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

Please explain US strike Vs IJN Strike.

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
440 posts
10,381 battles

i admit for a while i was having fun with the Ranger, but a have had a streak of games facing good Hiryu captains. 

When the Hiryu captains are good you just dont have a chance.

 

I dont understand why they get 2 Fighters in there strike load and US gets None.

 

US having no fighters mean you have to keep your CV near your teammates, no chance to operate alone. US CV aa is not enough to deal with 2 Torp and 2 Bombers.....most of the time the IJN CV can take you out in one Strike.

One or two good Fighter Strafes and there goes your planes.

 

I just dont understand.

I welcome any advice. I really was enjoying the Ranger, but man starting to see just how much more dominant the Hiryu can be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,693
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,885 posts
21,765 battles

Because whiners in beta complained that USN CVs were "OP" so USN CVs had their flight layouts altered to the point that USN CVs only have advantages over IJN CVs at tiers 4,5 and 9!:sceptic: It used to be USN CVs had advantages at tiers 4,8 and 10, while tiers 5, 6 and 7 were contested and tier 9 was favored for IJN!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[IN3PT]
Beta Testers
1,703 posts
6,511 battles

I dont understand why they get 2 Fighters in there strike load and US gets None. 

 

We're all wondering this if it helps at all, WG has some insane notion in their head that USN *Must* contend with 3 different equally undesirable loadouts.

 

US having no fighters mean you have to keep your CV near your teammates, no chance to operate alone. US CV aa is not enough to deal with 2 Torp and 2 Bombers.....most of the time the IJN CV can take you out in one Strike.

One or two good Fighter Strafes and there goes your planes.

 

I just dont understand.

I welcome any advice. I really was enjoying the Ranger, but man starting to see just how much more dominant the Hiryu can be.  

 

I ground through Ranger entirely playing strike this summer (I don't think my experience is too obsolete as this was after all the overhauls save the recent captain skill overhaul). I had pretty decent success actually building my ship for AA, granted BFT was a 1 point skill then, but Hiryu's strike craft are tier 6 planes iirc and can be pretty rapidly felled by Ranger's B hull with BFT, AFT and the +20% AA range upgrade, I never had the points available to use Manual AA and unless you've got an 18+ point captain you probably don't want to try for that over the bonus dive bombers. You lose some plane turnaround time, but you're much more apt to stay alive and any time the red CV wastes trying to kill you is time he's not spending trying to kill your teammates. I found in Ranger, I needed to defend myself, as it's got such a terrible detection range that trying to stay near enough to friendlies to use their AA often made me a target of red BBs.

 

To keep my planes alive in the face of Hiryu fighters I'd keep them near AA cruisers that were also pushing the front to go DD hunting (Clevelands, smoke 'n shoot Kutusovs, Atlantas, etc) then darting out at the nearest reds. These tended to be either DDs (always try to kill/spot red DDs) or BBs pushing into smack my cruiser buds around, dispatching either tends to keep friendlies alive and help swing the fight.

 

Some people hate you for running strike (they think it's your job to shoot down red planes so they have no risk of being bombed, they're dumb), I found the best way to mollify this sentiment and promote teamplay was to announce that you were strike and to ask what particular sort of target the team wanted you to prioritize. Smart teams would say DDs and I think they were happy to know I was playing strike to kill reds, not just to pad my personal damage numbers. It seemed to work for me at any rate. 

 

I stopped shortly after unlocking Lexington as everyone at tier 8 had the skill that gave an extra fighter/dive bomber per squad and I only had a 13 point captain and insufficient patience to grind him up in that environment... maybe I should get back in the CV saddle though, as Lex's 2/0/2 didn't seem too awful an idea with the extra planes and the 1000 pound bombs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
738 posts
6,483 battles

Advice? From Tier 5 to Tier 10, always chose Stock USN loadout in order to best conpete against IJN. 

 

Better advice, just go IJN until USN gets fixed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[DHO-2]
Beta Testers
1,257 posts
12,077 battles

Because it a team game.  Its not CV vs CV,

 

it's CV +11 vs CV +11.  (or CV x2 +10 vs CV x2 +10)

 

ether how, your team should make up the difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Because whiners in beta complained that USN CVs were "OP" so USN CVs had their flight layouts altered to the point that USN CVs only have advantages over IJN CVs at tiers 4,5 and 9!:sceptic: It used to be USN CVs had advantages at tiers 4,8 and 10, while tiers 5, 6 and 7 were contested and tier 9 was favored for IJN!

T9 was not in Taiho's favor back when Essex had her double torpedo plane squads.  USN torpedoes and bombs both did more damage, and Essex has a deeper reserve than Taiho.  T5, T6, and T8 were pretty much even before the USN CV "rework," while T4, T9, and T10 were in favor of the USN and T7 the IJN (barely).

 

There is no explanation for USN strike loadouts.  WG decided to nerf IJN ones by replacing a torpedo bomber squad with a fighter squad from Zuiho onwards in the strike loadouts, then replaced a torpedo squad with a bomber squad for the USN because sober Russian logic.

