• You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

CVs: What to do?   118 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think CVs can be fixed?

  2. 2. How drastic does CV re-balancing have to be?

    • A drastic amount of changes
    • A marginal amount of changes
    • Only a few changes
  3. 3. What is your favorite nation of carrier?

  4. 4. Which nations do you think should have aircraft carriers?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

60 posts in this topic

There is a small problem with that idea that's balance.

 

I think tier 6 is the best balanced tier. The 1-1-1 Indy is a match for anything it faces (CV wise).

 

Tier 7 is close but there is a slight tilt to IJN. Simply reducing the USN service time and concealment would fix it. Giving USN strike a fighter would be to much. As would giving another fighter to stock load out.

 

Tier 8 is tilted in the IJN favor because they finally win the fighter fight. That being said just adding another fighter squadron to the stock loadout is op. It would be the same as it is now but in the USN favor. Here is where things get bad because the USN bread and butter to this point has been the balanced built; strike is pure offence with no defense and AS is pure defense with no offence. I think the fix here is to divide up the one USN fighter squadron into 2 smaller squadrons of 4. There by not giving them the AS capabilities of the AS spec but more attack power. It would also address the previous issue of service times.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a small problem with that idea that's balance.

 

I think tier 6 is the best balanced tier. The 1-1-1 Indy is a match for anything it faces (CV wise).

 

Tier 7 is close but there is a slight tilt to IJN. Simply reducing the USN service time and concealment would fix it. Giving USN strike a fighter would be to much. As would giving another fighter to stock load out.

 

Tier 8 is tilted in the IJN favor because they finally win the fighter fight. That being said just adding another fighter squadron to the stock loadout is op. It would be the same as it is now but in the USN favor. Here is where things get bad because the USN bread and butter to this point has been the balanced built; strike is pure offence with no defense and AS is pure defense with no offence. I think the fix here is to divide up the one USN fighter squadron into 2 smaller squadrons of 4. There by not giving them the AS capabilities of the AS spec but more attack power. It would also address the previous issue of service times.

This could work.

Or configuration-specific planes (a little like turrets and guns in WoT). If you're Strike, you can't take the fully-upgraded fighters (of course, something would then have to be done with Dogfighting Expert. Perhaps a buff to Fighter Survivability rather than DPS when fighting higher-tier fighters), and you only get one squad.

 

Diminishing the IJN Strike Fighter reserve size in return for a buff to survivability and increased strike reserves could also work.

 

Although, I wonder why no one has thought of the idea of replacing one or both of the Dive Bomber squads in AS with one squad of Torpedo Bombers. I get that this would basically be the Essex Stock configuration, but, seriously, does it severely unbalance the gameplay? And, as for replacing 2:1, as far as I can tell, it's basically like Bogue Balanced, but you have two squads of fighters instead of one, as well as more strike plane reserves in return for less strike squads.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a small problem with that idea that's balance.

 

I think tier 6 is the best balanced tier. The 1-1-1 Indy is a match for anything it faces (CV wise).

 

Tier 7 is close but there is a slight tilt to IJN. Simply reducing the USN service time and concealment would fix it. Giving USN strike a fighter would be to much. As would giving another fighter to stock load out.

 

Tier 8 is tilted in the IJN favor because they finally win the fighter fight. That being said just adding another fighter squadron to the stock loadout is op. It would be the same as it is now but in the USN favor. Here is where things get bad because the USN bread and butter to this point has been the balanced built; strike is pure offence with no defense and AS is pure defense with no offence. I think the fix here is to divide up the one USN fighter squadron into 2 smaller squadrons of 4. There by not giving them the AS capabilities of the AS spec but more attack power. It would also address the previous issue of service times.

Gonna have to disagree.  T6 is as close as it gets to balanced and even that is wonky.  1/1/1 Indy can match off against the 1/2/2 Ryujo and win in the sky but loses at sea.  Ryujo's 3/1/1 whips the Indy's 2/0/1 pretty easily.  Same goes for a straight 'strike' fight,  The Ryu wins in the sky and on the sea.

 

T7 is no contest in IJN's favor.  Existing in a vaccum strike to strike the USN could potentially deal more damage,  but the Hiryu have two fighters to screw with everything you do.  AS once again,  numbers win the day for the IJN.  They even have the literal numbers with Air supremacy by having 15 fighters to the Rangers 14.  IJN have no reason to use balance but USN using balance is going to lose both land and sea wars and at best distract the enemy CV for a couple of runs while giving up a good chunk of damage,  incapacitates,  and fires OR the ability to contest the skies.

