Jump to content


CV Rework-- What do YOU want?

poll

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: What do YOU want in the CV Rework? (79 members have cast votes)

AA adjustment

  1. Yes- readjust it (33 votes [41.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 41.77%

  2. Yes- give it a flat nerf (22 votes [27.85%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.85%

  3. No- leave it the way it is (24 votes [30.38%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.38%

Configuration Reworks

  1. Yes- The USN can't compete (32 votes [40.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 40.51%

  2. Yes- The USN AS is way to powerful (7 votes [8.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.86%

  3. Yes- USN Strike needs fighters (22 votes [27.85%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.85%

  4. Yes- AS in-general is too non-competitive (13 votes [16.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.46%

  5. No- No change (5 votes [6.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.33%

Defensive Fire Rework

  1. Remove Defensive Fire from ALL CVs (3 votes [3.80%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.80%

  2. Remove Defensive Fire from all CVs and DDs (7 votes [8.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.86%

  3. Remove Defensive Fire from ALL DDs (18 votes [22.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.78%

  4. Remove Defensive Fire from IJN CVs but keep it on USN Strike and Balanced to compensate for their less fighters/squads (11 votes [13.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.92%

  5. No- Keep Defensive Fire on ALL CVs (40 votes [50.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.63%

Manual Drops

  1. Keep all manual drops (43 votes [54.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.43%

  2. Keep all manual drops, BUT rework them so that it isn't so polarized (Manual Drop = all hits, Auto-drop = all misses) (22 votes [27.85%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.85%

  3. Remove all manual drops but make auto-drops more accurate (14 votes [17.72%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.72%

Re-armament time

  1. Make Re-armament time flat for all nations (20 votes [25.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.32%

  2. Allow the IJN a faster re-armament time, but reduce the gap between USN and IJN re-armament times (35 votes [44.30%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.30%

  3. No change (24 votes [30.38%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.38%

Squadron size

  1. Give all nations the same squadron sizes and re-balance planes that way (37 votes [46.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 46.84%

  2. Keep the asymmetric squadron sizes (42 votes [53.16%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 53.16%

Dive Bombers

  1. Keep Dive Bombers the same (11 votes [13.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.92%

  2. Reduce Dive Bomber dispersion (32 votes [40.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 40.51%

  3. Buff the alpha damage of Dive Bombers to compensate for their inaccuracy (17 votes [21.52%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.52%

  4. Change the way Dive Bombers bomb from one large circle to a cluster of smaller circles (19 votes [24.05%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 24.05%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Palladia #21 Posted 10 February 2017 - 06:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

If they are going to keep the national flavor squad size then they need to revamp modules.  Stock modules need to be reworked to be useful as well.  

Langley 1/0/1.  That dive bomber is just eating up reserves it has no right eating up.

Bogue 1/1/1 stock loadout,  2/1 AS loadout,  0/2/1 strike loadout.  The all or none is still there but now there is a fighter option.

Indy- Same as it is now.  Indy is probably the best balanced of the early tiers.

Ranger-1/1/2 stock module,  the rest remain the same.

Lexington- Same as Ranger.

Essex- 2/1/2 stock,  the rest the same

Midway- Remains the same.

For the IJN.

Hosho- Same

 

Zuiho- Same.  ((Side note,  why does the Zuiho have her max number of squads in stock but the Bogue doesn't?))

Ryujo- Stock 1/2/2,  no strike.

Hiryu- Stock 1/2/3,  no strike.

Shokaku- Same as Hiryu

Taiho- Stock 2/2/3,  strike 1/3/3.

Hakuryu- 3/2/3 stock or 3/3/2 stock

The idea is that USN maintain a 'better' presence in the sky without being totally overwhelmed,  while IJN can deal more damage to the ocean.  The IJN trade off a fighter for a DB in most cases.  The IJN aren't useless against their USN counterparts and can't shut them down either.  USN will win the air battle but typically take enough losses to not be super effective at bringing down any bomber squadrons that might still be in the area.  The USN keep the option for an all out offensive but have the option to sacrifice some offense for defense.  CV's in general don't have to dread the stock loadout before getting a full flight.


