Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
MR_BATTLESHIP_2016

Why some nations should not have CVs

poll  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Agree with me?


17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
131 posts
1,343 battles

Fell free to debate! I take all criticism as a question.

let me just point out that I'm not very experienced. 

 

 

Why some nations shouldn't have CV's

 

  CV's, some call it cancer, some call it a balancer. can we all agree they are broken OK?

 

some nations shouldn't have for 3 reasons

 

1. "their CV's are just plain bad or nonexistent"

lets take Russia for example, the lower tier proposals are all conversions from BB's. This makes the CV slow and vulnerable, making it food for every single class in the game, only in higher tiers do they have sustainable CV's (but WG might just make up some weird designs). and all of this is just going to dissuade players from playing all of these ships (losing WG money).

 

2 "it takes away the specialty of the Japanese and US tech trees" 

If Germany gets these CV's then there will be little to none difference between the 3 trees.

And if Russia gets them, OH GOD TOO MANY ROOSKIES and Bias

 

3 "we will see too many "what if" designs in the game ( like we don't have enough already)"

 

lets take a look 10 out of the 28 german ships in the game are paper ships 

9 out of 19 Soviet/Russian ships are paper ships, and these are part of the well-developed classes, we could have whole trees with paper ships. Anyways im trying to say there are too many papers ships in the game and there might be even more with these "paper lines".

 

Join me and say stop to new CV developments! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
644
[APOC]
Members
1,979 posts
6,423 battles

I am all for CV development and obviously, CV reworks. I think a better suggestion would be "only have CV's at certain tiers" if you're totally against paper ships. An example would be, Graf Zeppelin is expected to be low tier (I want to say 4 or 5, idr) so you could make a tech tree 4 (I know it's premium) and tech tree 7 (paper ship/real ship). It would work the same as the T4 CV, research it off of the T7 BB. This would allow for unique designs and play.

 

Personally, I look at the long term. I want to see this game last years just from the joy I get out of playing from it and the time/money I have invested in it. That means at some point you're going to have to have a more diverse class than two lines. So from your choices, I vote "no" I don't agree with you. I am all for special treatment to the class but not total neglect.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
131 posts
1,343 battles

I am all for CV development and obviously, CV reworks. I think a better suggestion would be "only have CV's at certain tiers" if you're totally against paper ships. An example would be, Graf Zeppelin is expected to be low tier (I want to say 4 or 5, idr) so you could make a tech tree 4 (I know it's premium) and tech tree 7 (paper ship/real ship). It would work the same as the T4 CV, research it off of the T7 BB. This would allow for unique designs and play.

 

Personally, I look at the long term. I want to see this game last years just from the joy I get out of playing from it and the time/money I have invested in it. That means at some point you're going to have to have a more diverse class than two lines. So from your choices, I vote "no" I don't agree with you. I am all for special treatment to the class but not total neglect.

 

I understand

But thanks for your opinion!

 

Edited by MR_BATTLESHIP_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
[NDA]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
5,662 posts
4,470 battles

I can imagine a British carrier line of some sort coming in the distant future.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
3,175 posts
7,592 battles

I can imagine a British carrier line of some sort coming in the distant future.

 

British carriers have been confirmed to be scheduled for release after the CV rework, if I'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,326 posts
95 battles

Yeah, I agree with the OP. I'd love to see British carriers in the game, even though I don't play CVs, but no Soviet or German, because these nations never used carriers in WW1-WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[SWOB]
[SWOB]
Alpha Tester
1,147 posts
6,651 battles

A huge portion of the player base is from the EU and Russia, I agree in general that it would be nice to avoid the paper ships, but WG has already decided to have core nations which simply don't have the shipbuilding history to support a full ten tiers of ships.  It's not quite as egregious when the designs were actually laid down or partially built like with the Montana, but I'm not expecting them to be any more realistic about carriers in the long run (over say the next 3-4 years) than they have been with the initial German and Russian lines.

 

I just hope that when they do it they balance it around a more realistic assessment of what the ships would have actually been like rather than the pipe dreams that the designers hoped for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[DERE]
Members
212 posts
1,804 battles

I'd say that the Brits should definitely get em. I'd say that the German's and the rest could go for one of two options. 

1. Premiums

2. Clustered together into one big Pan-Euro tree. like Pan-Asia... but for Europe... What'd you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[RTXN3]
[RTXN3]
Members
146 posts
6,719 battles

Since this is primarily a game based on WWII era ships, nations should be limited to what ship types they historically used during that era.  Paper BB's CR's and DD's are OK with me, since these types were already in service.

 

The only other nation that had CV's actually in service was the Royal Navy. Looking at the Wikipedia page on CV's of the RN, there are more that enough actual RN CV's  to fill out tiers 4-10 with enough left over that could be theoretically used as premiums.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy#Malta_class

 

Granted the  Kaiserliche Marine/ Kriegsmarine/ Reichsmarine planned to have CV's, they were in some cases started, but were never completed and it is doubtful any design specifications survived the war.  From what I can see from my quick research, the Soviet/Russian navies never had a CV of any sort till 1967 when the launched the Moskva.

 

Even if these do enter the game, I won't play them since I learned, very quickly,  that I suck at CV's.

