Main page

The renowned gaming info-source interviews Wargaming.net’s Frazer Nash

Full story: http://game.worldoft...ships-interview

You can use submarines. Destroyers would then have an actual role to play in the game. Make the subs higher tiers so they dont start until sonar is developed. And no sniper ever goes unfound. I guess no subs means no carriers either?

I have practically lost half the interest in World of Battleships since they have said there will be no submarines.

I was a pro-submarine player in NavyField and that's the reason why I liked playing that game even with 2-D graphics.

C'mon Wargaming, having submarines in the game makes a purpose to put depth charges and Sonar modules in WoB. Besides submarines have a lot of weakness like they have limited supply of air, shorter view range in dive mode and  their hull is very fragile as compared to Battleships. Some players might prefer hunting down submarines rather than sinking battleships like we have scouts who hunt SPGs in WoT. You can also limit the tier of submarines similar to SPGs in WoT.

No subs!?!?!?

Devs, theres still time to change your decision.

Destroyers and Frigates, they dont want to be scouts like WoTs light tanks and run into there and get sunk.

Give them more important roles like Detecting and Destroying subs with their sonar.

ITS NOT TOO LATE!!!

RayJones, on Aug 30 2011 - 12:14, said:

Agreed. They may aswell not put in the German tree at all if they don't put in our subs. I want to destroy those americans super crusier thingyies* WITH MY SUBS!


*I failed WWII battleship identification in school.

fail so strong!

Quote

Is he referring to Call of Duty snipers or what?

You guys are severely underestimating how obnoxious it is to find a submarine that doesn't want to be found, even in the modern day. In WWII it's basically like searching for a single fly crawling across the wall in a dark room, while all you have is a stethoscope and a tiny pen light.

Anyways submarines were never part of major naval battles; they were primarily used for commerce raiding and losing capital ships to them was the exception rather than the norm.

I'm very excited about this new game. And I'm definitely glad there will NOT be submarines in it. Going to enjoy shelling people from across the map with a Battleship.

I agree, their sense that submarines are too powerful to match against surface ships is misguided. The observation that "submarines are like SPGs" seems about right to me, except I think submarines might actually be more difficult to play (which itself seems to be keeping up with their "WoB will require more teamwork than WoT or WoWP" philosophy):

- Submarines launch slow, infrequent, and powerful attacks that miss more frequently than the guns fired by surface ships. The targets a submarine would be more likely to hit (e.g. battleships and aircraft carriers) could take more than one torpedo before sinking, and targets a sub could sink with one torpedo (e.g. PT Boats, other submarines, some smaller destroyers) would be very hard to hit and would be armed with anti-submarine weapons.

- Submarines are slow and maneuver poorly. iirc, the United States Navy didn't use submarines in conjunction with surface fleets very often (the Japanese did), because they were so frequently detrimental. The strategic implications of submarines working together with surface fleets will presumably not affect WoB gameplay. However, on a tactical level, battleships and aircraft carriers were largely incapable of detecting any submarine, including friendly ones, and could literally run them over and sink them (ramming was a legitimate method of attack against enemy submarines).

- A destroyer is a nightmare for a submarine, at least as much as Light Tanks are for SPGs in WoT. And it doesn't much matter whether the sub is surfaced or submerged; destroyers carry dedicated anti-submarine warfare equipment in addition to surface guns and they're fast (I don't think any submarine was ever capable of out-running a destroyer).

- Aircraft are also a nightmare for submarines, particularly in shallow water. Submarines submerged in coastal water could be seen from the air with the Mark-I Eyeball, which was standard-issue on every aircraft of the day.

- A lot of WWI- and WWII-era submarines (the era covered by WoB) had to operate on the surface a lot. Many of them had deck-guns, and were capable of engaging some ships on the surface (e.g. to finish off a damaged enemy, or when they ran out of torpedoes). With the not-quite-historical gameplay of the Wargaming.net game already established, the ability of a submarine to remain submerged could be tweaked to fit within our 15-minute games and the sizes of our battlefields (WoT maps are about 1km square, WoWP maps will be about 15km square, I haven't read anything about how big WoB maps will be).