Edited by Palladia, 11 February 2017 - 08:25 AM.


Captain_Dorja #22 Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:01 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,120
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
They are never going to give USN carriers 2x tb squadrons like you're saying for stock ranger. For one thing, it lets them do way too much damage in a coordinated drop, and for another, it's too useful to ever run any other loadout.

USN: All BBs, CAs, DDs. Lexington, Missouri, Alabama, Saipan, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Arizona, Texas, Albany, Lo Yang

IJN:  Hiryu, Hatsuharu, Yugumo, Mogami, Amagi, Tachibana, Kamikaze R, ARP Kirishima, ARP Kongo, ARP Haruna, ARP Hiei, Fubuki, Akatsuki, ARP Ashigara, ARP Haguro, ARP Nachi, Nagato, ARP Takao, Atago
Germany: Bayern, Hipper, Emden, Nurnberg, Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen, Tirpitz

Russia: Shchors, Kiev, Imperator Nikolai, Gremyashchy, Anshan, Molotov, Leningrad, Mikhail Kutuzov

Britain and Allies: Leander, Campbeltown, Perth, Warspite, Dunkerque, Blyskawica, Belfast


Palladia #23 Posted 10 February 2017 - 07:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostCaptain_Dorja, on 10 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

They are never going to give USN carriers 2x tb squadrons like you're saying for stock ranger. For one thing, it lets them do way too much damage in a coordinated drop, and for another, it's too useful to ever run any other loadout.

 

No no,  DB's.  Did I screw up the numbers?  We all know they aren't going to go back to TB's,  man.   Faux pa on my part,  my apologies.

Captain_Dorja #24 Posted 11 February 2017 - 02:26 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,120
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPalladia, on 10 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

 

No no,  DB's.  Did I screw up the numbers?  We all know they aren't going to go back to TB's,  man.   Faux pa on my part,  my apologies.

 

I think most of the time when people give the numbers, they give them as fighters/torpedoe bombers/dive bombers because in the game, when someone looks at a flight control module, it lists from top to bottom in the same order I listed before.

USN: All BBs, CAs, DDs. Lexington, Missouri, Alabama, Saipan, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Arizona, Texas, Albany, Lo Yang

IJN:  Hiryu, Hatsuharu, Yugumo, Mogami, Amagi, Tachibana, Kamikaze R, ARP Kirishima, ARP Kongo, ARP Haruna, ARP Hiei, Fubuki, Akatsuki, ARP Ashigara, ARP Haguro, ARP Nachi, Nagato, ARP Takao, Atago
Germany: Bayern, Hipper, Emden, Nurnberg, Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen, Tirpitz

Russia: Shchors, Kiev, Imperator Nikolai, Gremyashchy, Anshan, Molotov, Leningrad, Mikhail Kutuzov

Britain and Allies: Leander, Campbeltown, Perth, Warspite, Dunkerque, Blyskawica, Belfast


Palladia #25 Posted 11 February 2017 - 08:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 726
  • Member since:
    08-16-2015

View PostCaptain_Dorja, on 11 February 2017 - 02:26 AM, said:

 

I think most of the time when people give the numbers, they give them as fighters/torpedoe bombers/dive bombers because in the game, when someone looks at a flight control module, it lists from top to bottom in the same order I listed before.

 

http://wiki.wargamin.../en/Ship:Midway

That was my point of reference.  Also looking in game at the Flight control modules themselves it lists them from top to bottom as Fighters,  TB's,  and DB's,  same as...!@#$,  I screwed up the Ranger,  I'll edit that.