 

T8 not sure yet.  Numbers remain the same but the USN go up to 1000pd bombs here and if the Saipan has taught me anything,  its that those suckers are nasty.  I feel like if any point is going to be 'equal' in so far as damage versus risk goes,  its going to be at T8.  At T9 IJN moves up to three torpedo bomber while the USN never get any more dive bombers then they had at the Ranger. 

 

Had other things to say but I looked up the stats at that point.  https://na.warships.today/vehicles  The damage numbers over two weeks still favor the Shok but its close.  Win rate though?  Nada.  Probably because the Shokaku has the ability to prevent enemy air raids while good ol' Lexy does not.

 

Edit:  God dang, those number for every tier are depressing.

Edited by Palladia

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 6

Indy vs Ryujo

1-1-1 =/> 1-2-2 If smart the Ryujo can tie up the fighters for short times and get some good strikes in.  However the Indy can still put up big damage numbers and provide some AS cover. 


 

1-1-1 < 3-1-1 If Indy plays conservatively and gets a few  good strikes in they can still win and 2-0-1 beats the 3-1-1 in the AS game but loses the damage game..


 

1-1-1 > 1-1-2 Indy wins the fighter fight and can dish out more damage.  Kill the TBs and the Ryujo's damage become anemic.


 

Best balance because win some lose some but nothing where you don't have a chance.  And lets be honest how often do you see anything other than a 1-2-2 Ryujo.


 

The Ranger's 1-1-1 is much the same as Indy's except the fighter vs fighter is more even.  But a head on strafe, even a poorly done one can even the numbers and then it's Ranger wins.  That being said the re-load time for the fighter especially if they die tilts the board to the IJN.  Also most of my deaths in the Ranger were do to being spotted by surface ships and shot to death. I think in my total games played I died once to a Ryujo and once to another Ranger/Indy combo.  Faster reload times and better concealment and I would say they are about even.


 


 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody runs a fighter loadout. It seems like a majority of CVs I face run fighters. Why?? You get nothing out of it. The rewards for shooting down enemy aircraft are pretty minimal. So all it does is ensure both CV players have a mediocre game (at best).

 

When I'm facing another strike loadout player, I generally do 100k+ damage and sink 2 ships (Ranger). That's on average. If the CV opposite me is decent, he'll do the same. AKA, we both have an affect on the battle.

 

When the other CV is a fighter loadout, I average probably 30k damage and no kills. It's rare for them to get any kills as well, since they just have a couple of dive bomber squadrons. So neither of us has any impact on the battle whatsoever.


Is there something I'm missing here? Why would anybody want to run a fighter loadout? I guess it helps your team to prevent the other guy from doing any damage, but it gets you far less credits and xp. And if both are running a fighter loadout, all you've got is a pointless little air battle between fighters with no way to impact the game at all.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna have to disagree.  T6 is as close as it gets to balanced and even that is wonky.  1/1/1 Indy can match off against the 1/2/2 Ryujo and win in the sky but loses at sea.  Ryujo's 3/1/1 whips the Indy's 2/0/1 pretty easily.  Same goes for a straight 'strike' fight,  The Ryu wins in the sky and on the sea.

 

T7 is no contest in IJN's favor.  Existing in a vaccum strike to strike the USN could potentially deal more damage,  but the Hiryu have two fighters to screw with everything you do.  AS once again,  numbers win the day for the IJN.  They even have the literal numbers with Air supremacy by having 15 fighters to the Rangers 14.  IJN have no reason to use balance but USN using balance is going to lose both land and sea wars and at best distract the enemy CV for a couple of runs while giving up a good chunk of damage,  incapacitates,  and fires OR the ability to contest the skies.

 

T8 not sure yet.  Numbers remain the same but the USN go up to 1000pd bombs here and if the Saipan has taught me anything,  its that those suckers are nasty.  I feel like if any point is going to be 'equal' in so far as damage versus risk goes,  its going to be at T8.  At T9 IJN moves up to three torpedo bomber while the USN never get any more dive bombers then they had at the Ranger. 

 

Had other things to say but I looked up the stats at that point.  https://na.warships.today/vehicles  The damage numbers over two weeks still favor the Shok but its close.  Win rate though?  Nada.  Probably because the Shokaku has the ability to prevent enemy air raids while good ol' Lexy does not.

 

Edit:  God dang, those number for every tier are depressing.

