Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Andrewbassg said:

it was inevitable and long overdue, which is...

 

...the fault of crybabies, who defended the class at all costs, for "my precious" reasons, with no reasonable basis nor grounds.

 

 

FYI, most CV mains were vocal proponents of changes to the class being required.

[Andrewbassg]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

FYI, most CV mains were vocal proponents of changes to the class being required.

I know. I didn't said Cv mains, I said crybabies. 

(El2aZer being one of the most famous, among the formers)

Edited December 15, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

Quote

Upcoming Changes to Aircraft Carriers and Submarines
Today
Captains!

We hope that you're enjoying our New Year Update! As we’re wrapping up the year 2023, we want to give you a glimpse of some exciting changes that aim to address some significant aircraft carrier and submarine pain points you provided feedback on.

Before you read further, please note that we're sharing our current concept for these changes. We don't have exact details just yet, and many things could change. That being said, we have a prototype that we are enthusiastic about, and we have outlined our ideas below.

Aircraft Carrier ChangesSubmarine Changes

LET'S DIVE IN!
AIRCRAFT CARRIER CHANGES
We’ve been hard at work to find a solution for the following problems:

Aircraft carrier plane spotting has too much impact.
Anti-aircraft mechanics and consumables don’t feel impactful enough.
Rebalancing spotting and anti-aircraft mechanics while ensuring that aircraft carriers remain viable in battle.
We’ve tested many different approaches in the past to deal with these problems, and while some came close to meeting our requirements, they ultimately fell short of our expectations. However, we learned many lessons and many of the previously tested concepts contributed to our current prototype, which is something that we confidently feel will address these problems and lead to big improvements in the overall game experience.

OUR NEW PROTOTYPE
The core aspect of our prototype is that aircraft carrier planes will have two different modes: travel mode and attack mode. The differences between the two modes are outlined below.

TRAVEL MODE
We don't want aircraft carrier planes to spot enemy ships while traveling—only when they’re attacking. This will reduce the majority of random spotting that aircraft carriers provide while scouting for targets to strike.
Planes will be able to travel at maximum speed in this mode.
While traveling, the aircraft carrier will only have the information provided by the spotting of allied ships.
Surface ships will be able to spot enemy aircraft carriers’ planes during this period if in range, but their AA guns will not be able to engage them.
However, the Defensive AA Fire and Fighter consumables can be used against planes in the traveling phase.
Additionally, we are working on adding a new consumable for aircraft carriers which will work in a similar way as Hydrophone, but with limitations. The consumable will only provide brief information on enemy ship positioning, without the ability to track targets over a period of time.

WHILE ATTACKING
When launching an attack, the planes will be able to spot enemy ships.
At the same time, the AA from surface ships will be able to fire at the planes.
In case the aircraft carrier keeps attacking the same ship repeatedly, the ship’s AA strength will get significantly stronger for a period of time–making it counterproductive for aircraft carriers to keep focusing on the same target.
We also want to provide a new counter-play mechanic for surface ships that amounts to "blinding the carrier"–surface ships will be able to restrict the spotting ability of an aircraft carrier for a period of time, resulting in the inability to see and strike ships effectively that would otherwise not be spotted by allies. This mechanic will, however, not be effective against proxy-spotting.
Additionally, this prototype allows us to experiment with the concept of adding another layer of depth in gameplay and control for aircraft carrier players–taking manual control of some their guns, similar to Main Battery guns on surface ships, when not controlling a squadron. These will be the largest-caliber secondary guns available on the carrier. This should provide a new way to deal with close-range targets.

THUS, THE NEW MECHANICS DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL ALLOW US TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING RESULTS:
Aircraft carriers' spotting capabilities will decrease, surface ships will have new tools for active counterplay against aircraft, constant attacks against the same target will become less effective, and the value of AA consumables will increase.
On the other hand, aircraft carriers will be able to reach their targets faster and launch more attacks, as well as being able to control their ship's guns, which, together, will expand their gameplay capabilities and maintain their combat effectiveness.
Our main goal is to improve the interaction between surface ships and aircraft carriers as a whole, and we don't want to reduce the overall damage capabilities of either side. Therefore, along with the introduction of new mechanics, we will be making balance changes to all surface ships and aircraft carriers in the game to preserve their core gameplay features, while preventing them from being over- or under-performing in battle.
Due to the scale of this change, we expect to have to make additional balancing changes in the future–both for aircraft carriers and AA. Since this prototype is in active development, we can’t share more details at this point, but we expect to be able to provide you with an update by the end of February.

