Submarine change

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • what you talk about is hit and run. Its a tavtic most experience players use in ranged combat.

      This being an online game were players are not always online - different to counter strike or battlefield. There needs to be a possibility for the defender to fire back automatically k while his commander is sleeping, at school or grocervy shoping.

      So were in rel life a captain would react on a submarine attack by evasion of torpwdos, laying waterbombs and so on - this is in this simulation a ship that apears to be un a firefight with a submarine.the visuals could be better but its a stratefical simulation not a tactical.
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      The submarines already have torpedoes though. It is their main attack.
      I guess.Seems to me they have an "attack" and we try to think "how do subs attack?" and then deduce "the subs attack with torpedeos."
      U-boats used to surface to use cannons... that seems more the battle dynamic in the game.

      Even subs that would launch torpedoes from near surface (periscope) wouldn't take fire from surface vessels.
      That's what's happening in the game... an exchange of fire.

      If subs in the game were impervious to surface vessel ranged fire and could only be attacked by surface ships via melee ... I would have an easier time believing that subs currently use "torpedoes"

      That's another possible shift in the gameplay. Make the subs slow and stealthy....they'd be like towed artillery of the sea.... low HP, slow, but with a distinct advantage to their surface peers... they can deal ranged fire to anything in the water...but could only be dealt ranged fire sub to sub... or if the faster surface ships ram them for melee, the destroyers would then be using "depth charges"
      You know, ships also can have torpedoes and additionally waterbombs. The combat gets just represented by a simplified animation for technical purpose or whatever. The reason most ships are not that strong against subs, most have hardly any weaponry against subs.
    • Flottillenadmiral Otto Kretshmer's motto: "One Torpedo, One Ship"

      Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey's motto :"Hit hard, hit fast, hit often"


      Of these two admirals, which would you expect had been a submarine commander?
      Which would you think had commanded a destroyer?


      The motto's are very telling.




      The point being that these vessels are drastically different in how they fight and where they float and it would be nice if that was more represented.

      I know the game's goal isn't reality, but I feel like the relation between destroyer and attack sub could improve
      both in distinguishing characteristics and gameplay.

      (Not that the devs did a bad job or anything, it actually looks better the more that I look at it... they must have so many considerations to make, and it absolutely works as a game that's fun and follows it's own format... but at some point they may review this topic and think that it's worth investing the time to better harmonize the reality of these vessels with how the representative units of these vessels interact in gameplay... I guess I'm trying to contribute to the brainstorm... and it's only worth what they'd think works... if nothing changes the games not going to break.)

      The ballistic subs are far more representative than the attack subs.
      You never want them to engage other naval warships.
      You hide them and keep them away from paths your enemy may take.
      When you fire a ballistic missile the launch pattern is visible and locates the sub.
      You move the sub somewhere else after you launch a missile to keep it's whereabouts unknown.

      An attack sub could be more like this in the game if it was just armed with a finite number of torpedoes per day/days.
      Torpedoes that locate the sub with their trails...can sink a ship if they hit... render the sub useless for attack without them... demand that the sub Hit and Hide or die.

      If there was a relation between sonar and torpedoes like there is a relation between anti-air and cruise missiles, perhaps?

      I still favor a "sink or miss" sliding mechanic... Fired at 100+... 0% chance of hit
      etc.
      Fired at 50... 50% chance of hit
      etc.
      Fired at 0.... 100% chance of hit

      You'd choose a single ship in a stack as a target.

      To be caught in melee would be to lose the sub.

      2 torpedoes reload in 2 days time.

      Slow, vulnerable/stealthy, lethal.

      "One torpedo, one ship"

      Would you build/use it?
    • you describe subs firing cruise missles. Thats basically the same game dynamic.

      Again one hit it reality not simulation. Because then the next ine would say: hey my spe ops are full of snipers .they dont miss i want them to do an instant kill of infantry units.