 

Based on this game, you'd think the U.S. lost the war in the Pacific as badly as France lost in Europe.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Based on this game, you'd think the U.S. lost the war in the Pacific as badly as France lost in Europe.

 

You're not wrong; in real life, some of the higher-tier IJN planes were rather good, but the pilots tasked with taking them into battle weren't. Keep in mind Japan had some of the best naval aviators in the world when the war began, but many of them were killed in 1942 (Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal.) When you're resorting to sending planes flown by college-age men to make suicide attacks on the enemy, you know you're in a rather tight spot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 6

Indy vs Ryujo

1-1-1 =/> 1-2-2 If smart the Ryujo can tie up the fighters for short times and get some good strikes in.  However the Indy can still put up big damage numbers and provide some AS cover. 

 

 

1-1-1 < 3-1-1 If Indy plays conservatively and gets a few  good strikes in they can still win and 2-0-1 beats the 3-1-1 in the AS game but loses the damage game..

 

 

1-1-1 > 1-1-2 Indy wins the fighter fight and can dish out more damage.  Kill the TBs and the Ryujo's damage become anemic.

 

 

Best balance because win some lose some but nothing where you don't have a chance.  And lets be honest how often do you see anything other than a 1-2-2 Ryujo.

 

 

The Ranger's 1-1-1 is much the same as Indy's except the fighter vs fighter is more even.  But a head on strafe, even a poorly done one can even the numbers and then it's Ranger wins.  That being said the re-load time for the fighter especially if they die tilts the board to the IJN.  Also most of my deaths in the Ranger were do to being spotted by surface ships and shot to death. I think in my total games played I died once to a Ryujo and once to another Ranger/Indy combo.  Faster reload times and better concealment and I would say they are about even.

 

 

 

 

 

I respect your opinion,  but in reality your wrong.  Assuming that both sides are equally skilled IJN are going to win across the board,  starting from the moment they can do whichever action.  Actually IJN CV's can be LESS skilled then the USN captain and still do better.  IJN just has the advantage all around.  Even if I hadn't lived through a lot of it,  the numbers on Warships.today tell the story.  From the word go IJN has better stats overall ((Last two weeks so as not to inflate USN during the times they had two torpedo bombers)) and what they don't win in ((Planes shot down)) they are still close in. And even still win in some tiers,  like T9.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea-Kinight, you nailed it! It seems WG used raw numbers of the aircraft when setting up it's hit tables and squadron numbers. At the beginning of WWII, the USN had only one aircraft in service that outclassed the IJN: The SBD. However, it was the superior training and quality replacement pilots that gave the USN the advantage right up to the end of the war. By Midway, the IJN had already suffered major losses to their experienced pilot pool, one of the reasons the Zuikaku could not participate. No planes or pilots. One of the largest factors from the outcome of the Battle of Midway, bedside the losses of 4 of the IJN Flat Tops was the loss of planes and pilots. While the IJN replaced them with better aircraft (Judy's, A6M5, and Jills), their crews were inexperienced and had a very hard time to hit anything. They needed to send swarms of aircraft in the hope to penetrating the very powerful AA and experienced US Fighters. The last US CV to be lost to the IJN was the Hornet in '42 from Val Dive Bombers and Kate Torpedo planes. The Princeton was lost in '44 to Kamikazes, with the Franklin, Intrepid and Bunker Hill knocked out for years. Very few IJN CV based aircraft every got close to an USN CV ever again after 1943.

 

I'm guessing WG used  the raw data and failed to take into account the experience of the air crews. A fix would be removing this "Panic" dispersion for the US DB and Torpedo squadrons and removing the IJN advantage in the Torpedo spread. Just add it to the list of needed fixes.

Edited by Starfighter_Ace

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea-Kinight, you nailed it! It seems WG used raw numbers of the aircraft when setting up it's hit tables and squadron numbers. At the beginning of WWII, the USN had only one aircraft in service that outclassed the IJN: The SBD. However, it was the superior training and quality replacement pilots that gave the USN the advantage right up to the end of the war. By Midway, the IJN had already suffered major losses to their experienced pilot pool, one of the reasons the Zuikaku could not participate. No planes or pilots. One of the largest factors from the outcome of the Battle of Midway, bedside the losses of 4 of the IJN Flat Tops was the loss of planes and pilots. While the IJN replaced them with better aircraft (Judy's, A6M5, and Jills), their crews were inexperienced and had a very hard time to hit anything. They needed to send swarms of aircraft in the hope to penetrating the very powerful AA and experienced US Fighters. The last US CV to be lost to the IJN was the Hornet in '42 from Val Dive Bombers and Kate Torpedo planes. The Princeton was lost in '44 to Kamikazes, with the Franklin, Intrepid and Bunker Hill knocked out for years. Very few IJN CV based aircraft every got close to an USN CV ever again after 1943.