Carrier_Lexington #26 Posted 11 February 2017 - 06:03 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

So, looking back, I have to say that I'm not entirely surprised by the trends, as most of them follow the tendencies I've seen in the forum posts.

There are, however, a few exclusions:

The Defensive Fire Topic: I had always thought that most people would vote for removing DF from DDs, however, going back and looking at it, I see that part of it might have to do with the fact that I poorly worded the last option: What I meant by "No..." was to keep Defensive Fire on ALL CVs and DDs, but I neglected to mention the latter. Oh, well. Now that there are votes, I can't edit it.

 

Squadron Size: I was expecting this to be completely polarized, not neck-and-neck.

 

AA Topic: Not that much of a surprise, but I was expecting option 1 to be most popular by far (which it is), option 2 to be second-most by a little, and option 3 to be in last, but not by much from option 2.

 

As a side-note, the Developers have talked about a CV rework, but they have explicitly stated that they are going to focus on the UI first and then rebalance after the UI changes.


"Heresy!"


Reymu #27 Posted 12 February 2017 - 02:21 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,095
  • Member since:
    10-16-2015

AA is fine as is. People apparently ctrl + LMB the bombers anyway all the time. I'd remove the AA dps buff from that though. Only way to deter a CV sortie should be grouping up. AA builds on ships like Hindenburg and Neptune are already balanced.

 

USN strike T6-8 needs a few fighters so they can at least run some fighter escort. Strike IJN is basically the dominant one otherwise.

 

DDs don't need DF at all, their job is scouting, getting caps, and torping foolish players. Only cruisers need it, since they're the ones that can spec for AA. I'd also change the DF on CVs, it has to vanish after the 10-min mark, as it's very stupid for a CV to have that immunity, and I'd rather the CV has to ask his teammates for AA and stay with them. I'm tired of Essex or Taiho that's plainly doomed getting an instant panic on my planes.

 

Manual drops are part of what sets apart competent CVs from the rest. They're fine as is.

 

Equal-size fighter squadrons, 6-plane TB for IJN, and 6-plane DB for US is good. Reflecting history here is fine. Air Superiority skill should add +1 plane to all squadrons. I'm aware of the crybabies that'd say this will make IJN CVs OP--which is why you should be staying in groups in first place and ask your CV for fighter escort, because otherwise you're asking to be deleted.

 

DB are very hit or miss. I've aimed my manual drops well but RNG will give me middle finger at times. The option to switch between wider and tighter spreads would be helpful, as larger area works for BB and CV and smaller for CAs and DDs. My IJN DB could really use that buff--it's very annoying to aim well but RNGesus says 0 hits.


Always down for helping anyone learn. Hands-on guy, so I'll division with ya and observe how you're handling your ship. Click orange contacts button, use search bar for player's name, and right-click to add.


Aetreus #28 Posted 13 February 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,948
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I'll reiterate my previous points about how I'd like CV's to work ingame. In short, CV's should be more capable of attacking even ships with very heavy AA armament and isolated targets. At the same time though, they should be much less capable of doing heavy damage ​on their first attack, unless the target has already taken significant damage or is a weak AA ship and isolated.

 

The main ways I see of accomplishing that are to increase the amount of damage DB's do to modules, and make them more resistant to AA before they drop. Reduce the amount of HP damage that DB does, so as to prevent USN carrier with their very potent dive bombers from simply flattening ships. While we're at it, make it so that AA modules all have incapacitation thresholds with a good likelihood of being triggered even by limited damage. DB attack then both destroys modules, reducing the AA output permanently, and incapacitates a large number of them, making a ship temporarily(20 seconds maybe?) vulnerable. This comes with a big benefit for the USN BB line actually, as they have serious secondary armor which will make them likely to still have DPAA when other lines will lose it.

