Jump to content



  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

Poll: CVs: What to do? (118 members have cast votes)

Do you think CVs can be fixed?

  1. Yes (111 votes [94.07%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 94.07%

  2. No (7 votes [5.93%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.93%

How drastic does CV re-balancing have to be?

  1. A drastic amount of changes (66 votes [55.93%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 55.93%

  2. A marginal amount of changes (37 votes [31.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.36%

  3. Only a few changes (15 votes [12.71%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.71%

What is your favorite nation of carrier?

  1. United States (54 votes [45.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.76%

  2. Japan (64 votes [54.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.24%

Which nations do you think should have aircraft carriers?

  1. Germany (37 votes [18.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.14%

  2. Britan (111 votes [54.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.41%

  3. France (22 votes [10.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.78%

  4. Italy (19 votes [9.31%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.31%

  5. Russia (15 votes [7.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.35%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

PD666 #1 Posted 19 January 2017 - 08:57 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

Large Wall of Text!

Aircraft carriers are a mess right now. They're unbalanced, US is underpowered, Japan is op, etc. I'm tired of it. I made this forum to discuss a solution to this problem. Here is my grand solution to fix the problem.

 

CVs are my favorite class of ship in the game. They are versatile and can have a real influence in the game. They are a bit unbalanced though. In my opinion, though it pains me to say it, Japanese CVs have the advantage. They focus on Torpedo bombers while American CVs are all about the fighters and gosh awful dive bombers. This needs be fixed.

 

I agree with what types of planes the lines follow but there should be some changes. I think is that dive bombers accuracy should be increased by 50% and that high altitude bombers should be added with the dive bombers old accuracy. The high altitude bombers would do twice as much damage though. AP bombs should also be available. They would do twice as much damage and could citadel ships. This would leave Japanese CV players feeling down. So low altitude bombers should be added. Low altitude bombers release their bombs in a way that makes them "hop" towards their target. The launch could be skill based and the bombs would come in like a salvo of shells. There could be two range settings changed by a tap of the squad number. Automatic drops would automatically be set on the longer setting. These bombs would do the same amount of damage as high altitude bombers. For the drop itself imagine a 2d box that is wider than it is tall. Next imagine a line coming out from the bottom of the box and another line crossing perpendicular at the end of the first line. The bombers would travel to the first line and release their bombs. The bombs would travel along the second line and land in the box.

 

This would leave a choice to CV players. Do I go for Torpedo bombers which are easier to dodge, or do I go for the less damaging low altitude bombers that are more accurate? The same question would be asked with dive bombers vs high altitude bombers. Also do I bring HE bombs to set fires, or do I bring AP bombs for the citadels? It would make CV playing more balanced and interesting.

 

Someone else had the idea of tactical bombers. The cooldown is bound to a key. When the key is pressed, the player gets a depiction of a line on their screen, sort of like Neith's Spirit Arrow line from Smite, but wider and from top-down view. Clicking sets an attack zone, and then you move the mouse to set the attack angle. Once this happens, a squadron of 3-4 tactical bombers spawns on the opposite side of the map from the strike zone, flying in-line with the strike direction, towards the strike zone. The strike zone can be moved, but the bombers cannot be directly controlled otherwise. Once the bombers reach the strike zone, they line-bomb the designated-area with HE bombs, dealing large AoE damage (but low single-target damage except against BBs and large CVs).

 

This cooldown operates on a 1:45 timer, only resetting when the bombers reach the map border after completing their strike run (and at the start of the game). Having all bombers shot-down increases the cooldown period to 2:15.

 

Tactical bombers cannot spot enemy ships, and cannot be spotted by enemy ships until 2km away (due to cloud cover), they can only spot planes, however, they spot planes at 8km and are spotted in-return at 6km (by aircraft only). They have large hit pools and cannot be engaged by surface AAA excepting long-range AAA, and this at 1/3rd DPS, with no bonus from Defensive Fire. Tactical bombers do not suffer panic from DF like normal strike aircraft. They are slow, having half the cruise speed of fighters, but almost double the HP. They cannot be strafed, however, fighters engage high-alt bombers with a 1.5 bonus to DPS, so it is important to escort yours while intercepting the enemy's. Bombers intelligently lead their targets, dropping their bombs in such a way that, unless the target deliberately turns to avoid them, they will take at least one hit.

