Jump to content


Revamping Carrier Play and Loadouts

Aircraft carrier balance load outs historical adjustments Carrier play

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

JedMad #1 Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:00 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 35
  • Member since:
    01-18-2015

Hello Everyone!! 

I am an avid player of this game and I have noticed that over time there could be several adjustments to the Carrier Play within this game which would make those who favor playing Carriers much more enjoyable.  My first major problem involves the lineup of the ships themselves.  Currently the US lineup is like this: starting at tier IV you get the Langley followed by the Bogue, Independence, Ranger, Lexington, Essex, and then Midway.  My main problem here is that the Ranger historically was never used very much during WW2.  She was mainly utilized in the Atlantic and never saw action against other Carriers.  In fact she became a training and support ship late in the war.  I have always thought that a much better ship to fill that spot would have been the Yorktown class.  But for those who would like to keep the Ranger in the line-up I have come up with a solution which, I believe, would allow for more balanced Carrier Play.  First, I would like to see carriers introduced at Tier III instead of Tier IV.  It would look like this:

 

Tiers      Ship Name          FL Disp                  Aircraft                 Speed                   Elevators             Catapaults

 

III            Langley                 14,100 T                24-30                     15.5 knots           1                              1                                             

III         Hosho              9640 T             24                    25.2 knots        2                      0

 

IV         Bogue              9800                24-28               18 knots           2                      1

IV         Zuiho               11,443 T          30                    28 knots           2                      0

 

V          Independence 14,750 T          30-37               31 knots           2                      1-2

V          Ryujo               12,732 T          48                    29.5 knots        2                      0

 

VI         Ranger                        17,859 T          58-73               29.3 knots        3                      3

VI         Hiryu               20,250 T          72                    34 knots           3                      0

 

VII        Yorktown         25,900 T          72-87               32.5 knots        3                      3

VII        Shokaku           32,620 T          72                    34.2 knots        3                      0

 

VIII       Lexington        48,300 T          72                    33.3 knots        2                      1

VIII       Kaga                38,812 T          74                    28 knots           2                      0

 

IX         Essex               36,380 T          75-90               33 knots           3                      2

IX         Taiho               32,870 T          83                    33.3 knots        2                      0

 

X          Midway           45,000 T          136                  33 knots           3                      2

X          (Hakuryu)        65,800 T          100                  27 knots           2                      0

(Advise name change to Shinano as the stats used in game match this historical ship)

 

I would like to see the Load outs of the American Carriers re-evaluated.  At NO time did any of the US Carriers put to sea without Fighters aboard. 

 

Also, Japanese Dive Bombers carried only bombs of 250KG or 550 lbs until 1944 or 45 when the B7A1 and 2 carried 2 x 550 lb bombs or a 1764 lb bomb load when used as a Kamikaze.  The American Dive Bombers when used as Scout bombers carried only a 500 lb bomb so as to increase their range, but when used as Dive Bombers carried a 1000 lb bomb from the beginning of the war.  When the SB2C came on the scene it could carry up to a 2000 lb bomb load.  So limiting US Dive bombers to the smaller 500 lb bombs until they get upgraded on the Lexington is totally out of kilter.

 

 



ckupf #2 Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:17 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,950
  • Member since:
    07-31-2015

Shinano is not Hakuryu, Hak is G-15 design also referred to as a "Super Taiho"

 

CVs should not be at T3, they are enough of an issue at T4.

 

This is an arcade game not a simulator, the load outs are for balance. So suggest a rebalance. Don't say "no loadouts without fighters" tell me your new loadouts.

 

Those B7A missions were land-based. They never launched off a CV, they might have been able to be on the Taiho, but would not have been used as Kamikaze planes if that were the case.


Edited by ckupf, 15 March 2017 - 07:18 AM.


AVR_Project #3 Posted 15 March 2017 - 11:20 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,747
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

The US and IJN carriers are WAAAYYYY out of sync in tier.  Seriously?  comparing the Bogue to the Zuiho??