 

Torpedo bombers should be extremely vulnerable to AA or fighters when and before(TB should also have to wait several seconds for the bombers to drop to attack altitude before they can make a run) making their attack runs, to the point that doing so against an "intact" ship should be effectively suicidal. Increase the amount of damage torpedoes actually do, up to the ~13k that a few ships have been trialed with. Torpedoes are essentialy a coup de grace weapon against a target or group of targets mostly stripped of their defensive firepower or suppressed via either DB or ship HE fire. TB should have the option to instead fit as level bombers when this isn't possible, with high damage potential but very bad accuracy and a long runup to attack. Useless against small, agile ships, but provides something for them to do against battleships or other carriers. Also has the advantage of preserving your torpedo bombers, level bombing should be the form most resistant to AA fire.

 

Broadly speaking, all aircraft should be made tougher against AA, but much weaker either before(TB) or after an attack(TB,DB). This limits the ability of ships to area-deny a CV, but increases their ability to actually prevent lethal attacks- even against a damaged target, a TB attack should be very hard to press unless you can suppress all of the ships in range via DB attack, meaning it's impossible against a group of decent AA ships operating in close tandem. This means there's more concrete counterplay against carriers- group up- but at the same time a CV has more ability to mitigate AA via his own actions.

 

USN CV then specializes in erosion, having the best dive bombers with heavy payloads well suited to hammering ships and leaving them vulnerable to follow-up attacks. They have to do this as their attack planes don't have the speed or durability to try and press a lethal torpedo attack early(a bit of fiddling with HP and speed is advisable, this proposal buffs DB utility a lot and USN has the best DB). IJN CV has much more limited ability to bomb targets(it's probably advisable to give at least IX/X 500kg bomb to compensate to a degree), but can go for a killing blow earlier as they have larger TB capacity and tougher, faster attack planes. But they stand to lose a lot of planes in the attempt, and with lower IJN CV capacity doing so too early or in a inadvised way could result in wiping your squadrons badly and being crippled for the rest of the match.

 

UI changes- better ways to select squadrons and set their ammo use(maybe AP bombs for DB as well? some penalty required for their use though, maybe limited AP bomb and torpedo ammo). Visualization of ship's AA auras, fundamentally this makes CV gameplay all about evaluating the risks of attacking a particular target, which necessitates being able to tell at a glance how much AA there is covering an area. Also "mystery" mechanics in general are a bad thing, the only way ATM to know if you've entered super AA pain land is when all your planes start vanishing. 


Edited by Aetreus, 13 February 2017 - 09:27 PM.


Carrier_Lexington #29 Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:11 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

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

View PostAetreus, on 13 February 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

 While we're at it, make it so that AA modules all have incapacitation thresholds with a good likelihood of being triggered even by limited damage.

That gives me an interesting idea. It is really hard to "aim" for AA mounts, and intentionally damaging them seems to involve an awful lot of shooting at the superstructure and praying. How about, in addition, AA guns are also tied to the "section" of ship that they are on: when the health of the "section" (the same health used for the damage saturation mechanic) reaches 75%/50%/25%, the AA DPS of all mounts tied to that "section" decreases by 10%/30%/50%. This is not just damage from air attacks, but damage from all sources. Furthermore, the AA is also tied to the ship's health, so that, when the ship reaches 50%/30%/10% health, the maximum DPS value of the AA guns cannot exceed 75%/45%/0% of the original value. Also, ships with less-than 25% health or 30% of their original AA DPS cannot use Defensive Fire if they have it equipped, excluding the USN Cruisers and Carriers, which multiply their current long-range [short-range for carriers] AA DPS by 1.5 (instead of 3) and take that result, and only apply 1/2 the panic that would normally apply (assuming that Defensive Fire remains unchanged). Obviously, a Roon on 5% health shouldn't be able to cream any plane that flies near it. By the time a ship is at 5% health, it is basically a floating wreck and probably wouldn't be salvageable IRL.


"Heresy!"