 

Tactical bombers themselves cannot be upgraded (your stock one is your only one), but, their payloads can, and they can have different fits. For example, for a longer AoE line and increased cruise speed, one might go for a B-17G with a payload of 12x 500lb bombs, or, for more single-target damage (but with a reduced cruise speed and a shorter bombing line), the same B-17G with a payload of 4x 2000lb bombs.

 

The bombs themselves also have a small AoE that increases with bomb size: a decaying static damage and fire chance that decreases the farther the target is from the center of the blast, limited to 0.5km max (500 damage and an 8% fire chance at max distance) for 2000lb bombs.

 

NOTE: Bombers only drop 1 1000/2,000lb bomb OR 2x 500lb per bomber per ship, and can engage a maximum number of ships equal to their payload. Carriers can't abuse their bombers to nuke lone-wolfing ships.

 

Finally, have you ever been in a situation where you just have fighters and want to do some more damage. Well, fighters could be replaced with scout planes. Scout planes could engage enemy aircraft(less effectively) or they could use their bombs(smaller) to attack enemy ships. They wouldn't have the strafe ability or the Manuel drop. Just one more decision for CV players.



CapnCappy #2 Posted 19 January 2017 - 09:03 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,594
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015
Just changing the US loadouts would have fixed the problem. Instead, they keep buffing gun capacity on fighters.

CapnCappy's PC build

 

CapnCappy Stats
 

Patchy the Pirate says - "When we be seein' Russian battleships and carriers? I hears they can fly an shoot laser beams."

 


SeaKnight_1990 #3 Posted 19 January 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 401
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostCapnCappy, on 19 January 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Just changing the US loadouts would have fixed the problem. Instead, they keep buffing gun capacity on fighters.

 

Agreed. I was thinking about doing two 3-4 plane squadrons of torpedo bombers on the higher tier USN CVs, because as it is, one 6-plane squadron makes the strike loadout underpowered, whereas 2 makes it overpowered. Thought about it a bit; figured the thing should meet in the middle, with two small squadrons, Saipan-esque. What do you think?

 

dark.png


CG59 #4 Posted 19 January 2017 - 09:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 438
  • Member since:
    11-03-2014
I like the suggestion of skip bombing

Starfighter_Ace #5 Posted 19 January 2017 - 11:32 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 28
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

While this isn't an historically accurate game, WG seems to want to keep the feel of one. As a long time "war gamer" (going back to the board games with cardboard counters & maps with rule books as thick as most novels and more charts and graphs that the typical medical exam), i appreciate this in the game and hope it continues. I also recognize the fact WG wants to keep it "balanced", when, in truth, war is not about balance, but domination. So it become a balancing act to keep players interested and the game play coming down to skill, or at least some sort of challenge to a player. But i digress...

 

Level Bombers, high or low, just are outside the scope of this game. In reality, outside of one event, they played no role in front line Naval Battles. The exception was the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse to IJN Land Based Torpedo Bombers, something I would think it outside the scope of this game. When the US tried to use them at Midway (B-17s and B-26s), they were a desperate measure to stop the IJN. Not one hit, though many were claimed. IJA and IJN tried several times to use Bettys and Nells against the USN Task Forces without success until the advent of the Kalimakazies in '44. 

 

I agree what needs to be address is the USN squadron strengths. USN Doctrine from the 1920's thru most of WWII was 1 VF(Fighter) , 1 VB(Bomber) , 1, VS(Scout), and 1 VT(Torpedo) squadron per air group. Each squadron was 18 planes. I think the best way to handle the changes would be to make the stock load-outs for the USN from at least T7 and up 2/2/1. Make the Fighters 4 aircraft, 2 DB at 5 ea, with one armed with the 500lbsHE (Scout Bombers)  and 1 with the 1000lbsAP (Strike Bombers), and the Torpedo squadron unchanged. Not only would this address the low damage output of the US DB and turn them into the very effective weapons they were historically, it also adds to the "Historical flavor" WG seems to like to have in the game.