Edited by TenguBlade
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,256 posts
4,322 battles

You can't just give USN packages a fighter ir take one away from IJN. At least through tier 8.

 

I didn't play Lexington much because I got my rear end to by the same shokaku player 4 times in a row. I switched to AS and and completely shut him down. And I don't mean "I limited him" I mean I shut him down to the point that his entire battlefield presents was the 15k AA bubble around his CV.

 

With CVs I'm average at best and if I can turn the tables so profoundly with +1 fighter squadron. Imagine what someone who's actually good could do.

 

Below Tier 8 1 fighter squadron is a match for everything short of an AS cv. Give me a 1-1-2 ranger with the new skill tree and its bad, give me a 2-1-1 and it over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
Members
2,688 posts
4,560 battles

You can't just give USN packages a fighter ir take one away from IJN. At least through tier 8.

 

I didn't play Lexington much because I got my rear end to by the same shokaku player 4 times in a row. I switched to AS and and completely shut him down. And I don't mean "I limited him" I mean I shut him down to the point that his entire battlefield presents was the 15k AA bubble around his CV.

 

With CVs I'm average at best and if I can turn the tables so profoundly with +1 fighter squadron. Imagine what someone who's actually good could do.

 

Below Tier 8 1 fighter squadron is a match for everything short of an AS cv. Give me a 1-1-2 ranger with the new skill tree and its bad, give me a 2-1-1 and it over.

 

1/1/2 is still going to go in favor of the IJN but at least they couldn't just stomple all over USN strike.  2/1/1 is called AS.  

 

Also,  you went from being not-really-okay at anti-air to being literally AS.  Of course you beat him at that point.

 

Yes,  they can and need to shuffle flight groups around.  If USN's focus is going to be fighters then they need to have freaking fighters.  Change IJN's 2/2/2 to a 1/3/2 ((T7 and 8)) and USN's 0/3/1 to a 1/2/1.  USN has the fighter advantage ((7 planes to 5)) and IJN has the strike advantage.   IJN can still use that plane to deter the 1/2/1 from overrunning it and the USN can still deal damage.  USN will be better at anti-air,  IJN will be better at anti-ship.  Each has a focus its good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,256 posts
4,322 battles

No, for Ranger I ran 1-1-1 and could contend with every CV I faced. Not always beat them but not get shut down. You double my anti air capabilities without nerfing damage potential is just wrong. All you would be doing is switching the current setup to USN > IJN. Arbitrarily adding a fighter to USN is not the answer unless you want them op

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
440 posts
10,381 battles

No, for Ranger I ran 1-1-1 and could contend with every CV I faced. Not always beat them but not get shut down. You double my anti air capabilities without nerfing damage potential is just wrong. All you would be doing is switching the current setup to USN > IJN. Arbitrarily adding a fighter to USN is not the answer unless you want them op

 

idk, seams like losing 2 dive bombers squads to gain just one fighter squad not to mention going down to 3 over all squads instead of 4. That load out is not very DPSish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[FDI]
Beta Testers
34 posts
4,737 battles

 

I ran strike Ranger around 75% of the games i had in it, the rest of the games i had a mix of AS and balanced. Doing a 1-1-1 was a lot more helpful to the team and got more XP than AS; however, the strike Ranger was amazing fun, and was very profitable. Now, I have the Lexi unlocked and its a ton of fun playing strike, Shokakus are not a problem and neither are AS Lexi's. I'm averaging around 100k a game according to warshipstoday, generally at tier 8 the maps are far too large for fighters to stop my attacks of their team, especially if I sacrifice one of my DB's to let their fighters going around the map chasing it :P. Just keep grinding to the Lexi, its painful but definitely worth it once you get to the Lexi :)
Edited by cjwagn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,369 posts
3,667 battles

Because it a team game.  Its not CV vs CV,

 

it's CV +11 vs CV +11.  (or CV x2 +10 vs CV x2 +10)

 

ether how, your team should make up the difference

 

Honestly, in all my CV games, i felt it was CV vs CV.  Since i know which ships to attack and which to avoid (generally speaking) the only variable i couldnt predict was the enemy CV driver.  Will he be good, will he be rubbish, will he try to snipe or just farm my team for damage.   The other 22 ships in the match are destructible scenery. 

