Submarine Feedback

[Kanatan_Pettan]

Based on the actual battle, I will write about my impressions, complaints, and areas for improvement.

（The more people's opinions are gathered, the more likely they are to be noticed by the management. We encourage you to write about your various opinions.）

---

Opinion in Destroyer

Spoiler

・Submarine has good concealment performance, and even if it fires for enemy sub, it dives quickly and is spotted by other enemies.

This often happens while using a destroyer.
When a submarine surfaces within detection distance, if you fire, the submarine will dive and be spotted by other enemies and attacked intensively.　

Also, even if I did not fire, the submarine would spot us while surfacing, hoping not to be shot at, and the destroyer would be under concentrated fire.

In the case of a destroyer-to-destroyer discovery, the
(1) spot each other
(2) Unilaterally discovered, but can escape because of the distance
If detected by radar, there is a time limit and the delay allows evasive action.

・DD's need to move right up to the submarine.

The destroyer must move precisely to just above the submarine and drop the Depth charge.

However, submarines not only offer good concealment, they also make it impossible to tell where they are by diving.　Also, if the submarine dives to the maximum depth, the RPF will not be able to detect the submarine.

・Position update in Pinger and Hydrophone.

There are certainly more ways to spot DD these days, including aircraft and radar. However, Rader had limited time, and spotting aircraft was difficult for some opponents. (Ex: DD in a smoke , Stong AA DD - Especially Europe DD)

But Hydrophone can be update DD position. Moreover, it is impossible to discover Sub in advance.

(T10 US Sub BALAO hydrophone range:9km / T10 German Sub U-2501 Hydrophone range:8km / ※T10 UK Sub THRASHER:6km [Detail]）

・Why are destroyers so easy to act in concealment instead of being less durable, and then there are ships that are even better at concealment and can dive and evade?

 

The balance is still maintained because radar ships and aircraft can be detected in advance. However, as for the Sub's Hydrophone, it is impossible to detect it in advance when the Sub is underwater.

Need to eliminate this consumable or shorten the range to 4~5 km in T10.

 

From a destroyer perspective, submarines are not a good fit for the current WoWS.

 

---

Opinion in Cruiser

Spoiler

・Submarine torpedoes are too fast to avoid.

This is not with regard to conventional torpedoes, about homing torpedoes.　The problem is that the torpedoes guided by Pinger are too fast.
This is fine for a ship with good mobility, but for a ship with poor mobility, it is very difficult to avoid.

 If the torpedo is a destroyer torpedo, a thought game (acceleration/deceleration, steering/straightening, etc.) occurs with the enemy.

However, as for the submarine Homing torpedo, if you hit the Pinger twice, you will be hit by a torpedo that is almost impossible to avoid. 

It is good that the damage is weaker than in the first submarine test.
However, the occurrence of flooding and the inevitable damage is very problematic. This can be very problematic for a ship that has no repair party, for example.

・The point of mixing direct Depth charge drops and air strike Depth Charge.

Currently cruisers have these two methods of attack for subamrines.  However, there are various problems, I think.

①Direct-drop type ships are too weak against submarines.　

If there are few enemies before the end of the battle, there is no problem.　However, during battle many situations, it is meaningless against submarines.

This is because it is very difficult to get right up to the top of the submarine.

Another problem is the mixing of direct drops with CA and CL and air raids.

Ex : Atlanta has direct drop type depth charge, But Sandiego has airstrike Depth charge.

       Des Moines has airstrike , But Venezia has direct drop type Depth charge.

I think the ASW of all cruisers should be changed to Airstrike if submarines are to be implemented.

 

---

Opinion in Battleship

Spoiler

・Submarine torpedoes are too fast to avoid.

This is not with regard to conventional torpedoes, about homing torpedoes.　The problem is that the torpedoes guided by Pinger are too fast.
This is fine for a ship with good mobility, but for a ship with poor mobility, it is very difficult to avoid.

