Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Zambasshik

CV Fixing

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
77 posts
1,518 battles

I had a thought. I was talking to a friend about when we used to play Navy Field 2 before i got into the CBT here. Now we all know that CVs need help here an the devs are supposed to be working on it. I think that "borrowing" the carrier style from NF2 would help close the disparities between ships and add an extra level of skill.

 

Now let me explain how they do it there. When in a carrier you get a maximum number of squadrons you can command at any one time, and a maximum number of planes per squad. For instance the ranger could launch 7 squads of 7 planes. Squads can only contain the same plane, but you control the exact layout for your hanger. So if said Ranger could hold 20 planes, you could have 3 fighters, 10 torp bombers, and 7 dive bombers.

 

Now when launching planes, you can also chose not to launch the max number; because the larger the squad, the longer it took to launch. Enemy planes closing in on you, decide between launching a full more powerful squad of fighters, or just get a few up to distract them. What do you guys think? Would a similar system work here? And more if be a valid improvement?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,531
[NG-NL]
Members
6,245 posts
10,071 battles

Seen those gameplay videos.

 

As a CV captain, I'd say it makes no sense, given current mechanics, to launch only a few fighters to intercept bombers. They'd have to strafe and the enemy CV stupid in order for that to work, plus NF2 features its own manual-AA that makes it easy to blast away all bombers in seconds.

 

Plus, there'll be a new can of worms if CV captains can customize their loadout to anything. IJN CVs will become true terrors with 3 TB starting at Hosho and 8 TB ending with Haku, and US CVs will become the AS irritant with 3-4 fighters starting with Ranger and ending on Midway with like 5 fighters and 4 DB. Standardized loadout ensures some modicum of balance, though of course player skill cannot be affected.

 

What WG needs to do is change US strike CV loadout starting with Independence to have at least one fighter, and restore the 2nd TB to Lex/Essex/Midway, as well as changing fighter strafe so it can damage AA. It'd also make sense to change the earnings of AS loadout so that potential damage prevented means XP and credits for the AS captain, cause right now I hear it's basically junk. IJN CV line is doing well with its strike loadout, though argument can be made to buff the TB on Ryujo and Hiryu since they're T5 and that tier's planes don't fare well vs. T8 AA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
77 posts
1,518 battles

Even one fighter attacking a squad of bombers has the same effect as DF. And whos to say that the enemy has full squadrons. A tactic used in the game was called staggered take off where in you could launch a lot of smaller squadrons of planes faster than you could the same amount in larger squads, for that, smaller fighter groups would be better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
634
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,201 posts
7,494 battles

Ive been for a 'more NF like' setup of CV's for quite a while now, however given that WoWs is more arcarde like than a thinking game NF is a lot more complicated than what WG is aiming for. Its a shame too as NF1 had around a 40k player playerbase for the two NA servers in its prime and there was a lot more to the game than just sailing around blowing up other ships. Armour and weapon setup, crew makeup, AA guns or not (to save weight), different types of crew members....lots to do outside of shooting.

 

CV's functioned better, ship trees were better set up (DD's led to cruisers which led to BB or CV lines.

 

While a CV set up for all bombers could be a terror, in NF they were punished with pathetic credit returns and it was very difficult to lvl up new crew (each plane squadron had its own crew which needed to be lvled up). In WoWs they would be easily countered by an all fighter setup which could totally dominate an all bomber setup.

 

Long ago I posted a thought on how I would do it if given the chance. Primary change, all nations have same # of planes in a squadron, tier of ship dictates how many squadrons, start with 1-1-1 setup as the minimum, CV players have some options to choose as they lvl up, next tier would add 1 squadron of players choice, next tier would add a second squadron to a max of 2 per plane type (eg 1-1-2 and then to 1-2-2 or 2-1-2).

Edited by hipcanuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,678 battles

There would be no reason for people to take anything besides TBs and maybe fighters if they feel protective. DBs are not consistent enough or have any other special abilities to get people to take them instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
77 posts
1,518 battles

This would be part of the change, i also think NF did a good job of balancing the two bomber types. I was always partial to DB in NF. Here in WoWS, youd be stupid to relay on DB. But so what? There are 3 types of planes, in NF, they also have scouts, but you only really took the ones youre best at there too. Id only really have a squad or two of torps to take out subs, the rest i relied on DB for and fighters to keep the skies clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[TJRD]
Members
836 posts
5,476 battles

Hey Zambasshik! fellow NF2 vet here! I thought the carriers were interesting in NF2, and the plane loadout system was great. I'm not quite sure how well it would work in WoWs though.  I think that instead of selecting individual planes, selecting squads would be better. Also limiting how many of one kind of squad you could take.