 

My highest CVs are tier 7, so take this with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
Members
2,688 posts
4,560 battles

No, for Ranger I ran 1-1-1 and could contend with every CV I faced. Not always beat them but not get shut down. You double my anti air capabilities without nerfing damage potential is just wrong. All you would be doing is switching the current setup to USN > IJN. Arbitrarily adding a fighter to USN is not the answer unless you want them op

 

Not at all,  dude.  You change it to 5 vs 7 instead of 10 vs 0.  IJN still have the advantage against seaward targets ((Like they do now)) but the USN can now actually defend themselves.  Not sure where you are thinking that'd be OP.  Right now the IJN's ability to field two fighters for double the ability to take down USN fighters or fend off AS adequately is whats broken. Change it so that strike have to use their plane for defense and you even the playing field and make USN CV's more attractive.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,256 posts
4,322 battles

USN strafes are an order of magnitude more destructive than their IJN counter parts. Until tier 8 1 vs 2 squadrons is fair. Once you get strike at tier 7 your can just bully your way to good damage. I only played a limited amount of games as a strike ranger and was more a test of concepts. IJN couldn't stop me from killing whichever target I wanted. Only 2 of them actually tried to defend their fleet and both of those games were 120k+ where I just rammed my down his throat. To add some perspective I did the same thing against an AS Saipan for 66k and AS ranger for just over 40k. The Ranger killed the least planes but used us fighters to debuff my bombers and conserved ammo by not "revenge killing" bombers. Something important to note is that ranger was the only one to keep my target alive.

Adding a fighter at the cost of 1 dive bomber would make the strike ranger easily the strongest tech tree CV at tier 7 with the 2-1-1 a close second.

 

IJN does have a slight advantage at tier 7 but any real buff to USN can easily flip that. Instead of adjust what balance we have. WG should shorten detection range and aircraft service time for USN until they roughly balance. Tier 8 could use some help in that USN fighters either lose or dominate in such a why that AS is overkill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
7,776 battles

American carriers above T7 now just completely suck. T9 and above is even worse because top tier ships have better AA as well.  It wouldn't be bad if IJN cvs didn't have the 3 torp squads but when they can bracket a ship the way they do it complete throws the game out of balance.  Best solution would be to get rid of the unmatched squad crap and make 3 set load outs the same with the same number of planes in each.  Then it comes down to what particular player likes what loadout.  Example is the Essex strike, 6Fs, 6Ts, 18DBs, make the Taiho the same.  Player skill comes into account then, not some mismatched crap of 10F, 10DB and 12Ts, even tho I think the Taiho gets 12DBs, don't remember.  Even base numbers mean that IJN capts can lock up your fighters with one squad and kill your planes with the other.  I know the game is roughly based on history, but I'm pretty sure that ended by 1943.  Make player skill matter, not this unbalanced crap.

 PS fix matchmaker while your at it, +- 2 is terrible. Tiers 1-2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10.  No reason a Nurnberg is stuck fighting Bismarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
440 posts
10,381 battles

This is what i would say about fighters.

 

1. Strafe need to go.

2. Fighters ammo capacity is to large.

    Fighters with their large Ammo pools are able to Loiter to long and engage to many squadrons.  Fighters should have enough ammo to engage one, maybe two enemy squadrons and THATS it. After that they should be heading back to the CV to rearm.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

This is what i would say about fighters.

 

1. Strafe need to go.

2. Fighters ammo capacity is to large.

    Fighters with their large Ammo pools are able to Loiter to long and engage to many squadrons.  Fighters should have enough ammo to engage one, maybe two enemy squadrons and THATS it. After that they should be heading back to the CV to rearm.  

Strafe would be fine if fighters actually blew a noticeable amount of ammo to use it.  Because with all the increases to their ammo pools, they aren't now.  The main reason it's so unbalanced is because USN strafe does a metric fuckton of damage and they can do multiple without rearming, but IJN fighters can just gangbang them and tie them up with superior numbers if the USN skipper isn't careful.  With how screwy the UI can be and the reliance of good CV play on consistent, fast internet, that's not likely to be the case.

 

Honestly, almost all the problems with both nations could be solved if WG just standardized squadron sizes and made the national flavor manifest in composition of the CV's air wing (both in ordnance and flight control layouts) and not size of squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
440 posts
10,381 battles

Strafe would be fine if fighters actually blew a noticeable amount of ammo to use it.  Because with all the increases to their ammo pools, they aren't now.  The main reason it's so unbalanced is because USN strafe does a metric fuckton of damage and they can do multiple without rearming, but IJN fighters can just gangbang them and tie them up with superior numbers if the USN skipper isn't careful.  With how screwy the UI can be and the reliance of good CV play on consistent, fast internet, that's not likely to be the case.

 

Honestly, almost all the problems with both nations could be solved if WG just standardized squadron sizes and made the national flavor manifest in composition of the CV's air wing (both in ordnance and flight control layouts) and not size of squads.

I agree. That is the point i am trying to make. Fighter Ammo pools are too large.

Also, the risks for using Strafe is not high enough. With such a large ammo pool to burn through players are willing to set up a strafe even thought that strafe runs a high risk of missing its target. The player can just set up another one and another one.

 

Image if DB and Torp squadrons could run two or three Attack runs before having to head back to the CV. The single ammo load on the strike squadrons leaves no room for error. This should be the Same for Fighters.

 

The current system for fighters is also not very historical or immersive. What CV Captain in RL would send its Fighter squadrons out to loiter in some random area while sending its Strike Craft unescorted or leave its CV without any CAP.

 

Limiting that Ammo Pool Forces them to be way more tactical on when to engage a target as after that engagement is done that fighter will be forced to rearm.

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.

×