Carrier_Lexington

CV Rework-- What do YOU want?

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

What do YOU want in the CV Rework?   88 members have voted

  1. 1. AA adjustment

    • Yes- readjust it
    • Yes- give it a flat nerf
    • No- leave it the way it is
  2. 2. Configuration Reworks

    • Yes- The USN can't compete
    • Yes- The USN AS is way to powerful
    • Yes- USN Strike needs fighters
    • Yes- AS in-general is too non-competitive
    • No- No change
  3. 3. Defensive Fire Rework

    • Remove Defensive Fire from ALL CVs
    • Remove Defensive Fire from all CVs and DDs
    • Remove Defensive Fire from ALL DDs
    • Remove Defensive Fire from IJN CVs but keep it on USN Strike and Balanced to compensate for their less fighters/squads
    • No- Keep Defensive Fire on ALL CVs
  4. 4. Manual Drops

    • Keep all manual drops
    • Keep all manual drops, BUT rework them so that it isn't so polarized (Manual Drop = all hits, Auto-drop = all misses)
    • Remove all manual drops but make auto-drops more accurate
  5. 5. Re-armament time

    • Make Re-armament time flat for all nations
    • Allow the IJN a faster re-armament time, but reduce the gap between USN and IJN re-armament times
    • No change
  6. 6. Squadron size

    • Give all nations the same squadron sizes and re-balance planes that way
    • Keep the asymmetric squadron sizes
  7. 7. Dive Bombers

    • Keep Dive Bombers the same
    • Reduce Dive Bomber dispersion
    • Buff the alpha damage of Dive Bombers to compensate for their inaccuracy
    • Change the way Dive Bombers bomb from one large circle to a cluster of smaller circles

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

43 posts in this topic

So, in anticipation of the upcoming CV rework, I've posted a poll for things I've seen discussed on the forums to see what you all want.

 

Please, vote honestly as to where your opinion lies, and, if you want, post explanations/discussions/questions in the comments.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

i think that national loadouts need to be equal, based on current USN loads. Pure strike should be removed, no carrier ever operated without fighters.

Base squad size should be four planes. IJN should get six TBers/squad while USN should get six DB/squad. Captain skills can be used to increase fighter squad size.

 

Ship mods should be able to tighten dispersion like surface ships can.  7% lower dispersion should tighten drop patterns for tb and DB for example.  Extra range should give improved loiter time.

 

Dedicated scouts should be added.  Cv should have a CAP consumable like float fighters, but a full squad of fighter/bombers that auto attack enemy ships in range or enemy strike planes.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the DB question is a bit loaded. On high tier CVs, they can already do massive damage to a DD if RNGsus says so. If the dispersion is reduced, it would bring up the reliable damage potential from DBs pretty drastically. If that were something to happen, the alpha from them would have to be reduced.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want something just a little more zoomed out than what we have on tactical map mode.

And for crying out loud -- KNOCK OFF THE FAKE LIGHT GLARE.. It gives me a headache.  Got a whole corner of the map obscured by glare.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should just make them like all ships. Instead, you use planes in place of types of shells.   LOL


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the things on this pole are things I either would want to change (so I can't say no change) but the changes aren't think I would want to change to. I'm going to answer the poll questions in this post. Stand by for updated reply.

UPDATED POST!!!!!
#1 - AA Adjustment
-- For the most part, I think they can leave AA alone. In many cases, AA is strong enough that a few ships in a group are borderline untouchable by a carrier, but a ship alone is still vulnerable to a carrier, even though the CV will likely lose a few planes in the bargain. That's how it should work really. Where I would like to see some adjustments, it's almost more of an anti-power creep thing/related to ship's roles in battle. I think the Germans have way too strong AA on their battleships and cruisers. Gameplay wise, they should be comparable to Japan. Historically, they should be really weak. German AA just wasn't that good. USN AA is supposed to be the end all be all, but because of power creep and every cruiser being able to take Defensive Fire (which is the most important part of cruiser AA escort ability) it just isn't there. I'd like to see them put in the #1 spot where they belong, and keep it that way, and I'd like to see that done by adjusting ships that are too high down, so that AA doesn't really get increased. Little increases like a range buff to the 5"/25s would be nice though. Is 5km base range really too much to ask?

