Jump to content

Napoleon_B01

Members
  • Content Сount

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    17737
  • Clan

    [USCC2]

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Napoleon_B01

Recent Profile Visitors

552 profile views
  1. Napoleon_B01

    CV Rework: Fighter Consumable

    And I am not going to answer your question. Your replies have held more complaints and challenges instead of constructive criticisms. It's also clear that you don't like my ideas. Fine; I get it. I can also tell that you don't like CVs for the reasons you mentioned. I get that too; I feel that same way when I'm facing an enemy team with a CV. If you have nothing else to offer other than complaints about CVs, then please move along.
  2. Napoleon_B01

    "Mercy Rule" is fixed - what problems did that reveal?

    I agree with your observation. The allied bot CV is practically worthless compared to the enemy CV.
  3. Interesting concept, and I think it's a fair one to explore. The first thing that came to mind was an inverse mechanic to the AA sector boost. So let's say one side of the ship was hit by rockets--I'll use those for example--that side can go down to say 60% AA power for 10-15 seconds. Again I'm using random numbers, but that can be indicated in the same space when the AA sector boost is activated and when it's cooling down.
  4. Napoleon_B01

    CV Rework: Fighter Consumable

    Ah yes. Hooray for tail-gunners. Those were some interesting times. Never was a fan of the Bogue, but I think my best layout with any tech tree US Carrier was the Midway's 2-2-2. Best balance ever. I think the Ryujo had a 3-0-2, I think--it's now been so long I can't remember all of them or I might be getting my carrier's mixed up--I could send one fighter squadron out to scout and then the other 2 were held close to my CV to strike any enemy squadron when my first fighter squadron spotted something. Bombers were always troublesome for me, but shooting down planes was my thing. Then came the USS Enterprise. The perfectly balanced CV ever. It's 2-2-2 spoiled me to death.
  5. Napoleon_B01

    CV Rework: Fighter Consumable

    There is this wonderful--or not so wonderful--thing from WarGaming called RNG. Yes, if I had a fighter escort, then chances are pretty much certain that the enemy will have one too. Both fighter squadrons will engage, and one will triumph over the other. If it's mine, great. If not, then the remainder of the enemy's fighter squadron will come after my attack squadron. I disagree with AA being weak. I've watched 10 planes get blown out of the sky by a flak cloud from a DD of all ships. Not fun and not realistic. It is frustrating when a cruiser or battleship does it, but that's to be expected because they are bigger AA platforms. I say AA is fine where it is. Seaplanes were practically worthless in the RTS. You might have been fortunate to get one kill before it got shot down, but under this new system, multiple seaplanes are launched from a cruiser or a battleship? I did not agree with that change at all. I could settle for launching two seaplanes and buff the attack capability of them, but not a squadron of 3 or 4 seaplanes. I think WG put the wrong emphasis on the seaplanes as a "truly effective AA consumable." Select cruisers and battleships could only carry two seaplanes at a time. Call it special treatment if you want, but playing carriers is an entirely different beast when it comes to other surface ships: aircraft instead of shells; quarterback instead of lineman. Call it what you want.
  6. Napoleon_B01

    CV Rework: Fighter Consumable

    I'm totally for that! I don't know if WG would change it, but yes, I would totally love to have the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft upon demand again. In the old RTS days, I always spec'ed my carriers for aerial superiority. I enjoyed shooting down enemy planes so that my allies could attack enemy ships without worrying about aerial attacks. It didn't earn me much in credits and XP earnings, but I was well-respected and liked for keeping the skies clear. God do I miss those days. Brings tears to my eyes honestly.
  7. Napoleon_B01

