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 #41 Posted 28 January 2017 - 03:24 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

View PostPD666, on 27 January 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

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.

 

If there are going to be anti-submarine patrols, then there are probably going to be submarines.

 

Reportedly from the September 19th interview with Daniil Volkov:

"We are seriously looking into the submarines, as they are in popular demand. They will probably not come in 2017, but likely at a later date. One alternative considered is having submarines as bots."

 

However, the opposite holds true as well: if there are no submarines, then there probably won't be ASW patrols.


"Heresy!"


AZ_Battle #42 Posted 28 January 2017 - 04:59 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 21
  • Member since:
    09-16-2015
I am learning this class and can see differences between the IJN and US carriers.


 

 

 


Carrier_Junyo #43 Posted 29 January 2017 - 10:11 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 730
  • Member since:
    02-11-2013

The solution to balancing CV is extremely simple. It wouod take modifying a few lines of existing code and maybe a days work. 

 

All that needs to happen is to remove extreme Air Superiority loadouts. Only keep balanced and strike loadouts. 

 

Of course a lot could be done to improve CV gameplay but this basic change is all that is needed. 


WG, please remove Air Superiority Carrier loadouts from the game. I'm sure that if you looked at Air Superiority Win Rates vs Balanced or Strike Win Rates, your data will show you the vast inferiority of this loadout in its ability to help their team's chances to win. Meanwhile, they are encouraging the balanced or strike CV player to stop playing CVs due to decreasing their enjoyment of the game and creating frustration. Removing Air Superiority loadouts, and "re-balancing" the balanced and strike loadouts is the easiest fix to the current CV problem. Match the air power of both nations for equivalent loadouts. Ideally, players should be able to select their loadouts in-game, not in port. This way, they are able to adapt to enemy CV's actions and it adds an extra element of tactics and strategy, rather than being at a disadvantage already at Port. 


Carrier_Lexington #44 Posted 29 January 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

View PostCarrier_Junyo, on 29 January 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

The solution to balancing CV is extremely simple. It wouod take modifying a few lines of existing code and maybe a days work. 

 

All that needs to happen is to remove extreme Air Superiority loadouts. Only keep balanced and strike loadouts. 

 

Of course a lot could be done to improve CV gameplay but this basic change is all that is needed. 

 

There's a little more than that. If you remove AS configurations, which I fully support, you have to also rebalance the Strike and Balanced configurations. One squad of fighters in the USN Strike should do it, as would removing one from the IJN Strike.

"Heresy!"


CAPTMUDDXX #45 Posted 29 January 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,486
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
with all that has been posted here I suspect if and when they do make such changes to CVs we will be in for even more of the same sort of postings about what is wrong with the improvements

Carrier_Lexington #46 Posted 29 January 2017 - 07:13 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

View PostCAPTMUDDXX, on 29 January 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

with all that has been posted here I suspect if and when they do make such changes to CVs we will be in for even more of the same sort of postings about what is wrong with the improvements

 

Really? I thought that was obvious. I mean, this is a WarGaming product we're talking about...

 

Anyway, I think that the most interesting part of the re-work is where the complaints end-up after a month or two.

 

If most of the complaints are on the Battleship forum, then I think that we can say that it's a job well-done. If the complaints are on the Carrier forum, it means that there's room for improvement. I honestly don't know what to say about complaints on the Cruiser or Destroyer forum.


"Heresy!"


Carrier_Junyo #47 Posted 29 January 2017 - 08:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 730
  • Member since:
    02-11-2013

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 29 January 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

 

There's a little more than that. If you remove AS configurations, which I fully support, you have to also rebalance the Strike and Balanced configurations. One squad of fighters in the USN Strike should do it, as would removing one from the IJN Strike.

 

Agreed. Then reduce USN fighter ammo anf increase IJN ammo so that 7 vs 5 or 6 vs 4 fighter duels are fair. 

 

Wargaming might think that playing strike Lex vs AS Lex is "fun" where strike Lex has to bait, hide, sneak around but let me tell you, it is NOT fun. 

 

Give us balance and fair matches and let player skill determine the winner. Not you having 3 times the fighter power of your enemy. 