JustinOldDude #30 Posted 06 March 2017 - 01:49 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 117
  • Member since:
    10-20-2016

How about a way to roll your own so to speak. Leave 1 or maybe 2 of the load outs user defined. Say use a drag and drop interface and you can put in a max of 2 planes of the 3 types. Ex. 2 fighters 2 TB's 2 DB's would be max for that load out. Or 1 fighter 2 TB's 1 DB. just Some examples. Let the user select what fits them the best. But leave the balanced as it is. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

 


Edited by JustinOldDude, 06 March 2017 - 01:51 PM.


Reyteitoku #31 Posted 06 March 2017 - 02:06 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    03-03-2017

Am I the only one who prefers pre-defined loadouts? Makes it much more easy to figure out what the enemy cv has in mind when I know what kind of loadouts he can have.

 

Also all of those loadouts seem to ve some use in the current meta, except those fighterloadouts on bogue/independence/ryujo.



Taylor3006 #32 Posted 06 March 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,145
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016

View PostReyteitoku, on 06 March 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

Am I the only one who prefers pre-defined loadouts? Makes it much more easy to figure out what the enemy cv has in mind when I know what kind of loadouts he can have.

 

Also all of those loadouts seem to ve some use in the current meta, except those fighterloadouts on bogue/independence/ryujo.

 

I do not care for this personally. What I would like to see is the ability to use any load out of planes you have researched kinda like the way the Saipan has the ability to choose between two. Sometimes you may want an air superiority Bogue, sometimes strike. It wouldn't be OP since you have the option of using one or the other. Choosing would make the game more interesting for carrier players IMHO. This would really be nice on Ranger and the tier 5 IJN CV (I forget the name offhand). Sometimes you may want more bombers than torpedo planes! 

JustinOldDude #33 Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:06 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 117
  • Member since:
    10-20-2016

View PostTaylor3006, on 06 March 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

tier 5 IJN CV (I forget the name offhand).

 

ZUIHO

Reyteitoku #34 Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:13 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    03-03-2017

View PostTaylor3006, on 06 March 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

 

I do not care for this personally. What I would like to see is the ability to use any load out of planes you have researched kinda like the way the Saipan has the ability to choose between two. Sometimes you may want an air superiority Bogue, sometimes strike. It wouldn't be OP since you have the option of using one or the other. Choosing would make the game more interesting for carrier players IMHO. This would really be nice on Ranger and the tier 5 IJN CV (I forget the name offhand). Sometimes you may want more bombers than torpedo planes! 

 

I would never want to take an As bogue, because its so bad. I feel like 1-1 is the way to go.

 

Also: Cant u already decide pre-battle which loadout u run on each cv? -  like a saipan?


Edited by Reyteitoku, 06 March 2017 - 03:14 PM.


Taylor3006 #35 Posted 06 March 2017 - 03:48 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,145
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016

View PostReyteitoku, on 06 March 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

 

I would never want to take an As bogue, because its so bad. I feel like 1-1 is the way to go.

 

Also: Cant u already decide pre-battle which loadout u run on each cv? -  like a saipan?

 

Thanks JustinOld, yes Zuiho. Rey you can decide but you are stuck with that decision forever unless you sell the ship and start over. I agree with you that AS Bogue is sucky but I would like to be able to switch from one to the other, not a big thing, not something I would probably do all the time, but I want the option. For instance when we had the mission to do so much fire damage to earn the reward, I couldn't use some of my carriers as they had no bombers. Being able to switch from your preferred load out to one you like less but need to use would be a nice thing IMHO. 

Reyteitoku #36 Posted 06 March 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    03-03-2017

View PostTaylor3006, on 06 March 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

 

Thanks JustinOld, yes Zuiho. Rey you can decide but you are stuck with that decision forever unless you sell the ship and start over. I agree with you that AS Bogue is sucky but I would like to be able to switch from one to the other, not a big thing, not something I would probably do all the time, but I want the option. For instance when we had the mission to do so much fire damage to earn the reward, I couldn't use some of my carriers as they had no bombers. Being able to switch from your preferred load out to one you like less but need to use would be a nice thing IMHO. 

