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

Carrier_Lexington #21 Posted 22 January 2017 - 07:25 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostStarfighter_Ace, on 22 January 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

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?

 

Would be interesting, especially to replace the Defensive Fire that abounds at T8+.

 

Essentially, at least how I view it, the planes would launch automatically at the start of the battle, and would be, for the USN, 2 squads of two fighters (cannot be given commands, automatically follow an escort order for your carrier), and, for the IJN, two squads of one fighter. They replenish automatically when destroyed or out of ammunition. These would only be available in the Strike or Balanced configuration. Squads engage in a one-to-one ratio (one enemy, one CAP), and prioritize strike aircraft over fighters. They would deplete fighter reserves when available. To pay for this, well, the USN Strike doesn't have fighters, but it would gain a small amount of fighter reserves to supply the CAP aircraft, but the IJN would see their fighter reserves diminished as their CAP aircraft were destroyed.

 

In addition, CAP aircraft have lower survivability but higher DPS than catapult fighters.


"Heresy!"


SeaKnight_1990 #22 Posted 22 January 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 515
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostPalladia, on 22 January 2017 - 10:07 AM, said:

 

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.  

 

I was referring to torpedo dispersion.

 

dark.png


hipcanuck #23 Posted 24 January 2017 - 12:00 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 963
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

CV's are useless when bottom tier...try a tier 8 CV in a tier 10 match with more than a couple of tier 10's and you'll see exactly what the definition of useless is. A tier 8 CV in a tier 6 match is deadly and far to OP. Currently CV's are in no way rewarded for providing fighter cover to their team mates, this needs to end. Without rewarding CV's for defending their fleet there is no reason to, which leads to BB players hating on CV's....which leads to the daily 'CV's are the worst thing ever' threads on the forums. WG has totally failed its players in this regard!

 

So, people who mutter on about CV's being OP need to spend more time driving one, lots of time.

 

1st and most important fix.....the biggest problem with CV's is tier matching, 1 up, 1 down, thats it. Not 2 up, 2 down as it currently is.

2nd problem is the US carriers. Easy fix.....reduce the number of planes in a squad to the same as the IJN (and it should be this way for ALL carriers). More about this at the end.

3rd problem is squadron load out, again, this is a US problem, again, easy fix.

 

tier 4.....1/1/1

tier 5.....1/1/1 PLUS one additional squadron of the players choice

tier 6.....1/1/1 PLUS the above addition AND a second addition but no plane type can exceed 2 squadrons.

tier 7......2/2/2

tier 8......2/2/2 PLUS one additional squadron

tier 9......you get the idea now.

tier 10...3/3/3 

 

These changes are mostly for balance and ease of balancing in the future. Nationality flavour can be in the sturdiness/weakness of the planes, AA ability and sturdiness of the Carriers, attack strength of the planes etc.

 

CV's need to be rewarded for shooting down BOMBERS, purely in credits, but not in such amounts as to make CV's credit printing machines. Since I dont have a tier 10 I can only guess how many planes they shoot down but I would say it could be around 40-50, and given the costs I would think 1,000 credits per bomber shot down wouldnt be excessive.

 

 



Carrier_Lexington #24 Posted 24 January 2017 - 01:44 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Posthipcanuck, on 23 January 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

CV's are useless when bottom tier...try a tier 8 CV in a tier 10 match with more than a couple of tier 10's and you'll see exactly what the definition of useless is. A tier 8 CV in a tier 6 match is deadly and far to OP. Currently CV's are in no way rewarded for providing fighter cover to their team mates, this needs to end. Without rewarding CV's for defending their fleet there is no reason to, which leads to BB players hating on CV's....which leads to the daily 'CV's are the worst thing ever' threads on the forums. WG has totally failed its players in this regard

Well, they DID increase the economy gains from shooting down bombers, however, I think that that just led to AS-spam.

 

I believe that fighters should either be reworked so that they require skill to use, or that AS configurations should be removed, and the configurations should be balanced as only Strike or Balanced. The reason is that AS is actually far to non-competitive, especially in Ranked Play. Sure, you might shoot down tons of aircraft (I think my max in a single match was AS Ranger at 50) and get your opponent down to launching single-plane squads, but that does nothing to the rest of the enemy fleet. Sure, you might get lucky once-in-a-while with the 1,000lb bombs on Lexington, but that isn't consistent. Strike, however, destroys the enemy's ships, which leaves their carrier open to attack, and it gives the ships (and usually a points) advantage to your team. Teams with a ships advantage win more often than a team with an aerial advantage.