- Submarines would also be something like TDs. In fact, I think about that analogy a lot when I'm driving a TD in WoT. WWI- and WWII-era torpedoes had a lot of different propulsion and detonating mechanisms. Simply put, a lot of them stank. Most submarines in the war needed to shoot into their target's side. Shooting at an oncoming ship's nose, or a fleeing ship's rear, was very difficult.



"Everyone will get into a submarine, one poor bastard will get into a boat, the boat will die a horrible death and everyone else will have no one to shoot at."

This is incorrect, in my opinion, in two ways. First, a team that brings 15 submarines into battle would get curb-stomped by a team that brought 1 aircraft carrier and 6 destroyers. Second, submarines could fire their deck-guns at each other while surfaced, provided the mechanics for submerging were limited (e.g. a sub can't just stay submerged the entire game).



I strenuously ask/suggest that the developers take another look at this, before it's too late. I ask any forum mods or devs reading this to please pass this along on my behalf.

Well then I guess this means german battleships will only be as strong as the KMS Bismark while soviet and american battle ships go to the nuclear era :/
By the way can this system be more of a "you start with a ship then add new parts to it" Rather than the pre made battleships because quite frankly, no 2 battleships were ever the same. We should be able to
1) In game design the outer appearance
2) Add armaments of our choosing. This should have varied consequences ie a heavier cannon will make the ship slower etc.

I am surprised to hear there will be no subs.  I was expecting a limited role.  Subs did influence some battles in WW2. The thing is the enemy fleet pretty much had to run right over them to get attacked because of the subs' lack of mobility, and that didn't happen often.

The interview still gives only limited info on how this game will be played.  We need a video that shows the game in action.  And still no word on ETA.

RayJones, on Aug 30 2011 - 12:14, said:

Pro and submarine player in NF should not be used in the same line. There is no such thing as skill when using the subs in NF when the splash damage is immense that would still eat away bulge armour and that you need a full broadside from a Montana to one shot it. The ship class that needed the most skill to use were carriers followed by any other surface ship. The subs in NF were implemented in such a flawed and broken way.

SpectreHD, on Aug 30 2011 - 16:06, said:

I though so I have seen that name somewhere.

Even though what you state about  splash damage of sub torpedoes is true but it still takes skill to drive a submarine in that game. Its like a TD where you can't turn around so quickly so the circle of death maneuver is as deadly to a submarine as it is in WoT. Besides you can only be in dive mode for a limited time. If you go up you risk yourself being spotted and hunted down by Destroyers who will send depth charges on you. If you come near a single depth charge while in dive mode your sunk. Just like not everyone is a good sniper in FPS games likewise not everyone is good when it comes to stealth in a submarine.

Submarines would have been bad,
Carriers have the potential to be bad too, but we shall see.

To me the most important thing will be the balance between Heavy gunships and faster and more nimble torpedo based ships. Unlike the miserable failure that is the light tank concept in this game (i.e food for heavy tanks), the power of torpedoes against bigger and less maneuverable targets and the difficulty of using large calibre naval rifles (think 12"/305mm guns and bigger) against small nimble targets means that this game can be properly balanced so playing lighter classes of ships can still be viable, and fun, against the biggest targets.

If the game becomes one where torps and agility do not count for much and you can drop a 15" shell on top of a DD doing 30 knot circles with the first salvo, I shall be very disappointed. It will become world of heavy tanks (on water).

The lack of subs IN NO WAY diminishes my desire to play this game.

There are several sub sims out there for people to play but no battleship games I know of. So I'm not bummed.

Submarines are far too difficult in a number of respects. You'd have to hardcap them to eliminate it as an organized team strategy, detection would either make surface vessels useless or make submarines useless (seeing as you have 15 minutes or so...) and the technical challenges of that much of a Y-axis are pretty significant.

The idea is much better off without them.

I think its ABSOLUTELY AWESOME there are no subs.  Surface combat is what makes the game.  The aircraft carriers sounds like they could add an interesting angle to the game - but the focus definitely needs to stay on surface action.

Thanks guys. . . WoB sounds like its going to be EXACTLY the game I want to play!!

That's what they said in NF for a lllooonngggg time.

I'm sure the issue will be revisited at a later date, I see subs as basically TDs anyway.

No subs????

This is the first strike against this game...

I am so sad.