Jump to content


TenTonHammer: World of Battleships Interview


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
113 replies to this topic

xaerostrike #61 Posted Aug 31 2011 - 21:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4058 battles
  • 871
  • [BLKRS] BLKRS
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostTroika, on Aug 31 2011 - 15:31, said:

You want subs, go play Silent Hunter, you big whiny babies. Abandon all your dumb fantasies of invisibly sneaking up on a battleship and torpedoing it, because that is unreasonable and unfair.

rofl...

Its not Fair ??? sounds like one of those types that is going to go BBs and then goes out alone with out the Fleet and get your self killed....


Find a way to DEAL with it... Thats what they had to do in the WAR... they didnt say "You cannot do that, thats just is not Fair"... Thats what Destroyers were built for, to protect the BBs and CVs...

XiangPotato #62 Posted Aug 31 2011 - 22:21

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29625 battles
  • 137
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

View PostJohnny_Mars, on Aug 30 2011 - 15:04, said:

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.

Thank you.

__gabriel__ #63 Posted Aug 31 2011 - 23:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16055 battles
  • 5,930
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
I must say I'm enjoying the wannabe water_sniper tears.

You won't be able to be some über U-Boot skipper, sitting in your underwater equivalent of a bush and firing torps at unknowing players.

I feel for you...I really do.  :Smile_harp:

khang36 #64 Posted Sep 01 2011 - 01:20

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 2595 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
darn i was hoping there will be subs so i can get a destroyer to go hunt them out with dc,hedgehog,squid mortar.... oh wells i hope BBs are not over powered where play DDs are useless like in NF

Angalacon #65 Posted Sep 01 2011 - 20:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 2173 battles
  • 2,026
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010

View Postkhang36, on Sep 01 2011 - 01:20, said:

darn i was hoping there will be subs so i can get a destroyer to go hunt them out with dc,hedgehog,squid mortar.... oh wells i hope BBs are not over powered where play DDs are useless like in NF
Like "scout" tanks vs mediums and heavies in WoT?

khang36 #66 Posted Sep 01 2011 - 21:07

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 2595 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostAngalacon, on Sep 01 2011 - 20:41, said:

Like "scout" tanks vs mediums and heavies in WoT?
naw even more useless in NF at least in wot the light had a role to play in NF the scout role was filled in by the CV, AA\torp ship by light cruisers being a destroyer before subs were added made you a waisted slot

saranw71 #67 Posted Sep 03 2011 - 07:45

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 643 battles
  • 75
  • Member since:
    08-28-2010

View PostMarseille, on Aug 31 2011 - 01:45, said:

WoWP won't have takeoffs or landings, and no cockpit view either. Also, collisions will deal damage similar to what you see here in WoT - in other words, just a couple hundred HP off, rather than instantly getting knocked out of action like a plane normally would. That's all that comes to mind for now!

Personally, those two points are enough for me to feel much less optimistic about WoWP, seeing that it's already too arcadey for me.

No cockpit(!!!), no take off / landing, no mid-air collision....
So I guess there won't be prop. pitch, fuel mixture, pos/neg G effect, etc  :huh:
Maybe some deflection shooting implemented like a aiming box in front of enemy aircraft to shoot at (Think of a automatic K-14 screen in the HUD for everyone).

I will be a nice arcade game, for sure, but us flight simmers will likely to skip this one.