 If the torpedo is a destroyer torpedo, a thought game (acceleration/deceleration, steering/straightening, etc.) occurs with the enemy.

However, as for the submarine Homing torpedo, if you hit the Pinger twice, you will be hit by a torpedo that is almost impossible to avoid. 

It is good that the damage is weaker than in the first submarine test.
However, the occurrence of flooding and the inevitable damage is very problematic.

・Using the repair party / limited repair party eliminate Pinger. (Soviet Battleships)

Repair party (R) are used to eliminate Pinger on submarines, However, R has become very important for battleships and has a long CT.

If a CV and a SUB make a division, if they use R once, their HP will be unilaterally reduced by fire and flooding or other means until the next R is used.
Other ships can cut the Spot from the enemy and hide, etc., except in special situations.

And especially, Soviet BBs have a limited R.

Therefore, it is easy to be attacked by a submarine with a guided torpedo, etc., and even if you are forced to use R, you can apply Pinger again.　

・Being torpedoed at close range

I think this is especially the biggest problem.
Even if the enemy fires a torpedo at a DD, the subsequent actions will change whether it hits or not.

However, there are times when a submarine surfaces nearby and shoot normal torpedo that cannot be avoided.

It is impossible to be suddenly torpedoed from 2~3 km unless it is through a smoke screen.

・BB's are attacked unilaterally by submarines with homing torpedoes.

If DD or CL sinks and BB is isolated Sub can unilaterally launch an almost inevitable attack against BB.

Recent balance adjustments have made it possible for submarines to be visible when firing pingers　(Version 0.11.4 and 0.11.9  )

However, this alone shows the source of the Pinger's transmission, but it doesn't tell us what kind of movement the submarine is making, and unless it is moving in a monotonous manner, it won't hit the airstrike Depth Bomb at all.

(Whether the Sub is moving forward or backward, whether the ship is facing forward or sideways, etc.)

 

ASW has been enhanced since the first test, but from BB's point of view, submarines are not suitable for official implementation in this game.

---

conclusion

Submarines are hardly a good fit for the current WoWS.　There are various problems with the discovery system, the attack system, and many others.
It is far from being officially implemented.　

WG is planning to officially implement British submarines, but I am against implementing them when they are not well balanced.　WG said  that submarines are balanced in the data, but they only look average because some are extremely weak (they sink quickly) and some are extremely strong (they have mastered the means to attack one way or the other).

In the first place, I think that submarines in historical reality are mainly engaged in trade destruction, etc., and are not vessels that participate in gunfire and lightning battles.

We believe that this should be better implemented in an event mode like Wolfpack and should not be implemented in a random battle.

It is understandable that the WG management wants to include the new element of submarines.
However, they must know that people are slowly leaving because they have been adding new elements (Submarine's, Superships)  without any input from the players.

We should prevent people from leaving the game any further when so many people are playing and many are paying for the game because they enjoy it.

From a balancing standpoint and from player opinion, the implementation of submarines should be stopped.

[IJN_Katori]

7 minutes ago, Kanatan_Pettan said:

conclusion

Submarines are hardly a good fit for the current WoWS.　There are various problems with the discovery system, the attack system, and many others.
It is far from being officially implemented.　

 

yeah, Wargaming will just correct all of these and says It's a go.

 

Besides, Arpeggio is coming back, and they had to rush it, Hooray for Iona.

[Mechfori]

Homing torp simply should be removed from this game , simple as that

[Don72]

10 hours ago, Kanatan_Pettan said:

In the first place, I think that submarines in historical reality are mainly engaged in trade destruction, etc., and are not vessels that participate in gunfire and lightning battles.

We believe that this should be better implemented in an event mode like Wolfpack and should not be implemented in a random battle.

Why do people like to talk about historical reality? WOWS is NOT AN HISTORICALLY REAL game.

It is a pure arcade game with real LOOKING ships only.

