Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Yumyaya

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

370 profile views
  1. Yumyaya

    Bombers with Forward Facing Guns?

    @CAPTMUDDXX Sounds like a fun and more interesting system than the simplified CV game play than we currently have. Same with any of my ideas. I figure if I spent the time coming up with them, I should probably share them. Who knows, maybe they'll like one or maybe the peoples of the forum will find them interesting. Who knows.
  2. Yumyaya

    Bombers with Forward Facing Guns?

    I did not know they could not get shot down en route. As long as that is a thing, dogfighting will not be lol. The optimal use of planes to damage X is only the case as long as the parameters of the game permit it. It may seem currently that the optimal use of planes is to damage the surface fleet, but consider this scenario: The other guy pulls out his torpedo planes and heads for my last remaining BB, we're down on points so I need to strike or spot as well. If I engage his torp bombers for at least a bit, I can damage them enough so he can't drop 3 times on the BB but instead only once which won't allow him to get the perma flooding. Once damaging the torp bombers, I head out to scout the sneaky sneaky cruiser so the BB or I can blap him. In that scenario, dogfighting would be preferable to a minor extent.
  3. Yumyaya

    Bombers with Forward Facing Guns?

    If player controlled AA was on the "4" button so as to be comparable an ammo loaded into the main guns such as HE shells on "1" then it would not be considered multitasking as much as another ammo type. To make sure its not multitasking (as in constantly switching between both), main guns and torpedoes will not reload as long as the player in in AA Mode.
  4. Yumyaya

    Bombers with Forward Facing Guns?

    Ah I understand your point now, if dogfighting is killing off planes, then there will be no planes left really for bombing. I guess I should change from plane kills to plane damage. The point of dogfighting was so that as long as the group wasn't wiped out it could at least make one bombing run. The goal was to change the CVs objectives from solely doing damage to the surface fleet for EXP to a combination of doing damage to the surface fleet as well as the enemy CVs planes for EXP. "F" key returns the planes to the CV? I guess I need to read more to understand what the kafuffle is about. Oh I don't agree with removing the physical CV from game, that means the CV player cannot be defeated but only hindered. As far as multitasking, I look at it this way: I as a surface ship, move it around with WASD and occasionally move my mouse around to look for planes. As a plane, I move my plane around with WASD and occasionally give new waypoints to my CV. From my point of view, I don't really see the difference in multitasking.
  5. Yumyaya

    Bombers with Forward Facing Guns?

    I did play CV to tier 6 in the previous system and bombers had rear gunners tho mine seemed to be perpetually drunk. What I am suggesting is combining the concept of fighter and bomber squards into one group. In WW2, when a carrier would send out a strike force, it would include bombers and fighters so combining both roles into one airplane model is really just an over simplification of real life. Agreed, bombers had very weak armaments compared to their fighter counterparts such as the SBD Dauntless had 2 50cals compared to the F6F Hellcat which had 6 50 cals. In that sense, bombers would get completely outmatched by fighters so I think for a game balance standpoint as well as an incentive to engage one's bombers in dogfighting, the fighters should have the same DPS as the bombers. This also helps a game play point of view since 50 cals or 30 cals take a while to take a plane down compared to the amazing alpha damage a 37mm shell can do. Add 37mm shells into the mix and its very RNG in the sense that whoever lands a shell first, wins the duel. Cockpit view/joystick could be one way to fix it. I was thinking of making the three set altitude grids be slightly visible to CV players so one can see where the other squads are in relation to the grids. Another way would be to add an altitude value next to the plane to show how the plane is transitioning between altitudes (much like the rudder shifts between left and right slower than the inputs given).
  6. Yumyaya

    Bombers with Forward Facing Guns?