For WoBS, I'll play this game. At first, I didn't like not having subs. But now I think that it's quite reasonable, for technical reasons, although the excuse for this made in the interview is..well...lame. :Smile_harp:

Angalacon #68 Posted Sep 03 2011 - 16:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 2173 battles
  • 2,026
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010

View Postkhang36, on Sep 01 2011 - 21:07, said:

naw even more useless in NF at least in wot the light had a role to play in NF the scout role was filled in by the CV, AA\torp ship by light cruisers being a destroyer before subs were added made you a waisted slot
Lights are just as redundant in WoT, especially as tiers go up. Good mediums are fast enough and can see further, and heavies can see even further than mediums. The Light has a role as "scout" because... that's all it can do -- but everything else does the spotting job just as well or better.

mdphotographer #69 Posted Sep 03 2011 - 22:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6813 battles
  • 98
  • [15TH] 15TH
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
The truth of the matter is that submarines played virtually no role in surface actions during either WWI or WWII. The Japanese tried to use them to no success during Pearl harbor and also Midway enemy ships sunk 0. The United States used them during the Battle of the Philippine Sea and they scored one hit on Taiho which ended up killing her because of horrible damage control of an inexperienced crew. US submarines also killed 2 heavy cruisers who were scouting FAR in advance of the fleet and who's primary role was scouting not killing enemy ships.

WWII and even early 50s boats were too slow to operate with the fleet directly.Under water speeds were sub 10 knots while the battle fleets even slowed by WWI era battleships could travel in excess of 20 knots....late 30s and later designed ships would operate in excess of 28 knots (North Carolina class and later)so submarines operating directly with a surface force were useless in WWII.

On locating submarines to kill them..... most submarines were sunk either on the surface by aircraft,submerged by aircraft who first spotted them on the surface,and finally by escorts when the subs attacked....mostly at night. This is why the Japanese merchant navy was decimated by the US sub force....they didn't have the aircraft,radar, or small carriers to commit to a anti-submarine campaign and US subs operated mostly from the surface and attacked at night in the Germanic manner. There were of course exceptions to these rules but this is how the war played out for the most part. The subs always had the advantage insofar as to risking detection versus attacking the enemy....submerged subs were almost never stumbled over and killed in open water unless they were already attacking a target,again most first detection by ASW forces was on the surface or after torpedoes had been fired.

I have really enjoy WoT however arty does take a lot of the fun out of driving tanks for me. In real life during WWII arty almost never killed tanks on the move in the open unless it was a massed attack and massed arty bombarded it. By the time a observer could call in a target the target would be gone that is why arty can be over-powering in the game instant spotting and god like view is an unfair advantage....I do understand why it is a part of the game because it does help prevent camping.

I am looking forward to WoB (hope they have a Maryland BB for me lol)and am glad no subs are part of the game dealing with air and surface attack will be hard enough.BTW on a post I saw someone mentioned that warships had trouble targeting more then one ship at a time and that's BS they did it all the time.There were many instances where the front turrets would engage one target and the real turrets and or secondaries another.

Zepheris #70 Posted Sep 08 2011 - 00:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8022 battles
  • 705
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
Yep, and not only can they target multiple ships at once... but battleships and cruisers are equipped with NUMEROUS and i mean seriously a LOT of secondary guns to complement their main battery, these smaller guns often are lined up along it's broadside.

in another word, you are not safe just because you are small and fast against the big ship, they got plenty of smaller guns designed PRECISELY to kill smaller ships that are stupid enough to enter the range, and whichever ship didn't enter the range for the secondary gun will be smacked by their main gun battery.

So it's going to be interesting to see how they balance the role of smaller vessels (destroyers and corvettes especially) against the bigger vessels given the destroyers traditionally only had 2 real purpose in that period, either as anti aircraft screen, or anti submarine warfare... and since there will be no sub in WoB sadly, then there's only 1 role left really for them.

Unless you wanna suicide the destroyers to make point blank torpedo run against the bigger ships.
Given the ships available in the WoB, the only ships the destroyers can engage directly without being smashed into little pieces would be the carriers, since they are big fat... armed with relatively small number of guns (still enough to hurt the destroyers but at least it's not as suicidal as attacking cruisers or battleships).

SKurj #71 Posted Sep 12 2011 - 22:52

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6853 battles
  • 850
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010
It would only take a little thought to find a way to add subs...