 

The problem with CVs is that BBs think that CVs should only fight CVs and leave the rest of the battlefield alone, which led to the creation of the AS configuration, but if you take that to its logical extreme (only fighters), there would be no reason to fight the other CV because, with 4 squads of fighters, you aren't going to do any damage to enemy ships, and neither are they. So, what reason is there to win the air war.

 

There's also nothing like a Strike CV halving the health of the enemy battleship who is playing stomp the weasel with your team to convince them to put their brave pants on and take the fight to the enemy.

 

I'm going to end this with something I say a lot: "AS is designed to be competitive against one player, the enemy CV, while Strike is designed to be competitive against 15 players."

 


"Heresy!"


SeaKnight_1990 #25 Posted 24 January 2017 - 03:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 515
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 23 January 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

Well, they DID increase the economy gains from shooting down bombers, however, I think that that just led to AS-spam.

 

I believe that fighters should either be reworked so that they require skill to use, or that AS configurations should be removed, and the configurations should be balanced as only Strike or Balanced. The reason is that AS is actually far to non-competitive, especially in Ranked Play. Sure, you might shoot down tons of aircraft (I think my max in a single match was AS Ranger at 50) and get your opponent down to launching single-plane squads, but that does nothing to the rest of the enemy fleet. Sure, you might get lucky once-in-a-while with the 1,000lb bombs on Lexington, but that isn't consistent. Strike, however, destroys the enemy's ships, which leaves their carrier open to attack, and it gives the ships (and usually a points) advantage to your team. Teams with a ships advantage win more often than a team with an aerial advantage.

 

The problem with CVs is that BBs think that CVs should only fight CVs and leave the rest of the battlefield alone, which led to the creation of the AS configuration, but if you take that to its logical extreme (only fighters), there would be no reason to fight the other CV because, with 4 squads of fighters, you aren't going to do any damage to enemy ships, and neither are they. So, what reason is there to win the air war.

 

There's also nothing like a Strike CV halving the health of the enemy battleship who is playing stomp the weasel with your team to convince them to put their brave pants on and take the fight to the enemy.

 

I'm going to end this with something I say a lot: "AS is designed to be competitive against one player, the enemy CV, while Strike is designed to be competitive against 15 players."

 

 

I would like to drink to all this. 

 

dark.png


StoneRhino #26 Posted 24 January 2017 - 03:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
There is a small problem with that idea that's balance.

I think tier 6 is the best balanced tier. The 1-1-1 Indy is a match for anything it faces (CV wise).

Tier 7 is close but there is a slight tilt to IJN. Simply reducing the USN service time and concealment would fix it. Giving USN strike a fighter would be to much. As would giving another fighter to stock load out.

Tier 8 is tilted in the IJN favor because they finally win the fighter fight. That being said just adding another fighter squadron to the stock loadout is op. It would be the same as it is now but in the USN favor. Here is where things get bad because the USN bread and butter to this point has been the balanced built; strike is pure offence with no defense and AS is pure defense with no offence. I think the fix here is to divide up the one USN fighter squadron into 2 smaller squadrons of 4. There by not giving them the AS capabilities of the AS spec but more attack power. It would also address the previous issue of service times.

Carrier_Lexington #27 Posted 24 January 2017 - 06:58 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostStoneRhino, on 23 January 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

There is a small problem with that idea that's balance.

I think tier 6 is the best balanced tier. The 1-1-1 Indy is a match for anything it faces (CV wise).

Tier 7 is close but there is a slight tilt to IJN. Simply reducing the USN service time and concealment would fix it. Giving USN strike a fighter would be to much. As would giving another fighter to stock load out.

Tier 8 is tilted in the IJN favor because they finally win the fighter fight. That being said just adding another fighter squadron to the stock loadout is op. It would be the same as it is now but in the USN favor. Here is where things get bad because the USN bread and butter to this point has been the balanced built; strike is pure offence with no defense and AS is pure defense with no offence. I think the fix here is to divide up the one USN fighter squadron into 2 smaller squadrons of 4. There by not giving them the AS capabilities of the AS spec but more attack power. It would also address the previous issue of service times.

