If SS56 were introduced, how would that change the performance of an SS4 against BB6?

Your point is that people use SS4 because there aren't S56 available. My point is that the introduction of SS56 doesn't change how an SS4 would perform against a BB6.



He was not making a point about whether the enemy is prepared or not. He didn't say anything about what the enemy team was using to prevent a sub attack.

He said that SS4 was used in HA simply because SS56 aren't available.

As you said yourself, SS4 are used in HA because they are very good at pushing back the enemy line AND THEY CAN SINK T6 SHIPS.

You just said it yourself. They can easily do both of those things.

If SS56 are introduced, SS4 are still capable of pushing back the enemy lines and sinking T6 ships. Nowhere in that argument is there any clarification on what the opponent is doing in regards to ASW or the use of subs.



richardphat has proven that this is a lie.

Subs can crit dive to get away from HHs.

Depending the distance from where the ASW shoots, he if shoots from short distance, the chances to get sunk are higher than shooting you form long distance, You have to react. when you see the PHH on the air.

Yes. That still doesn't change the fact that it can be done. It is a yes or no question.

If you shoot at short range. If you shoot on gradual.

There are a lot of situations in this game that would change if we answered every question with "Yes, but not if you do it in these certain conditions".

Does the H44 outrange the Super Yamato? Yes or no.
"Yes, but not if the H44 is north of the Super Yamato and chasing him" is a ridiculous answer.

Do US fighters at high level perform better than KM fighters?
"Yes, but not if the KM CV micro manages, has 250 vets, and keeps his fighters in a tight ball by clicking and dragging"

Can an L1 go faster than an Iowa?
"Yes, but not if the Iowa takes off a rear gun and carries no armor or AA"

Sure...subs are powerfull...because it is their characteristic advantage for this ship class...but their others characteristics are not so good...they can be easily killed (under water or on the surface), they have low ammo to make big damage in compare with BBs...you can not count with just one salvo output damage in compare with BBs...BBs have much more advantages to have more effect on battle than subs...

The natural characteristic for subs is for them to be powerful? Do what? That's a silly statement.

The SS4 is not a balanced level 77 ship. End of story. There is no discussion on that whatsoever. It isn't a ship class trait or a national trait or something the game should be designed around.

And, with that in mind, SS5s at level 89 will be similarly unbalanced.

That you continue to try and argue against something when that was my original point is just mindboggling.

T6 ships can sunk many ships...including CAs for example...if you don´t countermeasure agains them then CAs can easily sunk T6 ships too...same for SS4...if your team is not prepared they have big chance to push your line back and you can lose some T6 ships...but if your team is prepared then SS4 are not able to make significant loses and they will be easy food for your HH and SS torpedos...

This is assuming that ASW is available in any game (not just HA where team play is more involved). Depending on low level DD or CL is not a valid solution in the current GB game modes.

Yes, a sub is slower than a BB in a straight line fight. However, there's something interesting about how the game is played....subs drive perpendicular to the direction BBs go. Therefore, straightline speed isn't as important.

Unless, of course, you are advocating that BBs should just turn and run from subs as soon as they drive since we know they are faster than subs. That sounds completely reasonable in game modes. BBs should just turn and let a flank collapse while they wait for a sub to surface.

That isn't a reasonable assessment of how the game should be played.



Richard has the proof available to show it is possible. Believe it or disbelieve it. He has provided proof that specifically proves your statement false.



Discussion between people in the balance area or accepting it as general knowledge about sub levels doesn't mean it will or is going to happen. Stating that it has been agreed to is vague and without valid proof. There are more than enough people that argue against simple sub balance in all aspects.

And, rationalizing certain changes when talking about sub exp being broken falls in to the same line of reasoning as people that always say "well, PHH are OP too" when someone mentions sub balance.

If it is broken, then it should be fixed. Saying something should stay broken because something else is similarly broken is not a solution.

For the third time, his argument had no rationalization or clarification on what the opponent was doing. He simply stated that SS4 were used because SS56 were not introduced. Why you continue to go down this road arguing against a bunch of stuff that wasn't in my original point is beyond me and I really don't understand it.

As for T6 ships being able to sink many ships including CAs...yes, it is perfectly reasonable that a ship that is some 75 levels higher would be able to sink a CA. Thanks.