Submarines - WT Discussion

[Motherhen357]

@kkang2828

All your arguments are based on the assumption

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.

[Kernow1346]

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.

[jandaro]

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

[Motherhen357]

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.

https://wiki.warthunder.com/Type_89_(1989)_(533_mm)

[kkang2828]

I mean that rock paper scissors type of balance doesn’t work here.

[jandaro]

why not?

[kkang2828]

What we’re telling you is that the possible issues do differ, and that we can’t expect Gaijin to provide adequate solutions for them when they can’t even address the currently present issues properly.

Pretty much all the details of what I want to say has already been said by others like Shadow__CZ and Kernow1346 here. No need for me to repeat the same points again.

I don’t oppose subs “regardless of proposed implementation”. There could be a way that works. I just don’t see Gaijin going down that best path, and that is ultimately why I oppose subs, at least until the current scope of WT naval has been perfected.

[kkang2828]

Let me ask why you think it will work first. Why would subs bring down battleship repair costs, and why would it change up the ‘bigger ships wins’ meta?

[jandaro]

well, before i begin, i will state that i do not own any battleship or battlecruiser.

But i see battleships surviving to the end of the match or at least for very long, they can survive great deal of shelling, aircraft bombs and torperoes, while at the same time getting nice kills with their big guns

this changes with addition of submarines, for battleship can do nohting against one (has to rely on destroyers or boats… unless maybe snail adds ship launched anti sub boats - but i dont know if this even was a thing)

this means that battleships will now have a weakness, it makes sense to thus drop repair costs.

regarding “bigger ship” meta - now there will be targets battleships cannot take on, but destroyers can.

[kkang2828]

@jandaro

But i see battleships surviving to the end of the match or at least for very long, they can survive great deal of shelling, aircraft bombs and torperoes, while at the same time getting nice kills with their big guns

Well that’s what they’re supposed to do. The objectives and maps just need to change so that it isn’t always a spawn to spawn deathmatch, where bigger ships always win. Also, a battleship should be countered by a battleship of similar strength, which is why we desperately need quantitative MM as well as BR decompression in naval.

@jandaro

this changes with addition of submarines, for battleship can do nohting against one

regarding “bigger ship” meta - now there will be targets battleships cannot take on, but destroyers can.

Which is a big problem because getting killed by something that you cannot even see leads to VERY frustrating experiences, and also:

@kkang2828

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.

Hence why subs won’t get rid of any current problem, instead just bringing in new issues.

[jandaro]

i see, but i find it a little sad we wouldnt see submarines in war thunder, for they played important role in ww2, wouldnt it be possible to somehow reshape the game mode in order to make environment in which subs could work? naval EC looks like a perfect candidate for testing

[Kernow1346]

@jandaro

why not

Because, rather than balanced teams of light/medium/heavy units being picked by the MM each player gets multiple spawns (in practice that means one spawn of their heaviest unit 90% of the time), so a balanced force is unlikely, even on the many maps that demand a few coastal/DDs in order to secure a win. Even when a player recognises the need for a different vessel, game mechanics make powerful reasons not to do so - scuttling your BB in order to grab a fast coastal doesn’t make much SL sense… actually, scuttling any ship makes no sense unless you truly need to abandon it.

Gaijin pretty much ‘balance’ everything by how it fares in a head-on slugfest (Cold War light tanks don’t face contemporary Cold War MBTs, but face WW2 tanks because that’s what they can pen frontally; pre-WW2 DDs face post-war coastals… with missiles). Because Gaijin don’t really do gameplay. Battles are just a straight up slugfest in a limited space with limited time (usually), so there’s not much else they can be. Naval is probably the mode with most scope for varied gameplay, with plenty of maps being winnable with coastal vessels even where BBs are present. In theory that should result in a few more coastals being taken in place of heavy units, which in turn would create a demand for DDs on the battle for the in shore areas… but you never see that. If you play 5.0+ you will have countless battles where the losing side could easily have won had any of the half-dozen or more 1-death Helenas/Zhelesnies taken out their reserve coastal for a couple minutes before leaving. They don’t do that because they’re bots/stupid/incentivised to mindlessly spawn/die/leave/repeat - take your pick. In short there are already good reasons for ‘rock, paper, scissors,’ but you hardly ever see it.

Many regard Naval as more of a thinking, slower-paced form of WT, and well-implemented submarines could certainly add greatly to that. Players propose many good ideas for WT, which usually sound good and positive, but they often forget that it’s Gaijin who will implement these ‘good’ ideas. Submarines (and A/S warfare) are a fascinating subject and it’s interesting discussing the various ways they might be included in WT, although - sadly - probably pointless, as I doubt Gaijoobles will monitor these conversations. Submarines look like they’re on the way (Gaijin don’t do improved gameplay, they do new shiny stuff, remember?). Implementation will be everything.

[jandaro]

yeah, all their other games are faltering… except for maybe enlisted

[kkang2828]

@jandaro

somehow reshape the game mode in order to make environment in which subs could work?

That is what we’re saying, yes. Or even better, subs could have their own mode suited to them. I could see an asymmetric convoy attack/defence mode where one team is destroyers and other escort vessels, and the other team is subs, pretty interesting. Or it could be a PvE co-op mode.

However, I and many others really think that they should focus on polishing the current naval mode first, instead of wasting time on new stuff like subs/carriers/AShMs.