This could work.

Or configuration-specific planes (a little like turrets and guns in WoT). If you're Strike, you can't take the fully-upgraded fighters (of course, something would then have to be done with Dogfighting Expert. Perhaps a buff to Fighter Survivability rather than DPS when fighting higher-tier fighters), and you only get one squad.

 

Diminishing the IJN Strike Fighter reserve size in return for a buff to survivability and increased strike reserves could also work.

 

Although, I wonder why no one has thought of the idea of replacing one or both of the Dive Bomber squads in AS with one squad of Torpedo Bombers. I get that this would basically be the Essex Stock configuration, but, seriously, does it severely unbalance the gameplay? And, as for replacing 2:1, as far as I can tell, it's basically like Bogue Balanced, but you have two squads of fighters instead of one, as well as more strike plane reserves in return for less strike squads.


"Heresy!"


Palladia #28 Posted 24 January 2017 - 07:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostStoneRhino, on 24 January 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:

There is a small problem with that idea that's balance.

I think tier 6 is the best balanced tier. The 1-1-1 Indy is a match for anything it faces (CV wise).

Tier 7 is close but there is a slight tilt to IJN. Simply reducing the USN service time and concealment would fix it. Giving USN strike a fighter would be to much. As would giving another fighter to stock load out.

Tier 8 is tilted in the IJN favor because they finally win the fighter fight. That being said just adding another fighter squadron to the stock loadout is op. It would be the same as it is now but in the USN favor. Here is where things get bad because the USN bread and butter to this point has been the balanced built; strike is pure offence with no defense and AS is pure defense with no offence. I think the fix here is to divide up the one USN fighter squadron into 2 smaller squadrons of 4. There by not giving them the AS capabilities of the AS spec but more attack power. It would also address the previous issue of service times.

Gonna have to disagree.  T6 is as close as it gets to balanced and even that is wonky.  1/1/1 Indy can match off against the 1/2/2 Ryujo and win in the sky but loses at sea.  Ryujo's 3/1/1 whips the Indy's 2/0/1 pretty easily.  Same goes for a straight 'strike' fight,  The Ryu wins in the sky and on the sea.

T7 is no contest in IJN's favor.  Existing in a vaccum strike to strike the USN could potentially deal more damage,  but the Hiryu have two fighters to screw with everything you do.  AS once again,  numbers win the day for the IJN.  They even have the literal numbers with Air supremacy by having 15 fighters to the Rangers 14.  IJN have no reason to use balance but USN using balance is going to lose both land and sea wars and at best distract the enemy CV for a couple of runs while giving up a good chunk of damage,  incapacitates,  and fires OR the ability to contest the skies.

T8 not sure yet.  Numbers remain the same but the USN go up to 1000pd bombs here and if the Saipan has taught me anything,  its that those suckers are nasty.  I feel like if any point is going to be 'equal' in so far as damage versus risk goes,  its going to be at T8.  At T9 IJN moves up to three torpedo bomber while the USN never get any more dive bombers then they had at the Ranger. 

Had other things to say but I looked up the stats at that point.  https://na.warships.today/vehicles  The damage numbers over two weeks still favor the Shok but its close.  Win rate though?  Nada.  Probably because the Shokaku has the ability to prevent enemy air raids while good ol' Lexy does not.

Edit:  God dang, those number for every tier are depressing.


Edited by Palladia, 24 January 2017 - 07:30 PM.


StoneRhino #29 Posted 25 January 2017 - 01:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Tier 6

Indy vs Ryujo

1-1-1 =/> 1-2-2 If smart the Ryujo can tie up the fighters for short times and get some good strikes in.  However the Indy can still put up big damage numbers and provide some AS cover. 


 

1-1-1 < 3-1-1 If Indy plays conservatively and gets a few  good strikes in they can still win and 2-0-1 beats the 3-1-1 in the AS game but loses the damage game..


 

1-1-1 > 1-1-2 Indy wins the fighter fight and can dish out more damage.  Kill the TBs and the Ryujo's damage become anemic.


