On the point about bombers, they used to impact games and were a good part of the dynamic but fighter players were unhappy that because they ignored bomber players for 20-30mins the match would end in victory. So warthunder nerfed bombers so that it is INCREDIBLY hard to get bomber wins now and it is almost absolutely impossible to get a win that way since map timers being reduced to 25mins is nowhere enough time to land and rearm, takeoff and bomb the bases again before aa or the timer ends the match.
1 Like
It’s simple make it so that submarines cannot capture points if thats the issue?
On the terms of giant bombers like the B-52 there needs to be some adjustments but the Avro Vulcan, B-47, Tu-16, Tu-95, Victor, Valiant and TSR.2 could be added tomorrow and not change the game for the negative just like how the Buccaneer doesn’t currently. Not even 4 buccs can change the game negatively which ignores the fact that you can have entire friendly teams of around 10-12 out of the 16 carrying bombs with their loadouts which equates to 4 vulcans or more and the game isn’t broken or any less enjoyable for people.
The issue I mentioned was just ilustration. The same problem is still present even when submarines spawn at the back. Since battles don´t end instantly after the clash there is basically no way how to prevent the situation I described.
a journey spent vulnerable, mostly on the surface if it is to be timely
Also I must dissagree with this notion while yes submarine on surface is very vulnurable but it can dive at any time and it is small target which could be easily mised so I believe you are overestimating the the skill needed to get into position.
It is core issue which I have with submarines how can player in CL/BB prevent being “shotguned” if they have no way of countering and even detecting submarine. At very least in case of PT boat the CL/BB can easily retaliate and destroy it not to mention the PT boats carry less torpedoes and mostly without reloads. The submarines have overall more torpedoes and can reload them safely.
it would be like doing the reverse w/ missile ships and moving them so far back that only they could reliably hit eachother.
I would say that comparison to missile ships is quite faulty because submarines have the engagement range bassically baked into their design because they can dive. And especially when we still have no ship with real proper antiship missiles. We still just have glorified ATGM and two SAMs which can be used against ships that are no antiship missiles. And even then I never feared the missile ship balance as long as we wont see VLS ships fighting WW2 ships. Most other missile ships have only handfull of ASMs and most of which (excluding russian ones) are “just” flying torpedoes which wont do too much damage.
1 Like
The capturing isn´t really relevant. It was just example.
And I would expect simmilar and even more severe issues with submarines. The bombers are much easier to balance and you can see that even they are really problematic to balance. Again I would say that I want to see submarines in the game but they need to be balanced properly which I see extremly and borderline impossible with current NF gameplay. Because last thing NF need is broken ship type completly breaking any last bits of balance NF have.
I simply can´t see them be viable without being broken.
2 Likes
I feel that the responsibility of detecting and dealing with submarines could largely fall to the coastal ships. Right now coastal ships have the technology advantage in naval with no real way to leverage it other than anti-aircraft work. Things like JDS Isuzu and the SKR ships would do very well at detecting and dealing with submarines since it’s the reason they exist to begin with. Also I don’t know for sure but aren’t the SET-40 torpa on the SKRs sonar guided irl? Anyway ships with sonar could get some kind of spotting mechanic similar to ground to warn their teammates of any uppity subs in the area. With all this in mind I do see the issue of submarine engagability being limited to top coastals, destroyers and other subs. However planes in ground are really only engagable by AA and other planes so the game of rock paper scissors comes full circle it seems.
3 Likes
If that 's the issue you’ve settled on, the answer seems to be the same as the other interactions between ship types currently: position actively to prepare for encounters, and reposition to your advantage wherever the likelihood of a prepared enemy setting up a situation seems high. It 's not as if a submarine can counter-position against you in that case, they’re purely the inverse of that PT boat and it 's ability to become a threat from behind any impenetrable obstacle at will - in exchange for total vulnerability anywhere w/o such terrain or while firing their actual attack.
I’m not especially thrilled to discuss WoW in a WT Discussion thread either, but my impression of that game was that it was mechanically unsuitable to being a multiplayer game, and/or an action game. The restrictions on a player 's ability to use their provided tools to understand their operational picture at a given time, especially, seems to have impaired it 's ability to provide combined-vehicle gameplay in a satisfying manner.
Some of their proposed or implemented representation of sub capabilities in a multiplayer context were even interesting or reasonable, it 's saddening to think that the rest of the game 's fundamental experience might’ve been a players introduction to them in a combined fleet game.
