Battlecruiser_Renown

'Sky Cancer Hell Weekend' really shines a light on why CVs are so broken.

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

462 posts in this topic

Thanks for reminding me I should run my Taiho, help do my part to counter DD stealth and get BBs to turn broadside to my team's BBs.

 

People need to quit crying about "sky cancer" (insult to folk that've seen the terror in their friends or family) and instead learn to move in groups.

 

That works for enough of the match, seeing as AA feels OP whenever AA builds group up.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FTFY...

 

Your CV player does not have to be red to lose the game for you before the countdown even finishes. Just not as good as the other guy.

 

Being not as good as the other guy(s) is why everybody loses.  RNG/luck on both sides is a factor that can be ignored in this context.  And, the argument that, with all other players being equal rating, it's down to the CV rating is making a flawed assumption - ratings are average performance.  Anybody can be a waste of potential in any given match, anybody can manage to look like an MVP in any given match.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Being not as good as the other guy(s) is why everybody loses.  RNG/luck on both sides is a factor that can be ignored in this context.  And, the argument that, with all other players being equal rating, it's down to the CV rating is making a flawed assumption - ratings are average performance.  Anybody can be a waste of potential in any given match, anybody can manage to look like an MVP in any given match.

 

This is where the problem sits. Yes, by not being as good as the next guy, that is how you lose.

 

The problem is, the team can generally pick up the slack from one bad DD player (even one that gets deleted within the first 2 minutes dealing 0 damage), or one bad BB player, or several bad cruiser players.

 

One bad CV player though???? HA!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is where the problem sits. Yes, by not being as good as the next guy, that is how you lose.

 

The problem is, the team can generally pick up the slack from one bad DD player (even one that gets deleted within the first 2 minutes dealing 0 damage), or one bad BB player, or several bad cruiser players.

 

One bad CV player though???? HA!

 

Would you prefer it if there were two CVs every single match so the second carrier can "pick up the slack"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CVs from Japan have better mods. Some American CVs are forced to give up ALL fighters to get damage and become vulnerable to Japanese fighters.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would you prefer it if there were two CVs every single match so the second carrier can "pick up the slack"?

 

Honestly, I am at a complete and total loss on how to fix the problem with balancing CV's. I doubt that any of the changes in the upcoming patch are going to make a real, tangible difference.

 

Its the fact that CV's are playing a completely different game than any of the other three classes. Literally. DD, CA/CL, BB, they are all playing something akin to a third person shooter or action MMO. CV's are playing a top down RTS.

 

How the hell.... can you reconcile those two in a way that is balanced and engaging, with meaningful, two way combat for both sides? I have no clue.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what gets me about CV mission weekends?

I take out my AA cruisers to farm plane kills,,,,I mean protect my fleet from Sky Cancer and I barely see one CV let alone be able to down planes. 

But Take a ship with weak AA defense and those scrubby CVs are all over me. 

I need a way to cloak my Cleveland or Atlanta so it looks like a defenseless Destroyers or clueless Battleship. 

 

Yes, forget concealment, and dispersion, when I'm in my AA cruisers I want a clueless battleship camo.:trollface:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People need to quit crying about "sky cancer" (insult to folk that've seen the terror in their friends or family) and instead learn to move in groups.

 

Total nonsense. You can't move in groups, not with ships dying and caps spread out. CVs are cancerous and need to be removed from the game.

 

WG only keeps CVs in to reduce its costs. They have no positive game function, and game after game without them works perfectly well. Interactions with other players, especially when they are good, are enjoyable and stimulating. No interaction with a CV is enjoyable, except burning them.

 

No one ever writes posts in the forum complaining that they played five games that day without a CV and how terrible that was. Instead the forum is filled with complaints about CVs, and rightly so, since they degrade gameplay and inflict pointless cancerous damage on ships for no reason at all. 

 

CV play is unethical, unethical to put them in the game, unethical to play them. 

 

 


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding me I should run my Taiho, help do my part to counter DD stealth and get BBs to turn broadside to my team's BBs.

 

People need to quit crying about "sky cancer" (insult to folk that've seen the terror in their friends or family) and instead learn to move in groups.

 

That works for enough of the match, seeing as AA feels OP whenever AA builds group up.

 

That would work, but that's not how the game is played.  There are some many elements at play with the CV problem that it is hard to fix, and that's why is hasn't been "fixed".  The big problem is that the game dynamics and balancing, as of now, are for few CV matches.  If the number of CV matches goes up in any meaningful way the game dynamics and balancing are going to get screwed up and people will notice (and complain).  We are seeing this in mini form now with the carrier weekend. 

 

My experience from yesterday if you're so inclined to read it. 

I can't remember the last a CV sunk me prior to this weekend.  I was sunk twice yesterday by CVs.  One time I was alone in a CL ninja'ing a cap, the other was in a DD disengaging with another DD.  You could make the argument I made mistakes and paid for them.  Sure, but I would counter that these small mistakes, if you would call them mistakes at all.  My point, if surface ships have to keep an eye on the enemy ships, and in the sky at all times, in every match, that is going to chance the game dramatically.  Seems like a lot to ask to accommodate a fairly small group of the player base.  We shall see where it all goes....

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume these were tier 8 CVs, because there is no tier 9 load out that has no fighters. And if a t8 CV wrecks in a t10 game, it says more about the team being wrecked than CVS in general.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really believe that 66% of your chance of winning or losing is solely on the back of your CV. And that is where they aggravate me. I feel like nothing more than fodder on the playing field while the two CV drivers play their own game against each other, while farming token damage off the other 11 players.