      The whole introduvtion of hitpoint in video games is to give players a little bit of uhm...lets call it entertainment...because real battles are fast and cruel. Its not like you shoot and it takes 5h to remove the hitpoints if en enemie...
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • Yes, he is talking about a kind of cruise missile, that is not affect by AA-unit like Frigs, because it does not fly


      How ever this does not fit the game mechanics in many ways:
      - you can't target single units in a stack, damage dealts gets spread over the whole stack
      - there is no instant kill for units, beside dealing enough damage at once to kill them
      - if subs get torpedoes, ships and certain aircrafts would get torpedoes too, or people while whine again about the lack of realism
      - if everyone gets torpedoes we are back to square one, though maybe subs are now even worse of?


      Also I do not like the idea of giving golden boys a tool to 'delete' any players ships with no way of counterplay.


      P. S.: If this game were realistic every ship and sub would be instantly dead as soon it got heavily enough damaged, subs even more then ships
      A ship can be damaged in many ways because it has stuff above the sea, but a damaged sub would always have damaged hull
      Torpedoes are so deadly because they attack the hull directly
    • Now this is a discussion!

      I Totally concur with both of your points. @'kurtvonstein @'Kalrakh'

      Have either of you played Magic: The Gathering? (I know, my nerd is showing)

      If not, I'll try to keep this brief...
      It's a strategic card game, you build a deck, you use mana (resource) cards to play (mobilize) creature cards (units)... the creatures have stats and abilities (attack/HP... stealth, flying, etc)
      At every change of turn all creatures return to full health from battle if they weren't killed.
      However, there is an ability called "deathtouch"... it's an instant kill ability where if any damage is dealt by a creature with deathtouch to another creature, regardless of stats, the receiving creature dies but still deals damage to the creature with deathtouch, which typically have low HP.

      That's how I imagine these Torpedo Submarines... not to change how all units deal/receive damage by making them obsolete... but to add this layer into the game... with it's own weaknesses to balance.

      The mechanism introduced would balance the "instant sink" by having its success tied to distance.... To hit with 100% chance would be to "trade pieces" in chess... or it would be like a kamakazi sacrifice...
      The idea being that the submarine wouldn't have HP to survive pretty much anything hitting it... it's stat would be something like 0.5 attack /5 HP... it's speed would be very slow... 1.8 or something...

      It's could fire one torpedo in 24 hours... it's reload rate 48 hours... it's capacity 2 torpedoes.

      A torpedo would have to be expensive... 4 warhead, 40 deployable gears, 500 electronics for two torpedoes. ( not trying to make it too specific, but it's not cheap, you get the idea ... a considerable amount of time/resources/research).

      High Risk with High Reward

      The sub would be relatively cheap... maybe the same as the attack sub is now, maybe cheaper... maybe even as cheap as an UAV + rare material.
      Requires navy base 2 and arms industry 3.
      It's levels would increase 1.sonar range, 2. decrease sonar signature/gain "submerge/periscope" 3. hold 2 torpedoes
      It has no sight when "submerged". Only sonar.
      It can "periscope" to gain sight, but it's sonar signature raises to "high"
      To "periscope" takes 15 min to surface and 15 min to submerge.
      It can fire in either a surfaced or submerged position.
      It can move in either surfaced or submerged position.
      If the target is in sight range of the sub or another coalition unit a specific ship from a targeted stack can be selected at torpedo launch.

      This slow, low HP sub would have to be at 50 for a 50% chance of torpedo success.
      If the target moves away after the torpedo launch the chance of torpedo success decreases according to distance to impact... (not sure on torpedo speed)
      If the sub is rammed and forced into melee it will sink with one hit from anything... no chance to use gold.
      It has a high chance of being caught before it can submerge to safety and stealth... It has little chance of out running anything.

      Early game production is possible, and could be for a player anticipating and preparing for a day 40+ naval showdown.
      Mid game use (since they are so slow) could be to surveille via sonar without being detected...
      Until the 3rd upgrade the only engagement the Torpedo subs would be used for is intercepting convoys... and they would be revealed and in melee unless retreated via submerge.
      With the 3rd level completed, the subs would be able to deploy torpedoes.

      I'm not aware of there being a gold option to reload faster... or change a rate of fire...
      So much research would be required, buildings needed, and resources to spend... if someone was to use gold for the whole system with every step, it would be significant unto itself...
      It may be the balance to the max level naval officer or max level sub commander in the very late game... very expensive to replace...couldn't instant heal them... the gold spent would be to buy resources and expedite mobilization... couldn't instantly heal them.

