaik.

From WTM 's store page,  it seems the number of nations and naval vessels planned to appear initially is far lower than what was available during the previous Closed Beta, or was in the files then or now. Maybe that will change once the game gets closer to Open Beta and launch*, but we should be prepared to do some waiting even after that game becomes available to see how submarines will work there.

Spoiler

*_{or maybe it 's already changed to a greater number, though that 's unlikely - the page was edited when pre-reg started recently.}
 
 

[kkang2828 1,426]

@Shadow__CZ Couldn't agree more.

[[email protected] 682]

On 23/03/2023 at 12:43, [email protected] said:

Given we also have Cold War Russian subs, I bet you're right about her being a Tang-class.

I've just received access to TZZV 's gallery:

Spoiler

USS Tang( and upgraded )



USS Balao( and upgraded )

There 's no way these are supposed to be the same class

I'll have the rest of the submarine icons up later, and the new surface ships will have their post in the R&R  thread.

[Shadow__CZ 2,182]

3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I've just received access to TZZV 's gallery:

Hide contents

USS Tang( and upgraded )



USS Balao( and upgraded )

There 's no way these are supposed to be the same class

I'll have the rest of the submarine icons up later, and the new surface ships will have their post in the R&R  thread.

Well they aren´t the same class one is Tang class (1951) and second of Balao class

[[email protected] 1,771]

3 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I've just received access to TZZV 's gallery:

Hide contents

USS Tang( and upgraded )



USS Balao( and upgraded )

There 's no way these are supposed to be the same class

I'll have the rest of the submarine icons up later, and the new surface ships will have their post in the R&R  thread.

 

Just as we suspected, very cool!

 

Thanks! If it's not too much trouble I'd definitely appreciate a tag when you do, that thread moves absurdly fast haha.

[[email protected] 682]

5 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I'll have the rest of the submarine icons up later

It 's later now.

Germany:

Spoiler

Type VII( and upgraded )


Type XXI( and upgraded )

 USSR:

Spoiler

Pr. 613 Whiskey-class( and upgraded )

 

 

Pr. 641 Foxtrot-class( and upgraded )

 

K-class( and upgraded )

 
 Some notes,
It doesn't appear that the " upgraded " versions have any visual differences beyond the camoflages, antennae and bollards are simply getting lost in the compression noise, and the icons themselves are positioned at different angles which changes the apparent( but not the actual ) shape of the hull. The one exception to this seems to be USS Tang, which has an additional SONAR dome at it 's extreme aftwards position in it 's " upgraded " form only.

The specific selection of submarines might be indicative of something, though it might be too early to say exactly what that might be yet. To me, roughly half of the now-appeared subs being late-war or early Cold War, in tandem w/ the voicelines implying detailed SONAR mechanics, might show that there will be a more specific focus on submarine v. submarine combat. And a focus on making that more more approachable, but that 's more speculative based on the irl capabilities of the armament 's for these later submarines rather than having any actual proof -- after all surface vessels currently ingame don't have homing torps, even when the ones they carry had that functionality.
 

[[email protected] 682]