 

#2 - Configuration reworks

-- I've been beating this drum for a long time. The Flight Control Module (FCM from here on in) system is ok, but the disparity between FCMs is straight up bovine feces. I'd like to see the number of fighters in a squadron unified across all CV lines in game. 4 or 5 fighters seems like an adequate number. I'd also like to see no carrier with an FCM that leaves it completely at the mercy of the same tier counterpart in other nations. Unless they do away with FCMs totally, and go to a sort of Battlestation's Midway type method of squadron management, power of fighters needs to be nearly homogenous IMO. National Flavors can still be kept in game via variations in the strike craft complements and attack methods. Example - IJN get great TBs, with good weapons and large squadrons of say 5 or 6 planes, but their DBs aren't so strong. Groups of 3 or 4, with weaker bombs. They've kind of got this in game already. USN carriers also nearly have this already too, but they should have larger DB squadrons with powerful bombs, but smaller groups of TBs with worse weapons. I also they IJN TBs should drop a tight spread, so if an IJN CV nails his drop, it's devastating, and USN drops should be more wide spread. That sort of thing. Maybe USN DBs could have AP bombs at some point too instead of HE bombs - heavy damage, but with bad fire chances. I think Britain would be TB dependent too, but maybe their actual planes could be more resilient since they are unlikely to have very many, and because of weird things like the way some of their planes were known to take a lot of battle damage because of their construction methods and still be operable and quick to repair. Germany would be really DB dependent, but maybe they could have the HE bombs and USN could have AP bombs. Stuff like that.

#3 - Defensive Fire
-- I think adding Def Fire to CVs was a good idea. CV sniping was bad, and giving CVs Def Fire was a nice, easy way to basically remove it from game. Honestly I think they should extend Def Fire down to t7 CVs. That would buff the Hiryu (god knows it doesn't need it) but whatever. Below t7, planes are so slow that CV sniping basically means the sniper carrier isn't an asset to their team even if they pull off the snipe so I don't think it's needed down there. I do think they should make Defensive Fire something that favors USN ships a little heavier than it does, and I mean a little heavier. I think USN DDs should keep it, but I think they should be able the only ones who have Def Fire until we see British DDs with the twin 5.25" DP mounts. I'm trying to think of how I would do this without it being stupid. I think my idea is ok, but it might seem complex. Right now, pretty much every non-British cruiser can choose Def Fire or Hydro. Most people take hydro since DDs are a huge part of every game, and CVs are a rare but really dangerous part of very few games. Leave Def Fire and hydro in the same slot, but give USN CAs the option to take Def Fire either in the Hydro slot, or in a separate slot, but with diminished capabilities if taken in the 2nd slot. Example - give it fewer charges, or make the bonus a bit smaller (IIRC, USN cruisers get a bigger bonus than other nations from Def Fire damage output - maybe make the bonus the same as all others when in this separate slot) or maybe give it like 15 seconds longer cool down or something. This way, any cruiser with access to Def Fire could still take it, but they have to choose to give up Hydro. A USN cruiser player could choose to give up Hydro for maximum bonuses Def Fire and be truly terrible to behold for a CV, or they could keep hydro, and take a weaker Def Fire that they can only use twice, or that cools down slow or something.

#4 - Manual Drops

-- They need to put a dedicated tutorial into the game for CV players. The first thing you do if you unlock a carrier and press battle is get prompted into an unskippable training scenario where you learn the basics of carriers like launching/recovering planes but most importantly how to do manual drops. Other than that, the only other thing I want them to do is get rid of the bull crap scenario that is in game right now where when a CV player orders a manual drop well outside of the circle, but they didn't make a run in that is straight enough, the planes loop around. That circle is the mark which means "start your drop outside of this line to avoid Idiot Loops." If my planes are outside that line and they idiot loop anyway, that's bullshlt. "But Dorja, ahistorical turning radii of planes!!!!" Yeah? They already have no fuel, cruise at laughably low speeds, only operate at one altitude, and are completely unaffected by weather, except in cyclones where they can operate, but are totally ruined by the spotting ranges. Historical figures mean nothing in this game to anything else. Why should they mean anything to aircraft turning radii?