SUBMARINE CHANGES
In parallel with addressing the aircraft carrier issues, we've been working on submarine changes for quite some time now. We’ll implement these changes gradually over the course of a few upcoming updates, and you can expect to see the first major changes with Updates 13.1 & 13.2.

THE UPCOMING CHANGES ARE AIMED TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS:
The situation where current mechanics allow submarines to perform successful "shotgunning" of enemy ships.
"Shotgunning" is when a submarine surfaces in close range to enemy surface ships and launches a devastating salvo of torpedoes that are very difficult to evade.
Lack of consistent and understandable interactions between submarine and surface ship, and, in particular, lack of additional ways for both sides to counter each other.
At the same time, we want to maintain the current level of combat effectiveness of submarines in battle, which we plan to achieve through a series of balance changes, as well as updating commander skills, upgrades, and signals.
UPCOMING CHANGES IN UPDATE 13.1
Italian & German cruiser tech tree branches (
X VENEZIA
 and 
X HINDENBURG
 lines) as well as several premium heavy cruisers will receive plane-based anti-submarine warfare (ASW), replacing their ship-based depth charges. This means that all heavy cruisers except Dutch cruisers, who have their own HE bombs airstrike, will have plane-based ASW.
Additionally, we also plan to add depth charges on destroyers 
VI LEONE
 and 
V OKHOTNIK
 a few updates after 13.1.
We’re planning to improve the ASW armament of mid-Tier ships, improving their effectiveness against Tier VI–VIII submarines. We will share detailed information on these changes in an upcoming DevBlog.
Some cruiser branches will receive the Submarine Surveillance consumable. We’re planning to add this to the upcoming Commonwealth cruiser line as well as Italian and Japanese cruiser branches (
X VENEZIA
, 
X ZAŌ
, and 
X YODO
 branches).
This will provide these cruisers with an interesting new facet of gameplay, especially considering that they do not have a large number of consumables.
Adding this consumable to the new branch of Commonwealth cruisers will diversify their gameplay, as well as enhance the sub hunter role already inherent in them through enhanced ASW.
More branches might receive this consumable, but our goal is not to provide this to all cruisers (similar to the distribution of Surveillance Radar or Hydroacoustic Search).
We also plan to change the mechanics of the Hydrophone consumable. It’s intended for a more defensive than offensive use, so we will limit its functionality to highlight ships only momentarily on the mini map in a certain radius (similar to Hydroacoustic Search/Surveillance Radar)–visually this consumable will work the same way as before. Additionally, the consumable will now be able to detect targets even through terrain. When submarines use it to highlight the ship above them and in their line of sight, that ship will appear as a silhouette only for short period (about 6 seconds) and then disappear. Targets behind the terrain will be displayed as a short flash without a silhouette. This change removes the ability for submarines to closely track their targets and thus pulling off successful shotgunning interactions more difficult. This should also make this consumable function closer to Hydroacoustic Search and Surveillance Radar, making it easier to grasp and understand.
While taking into consideration the impact of the improvements for detecting submarines and dealing damage to them, we plan to improve the turning circle radius of all submarines so that they have more opportunities to avoid detection by enemy ships, timely change of position and better maneuver among the islands.
We will update some combat signals for submarines to reflect these changes.
Among other changes, audio and visual submarine collision warning will be added to the game for submarines, allowing submarines that have not detected each other to be aware of approaching one another at distances of less than 2 km.
FUTURE UPDATES
As another step in solving the "shotgunning" problem, we will test torpedoes with a gradual speed and damage increase over range. If this solution is effective enough and is a good fit for our game, some more submarines torpedoes may be rebalanced to be less dangerous in close proximity, but more powerful at longer range.
Dynamic torpedo speed: The torpedoes will be very slow when first launched until a certain range (for example, the first 3km), and then their speed will gradually increase. This should give surface ships more opportunities to evade "shotgun" attacks.
Dynamic torpedo damage: Similarly, the damage from the torpedoes will be very low within close proximity, and after traveling some distance, their potential damage will increase.
Some submarine upgrades will also be updated.
We’re planning to update submarine Commander skills, most likely in the first half of the year. Quite some time has passed since their introduction, which has allowed us to gather enough data and feedback to revamp them. There is quite a wide scope of changes, and we can't share an exact date yet as a result, but we will keep you updated.
We hope these changes sound exciting and interesting to you, and we're looking forward to hearing your thoughts and constructive feedback. Please keep in mind that this concept is being shared at an early stage and is very likely to undergo balance changes during testing.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/upcoming-changes-to-aircraft-carriers-and-submarines/

Suffice to say that I think most of these proposed changes are bovine excrement.
I feel that several of them are solutions in search of a problem.
I get the distinct impression that non-submarine and non-CV players are being "coddled" and given advantages they don't actually need.

