Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
The_Big_Red_1

Shokaku vs Lexington

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

im starting to wonder if shokaku is overpowered as fuk given that it can field more planes than the lexington can and that it can go strike or AS without sacrificing the ability to attack ships

Untitled-1.jpg

statistic wise that thing has a WR of 52% and survival rate of 74% while poor old lex WR is 47% while its survival rate is 69% (HUGE difference)

can anyone realize that this is a SERIOUS mismatch

now i can see one of two ways WG can fix this. they either buff USN carriers or nerf IJN carriers plain and simple.

Untitled-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
[RKN]
Banned
9,382 posts
11,707 battles

The problem isn't that Lexington can't perform; in the right hands, the strike loadout erases capital ships and the AS loadout can shred Shokaku planes.

 

The problem is that Shokaku can do both tasks with one air group.  The inflexibility of Lexington and the USN line as a whole is a large part of the reason why they suffer especially badly at the hands of IJN carriers.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

The problem isn't that Lexington can't perform; in the right hands, the strike loadout erases capital ships and the AS loadout can shred Shokaku planes.

 

The problem is that Shokaku can do both tasks with one air group.  The inflexibility of Lexington and the USN line as a whole is a large part of the reason why they suffer especially badly at the hands of IJN carriers.

 

WG hasnt done anything to rectify the problem havent they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[APOC]
Members
24 posts
8,768 battles

They just buffed American CV's last patch... what's the stats in a 1 month window that'd be more telling then an overall stat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[APOC]
Members
24 posts
8,768 battles

I DON'T really think either ship need a BUFF or a NERF but maybe another change up of squad loadouts is in order, take a dive bomber squad out of assault for a fighter squadran perhaps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,074
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,697 posts
10,667 battles

Personally I would like to see all CVs have to carry at LEAST one fighter squad.   CBT IJN CVs could run without fighters and that was deemed too OP by many people.

 

We then flipped and I don't believe any IJN CV can run without fighters, but some USN can.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

Personally I would like to see all CVs have to carry at LEAST one fighter squad.   CBT IJN CVs could run without fighters and that was deemed too OP by many people.

 

We then flipped and I don't believe any IJN CV can run without fighters, but some USN can.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  

 

 

nothing ever does...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
[RKN]
Banned
9,382 posts
11,707 battles

WG hasnt done anything to rectify the problem havent they?

Devs have continually stated that they're not happy with how things are right now, but I think they're saving any major branch rework for when they overhaul CVs as a class - i.e. sometime in the next year at least.

They just buffed American CV's last patch... what's the stats in a 1 month window that'd be more telling then an overall stat.

Correction: they buffed one stat that nobody cares about or needed to be buffed.  The fighter ammo capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,198
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,583 battles

The problem isn't that Lexington can't perform; in the right hands, the strike loadout erases capital ships and the AS loadout can shred Shokaku planes.

 

The problem is that Shokaku can do both tasks with one air group.  The inflexibility of Lexington and the USN line as a whole is a large part of the reason why they suffer especially badly at the hands of IJN carriers.

 

This.

 

Strike Lexington is actually very powerful.  AS Lexington can do a good job hunting aircraft.  The problem is the super-specialization of USN CV specs.

 

Stock?  Too few units.

Strike?  No fighters;  anyone with at least ONE fighter unit can shut down most of your damage capability.

Air Sup?  Cr@p attack power, have little means to carry a team nor stop a losing situation.

 

The flexibility of the IJN CV to do attack and air-to-air regardless of chosen spec is what wins them over.  It's no coincidence, as IJN CVs literally stomp every USN CV counterpart.  Except Saipan, because she's really an IJN CV but with a USN skin.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

 

This.

 

Strike Lexington is actually very powerful.  AS Lexington can do a good job hunting aircraft.  The problem is the super-specialization of USN CV specs.

 

Stock?  Too few units.

Strike?  No fighters;  anyone with at least ONE fighter unit can shut down most of your damage capability.

Air Sup?  Cr@p attack power, have little means to carry a team nor stop a losing situation.

 

The flexibility of the IJN CV to do attack and air-to-air regardless of chosen spec is what wins them over.  It's no coincidence, as IJN CVs literally stomp every USN CV counterpart.  Except Saipan, because she's really an IJN CV but with a USN skin.

 

a travesty on the highest order...WG should have not wasted their time and resources in making those RN ships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[MAJOR]
Members
21 posts
5,544 battles

The load-outs are just too stupid.  I don't know a whole lot about naval doctrine and strategy but I think if a captain equipped his aircraft carrier without any fighters he would get court marshaled and hanged.  Even an anti-tank platoon still has rifles and it didn't cost billions of dollars to outfit one. 