 

Example: you have a carrier that can take 6 squadrons. You can pick what you want for those six squads, but you can't have more than 4 of a kind.

 

I think something like that might work. could still be abused though.

#1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
557 posts
5,603 battles

My thought has always been to allow the CV skipper the ability to determine what he/she wants to put into the air.  The CV is restricted by overall number of squadrons depending on the type. The type of planes and hangar are ore-determined.  So if I can put up 4 squadrons in a US CV and I have say 30 fighters, 24 dive bombers and 12 torpedo bombers I can allocate as I see fit.  Maybe I want to send up 3 fighter squadrons at first and 1 DB to scout?  I want to get air superiority.  Maybe I want to deliver an early knockout blow to the enemy CV so I send up 2 DB's and 2 TB's?  Let me strategize and play accordingly.  Obviously national flavor still plays a roll.  IJN would get more squadrons with fewer planes but more TB's.  USN would get a lot more fighters and dive bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
634
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,201 posts
7,494 battles

There would be no reason for people to take anything besides TBs and maybe fighters if they feel protective. DBs are not consistent enough or have any other special abilities to get people to take them instead. 

 

this is why the basic 1-1-1 setup is forced on people from the beginning and at tier 7 you get the 2-2-2 setup forced on you... Can you say balanced :D

 

Nationality flavour would be in the planes themselves and their ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[TJRD]
Members
836 posts
5,476 battles

I think the national flavor shoudl be limited to the planes and the squad composition. Even if it's not historically accurate, all CVs should be able to get the same loadouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,058
[GWG]
Members
7,205 posts
13,962 battles

Standard Bogue has 1-1-0 load which puts your hanger at 50% torpedo planes.   I always have a good, restful, easy time with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,678 battles

This would be part of the change, i also think NF did a good job of balancing the two bomber types. I was always partial to DB in NF. Here in WoWS, youd be stupid to relay on DB. But so what? There are 3 types of planes, in NF, they also have scouts, but you only really took the ones youre best at there too. Id only really have a squad or two of torps to take out subs, the rest i relied on DB for and fighters to keep the skies clear

 

Because some people here still remember when the Essex had 2 TB squads or when the Zuiho got three TBs. Any CV strike player is going to stack TBs and bring maybe 1 fighter squad and then torp everything because they could. That does not increase diversity or anything else when there is one optimal choice. Plus nobody enjoys getting focused by repeated drops from CVs or playing torpedo bait. 
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
77 posts
1,518 battles

i always thought that national flavor should should be within the planes stats. USN fighters would be stronger, IJN torp bombers would... do more damage? Something like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
634
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,201 posts
7,494 battles

 

Because some people here still remember when the Essex had 2 TB squads or when the Zuiho got three TBs. Any CV strike player is going to stack TBs and bring maybe 1 fighter squad and then torp everything because they could. That does not increase diversity or anything else when there is one optimal choice. Plus nobody enjoys getting focused by repeated drops from CVs or playing torpedo bait. 

Yep, 12 TBers was brutal. However it would only be 4 per squad in my layout. Zuiho at tier 5 would only carry a max of 2 squads of one type, and 1 each of the other types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
634
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,201 posts
7,494 battles

Nationality 'bonuses' would be along the lines of IJN torp bombers (both more resistant to AA and better damage), US fighters, DKM dive bombers.

 

NF1 added fuel as an additional balance factor which made a HUGE difference in balancing. DKM fighters were devastating, but had a very short range, same goes for the Stukas. If you wanted to kill a CV at the beginning you needed to use a US or IJN CV, neither the UK or DKM planes had the legs to get to the back of the map. NF1 planes fell out of the sky if you left them out too long :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
77 posts
1,518 battles

Fuel was always fun. I remember one game, i was caught out and spotted anout 20 bombers closing in on my carrier, just before they came in range, they all dropped from no fuel. It was the reason I played US, i didnt like running out or losing sir supiority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,531
[NG-NL]
Members
6,245 posts
10,071 battles

There would be no reason for people to take anything besides TBs and maybe fighters if they feel protective. DBs are not consistent enough or have any other special abilities to get people to take them instead. 

 

TB are the plane of choice for hurting CA/BB/CV.

 

However, DB are excellent in their roles:

1) Fires on a DD (negate stealth). Still have a clip where I killed a Shimakaze in Taiho because lit him while his DC on CD.

2) 2+ fires on CA/BB that already used DC.

 

DB are just harder because need to know the target's already burned DC and sometimes RNG on even manual drop wastes all the bombs. You know how maddening it is on Langley to aim a manual drop well, only see none of the 6 bombs hit the V-170?

