Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
mra37

The reason why Wargaming is being reluctant on adding submarines

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
6 posts
2 battles

 

This is not about adding Submarines to WOWS but rather a perspective from someone who comes from the IT background

 

I know some players here really want submarines to be added to game but consider this, I can kind of understand why WG is kind of reluctant on the issue:

 

​I currently come from the IT background as a network engineer and can understand why WG is reluctant, what I am saying is releasing submarines is not a easy feat for Wargaming, take for example Cisco wants to release a router that caters for the needs of a company or telecommunications industry, before releasing the product, Cisco has to set a team of people from various backgrounds, setting up a Project Management team along with a Project Manager is not free,​ these people will then investigate the product that is being catered for which includes Risk VS Profit, who will use it and how much sales will it make and etc, when the analysis is done then the report is submitted to the CEO and leadership of the company who make the financial decision or the decision if the product or router should be released to the market, the bottom line it is about money and sales and revenue

 

In the terms of this game:

 

​WG may have to setup a team which includes programmer, developers (the game designers) and investigate if it is worth pouring $$$$$$ into developing submarines along with redesigning the meta of the game and other aspects of the game and another thing I believe they will also investigate big time is the Risk VS Profit area along with the potential of attracting revenue after submarines are added and also would Wargaming take a risk on implementing something that could potentially lead to a decline in server population numbers along with decreased revenue because submarines were not implemented correctly

 

This is why I can see WG being reluctant on adding submarines

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,106 posts
7,834 battles

submarine is not part of fleet action.

unrestricted submarine warfare dictate their job is attrition, by sinking of comercial shipping and disrupting logistic

 

the only country that use submarine in guerre d'escadre (fleet vs fleet warfare), were japan.

it just failed concept in the war

despite possesing highly capable submarine. armed with best torpedo in the war. there not much to talk about them. it just nothing much worthy to speak off

 

compared to how german use u-boat. that almost bring britain to their knees and scarred the shit out of churchill

or american subs. that almost single handedly destroy entire japan economy. 

the most efficient naval blockade, that cause starvation that kill 1.4 million jappanese, in which a million of them were soldier

 

those are how to use subs properly.

japan that use it as part of fleet action, is how to not use them properly

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
44 posts
6,325 battles

It's already often hard to stay with the battle in US battleships, so imagine trying to do so in something with about a third of that speed when submerged. Subs are ambush predators that rely on their prey wandering past oblivious to their threat. Trying to work them into a fast paced naval engagement would lead to totally unrealistic gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
562 posts
4,462 battles

 

An even bigger issue is that they'd also have to map every piece of underwater terrain and because of that there would be huge areas on most maps where they simply couldn't go as it's simply to shallow. Let alone factoring all the underwater annimation they'd have to do.

 

 Then factor in a standard battle is only 20 mins long and so the average game becomes a long drawn out camp feast as this takes the subs out of the game because they're simply to slow to get into a good position to shoot you.   A dd won't push because they'll be spotted and have means to retaliate against a sub as every gun on the opfor is firing at them. CV's will have to have anti shipping aircrews as well, so new load outs etc and we know there current state. BB's well if they change direction from time to time then they should also be safe as a sub can only fire 4-6 torps anyway.

 

And most importantly a sub only has eyes through a periscope so imagine not having your mini map telling you where the ships are, who's on who's side etc. If you use comm's in a sub you'd give away your position so basically to have any semblance to reality it would be incredibly difficult to play let alone be useful to your own team.

 

Ensign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Super Tester
3,828 posts
4,103 battles

Bring it on.  Put them in a corner and let them travel at 5 knots and have to surface to replenish batteries or search for targets.  I'm sure people would enjoy looking at a black screen for 15 minutes.  it sounds line riveting game play that would attract 1000's to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
435 posts
6,169 battles

 

Me thinks you guys need some imagination!

Subs are fast on the surface and would have very low detection. Submariners would plot an intersecting cause, just like a DD and dive just before detection instead of popping smoke. The dive would have a timer just like smoke, once the dive runs out the sub would surface.

I could see subs playing just like DDs.

In a dive with periscope down there would be no map or minmap show ships positions/movements, only last position but with periscope up maps will come alive.

With no smoke to indicate a sub presence, subs would live up to their reputation.

Subs would expand and add to the collective.

 

Edited by Yul_Brynner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AUSNZ]
Member
420 posts
16,011 battles

You don't even play the game and already asking about something else before even seeing what's already inside? Or is it just another fake account.

