Problems with carriers and submarines? So here is what you do....

[kriegerfaust]

Some dislike carriers, and everyone seems to dislike submarines why there hard to kill and if played with caution can be kept from danger. First submarines we have what deck guns, aircraft and depth charges that's what they had in WW1 give us weapons that can shoot further even if they might not hit as hard, they have numbers to fatten up their damage.

This one is a bit more unusual, what do we have well aircraft and guns to shoot down aircraft 20MM, 40MM and weaker on earlier ships then going into 57MM and 75MM as dedicated AAA.  You also have everything from 100MM to 150MM secondaries on battleships and cruiser who can somehow shoot at ships and planes at the same time.  As well as the destroyers that have dual purpose guns what is the point of all this is in WW2 though limited there were attempts to shoot down aircraft with rockets and even missiles. 

So why not add anti sub rockets and maybe even anti air rockets.  I am not asking for missiles even though the Germans did have some semi guided weapons.  We have post war destroyers and light cruisers that can light up fighters why not share the fun so i don't have to have my battleship merge with my teammate in order not to be blown up by every carrier.

 

A Z Battery was a short range anti-aircraft weapon system, launching 3 in (76 mm) diameter rockets from ground-based single and multiple launchers, for the air defence of Great Britain in the Second World War. The rocket motors were later adapted with a new warhead for air-to-ground use as the RP-3.

Mousetrap (Aanti-Submarine Projector, Marks 20 and 22) was an anti-submarine rocket launcher used mainly during World War II by the United States Navy^[1] and Coast Guard.^[2] Its development began in 1941 as a replacement for Hedgehog. Those were spigot-launched, which placed considerable strain on the launching vessel's deck, whereas Mousetrap was rocket-propelled. As a result, Mousetrap's four or eight rails for 7.2-inch (183 mm) rockets saved weight and were easier to install.

The rockets weighed 65 pounds (29 kg) each, with a 33-pound (15 kg) Torpex warhead and contact pistol, exactly like Hedgehog.

By the end of the war, over 100 Mark 22 Mousetraps were mounted in U.S. Navy ships, including three each on 12 destroyers,^[1] and submarine chasers (usually two sets of rails).^[3]

Edited November 17, 2023 by HogHammer
Clarity for reader

[Elijah2159]

Halland and Nevsky already have anti-submarine rockets (although they are fixed on an axis and can't rotate) and Hood has anti-air rockets that operate similar to flak

If you really want to counter subs and CVs via new mechanics then I got a couple of other ideas:

• Guided ASW torpedoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_mine)
• Hedgehog ASW mortars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_(weapon))
• Point-defense missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seacat_(missile))

[kriegerfaust]

thank you i did not know that

The Henschel Hs 297 Föhn or 7.3 cm Raketen Sprenggranate was a small German surface-to-air rocket of the Second World War. The associated multiple rocket launcher was known as the 7.3 cm Föhn-Gerät.

The Imperial Japanese Navy developed a number of spin-stabilized rockets during World War II, but only this one ever saw service use. These went to sea in launchers containing 28 rockets with six launchers on most carriers. The rocket had an incendiary shrapnel warhead, somewhat similar in design to the "Sankaidan" Type 3 projectile used for guns, and had a time fuze set to explode the warhead at either 1,000 or 1,500 meters (1,100 or 1,640 yards).

Rockets had six 0.455 in (1.15 cm) diameter nozzles with 25 degree inclination and 10 degree divergence.

 

 

I was trying to avoid anything to advanced/new and expensive something that might be slapped on to upgrade a ww2 ship and would work in the existing framework without having to create a whole new gaming system, but thanks i did not know about those ships already having rockets, thank you

 

 

[kriegerfaust]

found the hood rockets i think, yep

United Kingdom / Britain

UP AA Rocket Mark I

WNBR_UP_loading_pic.jpg Loading one of the UP mounts on HMS King George V. WNBR_UP_operator_pic.jpg View of operator cabin. IWM photograph A9384.

