Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwater

[mirroredwang]

Requires more micro for higher payoff, may lead to different strategies.

Also just like in real life.

[Zeldafanboy]

I agree with this statement, if my assumption that you're talking about T1 subs is correct. T2/T3 subs are in an okay spot atm. Currently T1 is just frigate spam which is braindead and boring. Actually useful T1 subs would spice things up a bit.

Specifically, I would up their damage across the board by a factor of 1.5 I would do this by increasing torp damage, not rof. This would give a subtle buff for the Seraphim T1 sub which is probably one of the worst units in the game right now, because their torp defense would result in more dps lost.

Also that way they take a little less time to chew through frigate health.

[keyser]

T1 sub are good enough on map with under water mexx. (ie : craftious maximus). The issue is a bad map design on most naval map (where there is no under water mexx), and not an issue about the unit itself.
btw, in certain situation and with the good micro required, sera T1 sub can be super good. (way better than the other T1 sub)

[Gorton]

About Subs: They are in a strange place currently. Everyone knows that, it's not in dispute. A rework or at least a attempt at it is planned, in the future.

[da_monstr]

Also just like in real life.

While subs being slower might be interesting,
IRL that statement is very much false. Subs are faster while submerged.

[Col_Walter_Kurtz]

T2 subs are useful and T3 as well. I think only T1 subs are regarded as bad, but if your opponent has relied on frigate spam only he will have no choice but to run. Yes you can outlive sub attacks long enough to destroy a naval fac and engineers, but when you get caught by the subs in the open they are a major problem stopping a much larger frigate fleet.

Some tweaking here and there would be ok, but I don't think they need an overhaul.

[Valki]

Requires more micro for higher payoff, may lead to different strategies.

I would hate for subs to be slower, right now I build a few into my naval force and often use them for 'combat scouting'.
I think keyser is right, if we had more maps with underwater mex they would be in a much better place.

Also just like in real life.

In real life, a T1 'diesel-electric' submarine is invisible to sonar 80% of the time, and can sink any ship with 1 torpedo.
With T2 'nuclear-powered' submarines being underpowered because they are not invisible to sonar.

I don't think real life can give us any guidance on how ships should function in this game.

[Apofenas]

T2/T3 subs are in an okay spot atm.

T2 subs are useful and T3 as well

Thes are wrong statements. Neither t2 nor t3 subs are in a fine spot. Destroyers have better underwater potential than t2 subs dedicated for killing underwater units... and less vulnerable to torps, and have powerfull direct fire weapons to kill stuff on a surface ect. T3 subs have a lot of issues too: they are t3 and lose even to lower tech t2 subs, where destroyers just rape them in close fight; sera destroyers kill HARMS better, torp bombers are super efficient at killing these.

I'd like to see how mirroredwang's idea will affect a naval meta. This looks less complicated than Hawkeye's sub rework. It also would be nice if t2 subs would have some direct fire or AA weapons to kill mexes/engies on surface or shoot down torp bombers.

[mirroredwang]

While subs being slower might be interesting,
IRL that statement is very much false. Subs are faster while submerged.

Sorry guys, "real Life" means Silent Hunter 3 to me

[Col_Walter_Kurtz]

Thes are wrong statements. Neither t2 nor t3 subs are in a fine spot. Destroyers have better underwater potential than t2 subs dedicated for killing underwater units... and less vulnerable to torps, and have powerfull direct fire weapons to kill stuff on a surface ect. T3 subs have a lot of issues too: they are t3 and lose even to lower tech t2 subs, where destroyers just rape them in close fight; sera destroyers kill HARMS better, torp bombers are super efficient at killing these.

T2 and T3 subs are viable weapons if you stop ramming them head to head into a navy of equal force. You make them when you see that your opponent is going mass frigate spam, is UEF with no coopers etc. And T3 subs need to kite, obviously. You won't see any subs in mass numbers but they have their role if used right.

It seems that a lot of balance discussions are based on a mathematical approach only (i.e. x mass in subs lose to x mass in destroyers therefore they are no good) but the tactical element is not considered. You force your opponent to have sufficient torpedo dps in the mix, or face the consequences. Yes a large number of destroyers will hold against subs, but you don't use the subs alone, you have your own destroyer / frigate fleet as well. In that situation the dozen or so barracudas can be a nasty surprise. And don't forget that T2 subs build more than twice as fast for less than half the mass of a destroyer.

Sure, some tweaks may be needed and personally I feel the T3 sub is on the weak side, but useless they are not.