 

Wow way to make a guy feel welcome, despite this topic being done to death and necroed a thousand times over. Also didn't seem to be asking about was more just explaining why he believed no Submarines are in this game.

 

Also I could easily imagine having bit subs try and sink shipping in an Halloween style event, that would be pretty cool. Possibly with some German capital ships joining in the fun as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R-A-N]
Member
34 posts
11,313 battles

Me thinks you guys need some imagination!

Subs are fast on the surface and would have very low detection. Submariners would plot an intersecting cause, just like a DD and dive just before detection instead of popping smoke. The dive would have a timer just like smoke, once the dive runs out the sub would surface.

I could see subs playing just like DDs.

In a dive with periscope down there would be no map or minmap show ships positions/movements, only last position but with periscope up maps will come alive.

With no smoke to indicate a sub presence, subs would live up to their reputation.

Subs would expand and add to the collective.

 

Yeah i agree with the above opinion/theory...

 

I do not play the other online warship game, however i did stumble across a you tube feed of it and they had subs and their meta seemed to work ok..

2 depths, 1 at periscope depth for torps and the other deep to hide from destroyers and of course being on the surface, they are faster on the surface, some had deck guns, and when submerged there were time limits to how long they could stay down, the a shorter time if they went deep to hide.. A bit like smoke for a DD..  Lets not forget new weapons for DD's as well..

 

They could introduce this if they choose and it would add a whole other dimension.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
802 posts

An even bigger issue is that they'd also have to map every piece of underwater terrain and because of that there would be huge areas on most maps where they simply couldn't go as it's simply to shallow. Let alone factoring all the underwater annimation they'd have to do.

 

Yep, having seen what's under the surface with the old free cam there would have to be a lot of work put into to every map to even get them ready for underwater warfare.

​WG may have to setup a team which includes programmer, developers (the game designers) and investigate if it is worth pouring $$$$$$ into developing submarines along with redesigning the meta of the game and other aspects of the game and another thing I believe they will also investigate big time is the Risk VS Profit area along with the potential of attracting revenue after submarines are added and also would Wargaming take a risk on implementing something that could potentially lead to a decline in server population numbers along with decreased revenue because submarines were not implemented correctly

 

So you're probably not wrong here. But the thing you've completely missed (and as other have mentioned) is that submarines did not take part in fleet action style warfare. Submarines are ambush predators, slow as a BB when surfaced and 1/3 slower when submerged. Information that historic and military advisers would have mentioned to the dev team. They only way I could ever see any form of submarine offered in game would be in a convoy style PvE convoy escort mode that the Devs are looking at given the success of this year's Halloween event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
435 posts
6,169 battles

Yep, having seen what's under the surface with the old free cam there would have to be a lot of work put into to every map to even get them ready for underwater warfare.

 

Camera over the water with a sub silhouette under the water will do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,310 posts

oh shit... kawachii-south carolina is so slow.. 

oh shit.. USN BB up to colorado is soooo slooooow

 

general public opinion : 20 knots is tooo SLOW

 

submarine? 

IIRC WW2 submarine averaged at 20 knots surfaced/10 knots submerged speed...

 

this is just 1 reason out of many reason why subs doesnt fit general WoWs gameplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
980 posts
12,617 battles

Just make a new game 'world of submarines'

 

(easier said than done, I know)

 

There are enough submarine types throughout the first half of the 20th century to make sub trees for each country. Big and small submarines too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,224 battles

Submarines don't really suit fleet action much. Most WWII subs are slow and have limited maneuverability, making them unable to keep up with the surface fleet. Their survivability is also very limited. Also, they may not be fun and engaging to play, as you just sit there and wait for other players to come close and torp him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,224 battles

Submarines don't really suit fleet action much. Most WWII subs are slow and have limited maneuverability, making them unable to keep up with the surface fleet. Their survivability is also very limited. Also, they may not be fun and engaging to play, as you just sit there and wait for other players to come close and torp him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
99 posts
1,653 battles

If they made an April fools sub battle mode it might quite down the pro-sub people; You watch the map for 20 mins waiting for your boat to get to the enemy, then the game ends without any action at all.