 


WG, please remove Air Superiority Carrier loadouts from the game. I'm sure that if you looked at Air Superiority Win Rates vs Balanced or Strike Win Rates, your data will show you the vast inferiority of this loadout in its ability to help their team's chances to win. Meanwhile, they are encouraging the balanced or strike CV player to stop playing CVs due to decreasing their enjoyment of the game and creating frustration. Removing Air Superiority loadouts, and "re-balancing" the balanced and strike loadouts is the easiest fix to the current CV problem. Match the air power of both nations for equivalent loadouts. Ideally, players should be able to select their loadouts in-game, not in port. This way, they are able to adapt to enemy CV's actions and it adds an extra element of tactics and strategy, rather than being at a disadvantage already at Port. 


aethervox #48 Posted 29 January 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,298
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I don't know why so many players whine about CV imbalances.

There are advantages/disadvantages at different tiers.

Myself, I ground to an Essex. I like it. My Ijn Carrier is the Hiryu (slow grinding it).

 & I still got my 'Ho' (cause I like calling it that, lol).


 



PD666 #49 Posted 30 January 2017 - 01:52 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 29 January 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

 

Really? I thought that was obvious. I mean, this is a WarGaming product we're talking about...

 

Anyway, I think that the most interesting part of the re-work is where the complaints end-up after a month or two.

 

If most of the complaints are on the Battleship forum, then I think that we can say that it's a job well-done. If the complaints are on the Carrier forum, it means that there's room for improvement. I honestly don't know what to say about complaints on the Cruiser or Destroyer forum.

 

All too true, BBs complaining about CVs is always a good sign. And what do they complain about on the DD and CL forums?

Carrier_Lexington #50 Posted 30 January 2017 - 05:37 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

View PostPD666, on 29 January 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

 

All too true, BBs complaining about CVs is always a good sign. And what do they complain about on the DD and CL forums?

 

Mostly RPF. Well, and cruisers complain about battleships.

 

That's why I said that wouldn't know what to say if Cruisers started complaining about CVs.


"Heresy!"


PD666 #51 Posted 30 January 2017 - 11:07 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

Lets Heat up the discussion with some aircraft carriers from other nations. LARGE WALL OF TEXT!

 

Tier                                    Name                                    Aircraft Held                                    #of squads

 

 

                                    British Carriers

                                    (I think squads of 8)

 

4                                    HMS Eagle                        25-30 (possible upgrade)                        2

 

5                                    Illustrious                        36-57 (possible upgrade)                        2

 

6                                    Courageous                        48                                                            2

 

7                                    Audacious                        60                                                            3

 

8                                    HMS Ark Royal            72 (50-72 possible upgrade)            3

 

9                                    Implacable                        81                                                            4

 

10                                    Malta                                    108 (80-108 possible upgrade)            4

 

 

                                    French carriers

                                    (I think squads of 2)

 

4                                    HMS Biter                        21                                                            6

 

5                                    Bearn                                    35-40             (possible upgrade)                        9

 

6                                    Joffre                                    40                                                            9

 

7                                    Clemenceau                        40-60                                                            12

 

8                                    Charles De Gaulle            40-60 (really good planes)                        12

 

9                                    Verdun Prototype            90-105 (possible upgrade)                        15

 

10                                    Verdun                        120 [or 136(midway amount)]            15

 

 

 

                                    German Carriers

                                    (I think squads of 10?)

 

4                                    Jade                                    24                                                            2

 

5                                    Ausonia                        23-30                                                            2

 

6                                    Graf Zeppelin                        42(to 43)                                                2

 

7                                    Europa                        42-65                                                            2

 

8

 

9

 

10

 

 

 

                                    Italian Aircraft Carriers

                                    (I think squads of 10?)