That's my two doubloons, for now.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

53 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

Anyone else think it’s great that WG actually concedes to all the crying over CVs and subs and starts to implement a way to appease the minority, and all it creates is more unhappiness within the targeted community?  

Mostly amid the people who wanted them nerfed. 

[MBT808]

2 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Judging on what I read tonight they dont have much sense in their mind as usual.

Mumbo jumbo on CV changes that even they dont understand.

Subs getting nerf to the bottom of the ocean.

They made easy changes so complicated and hard to actually implement.

I mean, their making changes at this point that should've been addressed years ago and the player base told them about. again. and again. and Again.

In my opinion, all they needed to do over the years to address AA amounted to roughly four things:

1)CV captain skills nerf/removal: some of the skills interacted with AA in bad ways, further reducing the effectiveness of already ineffective AA. The CV captain skills negative impacts especially on BBs which already had horribly gimped AA.

2)Invincibility frames during attack runs/AA not targeting the attacking flight: This was a horrible mechanic WG implemented. Its unfair and straight up ridiculous. Wheres my Invincibility while launching torps in Shima, aiming my main battery in Georgia, or burst firing in Castilla? No other ship class gets this crutch(cause thats exactly what it is) except CVs.

3)AA "Accuracy": DDs and CVs had no impact from this, but cruisers and BBs all got hit with this. It took ships that had once been credible threats and declawed them significantly. Removing this alone would bring cruisers and BBs up to a more acceptable level of AA power. cause as is, only a handful of cruisers even make it into what would currently defined as acceptable levels of AA. No BB in the game that was powerful in the pre-rework era is now. Easy example was Gneisenau during the RTS era. Her long range AA was extremely powerful back in the day, a credible threat to most CVs to steer clear of. Now, with her accuracy nerfs(as well as the other above two issues), her AA is a nuisance at best.

Mouse's actual AA thread addresses the issue with AA accuracy very well.

4)Flak damage vs DPS: Flak was a plainly bad game design choice, no one will argue that. As @LittleWhiteMouse so accurately put it, flak is just a skill check for the CV captain. Flak can deal heavy damage, but if the CV dodges it, it becomes entirely moot. Flak has predictable patterns that can be dodged(if it was randomized, that would probably be the one place were implementing RNG would be useful), thus relying on or buffing it is pointless in a practical sense. If flak was removed and the raw DPS of AA increased, it would make AA more effective generally when coupled with the removal of the silly AA accuracy gimp.

Fixing these would've made the CV-surface ship interaction much better than it is. And as I said at the start of this reply, these are changes that should've been addressed years ago not just now.

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Helstrem said:

something needs to be done to pull back on the efficacy of shotgunning.

Players just need to do the research and learn how to improve their game, including their ASW efforts.

So many aspects of the game have driven Submarine players to ...
~not use pings when they don't have to
~ be sneaky (which many learned how to do while playing DD's, perhaps?)
~ burn significant portions of their dive-capacity in order to get into a good position to perform an attack
~ reveal their position with the performance of a "shotgun" attack from point-blank range
~ accept that many submarine torpedoes lack the warhead potency to sink a Battleship in one full salvo.
~ accept that the red-team ships may surround and outnumber a submarine while it is trying to get into a good position and the submarine may be unable to detect them until it is too late

Good play is not overpowered. 
But, it is often complained about and the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who are outplayed can sometimes be louder than the voices of common-sense, wisdom and logic (in my opinion).

[AdmiralMcintosh]

7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Good play is not overpowered. 
But, it is often complained about and the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who are outplayed can sometimes be louder than the voices of common-sense, wisdom and logic (in my opinion).

Nope submarines are overpowered, if the majority of the player base cant beat a submarine then its clear they need a nerf. Wargaming does not cater to the 10% of people who think submarines and CV's are fine. Plus this game needs newcomers to spend money to keep it alive, submarines are killing this.