The same problem exists already across interactions between available vehicle types, when they enter the situation that plays to the other 's strengths. Like your easily-retaliated-against boat against a cruiser( or any other Bluewater fleet type, really ), which likely broke cover or attempted to cross open water.
That 's why mission design considers these, and places the cruiser far enough back that the boat has a chance to use it 's ability to position rapidly to greater effect - though it still cannot become a threat to the cruiser at every point of a map, or at every point during the match.
The comparison to missile ships is not made to those yet present ingame, but instead meant to illustrate graphically the use of the design where differing ship types - regardless of ability or class - are in situations where they can be engaged by other ship classes in their typical manner. I’m not really sure what you mean by " engagement range " here, since if a sub captain does attempt to increase their survivability at range by porpoising their ability to reach a location midway between the destroyer spawns goes from roughly equivalent to HMS Dreadnought 's to worser, and they still need to make final corrections to launch torpedoes - if anything is at that location by that time for those to have a greater chance of hitting home than if they had been launched by a surface vessel earlier and further behind. Neither ship is able to effectively engage the other in that situation.
Since your scenario is already present, in some cases optimal, for ships already present, it seems your actual issue is not w/ the capability of submarines but rather w/ some other feature of NF mission design, likely the objective control gameplay of [Domination] since that one has the least room to incentivize players not to strangle the spawns or lanes-from-spawn after the initial clash. Even open-circle [Conquest] has better defense against objective entrenchment - and that design has plenty of it 's own issues.
Submarines themselves, having the same restrictions applied to them as other ship types, don’t appear to have the ability to " break " naval balance. Just to provide another variation of gameplay w/in it.
@FutureFlash2034 I had forgotten to mention before, the Type 21 submarine in WTM doesn’t have access to the G7e torps there - indeed, the weapon only exists in the files of regular WT
Though it 's the american submarines which are much worse off as regards their weapons accuracy there - USS Balao lack 's it 's 4in deck gun, and both it and USS Tang have a mixture of weapons they could not use and those fully not in the USN inventory
2 Likes
The ROQF 4in Mk.XXIII: a lightweight replacement of the preceding Mk.XXII wet mount, entered service too late for WW2 but would continue in Royal Navy service into the 70 's.
( https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/lj0oy4/currently_unused_vehicles_loadouts_and_weaponry/ )
In update 2.26.0.25 it 's ingame weaponry text was updated to " 4 inch/33 QF Mk.XXIII naval cannon ", to include the calibre. A similar change was made to many other naval weapons then.
1 Like
Submarines had limited torpedo so would be only as dangerous as destroyers for its torpedos. They are slow so easily run down by any class of ship. Pt boats will have more purpose keeping the submarines suppressed while giving the anti sub classes of pt, frigates, destroyers and cruisers.
1 Like
Looking forward to submarines in the main game.
3 Likes
All your arguments are based on the assumption that Gaijin will carefully think over submarines before implementing them, like we are doing here. The reality is that they most certainly won’t, and will probably make subs quite OP at least in the beginning, to draw in (paying) players, just like they did with helicopters.
Gaijin’s track record shows that they are simply not capable of “properly” implementing anything. I get that subs might be a good addition if they are added properly. But it’s the consequences of an improper implementation, which is much more likely, that really makes me oppose subs. We should wait at least until we have surface gunnery-based naval warfare in actual working/fun order(because it certainly isn’t currently), before trying to add a radically new type of ship like subs(or carriers or full-on AShMs).
3 Likes
submarines could help bring down battleship repair costs
and if im not mistaken, some destroyers used to have devices to detect submarines during ww2
so it becomes sort of rock-paper-scissors, they would add a new tactical layer instead of “bigger ship wins” we have now
3 Likes
That works in WoWs, not here.
1 Like
Well in the current naval map sizes and spawns, as soon as those ASW vessels come out into the open(which is where the subs will be), they’ll be blown to pieces by the enemy cruisers and battleships. Calmly performing ASW is going to be impossible in the current environment, and since subs need ASW to counter them, this naturally also precludes the introduction of subs.
1 Like
Its pt boats that win most top tier matches. The battleships dont push caps and leave even a single cap uncontested and that 1 cap wins the game
1 Like
The counterarguements you’re replying to are based on past experiences w/ the implementation of differing vehicle types in Naval, specifically how they are allowed to interact w/in it 's framework adjusts for balance. Since the possible issues described above do not differ from those currently present, there 's no cause to believe solutions would differ either.
