Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cve'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 1 result

  1. WanderingGhost

    CVE's and DE's - a concept

    So, the game has had CVE's in it before (Bogue) used as smaller CV's, and people have asked in the past about DE's being added. Obviously these types have a bit more reason now with subs on the way but of course the question is implementing them without being an overly focused type - it does no good to have an ASW ship on your team if it has 0 use against other types. It's a juggling act, not useless vs a BB but bit more ASW bend, but I think it's doable. I don't see many nations having these kinds of lines but not every nation had every type and all. For this I'm going to focus on USN ships simply because I have more info and ideas to use as examples. So I'll start with the CVE's. The idea for these is to make them low impact enough that mirror MM is unnecessary. While near impossible with fleet carriers, I do think that it can be achieved with relative ease on these. They have smaller air groups, fewer planes, and aren't carrying as many weapons meant to take out heavy ships. Unlike fleet CV's currently, they won't spot ships for the team in regards to ability to shoot, simply on the minimap like radar does for the first few seconds now. That should limit the information to not be as much an issue (as long range guns can't snipe a ship based on that info). The rest comes down to group size and damage really. As it stands much as I play CV's I think the alpha is too high on some ordnance (damage from volume vs per piece when a lot of this has volume AND per piece). So between lower alpha on weapons and smaller numbers the damage impact shouldn't be much more than a DD. At worst, maybe a cruiser. Here's a possible USN line: (planes in flight x number of flights) Tier 4 - USS Long Island 16 planes on deck, group of 4 F2A Buffalo's (2x2) and 4-6 SBC Helldivers (2x2 or 3x2). There are two ways to arm the F2A - my way (more historically accurate) with 2x 100 lb bombs dealing 1800-2100 damage or Wargaming's way with 4x 3.5" or 5" FFAR dealing roughly 600 or 8-900 damage respectively. The SBC's would have a single 500 lb bombs dealing 4200-4800 damage per plane. Tier 6 - Bogue 24-28 planes on deck. 1 group of 4 F4F-3/4 Wildcats (2x2) with 6x HVARS (1000 damage), 6 TBF Avengers (3x2 or 2x3) with 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (probably 1500 damage +/-), 4 F4F-3/4 or TBF Avenger (2x2) with 2x 250 lb bombs (2400-3000 damage) or 4x 500 lb bombs (4200-4800 damage) Speed buffed to 21 knots Tier 8 - Casablanca 31-35 aircraft on deck. 1 group FM-2 Wildcats or TBM-1c Avengers with 6x (FM) or 8x (TBM) HVAR's with 6 planes (3x2 or 2x3), 6x TBM-1c with either 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (3x2), 6x FM-2 or TBM-1c with 2x 250 lb bombs or 4x 500 lb bombs (3x2) Speed buffed to 25+ knots. Tier 10 - Commencement Bay 35+ aircraft on deck. 9x F4U-4B or TBM-3 with 8x HVAR (3x3), 6 or 9 TBM-3 with 4x depth charges or Mk 34 'mine' (2000+ damage) either 3x2 or 3x3, 4x F4U-4B (2x2) or 6x TBM-3 (3x2)with either 6-8x 250 lb bomb or 4x 500 lb bombs. Speed buffed to 25+ knots Before I start seeing 'that damage is way too low' there are a few things to remember. First of all is that these are meant to be sub hunters, while I have no idea the actual HP of subs as I wasn't chosen for testing, I'm guessing as much or less than same tier DD's. So a standard pen hit with a 3.5 inch FFAR that deals 600 max damage, is 200 per hit, and you fire 12 at tier 4. Odds are you won't hit all 12, but even half that is 1200 damage off a ship with ~10000 hp or less in one pass. These also shouldn't have the ridiculous nerf rockets were given a few patches ago instead of the alpha nerf they needed. More likely it'd be 5" FFAR's - closer to 300 damage per hit so 50% would be 1800 damage per pass. Bombs is a similar story - you have them in volume, a bit less so than rockets for the most part, not as accurate, but higher alpha. Depth charges again - I lack knowledge how they work as is - though they seem to need nerfs based on gameplay I watched, so no damage for them listed. And to explain for those unaware and do not instantly freak out when I say this - the Mk 24 and it's Mk 34 successor are the homing torpedoes that USN actually had operational during WWII and it's post war update respectively, and were meant