XenomorphZZ #72 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 02:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12412 battles
  • 4,663
  • [RSRC] RSRC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011
They 'could' I doubt the engine would make it impossible... its just a game design decision on WG's part.

Its like bethsada's policy of having weak sniper rifles in brink.

Cthulhu #73 Posted Sep 23 2011 - 01:39

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6858 battles
  • 226
  • [IGTD] IGTD
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postxaerostrike, on Aug 31 2011 - 11:26, said:

Sorry WG thats a very poor and lame Excuse for not having Subs... I think its the most Stupid excuse for not having Subs that I have ever heard... for WG its just an easy Excuse for them not to do more work on the game and to make it more realistic...

Everyone will pick Subs ? are you Kidding me ??? only the Skilled players would pick Subs, if you limit the Oxygen on Subs to just a few minutes there will be no Subs under the water permanently... so your Excuse WG FAILS HARDCORE...

Please come up with an Excuse that makes better sense or atleast tell the Truth... like you cant be bothered working on under water Terrain and making Sub Models and parts ect....

There are PLENTY of ideas to make Subs work with the Game so players cannot be submerged for ever...

a few like ideas like... Subs can only fire Torps at Periscope Depth, and Shells landing near by can still do damage to them ect...

There is no real excuse NOT to have Subs in game...
I read your post and I wanted to say the sub is the td of naval battles. It hides underwater ,but, when out of air it very unprotected. Keep in mind a sub is very slow underwater. WW2 subs were ships that had the ability to flood ballasts. IDK its like a td simple as that it hides and destroys. But when its found its very useless.
And what is it with everyone comparing this stuff with wow? The game has not come out yet O_o You people cant possibly know what the game is like or the systems used in playing it. Unless there is some sort of conspiracy going on with the alpha tester thing.

Cthulhu #74 Posted Sep 23 2011 - 01:45

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6858 battles
  • 226
  • [IGTD] IGTD
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postxaerostrike, on Aug 31 2011 - 21:01, said:

ROFL... /facepalm

Its not Fair ??? you sound like your one of those types that is going to go BBs and then goes out alone with out the Fleet and get your self killed....


Find a way to DEAL with it... Thats what they had to do in the WAR... they didnt say "You cannot do that, thats just is not Fair"... Thats what Destroyers were built for, to protect the BBs and CVs...



Not fair... rofl thanks for the laugh...
Hahahaha sucks to be a battleship surrounded by uboats hehe. The suspence. Until the lack of air forces the hunter to become the hunted lolz. Get serious people the 105mm deckgun on the uboat could not pierce the like 400mm minimum on the lightest battleship. The only viable excuse not to include submarines is that they are going to go to the nuclear era. Thats a different story and since they said thats whats going to happen I just gave you all a reasonable excuse why we cant add them. Nuclear submarines are undetectable its that simple. Designed to avoid sonar radar etc. Create their own air from seawater, infinite fuel(nuclear generators), ibms (yeah good luck balancing these in any way), foreward facing nuclear torpedoes(these will oneshot a continent) , not to mention these nuclear submarines are massive. I cant stretch that enough its a floating colony. This thing cant be detected, pierced or defeated.

burad #75 Posted Sep 26 2011 - 05:51

    Private

  • Players
  • 321 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    09-17-2011
It would be much more realistic to have torpedo boats in the game than subs. Torpedo boats (which come in various sizes) actually participated in fleet actions in both wars.
Additionally, destroyer flotillas - until their role changed to AA defence because of aircraft carriers - primary mission was the delivery of torpedos and the generation of smoke screens.
Cruisers - with the exception of later WWII US cruisers - also all carried torpedos. The only reason battleships carried secondary armament prior to the dominance of airpower was for shooting at destroyers and torpedo boats.  Oh, and the name 'destroyer' is the shortened term for what was originally called 'torpedo boat destroyer' - a ships whose mission it was to stop torpedo boats. Plus, the finest torpedo developed until after WWII was the Japanese Long Lance, with a range of 40,000 yards; carried on their destroyers and cruisers.  
There'll be lots of opportunities to shoot torpedos w/o subs.