You’ve previously stated on non-WT forums that you’ll oppose submarines regardless of proposed implementation, so I’m not expecting you’ll really engage much w/ that part of this thread. As for WT Discussion though, I would like to see you make a thread in the Game Discussion section which describes in full detail what your Vision for what a WT Naval in a state where you would permit new vehicles to be added would actually comprise - your constant grandstanding abt it has me morbidly curious.
1 Like
There’s a lot of work needs doing just to include submarines, let alone what ought to be done fixing existing, non-submarine issues like gunnery, damage, modelling of ships/crew. Take A/S vessels and their depth charges (DC). Simply including DC isn’t an adequate counter to submarines. Currently you can set your DC to explode up to 10 s after release (of course you’re really interested in a depth, not a time, and although early DC might have used a timer, IIRC, hydrostatic pistols (depth) was more common by WW2). British Mk.VII DC sank at 9.9 ft/sec (3 m/s), so could currently attack a submarine up to 30 m deep… and you’d have to know how deep the target was before you entered the game, because it’s not a setting you can access in-game… and a Type VIIC U-boat might be 220 m deep. Quite a bit of work needed on DC and interface, as setting depth on DC would likely be a last-minute act IRL, because depth could only be guessed at from the range at which contact was lost as the A/S vessel closed with the target, due to the geometry of the ASDIC/SONAR beam.
ASDIC/Hydrophones (active/passive sonar) - obviously a crucial element both for A/S vessels and submarines themselves. Sonar is somewhat similar to radar, but, as I understand it, there are far more variables IRL which can affect performance. Looking at how WT handles basic radar, I guess Gaijin could do an ok job here, but it can be as complex as you want, eg a DC attack could disturb the water for 5-10 mins, making it almost impossible to get an ASDIC contact in that area. Can’t find definitive data, but IIRC, the bottom of the ASDIC beam was 10 degrees below horizontal, ie 10 ft deep at 60 ft range, 10 ft in 20 yds, 100 ft at 200 yds, so contact on a U-boat at 600 ft would be lost at 1200 yds. As there was no other way of calculating depth (for most of WW2), this ‘lost contact’ point was crucial in estimating target depth and, IMO, needs to be included for RB (or sim); in AB depth might be calculated by the power of magic.
Maps are small, as we all know. Small enough that submarines will need to stay submerged (unless they only face small coastal vessels… but what’s the point of their torpedoes in that case?). That Type VIIC I mentioned above can make 7.6 kts submerged (u-boat.net) or 4 m/s… over a 25-min game that’s about 5.8 km. Just played a game where even the DD spawn was just over that distance from the closest cap. Ok, so the submarine can use a coastal spawn - or perhaps even get its own - that might mean one cap is within reach… the cap that the big ships won’t go to, but the coastals (and A/S vessels) might. If you’re a skilled submariner and you avoid detection and somehow cap despite the faster coastals, you’ll get zero reward; in a fast coastal you can cap all 3 zones, win the game and - unless you get yourself blown up - Gaijin will steal all your rewards and say, “Bad player! No activity. Punish.” Not sure how their arcade, space bar-mashing mentality will cope with a warfare type all about stealth, patience and careful calculation.
Reviewing the above, I think a sub-spawn close to the open water cap will be essential in normal games or submarines will lack targets for most of the game.
Submarines would seem most suited to EC or perhaps their own PvE/P mode, like helis. Maybe that will result in 24/7 EC, which would be welcome. The worry, as always, is that Gaijin will ‘solve’ the problems with silly arcade mechanics… or simply pretend they don’t exist. It could work and it could be good, especially in a well-designed EC.
4 Likes
i didnt play and “world of…” game, so my opinion is not based on whatever occured there
but why wouldnt it work here? even aircraft could be outfitted with anti-sub equipment
The Mitsubishi Type 89: this dual-role ASW/ASuW torpedo entered service at the end of the Cold War, and has equipped most submarines in Japanese service since then until very recently.
At one point it was applied ahistorically to the JDS Isuzu ingame, at which time it was( and remains ) the torpedo w/ the longest range ever added to WT - it could travel almost 40km.
Although this weapon probably doesn’t point to anything on it 's own, there 's other weapons, historically submarine-only, which continue to be used on currently-available ships ingame. Since they are present alongside their correct surface-ship equivalents, those may point to " beneath the surface " work, in a way this - given it 's era and capabilities - might not. Still worth archiving though.
1 Like
I mean that rock paper scissors type of balance doesn’t work here.