Edited by Caseyorourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[FAE]
Members
2,616 posts
3,631 battles

First fix the lines that exist.  Add small bits of content here and there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,594
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
21,019 battles

I honestly think the only nations that should have full-fledged CV lines are the US, Japan, and the UK, at least until we reach a point in the game where there's nothing else to put in.  Other countries can get premiums to start with (Italy Aquila, Germany Graf Zeppelin, and France Bearn), but full trees shouldn't be in for a while.  CVs will always be one of, if not the hardest, lines to balance as far as both implementation and national flavor are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
Members
193 posts
13,993 battles

I do agree that extra CV lines should not be added for the sake of adding CV lines. However I would hate to ignore special cases just because there are not enough for a full line, examples of this being: Graf Zeppelin (constructed but never fought), Augustus (conversion started but sunk before completion), Joffre (construction started then scrapped after French surrender), this would be where the premium/reward ship treatment I think would be a good option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,165 posts
10,896 battles

When WG released the 1st CV into the shop.... That was them declaring that CV's were OK and here to stay as they can't chance the stats on prems...

 

 

We're stuck with them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,312
Members
2,646 posts
4,285 battles

No CV's are not broken.  Manual drops are broken,  but even that is limited to singular targets and targets without DF.  CV's are the only ships in game that can have their 'shell's' shot down and be unable to attack ships based on something that is largely automatic.

 

More on topic,  eh.  Right now no new CV lines need to be introduced until the ship class has been rebalanced.  No one enjoys being deleted because a CV captain can drop a full load of torpedo's directly into their side.  Past that I think the more nations that have CV's,  the better.  More balance,  more flavor,  different ways to play.  It is no bad thing,  and its not like there are suddenly going to be TEN CV'S in every match.  You'll still get a max of two up to T8 and one T10.  Unless WG decides for some addled reason to add a CV that can field twenty torpedo bombers or something ridiculous like that,  sea bound ships aren't going to notice the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
998
[HINON]
Members
4,020 posts
4,791 battles

  CV's, some call it cancer, some call it a balancer. can we all agree they are broken OK?

I would agree that, in some scenarios, they are very broken, but their diminished rewards make these scenarios less profitable, and those scenarios are not that often.

  For example, the priority for Strike USN is not to deal lots of damage to surface ships throughout the entire game, but to deal small amounts of supporting damage in the beginning of the match and then, when the enemy team is displaced and worn-down, to bring-out the big-guns and start finishing enemies. A Strike Lexington with almost-full reserves at the end of the match is one of the most terrifying spectacles to behold, arguably more powerful than the Strike Shokaku because the Lexington's dive bombers actually mean something, and it doesn't have the hindrance of fighters (in the end-game, the Shokaku's fighters are space for strike aircraft that has been wasted to give it an early-game boost). The single reason why Strike USN is actually underperforming and incredibly underpowered right now is because of the Strike USN's general lack of ability to influence the early game, due to the enemy AA being more concentrated because the ships are closer-together.

 

This is why I firmly believe that all IJN strike configurations should see their fighter squadron reserves incredibly nerfed AND should lose the Defensive Fire consumable, but be compensated in extra reserve space for strike aircraft (preferably a 50-50 mix of VBs and VTs, so they don't feel like their being trolled with more IJN VBs). This would allow them to keep their fighters as a defence against enemy stock configurations, but would force them to be used defensively and not allow them to act offensively against enemy strike aircraft unless those aircraft are engaging the carrier itself (the USN has excellent ship-AA and would have DF, so they do not really need the extra boost that fighters provide). This would even the odds against IJN strike, since they are actually out-damaged by USN strike when USN strike is given the chance, but allow the USN strike to be more supportive during the early game.

 

All AS configurations should be removed as well, as they are actually less competitive and less game-influencing than Strike as well as being less game-influencing than most enemy surface ships, because Strike is designed to play against all 15 enemies, while the AS configuration is only designed to play against one, and has no power to support it's own fleet against surface targets. Thus, "Strike" should become the new "Normal" configurations, and there should be no deviations from it, upgrades should be of aircraft as well as the number of squads able to be fielded.

 

The unique way in which CVs interact with surface ships make them very, very difficult to balance both against each other and against surface ships, and I, for one, am very happy that the WoWS devs are taking-up the challenge instead of doing the WoT solution of just nerfing the hell out of the accuracy, which only serves to make things more broken (to compensate for the decreased accuracy, they have to increase alpha damage or fire-rate, which means that they then have to nerf accuracy further, and you can see how it spirals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,624
[PVE]
Members
19,989 posts
12,695 battles

I am all for CV development and obviously, CV reworks. I think a better suggestion would be "only have CV's at certain tiers" if you're totally against paper ships. An example would be, Graf Zeppelin is expected to be low tier (I want to say 4 or 5, idr) so you could make a tech tree 4 (I know it's premium) and tech tree 7 (paper ship/real ship). It would work the same as the T4 CV, research it off of the T7 BB. This would allow for unique designs and play.

 

Personally, I look at the long term. I want to see this game last years just from the joy I get out of playing from it and the time/money I have invested in it. That means at some point you're going to have to have a more diverse class than two lines. So from your choices, I vote "no" I don't agree with you. I am all for special treatment to the class but not total neglect.

 

I voted no and there was not an in between option. I like your idea of US, IJN and UK having full lines with Russia, France, Germany and Italy having a few paper CVs. So if you have a T4 and a T7 CV would you be able to jump from the T4 to the T7 in CVs or only from the associated BB tier? I can see CV players who don't play BB being upset not being able to climb the CV tree. 

 

P.s. Full disclosure, while I have the Saipan and Langley, they haven't left the training room. Just taking off and doing an attack is progress now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×