mostly for ASW and surface ships really as a last resort/secondary target. Now as to why I say don't freak out because 'OMG CV WITH HOMING TORPS' - the fact they have some homing and historically had a hilariously small explosive charge for a torpedo is why the damage is that low as well as again, anti-sub weapon. However there are other drawbacks as well - generally the range should probably be fairly short for them, at best the torpedoes should be maybe a bit faster than a sub, meaning most surface ships should be able to out run them and for subs the option of out diving them at minimum (if not possibly in cases out running them, though most that'd likely be on the surface), and in general avoiding them (they aren't going to be super agile). That and DD's can easily out run them, and any cruiser or BB that can't likely has torpedo protection on top of HP to reduce damage and all. The worst would be any flooding it may cause. Also given the nature of aerial dropped depth charges usually meant for shallower attacks, depending on what they land near I see some use for them in attacking ships though likely not as great as against a submarine. I imagine against a DD they may do some actual damage where as a BB may just have steering/propulsion knocked out and maybe some flooding - unfortunately while there is talk of Taffy 3 attacking the center force with depth charges out of desperation, and ships having damaged themselves mistakenly with depth charges, can't seem to find much saying what kind of damage may have actually been done. The TBF/M's with depth charges and Mk 24/34's would have MAD systems - basically what they gave DD's in test 2 when they are surfaced or at shallower depths, but would only go off within about 4 km of the sub max. When using rockets/bombs need to spot it manually for the most part. I say the most part because I've given consideration to the tier 10 TBM's with rockets possibly having a unique consumable to make them a choice over the F4U - aside from being a sturdier plane - Sonobuoy's. I imagine them kinda like a place-able hydro that lasts for 30-60 seconds and shows subs and ships at x range, and subs that are not dove deep (second level below periscope depth). The question would be limited number or unlimited but longer CD. I also felt it better to give options so they aren't as boring to play as fleet CV's currently are and take advantage of the roles the planes can fill. Attack planes an option for more rockets and a sturdier plane at cost of speed and agility, or fewer rockets on a faster more agile plane with fewer hitpoints, or the same other than rockets but one has an edge hunting subs, the other an edge running down surface ships. The Depth charges were low hanging fruit for USN and while I don't think USN subs should have homing torps, save maybe at tier 10 or 9 depending on what a full tech tree would look like, I feel it'd be wrong to pass these up on ASW carriers. And it adds some utility for anti-ship options even if not super amazing. As far as bombers there are 2 distinct styles at play with these The TBF/M's would be glide bombers - between what UK currently is and standard USN, generally more covering an area with a heavier payload. The fighter-bomber option meanwhile is basically high speed DB's - with the F4U taking advantage of it's pretty insane carry capacity (though preferably only the 6x 250 lb bombs used as that still puts it lower payload than the the TMB) having a bit more area coverage than predecessors but still less powerful bombs than the TBM is carrying. Also of note - these would be far stealthier than the fleet CV's, what level of stealth I don't know exactly, but these would rely a bit more on that than straight up speed to run. Also, even though it's even's only - not having the same nonsense we have currently with CV's on how much xp these take to get to the next level. So going from 6-8 would take either the same as going from 6 to 7 OR 7 to 8, not the current one where it's the xp where it's the xp to get from 6 to 7 AND 7 to 8. This would hopefully help them fit the role of sub-hunting, making them unique from fleet carriers a bit, and give them tools effective against subs without being too insane, and still have some ability to attack ships on the surface and still do some damage other than DD's and if added DE's. And reigned in enough to not need mirrored MM. Destroyer Escorts. - Tier Class Armament Speed