 

I run stock because this idea itself just breaks the atmosphere for me.  Might as well allow rocket jumping or sea monsters.

Edited by CanoeShoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,198
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,913 posts
15,583 battles

The load-outs are just too stupid.  I don't know a whole lot about naval doctrine and strategy but I think if a captain equipped his aircraft carrier without any fighters he would get court marshaled and hanged.  Even an anti-tank platoon still has rifles and it didn't cost billions of dollars to outfit one. 

 

I run stock because this idea itself just breaks the atmosphere for me.  Might as well allow rocket jumping or sea monsters.

 

In reality, there were no "All Bomber" air groups for both the IJN and USN CV's... CV, CVL, CVE, didn't matter.  The CVs for both navies were balanced in fighter, bomber capabilities.  It fluctuated up and down, even in the USN over the course of the war, but there tended to be always a sort of balance.

 

http://www.cv6.org/company/airgroups.htm

The link above shows the air groups USS Enterprise had just before Pearl Harbor and towards war's end when she took her last bit of damage to force her to sail back for repairs.  You can see the changes throughout the war but at no time was Enterprise ever without fighters or without bombers.

 

I haven't seen that level of thorough, historical listing for any other CV in WWII but from very general reading, the same can be said with the other IJN & USN carriers.  WoWS IJN CV specs are closer to reality than the USN CV specs.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[PAT]
Members
1,640 posts
3,370 battles

I don't know about T8, but if its like T7 strike Shokaku should actually be a better AS CV then strike lex, that is, when using strafe right. That is nuts, and I laugh whenever I fight a Ranger. I don't know how they balance it, maybe give US more squads, but reduce squad size by 1. so AS lex becomes, 2/1/2? 3/0/2? 3/1/1? Idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,844 posts
3,781 battles

I don't know about T8, but if its like T7 strike Shokaku should actually be a better AS CV then strike lex, that is, when using strafe right. That is nuts, and I laugh whenever I fight a Ranger. I don't know how they balance it, maybe give US more squads, but reduce squad size by 1. so AS lex becomes, 2/1/2? 3/0/2? 3/1/1? Idk.

 

I'd call this a necro but it's sadly still relevant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[PAT]
Members
1,640 posts
3,370 battles

Sorry, forgot to check how old the post was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

every time i see my planes get torn up by a shokaku i know it's an over-performer and that makes me depressed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
22 posts
6,069 battles

Theres nothing wrong with the load outs.  If you want to run a ballanced loaf play Jap, if you want to specialize play US.  Its that simple.  

 

I hate the fighter they shove diwn my troat at teir 9 and 10 on the US side.  I'd trade it in for a bomber or a torp in a heartbeat.  

 

The Bogue strike is hard because your allys have no AA.  But from the InDy up you have no need for fighters if you know what your doing.  (Reguardles of what the BBs are crying about in the chat box.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[PAT]
Members
1,640 posts
3,370 battles

I think the American CVs are way to specialized, they really got hurt by the inability to div with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

I think the American CVs are way to specialized, they really got hurt by the inability to div with each other.

 

ouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
7,051 posts
4,224 battles

The problem isn't that Lexington can't perform; in the right hands, the strike loadout erases capital ships and the AS loadout can shred Shokaku planes.

 

The problem is that Shokaku can do both tasks with one air group.  The inflexibility of Lexington and the USN line as a whole is a large part of the reason why they suffer especially badly at the hands of IJN carriers.

 

The Strike load out is also Cancer.

 

It used to have a 2/1/1 Set up which is ideal. The problem is that WG murdered the Balanced loadout of USN CVs a while back, and didn't do the same to the IJN CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
2,044 battles

 

The Strike load out is also Cancer.

 

It used to have a 2/1/1 Set up which is ideal. The problem is that WG murdered the Balanced loadout of USN CVs a while back, and didn't do the same to the IJN CVs.

 

now it IJN's turn to get nerf they are too good atm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[PAT]
Members
1,640 posts
3,370 battles
On 6/9/2017 at 7:49 PM, The_Big_Red_1 said:

 

now it IJN's turn to get nerf they are too good atm

I think that they really aren't instead they should use the new CV enterprise as a model in order to create a more balanced tree, you know AP bombs of DOOM!! and smaller squad sizes with less specialization. CVs in general only deal as much damage as BBs and are generally more useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,464 posts
2,210 battles

While I do agree that USN CVs need a better balanced configuration. The strike configuration isn't as difficult to use as some of you think. Sure, It's gona be a pain with Shokaku fighters, but if you are patient and play smart, you can still get in a good chunk of damage.

 

Hardest part for Shokaku is that you have to multitask a LOT, so when shokaku is busy trying to hit ships, you can use that advantage to go hit other ships in another direction, he'll have a hard time using both fighters and bombers at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×