    CV vs CV is bad? CVs can be deplaned still? I thought planes regenerated/fixed/built over time? So plane kills do matter, good to know. Dogfighting with cloud cover aka stealth, speed boosting/breaking, and changing between the altitude levels? WASD thru 3 set altitude levels is encroaching on WOWP territory? How bad is that game?
  7. Note: I have not played CVs since the patch so I do not know all the ins and out of CVs and any information would be appreciated. I am looking at this entirely from a strategy standpoint. CV gameplay seems to be spawn planes, fly in a straight-ish line to target, drop target and rinse and repeat. What if bombers could dogfight with forward facing guns? And what if CVs get +50% bonus exp towards plane kills making dogfighting lucrative? (the goal of adding dogfighting wasn’t to hinder CV damage and thus their EXP and credits earned) The ultimate goal of dogfighting would be to maneuver directly behind the enemy bombers to constantly do damage. Once someone is behind you, there needs to be ways of how to escape such as 1) running into clouds that provide stealth? 2) running of the edge of map and teleporting back the the CV? 3) acrobatic maneuvers such as stall turning? This third option would require adding a whole deal of plane physics to implement but I thought it was worth mentioning. The ability of spawning fighters shouldn’t hinder the dogfight since the other player can counter-spawn fighters on the fighters. Using spawn fighters in this way is better than spawning them on DDs to perma spot them. Allowing the planes to change altitude could be another way of making dogfighting and bombing more strategic. I recommend 3 set altitudes; 1) lowest: below low clouds, can spot ships below low clouds, can bomb, can get shot by AA 2) middle: above low clouds, cannot spot ships below low clouds, cannot bomb, cannot get shot by AA 3) highest: above low and high clouds, cannot spot ships below low and high clouds, cannot bomb, cannot get shot by AA Thoughts? Good? Bad? Ugly?
  8. After watching a Flamu CV video post patch, it became apparent that if the CV knew what they were doing, the non-CV player could not dodge the torps by turning (or at least dodge all 3 sets of torps). One way WG can allow people to counter torpedo bombers (beyond pressing O) is to have water splashes from the main guns destroy torpedo bombers that fly through the splash. Main guns already make water splashes and black puffs from AA guns already destroy planes that fly thru them so it seems this would not be all that hard to implement if desired. This tactic was tried without success in WW2. Thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? Oh mother of all that is fluffy whyyy this is a terrible idea? The thing I am looking for is more interaction/outplaying each other between CVs and non-CVs. Such is the game when a CV is not involved.
  9. It will be up to 84% of the ships when submarines come out xD Being able to play everything is nice as well. Ah I understand your point now and US understood that point too during WW2 and that's why they spammed carriers. Since this is a WW2 game, I would say they belong, but the other argument is valid as well, carriers make balancing the game a pain since they play so differently. Back to WW2, carriers made surface fleets irrelevant so if carriers are to be in the game, they will need quite a few tweaks to make it relevant without becoming overpowering. I don't see no trashing no where. I do see peoples trying to understand other's viewpoints which only furthers the quality of ideas presented. Good stuff dude.
  10. @Fishrokk Respectable position. Are you saying you think the interactions between CV and non-CVs are adequate? I think so much more can be done to make it more of a chess battle like in BB vs BB where angling and positioning become key. RTS is something I'm not particularly good at either but that doesn't mean others don't enjoy mashing buttons furiously. I suggest WG keeps both the old and new forms of carriers, something for everyone. What are you referring to? My goal and I would say any worthwhile multiplayer game would always want risks of failing and succeeding when two players play against each other. No point in playing a game where the dice were already rolled.
  11. @The_Panted_Target I wasn't aware of those differences, but it seems like you already are on track for balancing out the inequities.
  12. @BrushWolf I understand 1) by itself is preposterous so that is why I added 2) through 13) to attempt to make it feasible, but I can explain it out in fewer words. Current/old version of carriers allows the players to equally micromanage fighters and bombers where as the new version of carriers puts the player's micromanagement almost fully on the bombers and limits the micromanagement options for the fighters. Air traffic controller vs bomber squad leader. There is nothing inherently infeasible with the two different outlooks though they are quite different.
  13. About me (so you know where I’m coming from): I have reached the T6 American carrier, the USS Independence, almost entirely through co-op battles since I’m quite bad at it lol. I mostly play cruisers and battleships now and with those I would say I’m decent at (54% win rate). I really like the old/current CV gameplay where the player controls multiple squads in an RTS format and I think it would be a shame if this was deleted. I also really like the new CV version where the player focuses on controlling one squad to achieve maximum damage. I think it would be absolutely amazing if both versions could be in the same game under two different classes, fleet carrier and escort carrier. Escort carriers were traditionally made from cruiser hulls and thus much smaller and thus held fewer planes (about half to two thirds of a fleet carrier). This is represented in game where the carriers now have 3-5 squads running about compared to the two squads proposed with the new carriers (the bomber one the player controls along with the fighters that can be spawned). Before I get into any changes trying to make two classes of CVs viable much less viable with each other, I need to get into why there is so much frustration around carriers in the first place. Carriers interact with battleships, cruisers and destroyers through almost entirely RNG which is to say they don’t interact. There’s an AA rating number each warship has and either that number is high enough that the ship under attack does or doesn’t get nuked by the carrier. A number determines all!! AHHH!! All of my changes are centered around changing gameplay from being solely based on numbers to being based on player interactions/outplaying one another as well as trying to make the changes as easy as possible to implement. My suggested changes: 1) Don’t delete the old form of carriers but instead add a new class of carrier from the new CV rework (as mentioned in paragraph 