Please learn this. Nothing, literally NOTHING is "real" in this game.

[stel1arX]

Glad to see a detailed discussion by a ST player, thanks. I think those players who have more opportunities to contact WG staffs, especially CCs, barely make comments in public. I don't know if they DM to WG staffs or they think SS is well balanced or they don't care about it at all.

Here are my thoughts and suggestions.

1.Homing torpedoes.

I think: It is necessary because for underwater engagement, without homing torpedoes, it is nearly impossible to make a hit. 

Problem: (a)As you mentioned, it must be disabled by DCP with a very long CD and the tracking ability makes it almost impossible to dodge for a DD/CL that move forward to the submarine to attack it with depth charges.

(b) Despite there are white ripples to indicate the location of the submarine when it emits a ping, the information is not precise and often outdated. The submarine can go any direction or stay at where it is.

How to change: (a) Reduce the tracking ability / Increase the stop-track distance when it's close to the target / Reduce the effective time of the ping

(b) Restrict the angle of ping generator / Generate ripples twice or more times to indicate the trend of the submarine movement

 

2. Maneuverability

I think: Submarine, especially t10 and incoming U4501, are too fast to be countered.

Problem: (a) T6 runs at 16kts, T8 runs at 18kts, but T10 can run at 26kts underwater. 

(b) They surface and dive too quickly.

How to change: (a) It might be able to run very fast in history but speed is an important aspect in balance. Reduce the top speed under 20kts.

(b) Make a delay, say 10 secs to dive or surface action.

 

TBC.

[Kanatan_Pettan]

6 hours ago, Don72 said:

Why do people like to talk about historical reality? WOWS is NOT AN HISTORICALLY REAL game.

It is a pure arcade game with real LOOKING ships only.

Please learn this. Nothing, literally NOTHING is "real" in this game.

I am talking about historical facts, but my main focus is on the game balance aspect.

Horming torpedoes, submarine detection systems, CA/CL ASW, and many other issues I am referring to.

[dejiko_nyo]

The reason they are given OP systems is otherwise no one would play them. Real subs are slow, rely on their stealth to get their devastating strikes and are prone to getting obliterated when spotted. Guess how many people would want ships that go slower than the big fat american bbs?

[Max_Battle]

20 hours ago, Kanatan_Pettan said:

From a balancing standpoint and from player opinion, the implementation of submarines should be stopped.

Thank you.

No, thank YOU!

5 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The reason they are given OP systems is otherwise no one would play them. Real subs are slow, rely on their stealth to get their devastating strikes and are prone to getting obliterated when spotted. Guess how many people would want ships that go slower than the big fat american bbs?

The only way to get them in our dynamic 20 minute game was to do this.

Which is why it's wrong to put subs in the game.

9 hours ago, Don72 said:

Why do people like to talk about historical reality? WOWS is NOT AN HISTORICALLY REAL game.

It is a pure arcade game with real LOOKING ships only.

Please learn this. Nothing, literally NOTHING is "real" in this game.

Yeah but Lord of the Rings isn't real either.

And still people have legitimate problems with some of the casting choices according to the descriptions laid down by Tolkien.

Same with World of Warships - we have "existing canon" (lol or "cannons"... me so funny) and subs simply do not fit into the game "canon" any more than the diversity hires fit in The Rings of Power.

When people run with agendas (diversity or making money) rather than inspiration, the story/game suffers.

[Kanatan_Pettan]

6 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The reason they are given OP systems is otherwise no one would play them. Real subs are slow, rely on their stealth to get their devastating strikes and are prone to getting obliterated when spotted. Guess how many people would want ships that go slower than the big fat american bbs?

I think WG should stop implementing it at the point that no one will play unless we make it that strong.

Also, Sub is faster on the water, so I had no trouble getting around the first time.
The enemies are also not always all moving at full speed, so being a little slower in the water does not affect them.
(Although it is true that they are very slow in the water.)