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 minutes ago, AdmiralMcintosh said:

18 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Good play is not overpowered. 
But, it is often complained about and the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who are outplayed can sometimes be louder than the voices of common-sense, wisdom and logic (in my opinion).

Nope submarines are overpowered, if the majority of the player base cant beat a submarine then its clear they need a nerf. Wargaming does not cater to the 10% of people who think submarines and CV's are fine. Plus this game needs newcomers to spend money to keep it alive, submarines are killing this.

Seems to me that we disagree.  The upside is we're doing so in a civil manner.

 

[AdmiralMcintosh]

Just now, Wolfswetpaws said:

The upside is we're doing so in a civil manner.

I agree on that.

[MBT808]

13 minutes ago, AdmiralMcintosh said:

Nope submarines are overpowered, if the majority of the player base cant beat a submarine then its clear they need a nerf. Wargaming does not cater to the 10% of people who think submarines and CV's are fine. Plus this game needs newcomers to spend money to keep it alive, submarines are killing this.

A better argument would be to point out that often, to deal with a single sub would take at least three to four vessels focusing their efforts on spotting and targeting the sub. A sub can easily escape most ships in single or two ship engagements. Most DDs, which should counter subs, can't if they don't have hydro. Some of the completely broken ones, like U-4501, can dive and are faster than most surface ships when submerged. A U-4501 can effectively escape any engagement with ease short of intentionally killing themselves.

Edit: For comparisons sake, a single DD can, with good play, deal with a yamato 1v1.

Edited December 15, 2023 by MBT808

[AdmiralMcintosh]

Just now, MBT808 said:

A better argument would be to point out that often, to deal with a single sub would take atleast three to four vessels focusing their efforts on spotting and targeting the sub.

Your right, i forgot because i have quit playing randoms because of this whole submarine thing.

[Type_93]

13 minutes ago, AdmiralMcintosh said:

Nope submarines are overpowered, if the majority of the player base cant beat a submarine then its clear they need a nerf.

The majority of the player base can’t beat any class. 

[Type_93]

37 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Mostly amid the people who wanted them nerfed. 

Almost exclusively. Some players will never be happy until their favorite ship is the only one that can do damage while receiving none. 

[Helstrem]

58 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Edit: For comparisons sake, a single DD can, with good play, deal with a yamato 1v1.

Its a lot harder for the Yamato to deal with most DDs 1v1 than most DDs to deal with a Yamato 1v1.

[Sailor_Moon]

2 hours ago, MBT808 said:

I mean, their making changes at this point that should've been addressed years ago and the player base told them about. again. and again. and Again.

In my opinion, all they needed to do over the years to address AA amounted to roughly four things:

1)CV captain skills nerf/removal: some of the skills interacted with AA in bad ways, further reducing the effectiveness of already ineffective AA. The CV captain skills negative impacts especially on BBs which already had horribly gimped AA.

2)Invincibility frames during attack runs/AA not targeting the attacking flight: This was a horrible mechanic WG implemented. Its unfair and straight up ridiculous. Wheres my Invincibility while launching torps in Shima, aiming my main battery in Georgia, or burst firing in Castilla? No other ship class gets this crutch(cause thats exactly what it is) except CVs.

3)AA "Accuracy": DDs and CVs had no impact from this, but cruisers and BBs all got hit with this. It took ships that had once been credible threats and declawed them significantly. Removing this alone would bring cruisers and BBs up to a more acceptable level of AA power. cause as is, only a handful of cruisers even make it into what would currently defined as acceptable levels of AA. No BB in the game that was powerful in the pre-rework era is now. Easy example was Gneisenau during the RTS era. Her long range AA was extremely powerful back in the day, a credible threat to most CVs to steer clear of. Now, with her accuracy nerfs(as well as the other above two issues), her AA is a nuisance at best.

Mouse's actual AA thread addresses the issue with AA accuracy very well.

4)Flak damage vs DPS: Flak was a plainly bad game design choice, no one will argue that. As @LittleWhiteMouse so accurately put it, flak is just a skill check for the CV captain. Flak can deal heavy damage, but if the CV dodges it, it becomes entirely moot. Flak has predictable patterns that can be dodged(if it was randomized, that would probably be the one place were implementing RNG would be useful), thus relying on or buffing it is pointless in a practical sense. If flak was removed and the raw DPS of AA increased, it would make AA more effective generally when coupled with the removal of the silly AA accuracy gimp.