Notes 3 Evart 3x 76 mm/50 guns, 2 K guns, 2 DC rails, assorted AA 19 knots 4 Edsall* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots 5 Cannon* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots 6 Buckley* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots 7 Rudderow 2x1 127 mm/38 guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots Main battery and AA pretty much deciding factor 8 John C. Butler 2x1 127 mm/38, 8 k guns, 2 DC racks, hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 29 knots More AA than previous ships, rounded up the speed Samuel B Roberts achieved at Samar 9 Bristol (or Dealey) 4x1 127 mm/38 guns, 6 K guns, 2 DC racks, assorted AA, 1x5 TT 37.5 knots Sub hunting version of Gleaves class 10 Dealey (or Bristol) 2x2 76 mm Mk 33, 1x4 TT, 2 ASW torpedo launchers (seems like 1 per side, 3 torps per), 2x hedgehog or squid, 2 k guns 25 knots * The order is a bit messed up from reality, should go Buckley, Cannon, Edsall, but the HP they'd likely have, speed, AA and all kinda made it this makes more sense. With 9 and 10 I have what I'm calling the "Dealey Dilemma". I decided late in the game to pass on Claude Jones (ships after Dealey) when I stumbled across Bristol which some things refer to as a DE rather than DD, and either way the subclass was meant to be more ASW/AA. Obviously, being a Gleaves class, it's heavier, faster, has 4x 127 mm guns, a quintuple launcher, and well, small caliber AA on top of more K guns. So other than it wold mean inconsistent calibers jumping from 127 to 76 back to 127, something Wargaming seems to have an issue with these days, it seems like an obvious choice to be tier 10. But then there is the argument to be had over Dealey's tech. Dealey's 76 mm guns with a historical RoF is between 45-50 RPM - or a 1.2-1.3 second reload without BFT or AR - I'm not sure dakka can get any more maximumer. Which I think the insane rate of fire would likely make up for the lower alpha of a 76 mm instead of 127. Lacking a bit in k guns and DC but packing either 2 Hedgehog or squid systems likely makes up for that. Not to mention ASW torps that like the above CVE's may be slower and low damage, but still home in on a target. Though I'm thinking those are single launch with a bit of a delay (2, maybe 3 seconds). Some of these may need speed tweaks based on how fast subs can go, or general balance, but overall, speed doesn't seem like an issue. Staying historical 9 and 10 have 0 problems I think fighting other ships outside their class with their guns, and all but the lowest one has a torpedo tube that can be used to attack larger targets. The question mark is 3-8 vs other ships. The 3x 76 mm guns on the low tiers historically top out at 20 RPM or a 3 second reload, and the 2 with 2x 127 mm I believe are the type with hoists and so could achieve up to 22 RPM, or a 2.7 second reload. Both numbers are faster rates of fire than contemporaries (4 seconds and 3.3 respectively) in the USN line which has some of the highest fire rates, the question is is it enough? Though a slight fudging of RoF would not be the worst thing. The other thing would be HE pen. Even at 1/4 76 mm breaks out to 19 even, though the 127 mm guns would have 31 mm of pen. Generally maybe the line's pen should be set at 21 mm so it doesn't shatter on pretty much everything. Typical DD rtpe consumables and maybe slightly better stealth (most after all are a little smaller than DD's) - I do think it's possible to have a line with them that can actually function in the game, with a bit more purpose with subs added (which will likely happen before these). I imagine other possible tweaks for them to be slightly better sub-hunters, maybe faster depth charge reload, slightly longer range detection to track subs, whatever. Anyway, my hair brained idea using what I currently have on USN stuff for a CVE and DE line that would hopefully work well enough in game. While at the same time opening up some historical ships I think people would like to see (Samuel B Roberts, any of the 6 'jeep carriers' at the battle) as well as some maybe unique ones (USS Eldridge as a Halloween one based on the supposed 'Philadelphia Experiment' - perhaps in place of smoke it temporarily turns invisible, but can't fire any guns or torpedoes). It's all still in a more rough draft form, probably needs more work, but figure I'd toss it out there. This has been another wall by WanderingGhost to be ignored.
×