 

No, you switch loadouts on will in port, you dont ve to sell the cv to change your preffered loadout. You just need to unlock and buy it one time and from that on switching is for free.

 

 


Edited by Reyteitoku, 06 March 2017 - 06:00 PM.


Taylor3006 #37 Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:46 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,145
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016

View PostReyteitoku, on 06 March 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

No, you switch loadouts on will in port, you dont ve to sell the cv to change your preffered loadout. You just need to unlock and buy it one time and from that on switching is for free.

 

 

 

Dang it I was trolled..... I asked about this months ago in chat or forum (don't remember) when I bought the Bogue. Was told it couldn't be done so never played with it assuming I had correct info. I hated the AS load so sold it and re bought it to get the 1/1 back. Anyways just checked it and you are right Rey, thanks! I just spent 10 million credits though upgrading all my carriers though... To everyone else, forget my post, I am an idiot.. I think what reinforced the idea was you actually have to click on the other load, I am a mouse hoverer so it does not show the "mount" option when you do that. Thanks again Rey, off to play some carriers!

Edited by Taylor3006, 06 March 2017 - 11:48 PM.


Reyteitoku #38 Posted 07 March 2017 - 12:28 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    03-03-2017

View PostTaylor3006, on 06 March 2017 - 11:46 PM, said:

 

Dang it I was trolled..... I asked about this months ago in chat or forum (don't remember) when I bought the Bogue. Was told it couldn't be done so never played with it assuming I had correct info. I hated the AS load so sold it and re bought it to get the 1/1 back. Anyways just checked it and you are right Rey, thanks! I just spent 10 million credits though upgrading all my carriers though... To everyone else, forget my post, I am an idiot.. I think what reinforced the idea was you actually have to click on the other load, I am a mouse hoverer so it does not show the "mount" option when you do that. Thanks again Rey, off to play some carriers!

Never too late to learn something new :) atleast this thread was helpful for your cause :)



Aduial #39 Posted 11 March 2017 - 01:02 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

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

My ideas:

 

-Loadouts: Keep fixed loadouts; remove AS loadouts, and make the player choose between a balanced and a strike loadout. Balanced would have less fighter power but more strike power compared to the current AS loadouts. This would help solve the problem people have with USN CVs. Strike would have little or zero fighter capability, but a high damage potential.

 

-Strafing: Make strafing the primary method of engaging enemy aircraft with fighters. In order to do this, strafing DPS would be reduced so it can't wipe out whole strike wings, but ammo would be increased so that a missed strafe doesn't cost you as much. Also, reducing the length of the strafe run might also be something to consider. For auto-attacks, reduce the DPS slightly so that they are inefficient, and make their purpose to slow down and panic enemy bombers. 

 

-MM: Make carrier MM +- 1 tier, instead of the +- 2 tiers it is right now. This would make balancing AA a much easier task. But with such a change, it's not possible to have T10 CVs. 


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          


ChrisWally #40 Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:53 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 3
  • Member since:
    08-19-2015

If this has been said already, I apologize, for I missed it.

 

PLEASE allow some sort of escape/disengagement for fighters who either need to evade strafing runs or that run out of ammo while engaged in a dogfight.  When one fighter squadron goes skosh ammo, they just fly around dodging and hope beyond hope that the opposing squadron will also run out of ammo.  Having to sit there without any sort of possibility to disengage and make a run for it is ridiculous and leaves the squadron with no ammo simply doomed to die with no escape hatch possible.  Can we get either a Captain skill for fighters the same as the bombers (like an evasive disengagement once ammo is depleted) or a default of the same?  This would at least allow a few fighters to get back to the ship to rearm instead of being sitting ducks to eventually be shot down with no hope of escape.

 

Thank you!







Also tagged with poll

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users