Fixing these would've made the CV-surface ship interaction much better than it is. And as I said at the start of this reply, these are changes that should've been addressed years ago not just now.

[Sailor_Moon]

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

I would LOVE to hear what Ahskance would say now..... given our past debates 

^{Honestly, I would too...given OUR past debates. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯}

Edited December 15, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Sailor_Moon]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/upcoming-changes-to-aircraft-carriers-and-submarines/

Suffice to say that I think most of these proposed changes are bovine excrement.
I feel that several of them are solutions in search of a problem.
I get the distinct impression that non-submarine and non-CV players are being "coddled" and given advantages they don't actually need.

That's my two doubloons, for now.

I believe that is what most non-CV/non-sub players were saying about subs and CVs. That they were in fact, given perks/advantages other surface ships didn't get (like their ability to spot for themselves without any support, immunity to detonations, improved auto-DCP, auto-consumables, less damage from fires/flooding, etc.), and that they were "coddled".

Also, that some of the changes Wargaming made (like Enlarged Propeller Shaft change with ended up being a buff to subs) were "solutions in search of a problem". I've heard this one before 🙂

My own two 356mm shells, for now.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Sailor_Moon

[Snargfargle]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Seems to me that we disagree.  The upside is we're doing so in a civil manner.

We's a-fightin' but we's a-doin' it in a civil manner.

[Snargfargle]

It seems to me, after playing quite extensively in randoms knocking off snowflakes this past week, that the CV and sub changes are, yet again, Wargaming responding to a non-issue.

Most of the matches I'm playing in have four DDs and two subs. CVs are seen only in one out of four of five matches unless I'm playing one and then I have to wait a few minutes for a match.

I've played thousands of matches since CVs were reworked and well over a thousand since subs were introduced. I've been sunk only a few times by subs. Most of these were by ramming when I was in a DD depth-charging them. Sub torpedoes are easy to dodge. I think the reason that some people can't is that they aren't taking the torpedo vigilance skills. CVs, especially in two-CV matches, may sink me by concentrating only on my ship but doing so their team almost always loses the game because they are not supporting their team.

Conversely, I sink subs all the time, much of the time inadvertently with long-range secondaries. Unless subs go off hunting a lone ship, they are usually one of the first ship types sunk as the first time they send out a ping or torps, which indicate their position to those who are paying attention, the sky immediately fills with depth-charge bombers called in by battleships and cruisers. I've sunk subs by just watching where my teammates' depth bombers were splashing shells and sending my own bombers to hit the general area. Not to mention those handy oil slicks that tell you were a damaged sub is lurking.

Yes, once again, there are maybe ten experts in subs that are real killers in games. An expert Gato player I've seen routinely comes in at the top of the team. However, most sub players do just the opposite. There are some still who spend the entire match at the spawn trying to figure out how to dive and re-surface. I've seen several players who just use their subs as small, slow DDs and never do dive. They are oftentimes helpful when they come in to recap an area after the enemy has forgotten they were out there somewhere and have moved on.

What do I think I like about the proposed rework? The ability for CVs to manually control their largest-caliber guns sounds interesting. Essentially, this is just going to make CVs another set of "hybrid" ships like the Kearsarge though, albeit shorter-range ones.

[b101uk]

5 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

FYI, most CV mains were vocal proponents of changes to the class being required.

yes and most of them had ulterior motive for doing so, like El2aZer and their narrative being classis example, you never balance to the top players ever at the far end of the bell curve, just as you never balance to the worst players at the opposing end of the bell curve, you balance to peek of the bell curve where most people sit.

 

people like El2aZer have a warped view and just wish to cement their position still further in making it harder for people to catch up. 

[Verytis]

Very little detail on how it'll actually work. Everything is in development and sounds questionable.

• How does the transition between "attack" and "travel" mode work?
  • is "attack" mode limited to only during attack runs or it is a slower mode of travel?
  • How do you prevent a CV player from staying in "attack" mode?
  • How can a CV attempt to strike something invisible?
• How do you compensate the nerfs associated with nerfing such a major part of CV gameplay?

