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