Description

 

In the late 1930s the British saw a need for an intermediate, close-range AA weapon to supplement their 2-pdr AA guns. The UP Mark I was one of the small rocket weapons designed to meet this need and was employed on many large British warships early in World War II.

UP stands for "Unrotated Projector." "Unrotated" meant that the barrel did not have any rifling, i.e., the projectile was not spin-stabilized. Each emplacement was a set of twenty smooth-bore tubes, usually fired ten at a time. Cordite was used to ignite ("Project") a 3-inch (7.62 cm) rocket motor which propelled a fin-stabilized 7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter Parachute and Cable (PAC) rocket which carried a 8.4 oz (238 g) mine. When the rocket reached approximately 1,000 feet (330 m), it exploded and put out the mine which was attached to three parachutes by 400 feet (122 m) of wire. The design concept was that if a plane hit the parachutes or the wire, it would then pull the mine into itself.

These UP projectiles were kept in ready lockers close to the projectors. The sinking of HMS Hood showed that these stored weapons were rather flammable. They were also found to be an almost totally ineffective weapon, as the barrage took too long to establish and was easily avoided. In addition, reloading was slow and the mines showed an alarming tendency to drift back onto the firing ship. For these reasons, the UP was gradually replaced on surviving ships with either the British 2-pdr or the Bofors 40 mm heavy AA machine gun. For instance, shortly before she was sunk by the Japanese, HMS Prince of Wales had all three of her UP emplacements replaced with 2-pdr mounts.

Other information: The rockets were 32 inches (81.3 cm) long and weighed 35 lbs. (15.9 kg). The effective horizontal range was 3,000 feet (910 m) and the parachute sinking speed was 16 to 23 fps (5 to 7 mps). The 20-tube mounting weighed about 4 tons (4 mt).

UP and AA gun on HMS Erebus WWII IWM A 827

View looking aft on the British monitor HMS Erebus showing the UP anti-aircraft rocket projector at upper right, a 4-inch anti aircraft gun in centre background and the range finder on the left with the crew closed up.

 

 

 

looks like the HMS King George V should have them as well

Edited November 16, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[Ensign Cthulhu]

58 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

Almost everyone hates carriers, and everyone seems to hate submarines

Error of fact. Stop generalizing your own prejudices.

[Mono_De_Mantequilla]

24 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

looks like the HMS King George V should have them as well

Dude that is HMS Nelson.

[kriegerfaust]

my bad but the article mentions the King George V, Hood and Prince of Wales as having them as well a pick of the monitor Erbus, so i guess add the Nelson as well

Edited November 17, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[I_cant_Swim_]

My personal view and hope: I do not hate subs or CVs. I'm at the point where I can sort of handle them on the red team, though I think they complicate the game (not always bad), sometimes in ways that just reduce the fun factor (not good), and in fact I would like to play those vessels if I knew that the people I'm playing against knew how to counter them effectively. My main area of discomfort here is using a ship (or sub) to directly attack another player who feels he can only indirectly defend himself. The rub here is that the counter maneuvers do not carry the same fun factor as blasting away at other ships because you feel comparatively more helpless. I don't see adding other automatic weaponry, or even manual ones, to be a solution, though. These botes are gonna stay, though. But as the enjoyment of the game and the well-being of the community is a priority for me, I welcome and support the intentions of other members of staff @SureBridge, @yss_turtleship, @HogHammer to set up a training facility. In the hope said facility can provide special focus in dealing with subs and CVs. For me, knowing how to deal with them as effectively as possible and almost instinctively, might just make them as fun to encounter as other ships. I live in hope, and work to achieve. (Sounds like a real corny motto). But yes, I intend to get to that point -in the company of a whole host of equally prepared forumites.

Yet I also appreciate that some folks (I too sometimes) do not always want to be forced to learn/ study more things before maybe having more fun, so I certainly hope that a better balance can be found, perhaps with more modes without one or the other type of ship. Yeah, I know, numbers and all, but that's me on subs and CVs.