 

Historically the IJN Torpedoes were so much better than the USN. At the Battle of Coral Sea, if the US had the same quality of torpedo, no doubt the IJN CV losses would have been much higher, as several torpedoes that hit the Shokaku didn't detonate, causing no damage. Still, the DB hits she took put her out of action for months. Conversely only one or two IJN torpedoes to the Lexington, and later at Midway, to the Yorktown, basically doomed them. So I see no reason to adjust those numbers. But by the end of the war, USN torpedos we equal to them, as the evidence to most of the remaining IJN fleet resting at the bottom of the Pacific can attest to. USN Torpedo squadrons by the end of '44 were down to 10 aircraft, maybe 12 at most.

 

This "Strafing" thing in the game is just foolishness. It has to go. Really, you can take a group of 3-6 fighters and if you line them up just right, burn an entire squadron or two of aircraft  from the sky? Based on what example from history? This alone destroys any balance to a game.

 

Another thing that needs to change is this Air Superiority and Attack load-outs. There is no historical precedent to either. No, and i emphasis, NO, CV driver would ever consider having a Fighter only Air Group, or Attack Squadrons without some sort of cover. The closest I can find in USN operations was the Independance CVLs, who operated 2 VF and a VT squadron in support of the CVs. If you look real hard, you can find some CVEs that carried deck fulls of FM-1s late in the war, but again, to support amphibious landings- not fleet battles. In the Atlantic, the ASW CVEs always had 4-6 F4Fs and later FM-1/2 to fly escort for the SBDs and later TBMs. WG needs to ditch these options and make them more historic. Make it more realistic making a CV driver choose to protect his ship or escort the strike group. Many times this decision had to be made (Midway is a great example). This would also make a 2 CV battle more realistic by (hopefully) having the 2 CV drivers work together an coordinating their strikes.

 

To Summarize:

 

-Remove Strafing

 

-Divide the DB for the USN into Scout Bombers (armed with 500lb HE) and Dive Bombers (1000lb AP) and make these stock at T7 up, and maybe an upgrade for T5 and T6. Play around with numbers to achieve balance (4-6)

 

-Leave the Torpedo Bombers "as is".

 

- No more of this "expanded radius" if the aircraft are under attack. This is some sort of gimmicky fix is my guess. Only "green" pilots would panic under such stress. Maybe make it a "Captain Skill" to remove it if WG insists on keeping it. Keep in mind, the first CV duel ever, the USN with it's "Green Pilots" anvil attacked both IJN CVs and scored multiple hits, sinking one, and putting the other out of action for months, while the "experienced" IJN pilots could only score a few hits on the USN, with the Lexingtion sinking only due to an explosion caused by fires from the years of paint build up detonating the AvGas.

 

Anyway, my $0.02 from someone who has been playing for a short time.

 

 

 


Edited by Starfighter_Ace, 19 January 2017 - 11:40 PM.


SeaKnight_1990 #6 Posted 20 January 2017 - 12:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 401
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostStarfighter_Ace, on 19 January 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

While this isn't an historically accurate game, WG seems to want to keep the feel of one. As a long time "war gamer" (going back to the board games with cardboard counters & maps with rule books as thick as most novels and more charts and graphs that the typical medical exam), i appreciate this in the game and hope it continues. I also recognize the fact WG wants to keep it "balanced", when, in truth, war is not about balance, but domination. So it become a balancing act to keep players interested and the game play coming down to skill, or at least some sort of challenge to a player. But i digress...

 

Level Bombers, high or low, just are outside the scope of this game. In reality, outside of one event, they played no role in front line Naval Battles. The exception was the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse to IJN Land Based Torpedo Bombers, something I would think it outside the scope of this game. When the US tried to use them at Midway (B-17s and B-26s), they were a desperate measure to stop the IJN. Not one hit, though many were claimed. IJA and IJN tried several times to use Bettys and Nells against the USN Task Forces without success until the advent of the Kalimakazies in '44. 