 

Best balance because win some lose some but nothing where you don't have a chance.  And lets be honest how often do you see anything other than a 1-2-2 Ryujo.


 

The Ranger's 1-1-1 is much the same as Indy's except the fighter vs fighter is more even.  But a head on strafe, even a poorly done one can even the numbers and then it's Ranger wins.  That being said the re-load time for the fighter especially if they die tilts the board to the IJN.  Also most of my deaths in the Ranger were do to being spotted by surface ships and shot to death. I think in my total games played I died once to a Ryujo and once to another Ranger/Indy combo.  Faster reload times and better concealment and I would say they are about even.


 


 



Ship_Faced_ #30 Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:36 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 9
  • Member since:
    10-21-2015

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody runs a fighter loadout. It seems like a majority of CVs I face run fighters. Why?? You get nothing out of it. The rewards for shooting down enemy aircraft are pretty minimal. So all it does is ensure both CV players have a mediocre game (at best).

 

When I'm facing another strike loadout player, I generally do 100k+ damage and sink 2 ships (Ranger). That's on average. If the CV opposite me is decent, he'll do the same. AKA, we both have an affect on the battle.

 

When the other CV is a fighter loadout, I average probably 30k damage and no kills. It's rare for them to get any kills as well, since they just have a couple of dive bomber squadrons. So neither of us has any impact on the battle whatsoever.


Is there something I'm missing here? Why would anybody want to run a fighter loadout? I guess it helps your team to prevent the other guy from doing any damage, but it gets you far less credits and xp. And if both are running a fighter loadout, all you've got is a pointless little air battle between fighters with no way to impact the game at all.



Ship_Faced_ #31 Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:45 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 9
  • Member since:
    10-21-2015

View PostPalladia, on 24 January 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

Gonna have to disagree.  T6 is as close as it gets to balanced and even that is wonky.  1/1/1 Indy can match off against the 1/2/2 Ryujo and win in the sky but loses at sea.  Ryujo's 3/1/1 whips the Indy's 2/0/1 pretty easily.  Same goes for a straight 'strike' fight,  The Ryu wins in the sky and on the sea.

T7 is no contest in IJN's favor.  Existing in a vaccum strike to strike the USN could potentially deal more damage,  but the Hiryu have two fighters to screw with everything you do.  AS once again,  numbers win the day for the IJN.  They even have the literal numbers with Air supremacy by having 15 fighters to the Rangers 14.  IJN have no reason to use balance but USN using balance is going to lose both land and sea wars and at best distract the enemy CV for a couple of runs while giving up a good chunk of damage,  incapacitates,  and fires OR the ability to contest the skies.

T8 not sure yet.  Numbers remain the same but the USN go up to 1000pd bombs here and if the Saipan has taught me anything,  its that those suckers are nasty.  I feel like if any point is going to be 'equal' in so far as damage versus risk goes,  its going to be at T8.  At T9 IJN moves up to three torpedo bomber while the USN never get any more dive bombers then they had at the Ranger. 

Had other things to say but I looked up the stats at that point.  https://na.warships.today/vehicles  The damage numbers over two weeks still favor the Shok but its close.  Win rate though?  Nada.  Probably because the Shokaku has the ability to prevent enemy air raids while good ol' Lexy does not.

Edit:  God dang, those number for every tier are depressing.

 

Based on this game, you'd think the U.S. lost the war in the Pacific as badly as France lost in Europe.

SeaKnight_1990 #32 Posted 25 January 2017 - 05:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 515
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostShip_Faced_, on 24 January 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

 

Based on this game, you'd think the U.S. lost the war in the Pacific as badly as France lost in Europe.

 

You're not wrong; in real life, some of the higher-tier IJN planes were rather good, but the pilots tasked with taking them into battle weren't. Keep in mind Japan had some of the best naval aviators in the world when the war began, but many of them were killed in 1942 (Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal.) When you're resorting to sending planes flown by college-age men to make suicide attacks on the enemy, you know you're in a rather tight spot.

 

dark.png


Palladia #33 Posted 25 January 2017 - 12:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostStoneRhino, on 25 January 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

Tier 6

Indy vs Ryujo

1-1-1 =/> 1-2-2 If smart the Ryujo can tie up the fighters for short times and get some good strikes in.  However the Indy can still put up big damage numbers and provide some AS cover. 