Cthulhu #76 Posted Sep 27 2011 - 17:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6858 battles
  • 226
  • [IGTD] IGTD
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postburad, on Sep 26 2011 - 05:51, said:

It would be much more realistic to have torpedo boats in the game than subs. Torpedo boats (which come in various sizes) actually participated in fleet actions in both wars.
Additionally, destroyer flotillas - until their role changed to AA defence because of aircraft carriers - primary mission was the delivery of torpedos and the generation of smoke screens.
Cruisers - with the exception of later WWII US cruisers - also all carried torpedos. The only reason battleships carried secondary armament prior to the dominance of airpower was for shooting at destroyers and torpedo boats.  Oh, and the name 'destroyer' is the shortened term for what was originally called 'torpedo boat destroyer' - a ships whose mission it was to stop torpedo boats. Plus, the finest torpedo developed until after WWII was the Japanese Long Lance, with a range of 40,000 yards; carried on their destroyers and cruisers.  
There'll be lots of opportunities to shoot torpedos w/o subs.
I assure you there wont. I know what you say is true but again, they will call torpedoes cheap and wont add them.

rednotdead #77 Posted Sep 28 2011 - 14:29

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11953 battles
  • 82
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    03-23-2011
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of disappointment about no subs.  :(

The potential for a whole new dimension to the game has been lost, I feel.

Cthulhu #78 Posted Sep 29 2011 - 17:24

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6858 battles
  • 226
  • [IGTD] IGTD
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postrednotdead, on Sep 28 2011 - 14:29, said:

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of disappointment about no subs.  :(

The potential for a whole new dimension to the game has been lost, I feel.
Im starting to wonder how this game will even play out. The cant just give us one gun to man and what the hell happens to a ship after it dies? Would it sink into the ocean dramatically and visually appealingly. Any ship underwater is a submarine hehe that would be a funny excuse.

tank_sniper #79 Posted Oct 01 2011 - 04:43

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7897 battles
  • 223
  • [DICER] DICER
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
hmm interesting, i myself am an nf player and am glad they do not add subs, NF did a terrible job on subs, yet i doubt WoT can compare it's ability on ships like BF1942 did, and then the mods after it that made it even better, if they did add subs they could be detected by the periscope cutting through the water so surface ships knew it was coming, although i doubt the WoB team has a clue how to do it.  i hope they allow torp ships it will be fun having obstacles to avoid and would be fun imo since im sure they will have torpedo planes in the game.

However if they are going into the nuclear reactor era ships then yes they should not add subs, it would be unfair and no fun for most, lets just have a friendly surface ship shelling banaza shall we?

Bunkerbomber #80 Posted Jan 04 2012 - 23:58

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 12650 battles
  • 91
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostTankWarcraft, on Aug 30 2011 - 13:29, said:

Is he referring to Call of Duty snipers or what?

Who knows. Whatever that reference is for, it's way off base.  Infantry don't have sniper 'sonar' to find them in the tree.  Destroyers/Frigates can have that capability.  Some people enjoy the challenge of finding the hidden guy. Then if that is the case (no subs), then there is no reason for those smaller vessels to even be in the game because then on the seas, the one with the big guns and best trained crew will win.  And yah I can some people going 'well what if no one can find the sub and they draw out b/c of that capability scenario'  Get rid of draws.  Like seriously, if one team got their butts handed to them and it's like 9 to 1....lets face it, you lost, there's no draw.  And well if they don't put subs in for the guys/girls that like German engineering, there is a good friend called imperial Japanese navy.  ;)

No subs = lazy thinking. You don't see everyone playing tier 10 just because they have it, right?  Why is that?  Because it gets(would get) boring.  Same goes with artillery and the same would go with Submarines as well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users