 

I'm guessing WG used  the raw data and failed to take into account the experience of the air crews. A fix would be removing this "Panic" dispersion for the US DB and Torpedo squadrons and removing the IJN advantage in the Torpedo spread. Just add it to the list of needed fixes.

 

On top of that, the USN's Mk 13 torpedo was improved; according to this: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/BuOrd/BuOrd-6.html

"Months before the end of the war the mark 13 was universally accepted as the best aircraft torpedo owned by any nation."

 

And while I'm at it, the Princeton was hit twice by conventional bombers, and subsequent fires and explosions did her in. The escort carriers St. Lo, Ommaney Bay, and Bismarck Sea were sunk by kamikazes, the largest ships to meet that fate. 

Edited by SeaKnight_1990

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I respect your opinion,  but in reality your wrong.  Assuming that both sides are equally skilled IJN are going to win across the board,  starting from the moment they can do whichever action.  Actually IJN CV's can be LESS skilled then the USN captain and still do better.  IJN just has the advantage all around.  Even if I hadn't lived through a lot of it,  the numbers on Warships.today tell the story.  From the word go IJN has better stats overall ((Last two weeks so as not to inflate USN during the times they had two torpedo bombers)) and what they don't win in ((Planes shot down)) they are still close in. And even still win in some tiers,  like T9.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree. After WG took away the 2nd torpedo squadron at tiers 9+10 the US CVs turned into a hot mess. Except for the Langley and in some cases the bouge. When I had my Langley I remember wrecking Hoshos because they only had squads of 4 while I had squads of 6. Same story with the bouge except sometimes when I faced a competent IJN player.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the stats is that IJN attracts the more competitive players because of the perceived advantages.

 

If you look at my zuiho stats. They are my best stats of any of my CVs. 65k damage and 74% win rate. And looks like it supports the IJN >USN but in truth it is more dependant on the enemy team derping. I couldn't tell you how often I was able to escape a dd/cl/ca that had me dead to rights where as the bogue was just dead in the water. How many times the enemy bogue died and I just played wakamole. It's the same with independence worse with ranger and omg bad in Lexington.

 

Faster service time + shorter flight time + better concealment is where the IJN CVs win. It's why I do way consistently better statistically in a lose than wins with USN CVs. When the fighting is closer so the USN has the shorter flights the tables turn.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately I have to agree. After WG took away the 2nd torpedo squadron at tiers 9+10 the US CVs turned into a hot mess. Except for the Langley and in some cases the bouge. When I had my Langley I remember wrecking Hoshos because they only had squads of 4 while I had squads of 6. Same story with the bouge except sometimes when I faced a competent IJN player.

 

T4 and 5 are special cases,  IJN doesn't have access to AS packages so they are stuck with strike and a single fighter.  So USN AS can actually effectively stop or slow down IJN bombers.  Actually thinking on it that applies to T6 to an extent as well but its around that point that IJN starts getting droves of planes so it starts becoming more difficult.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the Indi can take on most things that the IJN tier 6 carrier can throw at it but it is the beginning of the end.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear is another idea to consider. How about adding a Defensive "Combat Air Patrol" to the CVs? The CA and BBs have their "Catapult Fighters" (which is quite a stretch history wise. USN BBs did carry 4 fighters for about 6 years from 1919 until the mid '20s, and Cruisers never.), why not have CV have a Combat Air Patrol consumable consisting on 2 aircraft to defend itself? Every nation had this, along with an Anti-Sub patrol. At t4-7, Carrier Sniping seems to be a sport, and if you do leave your fighters to cover you, they rarely are in a position to defend. It seems like every time I am manually dropping on the Red Teams ship, the Red Teams strike appears to hit my CV. It would also be helpful to chase away Red Team fighters that want to snipe my departing attack aircraft and spot me. 2 planes isn't much, I'd want 4, but what a change of tactics it would make. Maybe for the better. Opinions?