 

4Seaplane Tender            Giuseppe Miraglia            17 (make an imaginary boost to 25)

 

5                                    Sparviero                        25-34 (possible upgrade)

 

6                                    Aquila                                    51                                                            2

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10



Tzarevitch #52 Posted 07 February 2017 - 11:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 465
  • Member since:
    05-26-2015

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes they did. Quite a bit in fact. The Allies did it quite a bit in the Pacific during the island hopping campaign, they also did in the Atlantic in North Africa and at Normandy. Several US Battleships got damaged by shore batteries in the Atlantic and the Pacific. The Germans lost Blucher to shore batteries and land-based torpedo launchers. The Japanese faced shore batteries in the Philippines and (avoided) Singapore. There is also the entire Gallipoli Campaign in WWI. It happens a lot; almost any time there is an amphibious landing.  Forts with disappearing guns and/or with heavy reinforcement are particularly hard to hit. You have to bring the ship in close to try to knock them out. Forts would suck and no one would build them if naval ships could just stand off and kill them easily. Duels with forts aren't talked about as much in naval histories because they aren't as sexy as naval battles.

 


Edited by Tzarevitch, 08 February 2017 - 02:32 AM.


Carrier_Lexington #53 Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:16 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

View PostTzarevitch, on 07 February 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

The Germans lost Blucher to shore batteries and land-based torpedo launchers. 

Imagine if those were modeled... The salt must flow!


"Heresy!"


PD666 #54 Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:47 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 14 February 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

Imagine if those were modeled... The salt must flow!

Don't BBs already have enough to worry about? DDs torping them, CLs burning them, CVs torping and burning them, other BBs citideling them, and possibly Subs torping them too. How much more can they take before wargaming swings the nerf bat again?



TheHunter2_EAD #55 Posted 16 February 2017 - 10:01 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I like Japan CV most it keep my options. But my USA CV from tier 7 & higher I like to keep air domination as much I can. I have no doubt for HMS CV's are coming but can at least put HMS Ark Royal: http://www.navypedia...1_ark_royal.htm as a premium. There more than PD666 thinks here the link for more research for u: http://www.navypedia...uk_carriers.htm

As for French CV they should be 3 premium ships: Béarn 1944, On paper Joffre, ​and Dixmude 1945. I found them here: http://www.navypedia...fr_carriers.htm

As for German CV they also be 3 premium ships: Graf Zeppelin, Weser, and Elbe. Here the link: http://www.navypedia...er_carriers.htm

As for Italy just Aquila ​be only premium CV. As for USSR I couldn't find any CV before WWII

​If this was any help ur welcome.


I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

PD666 #56 Posted 08 March 2017 - 09:56 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015
Yes thx.

phydaux42 #57 Posted 09 March 2017 - 02:19 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 94
  • Member since:
    05-07-2014

View PostCapnCappy, on 19 January 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

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

 

This!

 

Starting config for everyone is 2/1/1, with the 2 being fighters

 

A/S for everyone is 3/1/1

 

Strike for everyone is 2/1/2, where IJN gets 2 torpedo bombers and USN gets two dive bombers

 

Then all they have to do is balance torp bombers & torpedo bombers for damage output.



TheHunter2_EAD #58 Posted 11 March 2017 - 01:40 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPD666, on 08 March 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

Yes thx.

 

Ur welcome.
I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

Aduial #59 Posted 11 March 2017 - 01:51 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 6,799
  • Member since:
    11-06-2015

Well guess what, everyone? Carriers are going to be even more messed up now! 

 

From TAP: "Tier IV and V will have Alt attack removed"

 

Wonderful idea, WG....... Truly wonderful........Might as well remove the T4-5 CVs from the game. 


My terrible stats:

My Favorite ships: Mogami,  Clemson, T8 Fubuki, Mikasa, Gneisenau, Fletcher

Aduial's commander build recommendations (post 0.6.0)               Remove Detonations from Ranked battles                 Rebalancing Aircraft Loadouts          Repair Party for Tier 8 Cruisers?           Strafing:           Suggestion about carrier MM          


TheHunter2_EAD #60 Posted 11 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAduial, on 11 March 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

Well guess what, everyone? Carriers are going to be even more messed up now! 

 

From TAP: "Tier IV and V will have Alt attack removed"

 

Wonderful idea, WG....... Truly wonderful........Might as well remove the T4-5 CVs from the game. 

 

​I found this youtube video what up coming form other player.


I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users