But realistically speaking, both the sub-hypers and the sub-critics here are just daydreaming, and Gaijin will sooner or later implement subs in a way that breaks naval as a whole(but fun for that one OP premium sub). They only care about money, after all.

[Motherhen357]

@kkang2828

What we’re telling you is that the possible issues do differ

Such as ? The ones put forward so far are only analogues to current sub-less gameplay.

@kkang2828

until the current scope of WT naval has been perfected.

I’d still like to see your thread describing what this actually means to you. This is your issue in these discussions, rather than adding anything of substance you’re just here to mention you have a list of demands that, if followed, would make everything in naval better.

But you haven’t shared it.

I genuinely do want to see what your ideas for naval on the whole are. But most of that discussion is outside the scope of this thread 's topic.

@Kernow1346

Submarines would seem most suited to EC

I’m not so sure submarines can be called " suited " for NFEC, atleast on the offensive - their low mobility and primarily torpedo armament might leave them at a disadvantage trying to complete the " destroy convoy " task compared to more traditional ships, even more so in the case of " capture port " or " find/destroy enemy carrier ". Operating defensively - coastal submarine role - might prove them useful though, since opponents would approach as well as being approached.

It 's more that EC is suited for Naval than a particular ship type being suited for EC, the increased space and numerous different objectives allows more situations where a particular vessel can be played to it 's strengths.

Definitely agree that depthcharge mechanics need looking at, I don’t believe that their " damage radius " changes w/ depth as they are at present. There 's certainly no difference in sink rate between models. That and the out-of-match nature of setting them simplifies them to being more of a stubby whackamole hammer than they really should be, esp. when using them against submarines is being considered. Roll it over the side and wait 3sec, anything in the white circle which appears then gets blasted ?
They could be more than that.

[kkang2828]

@Motherhen357

I’d still like to see your thread describing what this actually means to you. This is your issue in these discussions, rather than adding anything of substance you’re just here to mention you have a list of demands that, if followed, would make everything in naval better.

But you haven’t shared it.

I genuinely do want to see what your ideas for naval on the whole are. But most of that discussion is outside the scope of this thread 's topic.

That would take way WAY too much time and effort to put together to be worth it, when the people who really need to read such things(=Gaijin) will just never read it, and just don’t care. Also I’ll have to start a whole string of arguments with you and others who disagree, which I also view as a waste of time and effort.

I might make a thread on a list of quick QoL fixes that are needed in naval though, in preparation for the next “intense feedback poll” in Autumn, and to show that even that is nowhere near a short and simple list.

[kkang2828]

@Motherhen357

Such as ? The ones put forward so far are only analogues to current sub-less gameplay.

You’ve had that argument here with others(with which I completely agree) already, and I see that we will never agree. We’ll just both be repeating the same things over and over again.

[Kernow1346]

@Motherhen357

It 's more that EC is suited for Naval than a particular ship type being suited for EC…

I guess so. Probably more a case that no ships are suited to the current standard game (save the biggest ones in any given match)!

All vehicles in WT (AB/RB) are 3PV - even multi-crew bombers in SB get this. That’s a realistic enough simplification where you have multiple crew looking in all (or at least some) directions; even a buttoned up tank is not totally blind IRL. I’d say 3PV is ‘hand holding’ for single-seater aircraft, but in all other cases it’s just a relaxed simplification that has some justification. But a submarine if different.

On the surface a submarine is like any other vessel, and lookouts are posted on the conning tower, so 3PV is justified. What about when at periscope depth? Will default view still be centred on some disembodied point above the periscope? And totally submerged, what then? Stealth is the submarine’s big advantage, but it comes at the cost of being blind.

A submerged submarine with 3PV would be fine if no other vessels rendered. You’d still see the seabed, islands and be able to navigate - after all, we can assume the crew brought some charts with them and know how a compass, speed/stopwatch work. But if the sub gets to ‘see’ - by the power of magic - nearby objects (ships, other submarines, sinking depth charges), while retaining its own invisibility (save from other ‘blind’ subs of course) that would likely be game breaking (for RB - it might be fine in AB).

Of course, all that is pretty obvious and any developer you would trust to sit the right way round on the toilet could come up with a realistic and sensible implementation…

[HoFFI02]

How about you’ll see just the map, after you’ve had pulled in your periscope.

Would be “semi- accurate” and boring asf.

[Shadow_CZ]

@Kernow1346

And totally submerged, what then? Stealth is the submarine’s big advantage, but it comes at the cost of being blind.

A submerged submarine with 3PV would be fine if no other vessels rendered. You’d still see the seabed, islands and be able to navigate - after all, we can assume the crew brought some charts with them and know how a compass, speed/stopwatch work. But if the sub gets to ‘see’ - by the power of magic - nearby objects (ships, other submarines, sinking depth charges), while retaining its own invisibility (save from other ‘blind’ subs of course) that would likely be game breaking (for RB - it might be fine in AB).

Of course, all that is pretty obvious and any developer you would trust to sit the right way round on the toilet could come up with a realistic and sensible implementation…

In the submarine user mission it works in a way that when submarine if submerged only ships which are really close render. Everything else works normally.
When you are at periscope depth the rendering works same as other ships.

This is how it works now with the old silent thunder mechanics (which were IIRC slightly updated). I would say that the implementation of periscope depth is too OP right now. (Apart from my general issues with subs)