 

If no one will come on board unless we make the performance disruptive to the existing game environment, then we need to make it boring in order to get the balance just right.
In my opinion, it would be better to stop implementing the submarine and work on the current minor glitches and balance adjustments.
 

[Garfield62709]

Good initiative to start this thread.

I have suffered through > 12 months of submarine trials in this game. They do absolutely nothing FOR the game. They are still poorly implemented, and I don't think there is anything that can be done in the current game to make them fit.

I have worked with product development ~ 20 years, and what really distinguish a great product manager from the rest, is the ability to scrap a product idea that simply doesn't work out.
I amdoing voting with my wallet. WG has not gotten any of my dollars for many months (vs spending perhaps $40-$50 per month before.

[Fighting_Temeraire]

The vast majority don't likee nor want the subs, the shills are sounding sillier and wargaming sees a cash cow. 

 

I will not spend a cent on a submarine in this game, and I would have spent usually $30-40 per line of early access. 

 

I'm fine with subs being in the game, but I think they should have their own mode or an opt out for the other players.

[Kanatan_Pettan]

1 minute ago, Fighting_Temeraire said:

The vast majority don't likee nor want the subs, the shills are sounding sillier and wargaming sees a cash cow. 

 

I will not spend a cent on a submarine in this game, and I would have spent usually $30-40 per line of early access. 

 

I'm fine with subs being in the game, but I think they should have their own mode or an opt out for the other players.

they should have their own mode or an opt out for the other players.　

<I agree this.　So the next WolfPack to be implemented, or the Halloween submarine battle implemented in the past, would be preferable.

 

<The vast majority don't likee nor want the subs, the shills are sounding sillier and wargaming sees a cash cow.

Even if the survey doesn't tell us the overall opinion, at least we know that the majority of players are against it.

[S0und_Theif]

WG Staff said this in live stream in twitch.

And I quote:

"We know that you don't like subs. What you want us to do? We can see. We are not ingoring. What do you want us to do?"

Remove Sub = Nyet!
Remove homing torpedo (most requested) = Nyet!
Listen to Feedback = LOL! Send to Shredder.

WeeGee knows submarines are not popular.

 

A lot of player have sent feedback but WeeGee just does not care.

At this point, it all about monetization for their sunk cost fallacy.

[Kanatan_Pettan]

3 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

WG Staff said this in live stream in twitch.

And I quote:

"We know that you don't like subs. What you want us to do? We can see. We are not ingoring. What do you want us to do?"

Remove Sub = Nyet!
Remove homing torpedo (most requested) = Nyet!
Listen to Feedback = LOL! Send to Shredder.

WeeGee knows submarines are not popular.

 

A lot of player have sent feedback but WeeGee just does not care.

At this point, it all about monetization for their sunk cost fallacy.

I can't understand how they can force implementation when they know it is unpopular...

If WG delete Sub, a lot of users to be satisfied and some users to come back, and it wouldn't cost us a lot of money to develop it.

 

[S0und_Theif]

3 minutes ago, Kanatan_Pettan said:

I can't understand how they can force implementation when they know it is unpopular...

Money, money, money, money, money.

They have prepared 4 premium subs ready for slae since 2019.

 

It's no longer about the game or making the game fun.

It's more about monetization and greed.

[DEFY__AN94]

The most unacceptable is the anti submarine methods that are difficult to use for some warships, such as Alexander Nevsky, Halland and Vampire II.
Consumables of Frisland and German destroyers（Z52，not Elbing） can effectively target careless submarines, but their smoke generators are not large enough to use them freely like British destroyers. Especially Frisland and Sherman destroyers, which mainly rely on smoke for output.

[Kanatan_Pettan]

11 hours ago, Regress1on said:

Glad to see a detailed discussion by a ST player, thanks. I think those players who have more opportunities to contact WG staffs, especially CCs, barely make comments in public. I don't know if they DM to WG staffs or they think SS is well balanced or they don't care about it at all.