 

1-1-1 < 3-1-1 If Indy plays conservatively and gets a few  good strikes in they can still win and 2-0-1 beats the 3-1-1 in the AS game but loses the damage game..


 

1-1-1 > 1-1-2 Indy wins the fighter fight and can dish out more damage.  Kill the TBs and the Ryujo's damage become anemic.


 

Best balance because win some lose some but nothing where you don't have a chance.  And lets be honest how often do you see anything other than a 1-2-2 Ryujo.


 

The Ranger's 1-1-1 is much the same as Indy's except the fighter vs fighter is more even.  But a head on strafe, even a poorly done one can even the numbers and then it's Ranger wins.  That being said the re-load time for the fighter especially if they die tilts the board to the IJN.  Also most of my deaths in the Ranger were do to being spotted by surface ships and shot to death. I think in my total games played I died once to a Ryujo and once to another Ranger/Indy combo.  Faster reload times and better concealment and I would say they are about even.


 


 

 

I respect your opinion,  but in reality your wrong.  Assuming that both sides are equally skilled IJN are going to win across the board,  starting from the moment they can do whichever action.  Actually IJN CV's can be LESS skilled then the USN captain and still do better.  IJN just has the advantage all around.  Even if I hadn't lived through a lot of it,  the numbers on Warships.today tell the story.  From the word go IJN has better stats overall ((Last two weeks so as not to inflate USN during the times they had two torpedo bombers)) and what they don't win in ((Planes shot down)) they are still close in. And even still win in some tiers,  like T9.

Starfighter_Ace #34 Posted 25 January 2017 - 03:15 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

Sea-Kinight, you nailed it! It seems WG used raw numbers of the aircraft when setting up it's hit tables and squadron numbers. At the beginning of WWII, the USN had only one aircraft in service that outclassed the IJN: The SBD. However, it was the superior training and quality replacement pilots that gave the USN the advantage right up to the end of the war. By Midway, the IJN had already suffered major losses to their experienced pilot pool, one of the reasons the Zuikaku could not participate. No planes or pilots. One of the largest factors from the outcome of the Battle of Midway, bedside the losses of 4 of the IJN Flat Tops was the loss of planes and pilots. While the IJN replaced them with better aircraft (Judy's, A6M5, and Jills), their crews were inexperienced and had a very hard time to hit anything. They needed to send swarms of aircraft in the hope to penetrating the very powerful AA and experienced US Fighters. The last US CV to be lost to the IJN was the Hornet in '42 from Val Dive Bombers and Kate Torpedo planes. The Princeton was lost in '44 to Kamikazes, with the Franklin, Intrepid and Bunker Hill knocked out for years. Very few IJN CV based aircraft every got close to an USN CV ever again after 1943.

 

I'm guessing WG used  the raw data and failed to take into account the experience of the air crews. A fix would be removing this "Panic" dispersion for the US DB and Torpedo squadrons and removing the IJN advantage in the Torpedo spread. Just add it to the list of needed fixes.


Edited by Starfighter_Ace, 25 January 2017 - 03:16 PM.


SeaKnight_1990 #35 Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 515
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostStarfighter_Ace, on 25 January 2017 - 07:15 AM, said:

Sea-Kinight, you nailed it! It seems WG used raw numbers of the aircraft when setting up it's hit tables and squadron numbers. At the beginning of WWII, the USN had only one aircraft in service that outclassed the IJN: The SBD. However, it was the superior training and quality replacement pilots that gave the USN the advantage right up to the end of the war. By Midway, the IJN had already suffered major losses to their experienced pilot pool, one of the reasons the Zuikaku could not participate. No planes or pilots. One of the largest factors from the outcome of the Battle of Midway, bedside the losses of 4 of the IJN Flat Tops was the loss of planes and pilots. While the IJN replaced them with better aircraft (Judy's, A6M5, and Jills), their crews were inexperienced and had a very hard time to hit anything. They needed to send swarms of aircraft in the hope to penetrating the very powerful AA and experienced US Fighters. The last US CV to be lost to the IJN was the Hornet in '42 from Val Dive Bombers and Kate Torpedo planes. The Princeton was lost in '44 to Kamikazes, with the Franklin, Intrepid and Bunker Hill knocked out for years. Very few IJN CV based aircraft every got close to an USN CV ever again after 1943.