If we want to start out at T3, we should nerf the torpedo/bomber/fighter squads to 3 planes each and make the Hosho/Langley loadouts exactly the same 1-1-1.

-- This will make it unappetizing for seal-clubbing. -- no manual drops.

T4 should be a more historically nerfed Bogue facing the equally historically nerfed Ryujo  (seriously WG?  How did these tiny toys get to be so OP?).  Again, 1-1-1 loadouts each.

T5 gets more serious with Shoho (Zuiho) facing the Independence.  Give the Independence the Bogue's current planes and allow the Zuiho a 2-1-1 loadout

T6 Chitose facing the Ranger

T7 Akagi facing Lexington

T8 Shokaku facing Essex

T9 Tiaho facing Midway

T10 Hakuryu faces Forrestal


So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what? I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference.  -- Babylon 5


AVR_Project #4 Posted 15 March 2017 - 12:02 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,747
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

I've always seen the Shinano as a bit of the same context of the Saipan.  It was poorly laid out -- more for survival than a functional CV.

Put it at tier 7.

Give it a few tier 9 planes.

But let it keep it's huge HP pool, way OP AA, and make it soooo hard to kill...   Now that would be fun.

Basically, I'd use it to zip around, ramming other T7 ships.

Also at tier 7:  Hiryu, Enterprise/Yorktown, Kaga, Soryu,


So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what? I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference.  -- Babylon 5


Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi #5 Posted 15 March 2017 - 12:14 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 142
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostAVR_Project, on 15 March 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

I've always seen the Shinano as a bit of the same context of the Saipan.  It was poorly laid out -- more for survival than a functional CV.

Put it at tier 7.

Give it a few tier 9 planes.

But let it keep it's huge HP pool, way OP AA, and make it soooo hard to kill...   Now that would be fun.

Basically, I'd use it to zip around, ramming other T7 ships.

Also at tier 7:  Hiryu, Enterprise/Yorktown, Kaga, Soryu,

 

No offense but the Shinano at teir 7 would be way overpowered, when she was sunk she was incomplete (in fact she was on her way to be completed) and think about it a Yamato hull (complete with armor scheme and torpedo bulge!) at tier 7 would break the game not to mention the fact that it would have well over a hundred planes (it was going to act as a mobile supply and repair ship for carrier aircraft) so no Shinano would be better off as a tier 9 or 10 premium it is the only place where it would be balanced at all, at tier seven it would be the most overpowered aircraft carrier at that tier.

WanderingGhost #6 Posted 15 March 2017 - 12:49 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,527
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

View PostAVR_Project, on 15 March 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

I've always seen the Shinano as a bit of the same context of the Saipan.  It was poorly laid out -- more for survival than a functional CV.

Put it at tier 7.

Give it a few tier 9 planes.

 

Sorry, but - **** THE HELL NO. Never. Again. Ever. That was a huge mistake, it's bit them in the *** and as it is Saipan should have never been put back up for sale. We can argue tiering but never again should a ship and it's planes be that out of sync, thats why I'm over Wargaming on GZ because it's liable to end up the reverse of Saipan.

 

-Tier 3 CV's - never.

-While I am one of the few that agree Yorktown's should be at tier 7, not 8, it should be part of a second tree/branch, not integrated to a tier 3 tree that displaces Ranger, which just wouldn't fit there at 6. It's fine where it is issue is AA and lack of flexibility due to loadouts.

-Shiano is a modified Yamato class battleship, Hak is a planned improvement of the Taiho class design. Shiano hasn't made it in due to similar issues to Saipan (at one time in alpha/beta part of the tree) because of history and ability being out of whack for gameplay. 

-If your suggesting what I think you are, there is no universe where we have the current CV balance and USN gets more planes then IN given USN fighters stomp the ever living hell out of IJN fighters, tier for tier, through tier 8 which on a plane by plane basis isn't historical nor even balanced when you factor pilots of equal skill, which they should be in game. 