#5 - Rearm Times
-- I think it's logical that smaller squadrons rearm faster, but I wish it were less dramatic. I think the base rearm on the Hiryu TBs is like 12 seconds, but it's 42 on the Ranger. Something like that. It should take longer to rearm a Ranger squadron. It has 2 more aircraft in it. It shouldn't take 30 seconds longer. It should take like 12 seconds longer or something. The rearm times should be different, but they shouldn't be planets apart like they are now.

#6 - Squadron size

-- I basically already alluded to that in #2 about configurations - TLDR - Fighter squadrons should be the same size, with very similar capabilities, deployable in the same number of squadrons on same tier counterpart CVs. Strike group sizes can and should vary to help give distinctiveness to different nations of CVs.

#7 - Dive Bombers
-- The only real thing I don't like about DBs is that even with a manual drop, they are just too controlled by RNG. I also think the IJN panic drop circle on their DBs is extremely stupid. If they get through the panic, best case scenario, they only have 5 bombs to drop. That circle could be cut down to 1/3 of the size it blooms to and it would still be amazing for an IJN DB to score a hit while in a panic state.

Edited by Captain_Dorja

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please nerf AA 1 ship can completely nullify a CV. Even a Benson/Fletcher can shoot down 37 planes

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote myself from another thread.

 

 

It's been a year since this thread was put up and the truth is, with the US Cruiser line getting a bit of love this next patch and sometime for them to gather data on how they perform after that patch, the CV's really need that rework sometime by this summer.

 

I know they took a decent bit of concept and idea's from Navyfield (the older 2005 version, not the NF2 that Nexus had up) but I really think they need to move more to how NF did the carriers on that game. The following would help out a lot.

 

1. Remove the hull presets with determined aircraft types. Allow the hull upgrades directly to open up aircraft slots on the ships and let the player in the consumables menu pick what aircraft types he wants to bring.

-Example: Zuiho has 4 aircraft slots, let the player be able to pick any set of 4 aircraft. Said player could go 2 fighters, 2 torpedo; 2 torpedo, 2 dive; 3 fighters 1 torpedo etc.

 

2. Remove the whole US aircraft gets more per squadron and Japan gets more squadrons. It would be a lot easier to balance with both sets having say, 5 aircraft standard and adjusted base on other national flavors.

-Example: Japan gets better aircraft torpedo's but USA gets better AP bombs (when added in) and better accuracy with dive bombers. Fighters should be better balanced vs one another with slight differences in speed/dmg/hp

 

3. Remove the fighter strafe ability against enemy aircraft and change it into a strafe ability against ships to suppress AA guns. This would give fighters a very useful ability and seriously help out CV's at higher tiers. Suppression should only work on mid and short ranged AA mounts such as 20/25mm gun and 37/40/57mm guns. DP AA gun mounts like 3''+ guns should not be affected. Also while Fighters are suppressing an enemy ship they are unable to dog fight until they finish running their suppression run making them vulnerable to enemy fighters.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont play CVs enough, but love the idea of being able to strafe surface craft. This would only work against thin skinned DDs and some CL for small dmg or maybe just against AA like was posted.

 

B

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated my post with my actual thoughts. It's a bit of a Wall of Text, and I'm certain 2/3 of people will tell me I'm full of crap (this is the internet lol). Anyway, Dorja's 200,000 cents worth found above.

I dont play CVs enough, but love the idea of being able to strafe surface craft. This would only work against thin skinned DDs and some CL for small dmg or maybe just against AA like was posted.