 

I'm guessing WG used  the raw data and failed to take into account the experience of the air crews. A fix would be removing this "Panic" dispersion for the US DB and Torpedo squadrons and removing the IJN advantage in the Torpedo spread. Just add it to the list of needed fixes.

 

On top of that, the USN's Mk 13 torpedo was improved; according to this: http://www.ibiblio.o...rd/BuOrd-6.html

"Months before the end of the war the mark 13 was universally accepted as the best aircraft torpedo owned by any nation."

 

And while I'm at it, the Princeton was hit twice by conventional bombers, and subsequent fires and explosions did her in. The escort carriers St. Lo, Ommaney Bay, and Bismarck Sea were sunk by kamikazes, the largest ships to meet that fate. 


Edited by SeaKnight_1990, 25 January 2017 - 04:46 PM.

 

dark.png


PD666 #36 Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:45 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostPalladia, on 25 January 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

 

I respect your opinion,  but in reality your wrong.  Assuming that both sides are equally skilled IJN are going to win across the board,  starting from the moment they can do whichever action.  Actually IJN CV's can be LESS skilled then the USN captain and still do better.  IJN just has the advantage all around.  Even if I hadn't lived through a lot of it,  the numbers on Warships.today tell the story.  From the word go IJN has better stats overall ((Last two weeks so as not to inflate USN during the times they had two torpedo bombers)) and what they don't win in ((Planes shot down)) they are still close in. And even still win in some tiers,  like T9.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree. After WG took away the 2nd torpedo squadron at tiers 9+10 the US CVs turned into a hot mess. Except for the Langley and in some cases the bouge. When I had my Langley I remember wrecking Hoshos because they only had squads of 4 while I had squads of 6. Same story with the bouge except sometimes when I faced a competent IJN player.

StoneRhino #37 Posted 25 January 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The issue with the stats is that IJN attracts the more competitive players because of the perceived advantages.

If you look at my zuiho stats. They are my best stats of any of my CVs. 65k damage and 74% win rate. And looks like it supports the IJN >USN but in truth it is more dependant on the enemy team derping. I couldn't tell you how often I was able to escape a dd/cl/ca that had me dead to rights where as the bogue was just dead in the water. How many times the enemy bogue died and I just played wakamole.  It's the same with independence   worse with ranger and omg bad in Lexington.

Faster service time + shorter flight time + better concealment is where the IJN CVs win. It's why I do way consistently better statistically in a lose than wins with USN CVs. When the fighting is closer so the USN has the shorter flights the tables turn.



Palladia #38 Posted 25 January 2017 - 05:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostPD666, on 25 January 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

 

Unfortunately I have to agree. After WG took away the 2nd torpedo squadron at tiers 9+10 the US CVs turned into a hot mess. Except for the Langley and in some cases the bouge. When I had my Langley I remember wrecking Hoshos because they only had squads of 4 while I had squads of 6. Same story with the bouge except sometimes when I faced a competent IJN player.

 

T4 and 5 are special cases,  IJN doesn't have access to AS packages so they are stuck with strike and a single fighter.  So USN AS can actually effectively stop or slow down IJN bombers.  Actually thinking on it that applies to T6 to an extent as well but its around that point that IJN starts getting droves of planes so it starts becoming more difficult.

PD666 #39 Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:53 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
I agree, the Indi can take on most things that the IJN tier 6 carrier can throw at it but it is the beginning of the end.

PD666 #40 Posted 27 January 2017 - 12:51 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostStarfighter_Ace, on 22 January 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

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?

I like the idea, but how would anti-sub patrols work? And what if each combat air patrol consisted of 2 planes no matter what nation. The difference would be how many slots each ship would get. A slot alows for a one CAP or ASP. For example the midway could have 4 slots, and can choose how many squads of CAP and ASP they want. Also, what if we added in a scout patrol that would fly in ever growing circles around the carrier, spotting for it. CV captains could mix and match their flight modes to match with what they chose in their slots. For example, A strike Midway probably would choose 3 CAP and 1 SP. This would prevent an alpha strike and alow the fighters to escort the bombers without fear of retaliation.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users