Edited by Axion_Nova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,083 posts
5,169 battles

submarine is not part of fleet action.

unrestricted submarine warfare dictate their job is attrition, by sinking of comercial shipping and disrupting logistic

 

the only country that use submarine in guerre d'escadre (fleet vs fleet warfare), were japan.

it just failed concept in the war

despite possesing highly capable submarine. armed with best torpedo in the war. there not much to talk about them. it just nothing much worthy to speak off

 

compared to how german use u-boat. that almost bring britain to their knees and scarred the shit out of churchill

or american subs. that almost single handedly destroy entire japan economy. 

the most efficient naval blockade, that cause starvation that kill 1.4 million jappanese, in which a million of them were soldier

 

those are how to use subs properly.

japan that use it as part of fleet action, is how to not use them properly

 

not really, IIRC back in battle on jutland germany tried to lure enemy fleet to their subs fleet, but it failed because weather condition prevent them from meeting.

 

i read somewhere in the internet that the problem with IJN subs is they are used very passively, they mainly uses as Scout instead of actually engaging actual combat.

also japan has really small merchant fleet unlike british and US. IJN also has poor experience and equipment for ASW while USN are miles ahead in that department because of their escorting mission on atlantic. they have better sonar and weapon like hedgehog.

 

if IJN uses their submarine more aggressively maybe there are more story like I-19. where a one torpedo spread take out or damage multiple ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
99 posts
1,653 battles

In jutland RN found out that the germans where sailing before the subs where ready and they just sailed past; using subs in combat required luring enemies over the sub fleet, so they wouldn't be useful in a battle situation.

IJN didn't have much oil and their subs tech wasn't as good as the other nations so they had little success; they did attack sydney with three subs but only sunk a unarmed vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,562 posts
17,552 battles

if IJN uses their submarine more aggressively maybe there are more story like I-19. where a one torpedo spread take out or damage multiple ship.

 

when RNG is just right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,106 posts
7,834 battles

 

not really, IIRC back in battle on jutland germany tried to lure enemy fleet to their subs fleet, but it failed because weather condition prevent them from meeting.

 

i read somewhere in the internet that the problem with IJN subs is they are used very passively, they mainly uses as Scout instead of actually engaging actual combat.

also japan has really small merchant fleet unlike british and US. IJN also has poor experience and equipment for ASW while USN are miles ahead in that department because of their escorting mission on atlantic. they have better sonar and weapon like hedgehog.

 

if IJN uses their submarine more aggressively maybe there are more story like I-19. where a one torpedo spread take out or damage multiple ship.

On the eve of World War I, the art of submarine warfare was barely a dozen years old.

Submarine, like other new weapons of First world war like Aircraft or Machinegun were still new. With Generals and Admirals uncustomed to Modern War and modern weapons

 

People can Argue that Subs can used at military Target, like Legendary German boat U-9 that "triple kill" British Cruiser, or Sinking of Shinano or Indiaapolis and more

 

But, Merchant ship sinking have more impact to the war as a whole

see this record : 
During the WW2 Germans Subs sink 2,840 ships for 14.3  million GRT (Gross Ton)

the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons) - sunk 60% of Japan Commercial ships

and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons) - Took care of AnyJapan Commercial Ships - US missed

while Japan only (184 Ships of 900.000 tons)

 

And Japan have 174 Ocean going Subs the entire war - and suffer same attrition rate as Germans but achived so little, and until 1942 they achived modest succes hunting military ship - sinking 2 Fleet carrier 1 Cruiser and few Destroyer. but then the Kill number seems not growing 

 

you said this - IJN subs is they are used very passively

This is true, but do you know why ?

 

This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships.  Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier.  They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces

As a Result They wait, and wait and Wait for the fleet action - the great decisive battle, that was never come

 

And The Time, is UP

ding ding ding

Allied Antisubmarine warfare have become so advanced, that its very Suicidal and dangerous to carry Torpedo attack on Protected merchant fleet, let alone Allied Patrol

The Morale of Japan submarine fleet were so Rock Bottom (combination of to much waiting for Action that never come, rarely see action, being used as Freight ship to supply Army garrison, Scarry Allied ASW abilities) 

that US and British Post war record say this

"It was frankly impossible to believe that submarines could spend weeks on the US west coast 'without contacts,' or spend more than 40 days running among the Solomons during the Guadalcanal campaign 'without seeing any targets.'  Even the Japanese commanding officers could not disguise their embarrassment when recounting these tales.  Further enlightenment is found in the extremely large number of times the target was 'too far away to attack.'"

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×