 

I agree what needs to be address is the USN squadron strengths. USN Doctrine from the 1920's thru most of WWII was 1 VF(Fighter) , 1 VB(Bomber) , 1, VS(Scout), and 1 VT(Torpedo) squadron per air group. Each squadron was 18 planes. I think the best way to handle the changes would be to make the stock load-outs for the USN from at least T7 and up 2/2/1. Make the Fighters 4 aircraft, 2 DB at 5 ea, with one armed with the 500lbsHE (Scout Bombers)  and 1 with the 1000lbsAP (Strike Bombers), and the Torpedo squadron unchanged. Not only would this address the low damage output of the US DB and turn them into the very effective weapons they were historically, it also adds to the "Historical flavor" WG seems to like to have in the game.

 

Historically the IJN Torpedoes were so much better than the USN. At the Battle of Coral Sea, if the US had the same quality of torpedo, no doubt the IJN CV losses would have been much higher, as several torpedoes that hit the Shokaku didn't detonate, causing no damage. Still, the DB hits she took put her out of action for months. Conversely only one or two IJN torpedoes to the Lexington, and later at Midway, to the Yorktown, basically doomed them. So I see no reason to adjust those numbers. But by the end of the war, USN torpedos we equal to them, as the evidence to most of the remaining IJN fleet resting at the bottom of the Pacific can attest to. USN Torpedo squadrons by the end of '44 were down to 10 aircraft, maybe 12 at most.

 

This "Strafing" thing in the game is just foolishness. It has to go. Really, you can take a group of 3-6 fighters and if you line them up just right, burn an entire squadron or two of aircraft  from the sky? Based on what example from history? This alone destroys any balance to a game.

 

Another thing that needs to change is this Air Superiority and Attack load-outs. There is no historical precedent to either. No, and i emphasis, NO, CV driver would ever consider having a Fighter only Air Group, or Attack Squadrons without some sort of cover. The closest I can find in USN operations was the Independance CVLs, who operated 2 VF and a VT squadron in support of the CVs. If you look real hard, you can find some CVEs that carried deck fulls of FM-1s late in the war, but again, to support amphibious landings- not fleet battles. In the Atlantic, the ASW CVEs always had 4-6 F4Fs and later FM-1/2 to fly escort for the SBDs and later TBMs. WG needs to ditch these options and make them more historic. Make it more realistic making a CV driver choose to protect his ship or escort the strike group. Many times this decision had to be made (Midway is a great example). This would also make a 2 CV battle more realistic by (hopefully) having the 2 CV drivers work together an coordinating their strikes.

 

To Summarize:

 

-Remove Strafing

 

-Divide the DB for the USN into Scout Bombers (armed with 500lb HE) and Dive Bombers (1000lb AP) and make these stock at T7 up, and maybe an upgrade for T5 and T6. Play around with numbers to achieve balance (4-6)

 

-Leave the Torpedo Bombers "as is".

 

- No more of this "expanded radius" if the aircraft are under attack. This is some sort of gimmicky fix is my guess. Only "green" pilots would panic under such stress. Maybe make it a "Captain Skill" to remove it if WG insists on keeping it. Keep in mind, the first CV duel ever, the USN with it's "Green Pilots" anvil attacked both IJN CVs and scored multiple hits, sinking one, and putting the other out of action for months, while the "experienced" IJN pilots could only score a few hits on the USN, with the Lexingtion sinking only due to an explosion caused by fires from the years of paint build up detonating the AvGas.

 

Anyway, my $0.02 from someone who has been playing for a short time.

 

 

 

 

Pretty much.

 

I also suggested the division of USN DBs into something similar; it might work. 

 

I do agree with the "historical accuracy" bit; however, speaking of which, the USN, in 1942 at Coral Sea, killed the Shoho and damaged the Shokaku, in two separate air attacks. Hope you don't mind me correcting your history.

 

In regards to land-based aircraft, if the Hornet gets put in with some sort of "Doolittle Raid" FCM with B-25s, they could be the ones with all those .50-cals up front that so successfully blasted Japanese shipping in 1943. 

 

That's my additional $0.02 on the matter, though. 