 

In one of those videos WG released around the holidays, they said something about new weapons. I saw one person speculate that maybe they would add in unguided rockets. USN used HVAR rockets on fighters a lot of attacking soft targets. Maybe USN CVs would get the option of mounting HVAR rockets on their fighters to give them some multi-role ability. I think that might be an interesting way to give the currently terrible fighter heavy load outs a bit more usefulness. I'd rather have viable balanced load, like every IJN CV gets from t6 up, but if they did give USN fighters HVAR rockets, and they were good against DDs and CAs, at least then an AS load would be meh at strike and meh at AS instead of being bad at strike and meh at AS.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in anticipation of the upcoming CV rework

 

This is a false rumor. Wargaming has explicitly stated that they're not looking at balance changes until after the UI rework. Currently only the interface is being changed, and nothing else has even been considered yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an idea for reworking AA since it gets a bit too much at high tiers. Make AA like secondaries and give them firing arcs.  I assume this would lead to ships having weaker AA directly forward and behind, which would be an indirect buff to DBs and US CVs. Overall, maybe make the battle for positioning between ships and planes a little more interesting and tactical.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a false rumor. Wargaming has explicitly stated that they're not looking at balance changes until after the UI rework. Currently only the interface is being changed, and nothing else has even been considered yet.

 

I've heard them explicitly state that they don't want to release new carriers until after the rework happens because they don't want to release new carriers, and then a few weeks later end up re-balancing them to keep them in line after the rework. For that logic to be true (and it does make sense, being an example of the principle of not wanting to do the same work twice) it would require a carrier rework to be more than just UI changes. As per usual, until we actually get whatever happens on the live server, this is all just reasoning light years ahead of data.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, give player freedom to choose what air group configuratuons to have in-game rather than stick to pre determined fixed loadouts. 

 

But since we know thats never gonna happen, i will be happy just to see all Air Superiority loadouts removed except for Taiho and Hak AS and give back fighters to all USN strike load outs. 

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've heard them explicitly state that they don't want to release new carriers until after the rework happens because they don't want to release new carriers, and then a few weeks later end up re-balancing them to keep them in line after the rework. For that logic to be true (and it does make sense, being an example of the principle of not wanting to do the same work twice) it would require a carrier rework to be more than just UI changes. As per usual, until we actually get whatever happens on the live server, this is all just reasoning light years ahead of data.

 

Until after the UI rework and subsequent balance changes. They have yet to say that a CV balance/mechanics rework is being looked at. The keyword being rework as opposed to just some simple changes. 

 

All it really means is that WG is hoping a lot more players will play CVs after the UI rework. This will give them a larger sample size for ship stats when looking at rebalancing. That and they're basically admitting they don't know how to fit UK CVs into the current balance scheme. 4, 5, or 6 planes per squad? Who knows. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, give player freedom to choose what air group configuratuons to have in-game rather than stick to pre determined fixed loadouts. 

 

I actually think they could do that pretty easily. Did you ever play Battlestations Midway? In [edited]Midway, the carrier had a certain number of squadrons it could launch (usually 4) and a certain number of planes of each type. If the player wanted to launch 4 squadrons of TBs, they could do it. It's just likely that they would run out of TB reserves pretty quickly. I think they could do something like this in WoWS if they wanted to. Give low tier carriers from t4 to t6 3 available slots. Make it so that no CV can have more fighters per squadron than any other. Players could then choose what they wanted. In mid tiers, say tiers 7 and 8, let them run up to 5 groups. In tiers 9 and 10, six groups. To keep someone from doing something totally [edited]like spawning 3x fighter and 3x TB groups with the Midway and just sinking everyone in one huge drop (which would certainly be done) if a combo was going to be too strong, just don't let it be done. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with most of the things in your poll, no changes needed IMHO. I would like to be able to configure squadron loadouts to whatever I want. Being stuck with predetermined squads is not fun so I normally just keep the 1/1/1 loadouts on my USN ships where it is applicable. I would also like the ability to combine my squads. For instance lets use the Saipan in a 2/2 configuration (2 ftrs/2torp). Instead of having 2 squads of fighters, would like to be able to combine the two squads to make it less fiddly. Just a preference of mine. I would love to see new weapons like rockets or larger/smaller bombs. Strafing ships would be fun as well but fear it would just cause more CV hate. I also agree with AVR Project, we really need a larger map to work with, really becomes too busy when there is lots going on. I find myself fighting mostly from the overview map (the one that you get when you press "m" and looks like a 1990's video game) because it is just too much mouse scrolling to be done on the "normal" view map. Possibly a zoomable version where each player can customize he size of the map they want.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest change needs to be how AA works. Ship mounted AA's primary impact should be increasing bomb dispersion, not shooting down planes. Give a captain a choice of shooting down 3 planes while eating 6 torpedoes, and shooting down no planes and eating 3 torpedoes, and I imagine they'll choose eating fewer torpedoes.