 

[Aethervox]

All one can do, as a player, is to sink as many Flubs (err, Subs) and reworked (wrecked) CVs as possible. Maybe this will keep their numbers down. These two classes are hated for obvious reasons.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Aethervox

[sonoasailor]

The main issue I have with subs is the relative speed of a submerged sub and the surface ships.  Trying to chase down a sub in a DD is difficult to do when trying to get into position to drop Depth Charges.  Having hedge hog batteries on some of the DDs would help as they would launch ahead of the dd.  Point defense missiles I think will have to wait till T12 (the super spectacular ships).  Acoustic torps WERE used in WW2, so those could be implemented if WOWS wanted to, but I think at this point, they want to protect their precious subs...a few people play them very well, but most do not.

6 hours ago, Elijah2159 said:

Halland and Nevsky already have anti-submarine rockets (although they are fixed on an axis and can't rotate) and Hood has anti-air rockets that operate similar to flak

If you really want to counter subs and CVs via new mechanics then I got a couple of other ideas:

• Guided ASW torpedoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_mine)
• Hedgehog ASW mortars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_(weapon))
• Point-defense missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seacat_(missile))

 

[Asym]

I don't hate either "dissimilar weapon" but, they really don't fit very well in a small, time compressed map game....   Having said that, there is a rule for technology we should think about:  for every change in technology in the dimensions of use in combat, there has to be an exponential change in the support systems that supply it..."

We can't keep adding technological improvements on a small map without significant changes to the game engine; the game's ability to adapt to the change (in terms of adaptive frictions); and, what that technology does to the battlespace.   i.e. enlarges it?  Compresses it?  Extends LOS?  Speeds it up or slows it down....  you get the idea.

The point is:   if we add even more complications to an already make-believe-paradigm, how do we insure it is "fun ! "  Real and Fun aren't simple.....

Now, if we had an Anti-Radar tool; or, an anti-guided torp tool;  or, guided plane launched Anti-shp/sub munitions;  or, Proximity warheads; or.........et al....

[Wolfswetpaws]

Or, perhaps WG could create an "imbalanced battle" mode.

The match-maker assigns ships from the usual +/- spred of two tiers, but doesn't reveal to the opposing team which ships were chosen, nor how many (up to the usual limit of 12 ships per team) and it relaxes some of the match-making "balancing" programming limitations.

In other words, the team roster of "the other team" would be unknown at the start of the battle, including how many ships are on the opposing team.
The only way to discover what the other team has is through scouting and finding them during the battle.

It would also be possible for more ships of a given type (that is normally restricted by matchmaking rules) to be present, such as three CV's or 5 DD's or <insert wild-aft idea here> and it would be possible for a team to have none while the other team had one or more of a given type.

Could also do a "hardcore mode" version of this by widening the spread of the tiers from plus/minus two to become plus/minus four tiers.

Just some food for thought.  🙂 

For added flavor, there could be a timer that grabs whomever is available every 30 seconds or every minute, and doesn't care how many are on each team.
So the matchmaker would be free to create some wild match-ups with teams that may not have the same number of ships on each team and won't know it until they've found every player or until the victory conditions for the map are met.
"Queue-dump, go home, yer drunk", eh?  🙂 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Wolfswetpaws

[MBT808]

22 hours ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

set up a training facility. In the hope said facility can provide special focus in dealing with subs and CVs. For me, knowing how to deal with them as effectively as possible and almost instinctively, might just make them as fun to encounter as other ships. I live in hope, and work to achieve

Subs could work, but it’s very much requires the right ships and a good amount of luck.

CVs though, I hate to be a downer, but without WG massively overhauling AA to a point where it has an acceptable impact, you don’t deal with a CV. You mitigate a CV at absolute best, or you’re a mercilessly pummelled by the broken ones at worst. CVs just have too many ways to trivialize or even ignore any form of counter play.

AA was so gutted by the rework, that even the recent buffs to AA skills make almost no difference. A full build(skills, flag and mods) maybe gets you an extra plane kill or two on ships considered to have strong AA defences(unless the CV is extremely incompetent). A CV can still get through to make a strike(s), not even talking about the grossly OP ones like FDR and Nahkimov. Full AA build is literally one of the most useless builds in the entire game for a reason.