 

dark.png


Starfighter_Ace #7 Posted 20 January 2017 - 12:57 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 28
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016
SeaKnight, you are correct, the attacks on the IJN CVs were separate attacks. My apologies if I lead you incorrectly.  Just not sure introducing Land Based aircraft is a good idea and within the scope of the game. The USAAF B-25J that strafed Japanese shipping used a field mounted, later, factory mounted 75MM cannon that was loaded by hand to hit shipping. The 6 pack of 50cals was pretty nasty too. Again, starting out as a field mod that became a factory mod as well. Ingenious folks, 5th AF guys. They also used skip bombing, both A-20s and B-25s. But these were commerce ships, not warships. Maybe a Tin Can her and there, but that was rare.

Zuzmaw #8 Posted 20 January 2017 - 01:08 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 21
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

What's the point of putting in a strike package if it's unviable, especially at this point?

It was bad enough before the changes, but adding fighter ammo increase, and now more fighter buffs? it's either AS or don't bother with a CV.

Strafing is shabby, taking out multiple planes that are clearly not in the line of fire. Not to mention, AS gameplay is borrrrringgg. 

Don't even get me started on the horrific economy. If you're not premium, get comfortable at T7 because that's as far as you're going to go without paying for games, no matter win or loss. 

 

sold my collection of CVs and moving onto greener pastures. thanks for the 8 months of Cv gameplay WG



addanz #9 Posted 20 January 2017 - 05:58 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 7
  • Member since:
    10-01-2016

CV's need a dramatic rebalance to bring them inline with other ships.. STEALTH rating is one probable fix ... make them visible from 20km away or further if the player doesnt take Concealment. That would give CV's a "Risk vs Reward" aspect.. be closer in, at greater risk, or outside stealth range, at the cost of round trip times...

 

Currently any game with CV's comes down to .. Can the CV on your side manual drop effectively VS can the enemy CV manual drop effectively.

 

If yours cant ... and theirs can. Your team is gonna struggle and will likely lose.  1 ship having such a HUGE impact on the outcome of games makes for Terrible gameplay when there is ~20 other players involved.. 

 

No other ship class has this much impact... and for a GAME.. no ship class should.

 

Manual drop where 5 of 6 torps hit from 6 planes is just crazy.. 

 

CV's in their current form just make for TERRIBLE game play. All other classes can contend with eachother, Cruisers CAN kill BB's. DD's CAN kill cruisers, there is MUCH more player skill and tactics involved and most importantly *risk* to the ship carrying out attacks is always present

 

Like anything in game, if the only effective counter is another ship of the same class... its terribly broken.

 

Its very evident as carriers go up in tier, they become increasingly overpowered when compared to other ships, while this might be historically accurate, its NOT good game design and it removes from the "E-sport" aspect of the game.. 

 

Bottom line is carriers need a major rethink and re balancing, the impact of good/bad CV players is FAR too high... basically, if you want a stellar winrate, team with a Super unicum CV driver, youll be close to 100%

 

you can be an amazing player and come up against a great CV manual dropper, and theres nothing you can do against point blank drops with 70% or better chance to 1 shot you.

 

Again...terrible gameplay and contrary to the "punch//counter punch" seen in other classes.

 

If Wargaming wants to see this game grow, it needs to push the game back towards "World of WARSHIPS, Not "World of Carriers"



AhosChaos #10 Posted 20 January 2017 - 06:50 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 211
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

I always thought it could be fun to have the ability to chose whether you want 1 1000lb bomb or 2 500lb on your DB's.  With the 500lb bombs you auto drop to drop one bomb or manual to drop both.  This would allow you to have a chance to stack DoTs on BB's if you failed to get a flooding with US TB's and give you a much higher high chance on DD's.  When you have 42 bombs you would have to be the unluckiest person to not land a hit where as with 21, its somewhat reasonable that you could miss all of them.  Is this a good solution to the CV balance issue?  No it really isn't, but it could diversify US CV play and refresh the gameplay a little bit.