- Actually, use of 1000 pound bombs being a higher tier thing makes a lot more sense then you think because, the obvious balance answer aside, while USN dive bombers, particular up till Midway, were typically armed more as scout bombers in any attack on ships mostly because ships move, and it took usually a long time to get there and you needed the extra fuel, typically heavy bombs would be a thing against heavily armoured fixed targets where you know it's not going anywhere or you know that your planes can safely carry the heavier load with fuel to spare. As well as that the SB2C, being sort of a hybrid almost of a TB and DB, actually has a greater range than the SBD-5 while carrying a 1000 pound bomb load even if it's only a few miles, but the key being - the SBD when actually armed has  an even lower range. and the last two aircraft, definitely the BTD, further improve on that.

-Not sure why your on about IJN bombs because guess what? They only use the 550 lb max bombs, unless your on about the fact higher tiers only carry one in which case the thing is Wargaming only puts 1 piece of heavy ordnance per plane, otherwise USN would be having TB's that could make 2-3 passes or drop 12-18 torps a go. And even without my knowledge of aircraft, quick google search of the bomb used in game, the Type 99 Number 25 if you can't find it ingame, will tell you that. So, no actually, it's not off kilter at all.

-And yes, you should be clear what line ups your looking at on fighters and attack aircraft because for all we know you want a 3,1,2 set up on Ranger/t7.

 

Also AVR, they made it pretty clear no Forestall class super carriers. I'd sy lets add them but well, CV's would be very different if I had that kind of power.

 

Sorry if I come across harsh, but I;m stating facts here that really, you should have double checked or thought out more before putting down.



AVR_Project #7 Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:13 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,747
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

I sense that humor is lacking here.

If tier 3 CVs were more 'Smith' like (I refer to the tier 2 DD whose fast reloading torpedoes are like paper-cuts), that would be great practice and training for the new operator

They would be of no use to the seal-clubber.  Your battleships are safe from being insta-deleted, and the novice CV operator has little effect on the game, other than DD spotting.

...

As for the Shinano..  That CV was, in reality, a HUGE disappointment for the IJN.  As a converted Battleship, it lacked hanger and engineering space.  Total operational plane count was to be 44 as I recall.  It was a failure.  And as they strategized to make it a sea-going gas station for main-land hops, their PR programs professed it to be an unsinkable super-carrier that could stand alone against the US Navy.  It's flight deck was made of Concrete.

For our game, it has the aerial capability of the Saipan, with it's late-war aircraft and small hangar.  The difference is that it is so tanky that it would take a Kiev half a mission to burn it down.

...

I play both IJN and US carriers for fun.  Co-Op you face yourself - which is OK.  When I go into Random, I find the IJN carriers have the distinct edge in capability and balance.

...

The Forestall reference was a joke, by the way.  The Hak is wayyyyyyyy OP and is a dread to face in any ship..  except another Hak.  And even then, I've been told it's like a knife fight in a phone booth.


So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what? I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference.  -- Babylon 5


hipcanuck #8 Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:53 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 963
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

If anything, CV's should be bumped up 1 tier so no CV's until tier 5 and the Hak and Midway go bye bye.

 

Shinano as tier 7 prem for sure, low operational plane capacity would suit fine to a Saipan type setup.

 

All squadrons should have 4 planes.

 

No CV should have more than 2 squads of tbers or bombers. Tier 10's get 3 squads of fighters.

 

Planes should have fuel guages. This is a slight nerf to the CV's ability to use fighters as spotters for an unlimited amount of time. It also means CV drivers have to monitor fuel, planes will auto return to the CV when low UNLESS the CV driver sends them somewhere after they have begun the automated low fuel return trip. This would be a suicide bombing mission.

 

Planes cant spot torps for other ships, this is a huge issue for DD's.

 

The bombs are fine. The 1000lb US bombs would totally wreck a tier 5 BB in one trip.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users