At this point, it’s a basically set in stone that AA will never be relevant again like it was pre-rework. From what I’ve seen of the devs response to this, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, they don’t see AA as an issue to be fixed it seems.

I think its a good initiative though, and I wish you the best of luck.

Edited November 17, 2023 by MBT808

[Jakob Knight]

14 hours ago, sonoasailor said:

The main issue I have with subs is the relative speed of a submerged sub and the surface ships.  Trying to chase down a sub in a DD is difficult to do when trying to get into position to drop Depth Charges.  Having hedge hog batteries on some of the DDs would help as they would launch ahead of the dd.  Point defense missiles I think will have to wait till T12 (the super spectacular ships).  Acoustic torps WERE used in WW2, so those could be implemented if WOWS wanted to, but I think at this point, they want to protect their precious subs...a few people play them very well, but most do not.

 

 

It -is- a crying shame you have to actually work to kill another ship in this game.  Really takes the fun away when you just want to be successful at it without having to watch what you are doing while chasing down a unit that is slower than you, sometimes drastically so.

 

Might also be time to give all IJN ships the oxygen torpedoes they were built to use.  Undetectable torpedoes anyone?  Those WERE used in WW2, so those could be implemented if WOWS wanted to, but I think at this point, they want to protect their precious Battleships.

 

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

On 11/16/2023 at 4:36 PM, kriegerfaust said:

Some dislike carriers, and everyone seems to dislike submarines why there hard to kill and if played with caution can be kept from danger. First submarines we have what deck guns, aircraft and depth charges that's what they had in WW1 give us weapons that can shoot further even if they might not hit as hard, they have numbers to fatten up their damage.

This one is a bit more unusual, what do we have well aircraft and guns to shoot down aircraft 20MM, 40MM and weaker on earlier ships then going into 57MM and 75MM as dedicated AAA.  You also have everything from 100MM to 150MM secondaries on battleships and cruiser who can somehow shoot at ships and planes at the same time.  As well as the destroyers that have dual purpose guns what is the point of all this is in WW2 though limited there were attempts to shoot down aircraft with rockets and even missiles. 

So why not add anti sub rockets and maybe even anti air rockets.  I am not asking for missiles even though the Germans did have some semi guided weapons.  We have post war destroyers and light cruisers that can light up fighters why not share the fun so i don't have to have my battleship merge with my teammate in order not to be blown up by every carrier.

 

A Z Battery was a short range anti-aircraft weapon system, launching 3 in (76 mm) diameter rockets from ground-based single and multiple launchers, for the air defence of Great Britain in the Second World War. The rocket motors were later adapted with a new warhead for air-to-ground use as the RP-3.

Mousetrap (Aanti-Submarine Projector, Marks 20 and 22) was an anti-submarine rocket launcher used mainly during World War II by the United States Navy^[1] and Coast Guard.^[2] Its development began in 1941 as a replacement for Hedgehog. Those were spigot-launched, which placed considerable strain on the launching vessel's deck, whereas Mousetrap was rocket-propelled. As a result, Mousetrap's four or eight rails for 7.2-inch (183 mm) rockets saved weight and were easier to install.

The rockets weighed 65 pounds (29 kg) each, with a 33-pound (15 kg) Torpex warhead and contact pistol, exactly like Hedgehog.

By the end of the war, over 100 Mark 22 Mousetraps were mounted in U.S. Navy ships, including three each on 12 destroyers,^[1] and submarine chasers (usually two sets of rails).^[3]

Ma dude! ....... what R U on about?!

First off, this is an arcade game not "historically accurate"! Second WeeGee nerefed ALL things that can fight CVs and Subs .... so just deal with it! Halland (IRL) was the first DD in the world equiupped with surface-to-surface Marine missiles but it doesnt matter in this game. CVS and Subs will just destroy U! Ok? 

 

You will NEVER GET WG to do anything against their "protected classes" (CVS and Subs), because the players wont play them and they aren't a "success" for WeeGee.

 

................ hence why I switched to a CV/Sub main........

Edited November 18, 2023 by HogHammer
Descriptive language edit