    CV Rework: Fighter Consumable

    On the attack, I'd say they are. Economically, the CV isn't effective. For every plane lost, that resupply or service bill goes up. It is very frustrating to lose planes, and that's a given with any CV driver. Anyways, I'm looking at the change from a realism point of view. Planes just magically appearing out of the upper atomosphere upon the press of a button just sounds stupid in my opinion. However, while this would make carrier strikes "stupidly effective," think of the increase in planes shot down. Instead of sailing closer to a spot where planes are just patrolling an area, all of the planes come to you. Yes, you'd probably take more damage from aerial attacks, but I didn't offer any changes in the HP of the fighter squadrons. So if they are easier to shoot down than the attack planes, then this might not feel any different than what it is now...maybe.
  8. It's been fifteen months since the CV rework changed interfaces and I believe that a CV consumable in the CV arena needs some serious changes: the Fighter consumable. As the Fighter Consumable works now, attack squadrons can call upon a squadron of fighters to arrive at a point designated by the player and patrol an area within a 3km--approximately--radius of the designated point. Their only purpose is to shoot down enemy aircraft that get within their patrol radius, or I have seen some players use them as spotters for some ships. (I do that a lot in the Raptor Rescue scenario.) However, the consumable is only active for 60 seconds, and any ship that gets within AA range of those fighters shoots them down as if they were nothing. It's really bad when fighters are deployed and they dive in from "thin air" only to come crashing down into the ocean when deployed within the range of any ship's AA range. On the CV, where a fighter squadron is deployed for 7-8 minutes after being spotted by ships or aircraft, they circle the carrier prepared to shoot down anything that gets within 3km of the carrier. My proposal for the Fighter consumable is to remove them as a consumable and make them an escort squadron with any attack squadron. An example of what I'd like to see is when I launch a torpedo-bomber squadron, a fighter squadron takes off immediately after my torpedo-bombers are airborne and then they follow my planes to the target. If they spot any enemy planes within a given distance--let say 6km--the fighters will peel off from my torpedo-bomber squadron and shoot those planes down. They can either rejoin my torpedo-bombers or return to the CV and a another fighter squadron will attempt to rendezvous with my planes. Now let's say there are no planes for the fighters to shoot down when I pick a target to attack: the fighters can dive in and temporarily suppress the AA fire of the ship that I'm attacking. This takes some of the heat off of my attack squadron and I don't lose as many attack planes without an escort squadron. Another example: I'm attacking a ship that launches a seaplane fighter. The fighter squadron can go in and shoot those planes down and my attack squadron only takes damage from the ship's AA guns, unless the fighter squadron is completely shot down. Build off of that example: attacking an enemy CV. My fighters clash with their fighters and my attack squadron only has to worry about the enemy CV's AA defenses, unless my fighters get shot down and there are still enemy fighters to defend the carrier. Now let's look at aerial defenses for my carrier. Let's say that my CV is spotted by enemy aircraft. The fighter squadron that protects the carrier from aerial attacks deploys, and they go after the aerial plane or planes that spotted my CV. The go after them and shoot them down so that my carrier doesn't get detected again. I'll give a hypothetical scenario: an enemy dive-bomber squadron gets close enough to my carrier and reveals the location of my ship. The fighters are launched and they zero-in on the enemy squadron that spotted my carrier. If they have an escort fighter squadron, my fighters and theirs will clash in a spectacular aerial dogfight. Otherwise, the enemy planes get chewed up and then my fighters return to my ship to refuel and rearm. I thought about this after watching "Midway"--and I'm talking about the original 1976 production--and noticed American planes strafing the decks of the enemy carriers, acting as distraction to take the heat off of the dive bombers coming in. I also came across another movie clip of a Japanese file production that showed Yamato being attacked by carrier planes, and in between torpedo and dive-bombing runs, fighter planes were strafing the Yamato, taking out the AA gun emplacements, making it easier to bomb and torpedo the Yamato. Making the fighters an escort squadron from the CV instead of planes that drop out of thin air sounds more realistic and it makes carrier strikes more effective. If WG adopts an idea like this, obviously it will be up to them to balance it so that it's reasonable fair to CV drivers and other surface ships. Your thoughts please.
  9. Short answer: yes, I'm making some preparations for the RU cruiser line split. I'm not sure if I'd call it OCD, but I think I'd be untruthful if I said that there isn't any OCD. I've only gotten as far as Budyonny on the cruiser line. I'm not really a cruiser main in general, but like one or two people have stated in the thread so far, Russian cruisers aren't as tough or agile as some of the other nationalities. Either way, I bough back Kirov in anticipation of her becoming a premium ship.
  10. Napoleon_B01

    Elephant in the Room: Atlanta IFHE

    It still sounds like running Demolition Expert and other upgrades that increase a fire change with HE shells is the way to go.
  11. Napoleon_B01

    Sincere apologies to the PVE Community

    I salute you! o7 Thank you for sharing.
  12. Napoleon_B01

    Anchors Away Tour 2020 - Master Thread

    Agreed. Can we add USS Edson and USS Silversides to the Anchors Away tour?
  13. Napoleon_B01

    Indomitable Needs A Buff

    I love it! YES!!!
  14. Napoleon_B01

    Indomitable Needs A Buff

    Ha! True that. Can you only imagine what would happen if WG did put a limit on how many torpedoes you could have on a DD? The DD player base would most likely go nuts.
  15. Napoleon_B01

    Indomitable Needs A Buff

    Oh Thank God I'm not the only one. I bought Indomitable earlier this month and I was rather disappointed. WizardFerret: your post touched on all of my gripes about Indomitable. Now I heard from a fellow player that Indomitable had torpedo bombers when it was in testing. Would that alone be enough of a buff, or would she need better armor penetration for her bombs to do any good? Also saw a post on the forums that talked about how Indomitable is devastating against CVs without armored flight decks. I haven't tried it yet, so I don't know if it's true.
×