 

 

Because some people here still remember when the Essex had 2 TB squads or when the Zuiho got three TBs. Any CV strike player is going to stack TBs and bring maybe 1 fighter squad and then torp everything because they could. That does not increase diversity or anything else when there is one optimal choice. Plus nobody enjoys getting focused by repeated drops from CVs or playing torpedo bait. 

TB are the best at anti-ship duty and occasionally forcing someone to beach.

 

If people want better protection against TB, it's very effing simple: stay with another cruiser or BB. Frankly I'm through listening to anyone that complains about CVs when he is too lazy or arrogant to take anti-CV precautions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
226 posts
9,839 battles

How about keeping the Squadrons at the same count for each tier/nation but the aircraft per squadron different per nationality, (but then again they are probably going to add UK and KM CV's so i don't know how they would balance that). An example would be like T5 would have 1/1/1 but for different loadouts would be...

 

Balanced= even aircraft density for each aircraft type

Air superiority= fighter dense loadout with both TB and DB having half density then what is in balanced

Strike= TB dense loadout with both fighter and DB half density

Scout= DB dense loadout with both fighter and TB half density

 

and each loadout would have a bonus attached to it or a upgrade on the ship its self.

Balanced would get no bonus or HP +

Air superiority would get + DPS on fighters guns and tail gunners

Strike would get a + Flooding dmg and/or + Chance to cause flooding

Scout would get a + Fire dmg and/or + Chance to cause fire

 

...what do you guys think ?

Edited by Yvonne_Swanson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,678 battles

 

TB are the plane of choice for hurting CA/BB/CV.

 

However, DB are excellent in their roles:

1) Fires on a DD (negate stealth). Still have a clip where I killed a Shimakaze in Taiho because lit him while his DC on CD.

2) 2+ fires on CA/BB that already used DC.

 

DB are just harder because need to know the target's already burned DC and sometimes RNG on even manual drop wastes all the bombs. You know how maddening it is on Langley to aim a manual drop well, only see none of the 6 bombs hit the V-170?

 

TB are the best at anti-ship duty and occasionally forcing someone to beach.

 

If people want better protection against TB, it's very effing simple: stay with another cruiser or BB. Frankly I'm through listening to anyone that complains about CVs when he is too lazy or arrogant to take anti-CV precautions.

 

Are you honestly telling me that given the choice you would drop TBs to pick up DBs? 

 

Frankly I am done listening to anyone that assumes people dont take precautions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,531
[NG-NL]
Members
6,245 posts
10,071 battles

 

Are you honestly telling me that given the choice you would drop TBs to pick up DBs? 

 

Frankly I am done listening to anyone that assumes people dont take precautions. 

 

I mean they have their roles they excel at. TB simply pack a bigger wallop up front, whereas DB do less damage on average but excel at scouting; my experience is TB delete or heavily damage ships, whereas DB are mostly a nuisance. Only US CVs T8+ have raw DB damage to make them as terrifying as TB.

 

Personally would love the option to go 3/4/0 or 2/5/0 on my Taiho, But too many people would cite fear of unicums deleting as a reason for opposing that CV buff.

 

As far as precautions, I was referring to the loudest complainers. Montana I finished off with Shokaku DB, a Farragut that fell to my careful TB near island, and other occasions, I found it seems that the loudest anti-CV complainers are always the ones that lone wolf it and get upset when picked off. They seem to be the ones that flat-out refuse to stay with friendly AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
77 posts
1,518 battles

It also should be noted that with NF2, launching full squads took time in and of itself. It was largely impractical to stack 5 full squads of TB to send on one attack, because it would take several minutes just to put them in the air. If it became a trend, i would just send a few planes to snipe the enemy CV while they were vulnerable, or send a few fighters to destroy all the time they spent stacking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
270
[BS]
Alpha Tester
586 posts
1,053 battles

I made a thread on this very subject back in September 2015. You can read it here: WoWS Should Use Navyfield CV Mechanics

 

 

P.S. NF2 sucked compared to NF1. They took away a bunch of things that made NF1 fun when they made NF2.

 

While a CV set up for all bombers could be a terror, in NF they were punished with pathetic credit returns and it was very difficult to lvl up new crew (each plane squadron had its own crew which needed to be lvled up). 

 

A bomber-only loadout in NF was heavily punishable by a fighter heavy CV. The fighter CV could completely nullify the bomber CV unlike WoWS, and it would control vision across a quadrant of the map. The enemy team would be blind for a large portion of the match if the fighter CV was good. Bomber loadouts were very high risk-high reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×