      Does this sound more interesting?
    • Yes, I know Magic. Was fun back then, but fell victim to power creep like most game system that run for too long.

      There lot of toxic combos that take the fun out of the game, because if you get the combo going, the other player is damned to just watch and be toyed with.


      It sounds like the submerged sub would be quite unbeatable and op.

      And you don't need to reset the reload with gold, if you can just gold more units.
      Additionally if you stack units their reload speed stacks too.
      Just recently I had a golden boy who pumped out at least 5 stacks of 3 tanks and 6 mech inf in under an hour, for a real whale cost are hardly a thing.
      the also can just reveal all your troops with golden spy and then good bye navy.

      How ever I doubt the game mechanic could if reproduce this kind of targeted aiming at the current state of the game and if this is more likely to be an Elite Unit then a regular.
    • After reading these replies some new thoughts popped into my head
      Before I get into that I will say that I think trying to make some sort of torpedo missile type or having a miss chance is a no go. I don’t like these ideas because I don’t think they would improve the unit for reasons which may have already been mentioned

      Anyway, my new idea:

      Attack sub and BM sub sight range changed to 50. Subs have scout and are detected by sonar far and wide, essentially the same as current game state plus scout and 50 sight range

      _Two new options_

      Silent Running: Currently subs have a speed of 3.50 in open ocean. When you select Silent Running, you will be prompted to input a speed that is below the sub’s current speed, in a fashion similar to imputing the time for a unit to wait. Currently the biggest sonar is 200 from NPA. The slower you set your subs speed, the closer a sonar-equipped unit must be to detect. Let’s say you set your speed at 1.75, or half of normal speed. That means that NPA with 200 range must be within 100 range to detect the sub, or a level 1 corvette must be within 38 range. If you set your speed to 0.3, those units will just have to come to sight range. All this stealth comes at a cost of speed of course. Silent running automatically applies for stationary subs

      Second is something simple that happens passively: surprise attack
      If your sub engaged an enemy ship in melee, it deals 2X damage
      What does this mean for sub warfare? It means that any ship stack without a destroyer might not make it very far. Currently melee damage in naval is completely useless. However, when subs use silent running they could potentially sneak into melee range. If that happens, they will shred through the enemy stack

      These two features combined would make stationary sub ambushes a very real threat, while keeping subs relatively tame balance-wise. They will still be vulnerable to destroyers and ASW, but would at least have opportunities to stand out
      Yee Haw
    • New

      Those ideas are interesting and seem more plausible in-game than mine @Colonel Waffles
      @Kalrakh is right about what I had proposed following "one torpedo, one ship"... it's either a crazy elite unit that would require a lot of new mechanics and considerations that players would love/hate... or it's a completely terrible idea that took way too much thought and couldn't possibly be implemented without ruining what exist currently.

      I kind of got burnt out on the topic ...
      I also started appreciating what the attack sub could be if a strategy was dedicated to upgrading them and mass-mobilizing.

      The relationship between sonar and submarine-stealth is something worth discussing... right now sonar is a simple yes/no ability... unlike radar that has various levels.
      Naval stealth has three units with different levels of stealth... submarine stealth, AIP stealth, Task Force Commander stealth.
      If Sonar and sub stealth each got better with leveling up there would be a more interesting dynamic of destroyer vs. attack sub...especially if there were time frames were one would have a sonar/stealth advantage over the other.

      Not to beat a dead horse, but the relationship of sonar detection and torpedo success is one that could be implemented.
      Sonar could act like anti-air against torpedoes... In real life, that's a determining factor in torpedo evasion.
      Destroyers/corvettes/submarines all have sonar so they would have "anti-torpedo" ... so to speak... it would allow the same system as CM/AA to be utilized "underwater"
      It would be more appropriate for Naval Patrol Bombers, Naval strike fighters, and ASW to house torpedoes...


      Apart from torpedoes... the only suggestion I'd make currently is a much simpler one... lower the attack submarine requirement to navy base 2... it would just make subs more prolific... and that's what would really make them better... more of them.... would that break the game???
    • New

      Smallsword wrote:

      ...