 

What really needs to happen is that the US always needs to have the maximum potential amount of squadrons.  For example stock Ranger only has 3 squadrons, but when you opt of AS or Strike you get 4.  Make the stock Ranger have 4 squadrons and either make it a 2/1/1 or a 1/1/2.  The 2/1/1 would make the 2/0/2 Ranger obsolete so really the only option is the 1/1/2.  Of course you could give the US back the second TB, but if they get that back, then the 1000lb bombs would have to go.  With one TB it is fairly easy to do 20k damage to a BB, as all you have to do is land 3 torps on them.  If you were to give a second TB, you could do 40k damage for the same amount of effort then with the 1000lb DBs it is too much.

 

Part of the problem with CV's is that IJN CV's are more like CA's while US are more like BB's.  The IJN launch more planes more quickly, but their damage is lower while the US is slow to get its planes in the air, but it has the highest potential damage.  

The IJN can get their planes back faster and back up into the air faster similar to how CA's can reload much faster than a BB.  More accurately it would be like comparing the Scharn or Spee to like a t10 BB.  They fire faster, but damage isn't as great, but is definitely sufficient.  

 

If every US bomb penetrated and every torpedo hit non torpedo belt sections in a world where damage saturation wasn't a thing, then the Midway could flat out alpha 3 Yamato's or at least get very close to it with flooding and fires.  The Midway has like 270k or 280k potential damage from its strike loadout.  To balance this, the DBs get poor dispersion and low penetration.  Only against low tier cruisers will the HE bombs actually be able to do the full 10k damage.

 

In order to truly remove this dynamic, CV's would have to be completely revamped and honestly, that really isn't what CV's need.  They need a few tweaks here and there and then a few patches later another set of tweaks so there is a gradual change.  Of course WG could just put the CV rework onto the PTS(even if it isn't complete) and have it be there for several PTS periods until they slowly make it into what they want.


Rip stat.png

I was Unicum in BB's and CV's with a WTR of 1798 and 1777 ... for one day, but hey I was Unicum

"If you kill me I'll buy you an Okhotnik"-NoZoupForYou 3/10/17 roughly 7:09 PST - I guess Zoup is going to buy me an Okhotnik- The real question is when though-Read my most recent Baltimore post for proof

3/19/17 1:55 PST NoZoupForYou became a god in my heart

 


AhosChaos #11 Posted 20 January 2017 - 07:24 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 211
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

View Postaddanz, on 19 January 2017 - 09:58 PM, said:

CV's need a dramatic rebalance to bring them inline with other ships.. STEALTH rating is one probable fix ... make them visible from 20km away or further if the player doesnt take Concealment. That would give CV's a "Risk vs Reward" aspect.. be closer in, at greater risk, or outside stealth range, at the cost of round trip times...

 

Currently any game with CV's comes down to .. Can the CV on your side manual drop effectively VS can the enemy CV manual drop effectively.

 

If yours cant ... and theirs can. Your team is gonna struggle and will likely lose.  1 ship having such a HUGE impact on the outcome of games makes for Terrible gameplay when there is ~20 other players involved.. 

 

No other ship class has this much impact... and for a GAME.. no ship class should.

 

Manual drop where 5 of 6 torps hit from 6 planes is just crazy.. 

 

CV's in their current form just make for TERRIBLE game play. All other classes can contend with eachother, Cruisers CAN kill BB's. DD's CAN kill cruisers, there is MUCH more player skill and tactics involved and most importantly *risk* to the ship carrying out attacks is always present

 

Like anything in game, if the only effective counter is another ship of the same class... its terribly broken.

 

Its very evident as carriers go up in tier, they become increasingly overpowered when compared to other ships, while this might be historically accurate, its NOT good game design and it removes from the "E-sport" aspect of the game.. 

 

Bottom line is carriers need a major rethink and re balancing, the impact of good/bad CV players is FAR too high... basically, if you want a stellar winrate, team with a Super unicum CV driver, youll be close to 100%

 

you can be an amazing player and come up against a great CV manual dropper, and theres nothing you can do against point blank drops with 70% or better chance to 1 shot you.

 

Again...terrible gameplay and contrary to the "punch//counter punch" seen in other classes.

 

If Wargaming wants to see this game grow, it needs to push the game back towards "World of WARSHIPS, Not "World of Carriers"

 

 

Several things.  Have you seen "E-Sport" WoWs?  From the few competitive games I watched, CV's were not really overpowered in those matches, they don't do more work than any other ship.  Maybe you've seen something else, I don't know.  Feel free to link me something.