Here are my thoughts and suggestions.

1.Homing torpedoes.

I think: It is necessary because for underwater engagement, without homing torpedoes, it is nearly impossible to make a hit. 

Problem: (a)As you mentioned, it must be disabled by DCP with a very long CD and the tracking ability makes it almost impossible to dodge for a DD/CL that move forward to the submarine to attack it with depth charges.

(b) Despite there are white ripples to indicate the location of the submarine when it emits a ping, the information is not precise and often outdated. The submarine can go any direction or stay at where it is.

How to change: (a) Reduce the tracking ability / Increase the stop-track distance when it's close to the target / Reduce the effective time of the ping

(b) Restrict the angle of ping generator / Generate ripples twice or more times to indicate the trend of the submarine movement

 

2. Maneuverability

I think: Submarine, especially t10 and incoming U4501, are too fast to be countered.

Problem: (a) T6 runs at 16kts, T8 runs at 18kts, but T10 can run at 26kts underwater. 

(b) They surface and dive too quickly.

How to change: (a) It might be able to run very fast in history but speed is an important aspect in balance. Reduce the top speed under 20kts.

(b) Make a delay, say 10 secs to dive or surface action.

 

TBC.

Thanks for the very good input.

 mention DCP in 1a, and I agree with you especially about 1b.
Even if we want to attack by air raid, we can't attack effectively because we don't know how the submarine is moving.

Also, as per 2b, the problem is that it can dive immediately.　This allows the submarine to take less damage and act unreasonably, which I feel is very unbalanced!

[Max_Battle]

1 hour ago, S0und_Theif said:

It's more about monetization and greed.

The confusing thing is - if they slapped a perma camo and ecconomic bonus on Leander and called it HMAS Sydney, I'd buy it.

Hell, if they copy pasta whole UK line, put perma camo and bonus on and called them ALL HMAS Premiumca$h I'd prolly buy (or gamble) the whole line.

If they make USN New Jersey, I would buy.

And so forth.

I will not be spending 1 cent on anything submarine related.

Even if these poor girl/robots/mental models/schoolgirl fantasies have been waiting in my roster for a long, LONG time...

SILENCE VIXENS!

Thou shalt not tempt me.

[Grygus_Triss]

11 hours ago, Max_Battle said:

The confusing thing is - if they slapped a perma camo and ecconomic bonus on Leander and called it HMAS Sydney, I'd buy it.

Hell, if they copy pasta whole UK line, put perma camo and bonus on and called them ALL HMAS Premiumca$h I'd prolly buy (or gamble) the whole line.

If they make USN New Jersey, I would buy.

And so forth.

I will not be spending 1 cent on anything submarine related.

Even if these poor girl/robots/mental models/schoolgirl fantasies have been waiting in my roster for a long, LONG time...

SILENCE VIXENS!

Thou shalt not tempt me.

The day they create a premium submarine hybrid will be an interesting day.

[WASP13]

Ironic how Steel Ocean did it better. Like SOOO much better even their concept of torps is fair and balanced imo.

What I dislike the most about Submarines in this game ASIDE from the obvious homing torp (honestly, just keep them as normal torps but with higher damage) is how USELESS hydoacoustic search is. 2km detection of a sub?! That is impossible to get in open waters mostly for the fact that the other 'detection mechanics' against subs are totally wrong.

 

They should just keep subs as an operations-only ship/boat to use in game. They can be fun but frankly they are just not balanced on any level

 

[Kanatan_Pettan]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/377

 

Ok I understand. WG does not listen to any opinion of the players, but only implements for their own satisfaction and does not consider the balance of the game.

Various people have issued various ideas, but the WG does not reflect any of them. I'm reminded that the forum is meaningless.

I can only see no one doing it long term like WoT and fewer and fewer new people starting.

 

Nice work WG