      Apart from torpedoes... the only suggestion I'd make currently is a much simpler one... lower the attack submarine requirement to navy base 2... it would just make subs more prolific... and that's what would really make them better... more of them.... would that break the game???
      Now that's something I could get behind ... sort of. It seems ridiculous you can research the tech for them on Day 1 yet be unable to build them for more than 2 more days (more depending on if you used resources for other things) while you build to a level 3 Naval Base.

      BUT, it would seem unfair you can build them before their counter (destroyer)
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***

      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • New

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      ...

      Apart from torpedoes... the only suggestion I'd make currently is a much simpler one... lower the attack submarine requirement to navy base 2... it would just make subs more prolific... and that's what would really make them better... more of them.... would that break the game???
      Now that's something I could get behind ... sort of. It seems ridiculous you can research the tech for them on Day 1 yet be unable to build them for more than 2 more days (more depending on if you used resources for other things) while you build to a level 3 Naval Base.
      BUT, it would seem unfair you can build them before their counter (destroyer)
      Not when you think about corvettes... you could have 2 corvettes by the time someone else has 1 attack sub... or at least you'd rule the shallows with one corvette.
    • New

      Smallsword wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      ...

      Apart from torpedoes... the only suggestion I'd make currently is a much simpler one... lower the attack submarine requirement to navy base 2... it would just make subs more prolific... and that's what would really make them better... more of them.... would that break the game???
      Now that's something I could get behind ... sort of. It seems ridiculous you can research the tech for them on Day 1 yet be unable to build them for more than 2 more days (more depending on if you used resources for other things) while you build to a level 3 Naval Base.BUT, it would seem unfair you can build them before their counter (destroyer)
      Not when you think about corvettes... you could have 2 corvettes by the time someone else has 1 attack sub... or at least you'd rule the shallows with one corvette.
      A.) Don't you EVER suggest that obscenity to me again (think about corvettes) I don't ever want to think about them even when I'm forced to build them due to expediency. :)
      B.) That's not the point. Corvettes ARTEN'T the counter, destroyers are.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***

      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • New

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      ...

      Apart from torpedoes... the only suggestion I'd make currently is a much simpler one... lower the attack submarine requirement to navy base 2... it would just make subs more prolific... and that's what would really make them better... more of them.... would that break the game???
      Now that's something I could get behind ... sort of. It seems ridiculous you can research the tech for them on Day 1 yet be unable to build them for more than 2 more days (more depending on if you used resources for other things) while you build to a level 3 Naval Base.BUT, it would seem unfair you can build them before their counter (destroyer)
      Not when you think about corvettes... you could have 2 corvettes by the time someone else has 1 attack sub... or at least you'd rule the shallows with one corvette.
      A.) Don't you EVER suggest that obscenity to me again (think about corvettes) I don't ever want to think about them even when I'm forced to build them due to expediency. :) B.) That's not the point. Corvettes ARTEN'T the counter, destroyers are.

      Corvettes are cheap, fast and (if DoD is making/playing them) dirty. You'll have one sooner than a sub.... the sub is the counter to the corvette... then it's either 2 corvettes or a corvette/frigate mix

      I say corvettes are a counter balance to attack sub... Destroyers are the killer-counter to attack sub....

      If you say "It would seem unfair if you can build them before their counter (destroyer)".....How would building a destroyer stand up to that logic? If the Cruiser is the counter to a destroyer and you need to research destroyers before you can research cruisers and you'd need a navy base 4 to get your first cruiser started...

      ...add to all that...

      Nobody builds attack subs to deal with destroyers or even to deal with frigates at this point...they build destroyers (at the this point) to be the killer-counter to frigates/subs/corvette and more likely yet destroyer vs destroyer... subs really get a hard pass at this point.

      The word "counter" has in it the implied, "reaction" ... it can't be "the counter" when its available at the same time and there isn't a single sub on the map.
      In effect it's "the stifle", the ship that destroys the reason for the sub build, much more than subs themselves. (at least at this point)

      Come on, get behind the navy base 2 for attack submarines... at worst there will be subs for destroyers to destroy.
    • New

      Smallsword wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      ...