1) 2) Give planes fuel. Planes right now are like UFOs where they can follow a DD around for days perma spotting everything in sight. Giving bombers fuel means they need to head to their target immediately instead of loitering around to gather all squads together for a massive alpha strike. This also means that ships trying to survive a strike can utilize turning to much greater effect as any time wasted by the bomber on the target means it may simply run out of time to drop (going in circles for the win!). Lastly, fuel would encourage carriers to move in closer so they could reach more of the enemy fleet and the dynamics of it would be fascinating. I might suggest that planes have a range of 6-8 tiles on the mini map of range? When a plane runs out of fuel, the AI takes control of the squad and flies it in a direct route straight back to the carrier (much like bombers flying back after they drop with the new CV rework). Planes that run out of fuel could die instantly but that would put a very high emphasis on skill which is unwanted (a CV not watching his fuel could deplane himself within a few minutes from the start of a match with this lol). 3) Carriers will have a 2 fighter 2 bomber configuration (or 3/3 or 4/4 if madness if preferable). The important part about this change is that fighter squads and bomber squads are the same so that there is always a fighter squad ready to fight off any incoming bomber squad. The last thing a non-CV player wants is to have to fight off an entire bombing strike without the ally CV giving a hoot. 4) Fighters will not be able to lock or damage other fighters. This will effectively give the fighters only one role and that will be to counter enemy bombers. As the game is currently, where fighters can fight fighters, the CV has to make a choice, protect their own drop and thus get exp, or try to deny the enemy drop and risk losing their own drop. This changes the game dynamics of fighters and bombers to that of cat vs mouse relationship. I don’t know if this is good or not, but it will mean that CVs will be actively trying to defend their teammates. 5) A notification will be sent out when enemy bombers are deployed. Unless the defending CV is much closer to the battle than the attacking one, the fighters will have to be launched at the same time the bombers are launched if they ever hope to intercept them. An alternative solution to this is have the detection range on the bombers set to 8 to 15 kms so that teammates can spot the bombers far enough out so the friendly CV has enough time to react. 6) Fighters and bombers will be able to take off at the same time. Much like the previous change, time is of the essence, so when the notification goes off, waiting another few seconds before the bombers are fully off the deck is an unnecessary waste of time that may be the difference between the fighters arriving in time or not. 7) Bombers will no longer be able to be panicked. Since friendly fighters will no longer be able to take out catapult fighters/scouts and have no way of defending against incoming enemy CV fighters, it seems fair to let them carry out their strike unfrazzled. Catapult fighters/scouts will still do damage to the bombers though. 8) Giant water pillars resulting from battleship shells landing in the water will destroy any torpedo bombers flying through them while making a torpedo run. To make a torpedo run, the bombers have to fly quite low to the water. This was tried in WW2 without any success, but this is a game and I think a nifty way of how non-CVs can interact with CVs. 9) Non-CV ships will get access to a new mode, called Extra AA Damage, that ramps up their AA damage over time, but while in this mode, the ship will not be able to fire its main guns nor will its main guns continue to reload while in this mode. This will be stackable with the Defensive AA Fire consumable. Much like HE shells are located on 1, Extra AA Damage will be located on 4. Once Extra AA Damage is selected, the AA damage will start to slowly ramp up from 100% damage to 200% damage at its max which it will reach after 30s. The goal of this is to give the non-CV player a choice of how to deal with enemy incoming bombers and thus more interactions between the non-CV and CV. The problem with Extra AA Damage is that a player using it has nothing to do other than watch AA numbers slowly increase. In many ways, this is just a quick fix. 9¾) Alternate of 9: Non-CV ships get access to a new mode, AA Mode, that allows the player to manually aim their AA at incoming planes. The reason why I didn’t suggest this in 9) is because this takes a bunch of work to implement especially with the various gun calibers operating as AA guns. This can be simplified somewhat by giving all the various guns the same ballistics. I think the best option is to combine the gradual damage increase in Extra AA Damage to AA Mode so that players focusing on AA exclusively will do more damage than players focusing mostly on the surface battle. 10) The CV can see all AA bubbles of all ships denoted by a circle outlining the perimeter of the AA gun range. Any players using Extra AA Damage or AA Mode will have their AA circles change color gradually to say from white to orange to indicate to the CV how much bonus damage the ship will get from a mode that may or may not be activated. 11) CVs can regenerate planes due to their mechanics going HAM. A consumable could be added along side this that could speed up plane regeneration. With CVs able to generate planes will give them something to do even after they would be traditionally deplaned which is generally the point of a game, to have stuff to do. 12) Escort Carriers (or the new CV rework CVs) will have their planes behave much like the Fleet Carriers’ fighters in the sense they will take off from the carrier and fly to the targeted location except the AI will control their movements entirely. There is something immersion breaking about spawning planes out of thin air though I will admit I don’t know too much of how fighters work with the CV rework yet. 13) A new game mode where only CVs are allowed. Everything is the same in this mode as it is in Random Battles except the CV planes can attack strafe each other but not lock each other otherwise the game might just end after the first strike. On the other hand, if the fighters can’t engage each other, the game will only end to time or ramming. This is quite a long post so I want to thank anyone who took the time to read the entire thing. Discussion and disagreement are welcome. PS: I realize these changes may make CVs OP or worthless or actually balanced, who knows. It really depends on the various numbers assigned. Whatever the case may be, bombers are highly reliant on the time with the enemy ship before the fighters can intercept meaning that changing their speed is be a quick instant fix on making CVs more or less powerful depending on the situation.