I like the idea, but how would anti-sub patrols work? And what if each combat air patrol consisted of 2 planes no matter what nation. The difference would be how many slots each ship would get. A slot alows for a one CAP or ASP. For example the midway could have 4 slots, and can choose how many squads of CAP and ASP they want. Also, what if we added in a scout patrol that would fly in ever growing circles around the carrier, spotting for it. CV captains could mix and match their flight modes to match with what they chose in their slots. For example, A strike Midway probably would choose 3 CAP and 1 SP. This would prevent an alpha strike and alow the fighters to escort the bombers without fear of retaliation.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, but how would anti-sub patrols work? And what if each combat air patrol consisted of 2 planes no matter what nation. The difference would be how many slots each ship would get. A slot alows for a one CAP or ASP. For example the midway could have 4 slots, and can choose how many squads of CAP and ASP they want. Also, what if we added in a scout patrol that would fly in ever growing circles around the carrier, spotting for it. CV captains could mix and match their flight modes to match with what they chose in their slots. For example, A strike Midway probably would choose 3 CAP and 1 SP. This would prevent an alpha strike and alow the fighters to escort the bombers without fear of retaliation.

 

If there are going to be anti-submarine patrols, then there are probably going to be submarines.

 

Reportedly from the September 19th interview with Daniil Volkov:

"We are seriously looking into the submarines, as they are in popular demand. They will probably not come in 2017, but likely at a later date. One alternative considered is having submarines as bots."

 

However, the opposite holds true as well: if there are no submarines, then there probably won't be ASW patrols.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am learning this class and can see differences between the IJN and US carriers.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution to balancing CV is extremely simple. It wouod take modifying a few lines of existing code and maybe a days work. 

 

All that needs to happen is to remove extreme Air Superiority loadouts. Only keep balanced and strike loadouts. 

 

Of course a lot could be done to improve CV gameplay but this basic change is all that is needed. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution to balancing CV is extremely simple. It wouod take modifying a few lines of existing code and maybe a days work. 

 

All that needs to happen is to remove extreme Air Superiority loadouts. Only keep balanced and strike loadouts. 

 

Of course a lot could be done to improve CV gameplay but this basic change is all that is needed. 

 

There's a little more than that. If you remove AS configurations, which I fully support, you have to also rebalance the Strike and Balanced configurations. One squad of fighters in the USN Strike should do it, as would removing one from the IJN Strike.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with all that has been posted here I suspect if and when they do make such changes to CVs we will be in for even more of the same sort of postings about what is wrong with the improvements


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with all that has been posted here I suspect if and when they do make such changes to CVs we will be in for even more of the same sort of postings about what is wrong with the improvements

 

Really? I thought that was obvious. I mean, this is a WarGaming product we're talking about...

 

Anyway, I think that the most interesting part of the re-work is where the complaints end-up after a month or two.

 

If most of the complaints are on the Battleship forum, then I think that we can say that it's a job well-done. If the complaints are on the Carrier forum, it means that there's room for improvement. I honestly don't know what to say about complaints on the Cruiser or Destroyer forum.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's a little more than that. If you remove AS configurations, which I fully support, you have to also rebalance the Strike and Balanced configurations. One squad of fighters in the USN Strike should do it, as would removing one from the IJN Strike.

 

Agreed. Then reduce USN fighter ammo anf increase IJN ammo so that 7 vs 5 or 6 vs 4 fighter duels are fair. 

 

Wargaming might think that playing strike Lex vs AS Lex is "fun" where strike Lex has to bait, hide, sneak around but let me tell you, it is NOT fun. 

 

Give us balance and fair matches and let player skill determine the winner. Not you having 3 times the fighter power of your enemy. 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why so many players whine about CV imbalances.

There are advantages/disadvantages at different tiers.

Myself, I ground to an Essex. I like it. My Ijn Carrier is the Hiryu (slow grinding it).

 & I still got my 'Ho' (cause I like calling it that, lol).


 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really? I thought that was obvious. I mean, this is a WarGaming product we're talking about...

 

Anyway, I think that the most interesting part of the re-work is where the complaints end-up after a month or two.

 

If most of the complaints are on the Battleship forum, then I think that we can say that it's a job well-done. If the complaints are on the Carrier forum, it means that there's room for improvement. I honestly don't know what to say about complaints on the Cruiser or Destroyer forum.

 

All too true, BBs complaining about CVs is always a good sign. And what do they complain about on the DD and CL forums?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All too true, BBs complaining about CVs is always a good sign. And what do they complain about on the DD and CL forums?

 

Mostly RPF. Well, and cruisers complain about battleships.

 

That's why I said that wouldn't know what to say if Cruisers started complaining about CVs.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.