 

But more importantly, the CV's aren't often respected.  Not as in receiving compliments and saying thank yous, but in game.  You would be daft to sail broadside against a Yamato.  You would be an idiot to sail in a straight line when there is a Shimakaze lurking.  You would be half-baked at best to extinguish one fire while fighting a wolfpack of HE spamming cruisers(haha get it?).  The same goes for fighting a CV.  You can't just sail off alone.  If  you sail off alone your AA will never be enough to defend yourself.  This is a team game where you do have teammates.  There will be situations where you are or have to  be alone, but that is the same for every class.  There are situations where you have to show broadside to a Yamato, where you have to push into a Shimakaze, where you have to extinguish that fire.

 

Also the impact of good and bad players can be said about any class.  If you only have one DD who plays like a potato, its a pretty hard uphill battle.  If you only have one BB who insists on sitting in the back where he can't hit much of anything, its pretty hard to do a lot.  I guess having a game with only one CA and he is the worst of the worst isn't the worst thing, but it still makes things hard as you effectively have no support ship.

 

Considering that the Midway does have the worst (second worst if you count the Izumo technically) detection, I don't think detection needs to be raised.  It also really doesn't do too much for you to shoot the CV who is at max range while there are more immediate threats in the form of actual ships between you and the CV.


Rip stat.png

I was Unicum in BB's and CV's with a WTR of 1798 and 1777 ... for one day, but hey I was Unicum

"If you kill me I'll buy you an Okhotnik"-NoZoupForYou 3/10/17 roughly 7:09 PST - I guess Zoup is going to buy me an Okhotnik- The real question is when though-Read my most recent Baltimore post for proof

3/19/17 1:55 PST NoZoupForYou became a god in my heart

 


Palladia #12 Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:58 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 605
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostSeaKnight_1990, on 19 January 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

 

Agreed. I was thinking about doing two 3-4 plane squadrons of torpedo bombers on the higher tier USN CVs, because as it is, one 6-plane squadron makes the strike loadout underpowered, whereas 2 makes it overpowered. Thought about it a bit; figured the thing should meet in the middle, with two small squadrons, Saipan-esque. What do you think?

 

Two doesn't actually make it overpowered.  It brought them up to twelve torpedos,  which is what IJN have now.  It just allowed the USN to perform cross drops so that more nimble things couldn't escape.

PD666 #13 Posted 20 January 2017 - 01:44 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostPalladia, on 20 January 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

 

Two doesn't actually make it overpowered.  It brought them up to twelve torpedos,  which is what IJN have now.  It just allowed the USN to perform cross drops so that more nimble things couldn't escape.

 

I think allowing the US to do cross drops would be a good idea. My biggest problems with US CV torps were that the IJN had twice as many and that I couldn't cross drop.

SeaKnight_1990 #14 Posted 21 January 2017 - 12:40 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 401
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostPalladia, on 20 January 2017 - 12:58 AM, said:

 

Two doesn't actually make it overpowered.  It brought them up to twelve torpedos,  which is what IJN have now.  It just allowed the USN to perform cross drops so that more nimble things couldn't escape.

 

On the one hand, WG logic: IJN having 12 TBs aloft at one time is OK, while USN having the same is OP.

 

On the other hand, here's a 10-letter, three-syllable word for you: dispersion. 

 

Hope that helps.


 

dark.png


Carrier_Lexington #15 Posted 21 January 2017 - 03:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 483
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostStarfighter_Ace, on 19 January 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Level Bombers, high or low, just are outside the scope of this game. In reality, outside of one event, they played no role in front line Naval Battles. The exception was the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse to IJN Land Based Torpedo Bombers, something I would think it outside the scope of this game. When the US tried to use them at Midway (B-17s and B-26s), they were a desperate measure to stop the IJN. Not one hit, though many were claimed. IJA and IJN tried several times to use Bettys and Nells against the USN Task Forces without success until the advent of the Kalimakazies in '44. 