Other issues

• The game is currently too heavily balanced around CV spotting. There are ships with increasingly low surface detection, but average or high air detect. Air spotting are one of the few tools keeping them in check.
• The fact the CV can now travel faster and attack more frequently means CV dmg output will increase. Certain targets like brawling ships will be under even more pressure, while not benefiting from spotting changes in anyway.
• AA is actually weakened in that you can no longer position AA ships in front to block/reroute CV's flight path, without a consumable. AA CLs in particular being forced to take a consumable to perform AA duties, while suffering from reduced spotting support against heavier surface combatants. 
• There is literally ZERO address to fighter spotting.

 

Benefactors:

• Main benefit I see is only DDs not getting randomly spotted, but that is partially due to the players being bad enough to put themselves in a CV's flight path. Others are just getting purposely hunted by RPF or CV counter-spotting.
• That and sluggish CAs with absurdly low surface detection having less air spotting to counter them.

Overly complex changes, with lots of re-balancing involved. Something simpler like removing spotting from fighters would've achieved plenty.

I rarely play CV and even I'm not in favour of these changes. And really even CV-haters should do a doubletake on this.

[Snargfargle]

So, can the CV player see the ships he travels over while in travel mode or does he just pick a spot and his planes instantly appear there, and if there are no enemy ships there then he has to travel mode back to the CV and try again? This will turn CV play into a game of "Battleship" or limit CV attacks to ships already spotted by the team. Really, if WG does not like CV gameplay then they just need to remove CVs. Of course, that would really tick off those who have bought Premium CVs.

The thought also just occurred to me that if the CV player could see enemy ships but they couldn't be spotted by the team he still can say things like "DD at J6" in chat. Or will chat be disabled for CV players as they fly their planes as well?

If these changes are too onerous, I've half a mind to just secondary spec my CVs as much as possible and start playing them as clunky, short-range gunboats. It's not like WG can ban me for playing the ships as designed.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Snargfargle

[Verytis]

53 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The thought also just occurred to me that if the CV player could see enemy ships but they couldn't be spotted by the team he still can say things like "DD at J6" in chat. Or will chat be disabled for CV players as they fly their planes as well?

There'll still be minimap spotting, that is the bare minimum or no spotting at all. There's no point of only revealing an enemy to only 1 teammate.

That only gives advantage to those who form divisions and/or use voice chat.

 

[Gillhunter]

5 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I believe that is what most non-CV/non-sub players were saying about subs and CVs. That they were in fact, given perks/advantages other surface ships didn't get (like their ability to spot for themselves without any support, immunity to detonations, improved auto-DCP, auto-consumables, less damage from fires/flooding, etc.), and that they were "coddled".

Also, that some of the changes Wargaming made (like Enlarged Propeller Shaft change with ended up being a buff to subs) were "solutions in search of a problem". I've heard this one before 🙂

My own two 356mm shells, for now.

Never underestimate the ability of WoWs to muck things up.

[Jakob Knight]

6 hours ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I believe that is what most non-CV/non-sub players were saying about subs and CVs. That they were in fact, given perks/advantages other surface ships didn't get (like their ability to spot for themselves without any support, immunity to detonations, improved auto-DCP, auto-consumables, less damage from fires/flooding, etc.), and that they were "coddled".

Also, that some of the changes Wargaming made (like Enlarged Propeller Shaft change with ended up being a buff to subs) were "solutions in search of a problem". I've heard this one before 🙂

My own two 356mm shells, for now.

 

I believe most non-CV/non-Sub players want Jutland and not modern warfare that began in WWII.  Subs and CVs are units that inherently fight in different manners than DDs, CAs, and BBs, and operate in a different medium.  That means they will have advantages and disadvantages different from surface units, and those differences are too much for those players.  We saw the same thing directed at DDs by BB and CA players who couldn't accept their concealment because it was a 'Romulan Cloaking Device'.  Some players don't know how to do anything but point and shoot, and get upset if they have to do more.  Note also that the vast majority of commanders skills for surface ships and CVs are completely buffs, so I don't see why Sub skills should not be as well (but are not currently).  This seems to be also going to be reworked, but in what direction and form we don't know.

 

It -is- going to be interesting to see the CVs being the ones sending out calls for intelligence and reporting their teams for not giving it to them.

 

I'm willing to give these changes a chance, even when I see glaring issues possible, but so many at once is asking for trouble in what the Devs aren't seeing.  And in what none of us will see until they are all put in place and interact together with themselves and the rest of the game.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Jakob Knight