      Apart from torpedoes... the only suggestion I'd make currently is a much simpler one... lower the attack submarine requirement to navy base 2... it would just make subs more prolific... and that's what would really make them better... more of them.... would that break the game???
      Now that's something I could get behind ... sort of. It seems ridiculous you can research the tech for them on Day 1 yet be unable to build them for more than 2 more days (more depending on if you used resources for other things) while you build to a level 3 Naval Base.BUT, it would seem unfair you can build them before their counter (destroyer)
      Not when you think about corvettes... you could have 2 corvettes by the time someone else has 1 attack sub... or at least you'd rule the shallows with one corvette.
      A.) Don't you EVER suggest that obscenity to me again (think about corvettes) I don't ever want to think about them even when I'm forced to build them due to expediency. :) B.) That's not the point. Corvettes ARTEN'T the counter, destroyers are.
      Corvettes are cheap, fast and (if DoD is making/playing them) dirty. You'll have one sooner than a sub.... the sub is the counter to the corvette... then it's either 2 corvettes or a corvette/frigate mix

      I say corvettes are a counter balance to attack sub... Destroyers are the killer-counter to attack sub....

      If you say "It would seem unfair if you can build them before their counter (destroyer)".....How would building a destroyer stand up to that logic? If the Cruiser is the counter to a destroyer and you need to research destroyers before you can research cruisers and you'd need a navy base 4 to get your first cruiser started...

      ...add to all that...

      Nobody builds attack subs to deal with destroyers or even to deal with frigates at this point...they build destroyers (at the this point) to be the killer-counter to frigates/subs/corvette and more likely yet destroyer vs destroyer... subs really get a hard pass at this point.

      The word "counter" has in it the implied, "reaction" ... it can't be "the counter" when its available at the same time and there isn't a single sub on the map.
      In effect it's "the stifle", the ship that destroys the reason for the sub build, much more than subs themselves. (at least at this point)

      Come on, get behind the navy base 2 for attack submarines... at worst there will be subs for destroyers to destroy.
      Obviously you are wrong (merits of lvl 2 NB for subs not withstanding)
      Counter is both balance and killer of. Attack Subs are meant for taking out ships, and combatting them back is done poorly but all but the destroyer. Therefore real "logic", unlike your totally alien usage of the word, specifically makes destroyers the one and only counter, excepting ASW/NPAs.

      As far as your ten later totally specious claims such as cruisers counter destroyers, well that is what they are as other ships especially in mixed stacks can counter destroyers, a situation not existing for the destroyer/sub dynamic.

      Furthermore, the narrow usage of counter as a reaction is also wrong, as the dearth of resources dictates must needs usually focusing in 1 direction particularly when land tech and air tech must also use those resources, so counters must need to be available simultaneously.

      That said, it's not I'm not behind the idea, as even as a heavy navy player I would like to see more subs to liven up the game, but rather I am saying that your solution is imperfect and slides things too far in one direction.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***

      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • New

      Corvette got sonar to counter Elite AIP Subs a little bit, but they will never be a real counter to any sub, even more in late game when Attack Subs outrange them easily

      Attack Subs and Corvs live in different territory anyway, so to believe Corvs are made to counter them is quite odd

      i have no issues with giving Subs NB2, though i doubt will make them more popular in publics anyway
      there is hardly any real naval warfare on publics by default
    • New

      Well, corvettes are the shallow ships... they can protect coastal cities and escort convoys along the coasts... deep waters would be ruled by the subs... each would dominate separate depths.

      The naval dominance strategy that I've employed in every game in which I've had a navy:
      Mass mobilize frigates and attack any city that starts a navy base 3.

      If navy base 2 was able to produce subs... which I would say are really best for frigates.... this strategy would have a feasible counter.


      In my public game experience, which is to say my game experience, there are navy players. They tend to focus on destroyers but seldom make enough soon enough to handle the onslaught of frigates which then destroy all of their navy bases.
      I think I'm a decent strategist, but I think this strategy as a meta is without a viable counter measure...
      Hence, the suggestion of reducing attack sub requirements to navy base 2.