To be fair, the Tirpitz was sunk by Lancastres... although it did take 3 flights of Lancastres to score one fatal hit...

 

Anyway, the only reason that Level Bombing wasn't that effective was that ships would often maneuver hard, and it was difficult to see targets from such altitude, especially through cloud cover. Do you see ships in WoWS maneuvering all that much, except when they see torpedoes? No. And accuracy has proven to be very.... malleable in terms of game balance (just look at Dive Bomber hit rates... historically, very, very high; in-game, it's a crapshoot.)

 

Another reason that Level Bombing wasn't used against warships was that it's almost impossible to convert most land-based level bombers, with the exclusion of the B-25/PBJ Mitchell (Doolittle Raid), to be launched off of carriers. You had to have a friendly-controlled island with an airbase within striking range, something that the US, with it's island-hopping strategy, often didn't have until Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

 

And, in real life, warships didn't often engage forts from within return-firing range (Bastion mode, I'm looking at you).

 

When I was designing the tactical bombers idea, I was thinking of a good balance between the efficiency to deal damage, the effectiveness to get-in close, and the ability to hit multiple targets at once, something that carriers have never been very good at in WoWS.

 

But, for historical accuracy, we could give the USN F-6F Hellcats the 1,000lb bombs and HVARS that they were historically equipped with.


"GIT OFF MY WALL!"-- Zeppelin vonSchulteiss, Lighter than Heir

 

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Terry Pratchett


Starfighter_Ace #16 Posted 21 January 2017 - 02:30 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 28
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 20 January 2017 - 10:53 PM, said:

But, for historical accuracy, we could give the USN F-6F Hellcats the 1,000lb bombs and HVARS that they were historically equipped with.

 

Now that's something I could support!

Edited by Starfighter_Ace, 21 January 2017 - 02:31 PM.


PD666 #17 Posted 21 January 2017 - 03:14 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
Definitely! I like world of warships because it has a mix of historical accuracy and changes that help gameplay. If it helps gameplay I would support putting bombs on bombers that didn't historically have them, but I like wargaming making things accurate.

Edited by PD666, 21 January 2017 - 03:16 PM.


SeaKnight_1990 #18 Posted 21 January 2017 - 04:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 401
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostStarfighter_Ace, on 21 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

 

Now that's something I could support!

 

So would I!

 

dark.png


Starfighter_Ace #19 Posted 22 January 2017 - 03:04 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 28
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016
Hear is another idea to consider. How about adding a Defensive "Combat Air Patrol" to the CVs? The CA and BBs have their "Catapult Fighters" (which is quite a stretch history wise. USN BBs did carry 4 fighters for about 6 years from 1919 until the mid '20s, and Cruisers never.), why not have CV have a Combat Air Patrol consumable consisting on 2 aircraft to defend itself? Every nation had this, along with an Anti-Sub patrol. At t4-7, Carrier Sniping seems to be a sport, and if you do leave your fighters to cover you, they rarely are in a position to defend. It seems like every time I am manually dropping on the Red Teams ship, the Red Teams strike appears to hit my CV. It would also be helpful to chase away Red Team fighters that want to snipe my departing attack aircraft and spot me. 2 planes isn't much, I'd want 4, but what a change of tactics it would make. Maybe for the better. Opinions?

Palladia #20 Posted 22 January 2017 - 06:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 605
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostSeaKnight_1990, on 21 January 2017 - 12:40 AM, said:

 

On the one hand, WG logic: IJN having 12 TBs aloft at one time is OK, while USN having the same is OP.

 

On the other hand, here's a 10-letter, three-syllable word for you: dispersion. 

 

Hope that helps.

 

I play BB's.  I am not particularly good at them,  but trust me when I say I know all about dispersion.  My shells like to make a nice C shape around enemy ships and proceed to score no hits.  Dispersion also plays a nasty part in dive bombers though it seems like that may have been improved a bit.

Unless you mean torpedo dispersion?  In which case the IJN dispersal pattern starts out just a hair wider then the USN and quickly becomes smaller.  IJN also has the flexibility of being able to drop from three different sides,  insuring that pretty much every ship they come across eats at least some torpedos.  




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users