 

So ships get to better defend themselves, fighters become the primary way to shoot down planes.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realy not looking forward to the cv rework, if the rate which the bugs get reported and dealt with are anything to go by cvs will be fully dead after the revamp happens.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are going to keep the national flavor squad size then they need to revamp modules.  Stock modules need to be reworked to be useful as well.  

Langley 1/0/1.  That dive bomber is just eating up reserves it has no right eating up.

Bogue 1/1/1 stock loadout,  2/1 AS loadout,  0/2/1 strike loadout.  The all or none is still there but now there is a fighter option.

Indy- Same as it is now.  Indy is probably the best balanced of the early tiers.

Ranger-1/1/2 stock module,  the rest remain the same.

Lexington- Same as Ranger.

Essex- 2/1/2 stock,  the rest the same

Midway- Remains the same.

For the IJN.

Hosho- Same

 

Zuiho- Same.  ((Side note,  why does the Zuiho have her max number of squads in stock but the Bogue doesn't?))

Ryujo- Stock 1/2/2,  no strike.

Hiryu- Stock 1/2/3,  no strike.

Shokaku- Same as Hiryu

Taiho- Stock 2/2/3,  strike 1/3/3.

Hakuryu- 3/2/3 stock or 3/3/2 stock

The idea is that USN maintain a 'better' presence in the sky without being totally overwhelmed,  while IJN can deal more damage to the ocean.  The IJN trade off a fighter for a DB in most cases.  The IJN aren't useless against their USN counterparts and can't shut them down either.  USN will win the air battle but typically take enough losses to not be super effective at bringing down any bomber squadrons that might still be in the area.  The USN keep the option for an all out offensive but have the option to sacrifice some offense for defense.  CV's in general don't have to dread the stock loadout before getting a full flight.

Edited by Palladia

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are never going to give USN carriers 2x tb squadrons like you're saying for stock ranger. For one thing, it lets them do way too much damage in a coordinated drop, and for another, it's too useful to ever run any other loadout.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are never going to give USN carriers 2x tb squadrons like you're saying for stock ranger. For one thing, it lets them do way too much damage in a coordinated drop, and for another, it's too useful to ever run any other loadout.

 

No no,  DB's.  Did I screw up the numbers?  We all know they aren't going to go back to TB's,  man.   Faux pa on my part,  my apologies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No no,  DB's.  Did I screw up the numbers?  We all know they aren't going to go back to TB's,  man.   Faux pa on my part,  my apologies.

 

I think most of the time when people give the numbers, they give them as fighters/torpedoe bombers/dive bombers because in the game, when someone looks at a flight control module, it lists from top to bottom in the same order I listed before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think most of the time when people give the numbers, they give them as fighters/torpedoe bombers/dive bombers because in the game, when someone looks at a flight control module, it lists from top to bottom in the same order I listed before.

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Midway

 

That was my point of reference.  Also looking in game at the Flight control modules themselves it lists them from top to bottom as Fighters,  TB's,  and DB's,  same as...!@#$,  I screwed up the Ranger,  I'll edit that.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.