This is the main reason why people don't like CVs and why they can never be balanced with the other ships. They are not playing the same game as everybody else. They can attack anywhere on the map with no risk to themselves for a third of the game while everybody else just has to accept it. That's not fun for the other 22 players.

 

Imagine how fun it would be if every ship had a self destruct function and 2 people watching the game took turns rolling the dice to see who was the next to push the button and sink a ship? Same concept and no it wouldn't be very fun.

 

AA builds are pointless and just a detriment to your team. You don't see enough CVs to make it worthwhile. In every game without CVs, your ship is disadvantaged compared to everybody else with proper offensive builds. Even in matches with CVs, your AA build only helps you against the single enemy CV and puts you at a disadvantage versus every other enemy. There's also the issue that AA bubbles are so small that unless you're scraping hulls with somebody, the planes will just come in from the other side of the ship you're supposed to protect.

 

Curiously WG decided that higher tier ships should lose maneuverability while CVs gain more squadrons? How does that make sense?

 

Lately I've noticed people have realized that AA builds are not useful so you hardly see them anymore. This makes it even worse when you do land in a match with CVs and no AA builds.

 

And let's not forget about MM's tendency to put a lone BB off on the very edge of the map waiting for the inevitable and undefended CV strike. Fun and engaging!

 

CVs are in the game and will not be removed. Fine. Remove manual drops and balance the squadron numbers between the CV nations. Then they will not be the main deciding factors in the game and should do damage comparable to the other classes. This fixes the skill gaps as well.

Edited by Chrifister

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I play Baltimore, I usually run AA.  If a carrier is present, I try to find the Battle group that needs AA support and run AA for that group the first half of the game.  Oddly enough, I only see a CV about 20% of my games.  And in about half of those the CV captain avoids me altogether.

 

Although my stats with Balt are kinda poor, I am extremely effective in AA role.  I try to run interference and catch 'em before they make an attack run.  The smart CV captains try to bait me, and when I don't fall for it, they go somewhere else.  The overly aggressive ones just continue, and once they are committed, I go high alert and shred 'em bad.  Ships I escort rarely get hit by an air attack. 

 

So, for all you BB players...when you see a Balt headed your way just after the game begins when a CV is present...let 'em hook up.  I pretty much follow the BB (or main BB group), as long as they are engaging properly (i.e., don't hang in the back and snipe).

 

All said, 90% of my high alert premiums are wasted because CVs either don't show, or don't want to play with me.  Bring on the sky cancer.  Chemo is ready. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the main reason why people don't like CVs and why they can never be balanced with the other ships. They are not playing the same game as everybody else. They can attack anywhere on the map with no risk to themselves for a third of the game while everybody else just has to accept it. That's not fun for the other 22 players.

 

Imagine how fun it would be if every ship had a self destruct function and 2 people watching the game took turns rolling the dice to see who was the next to push the button and sink a ship? Same concept and no it wouldn't be very fun.

 

AA builds are pointless and just a detriment to your team. You don't see enough CVs to make it worthwhile. In every game without CVs, your ship is disadvantaged compared to everybody else with proper offensive builds. Even in matches with CVs, your AA build only helps you against the single enemy CV and puts you at a disadvantage versus every other enemy. There's also the issue that AA bubbles are so small that unless you're scraping hulls with somebody, the planes will just come in from the other side of the ship you're supposed to protect.

 

Curiously WG decided that higher tier ships should lose maneuverability while CVs gain more squadrons? How does that make sense?

 

Lately I've noticed people have realized that AA builds are not useful so you hardly see them anymore. This makes it even worse when you do land in a match with CVs and no AA builds.

 

And let's not forget about MM's tendency to put a lone BB off on the very edge of the map waiting for the inevitable and undefended CV strike. Fun and engaging!

 

CVs are in the game and will not be removed. Fine. Remove manual drops and balance the squadron numbers between the CV nations. Then they will not be the main deciding factors in the game and should do damage comparable to the other classes. This fixes the skill gaps as well.

 

I would even go as far as saying they are the Slenderman of Warships.

 

You can go for most of the round avoiding them. But they will always be slowly catching up to you, following the clues to find you. Until they pop up out of the dark and you have a heart attack.

 

It is fun suspense in a game where avoiding that is the sole objective. But, when you are also having to fight other characters at the same time...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Total nonsense. You can't move in groups, not with ships dying and caps spread out. CVs are cancerous and need to be removed from the game.

 

WG only keeps CVs in to reduce its costs. They have no positive game function, and game after game without them works perfectly well. Interactions with other players, especially when they are good, are enjoyable and stimulating. No interaction with a CV is enjoyable, except burning them.

 

No one ever writes posts in the forum complaining that they played five games that day without a CV and how terrible that was. Instead the forum is filled with complaints about CVs, and rightly so, since they degrade gameplay and inflict pointless cancerous damage on ships for no reason at all. 

 

CV play is unethical, unethical to put them in the game, unethical to play them. 

 

 

 

And, again, you fall back on empty statements.   I enjoy matches with CV's in them.  So, that renders your point no interactions with them are enjoyable false.

 

And, again - their inclusion has nothing to do with ethics.  Stop misusing the concept.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And, again, you fall back on empty statements.   I enjoy matches with CV's in them.  So, that renders your point no interactions with them are enjoyable false.

 

And, again - their inclusion has nothing to do with ethics.  Stop misusing the concept.

 

It's not an empty statement.  The majority of players, as evidenced by the number of sky cancer hate threads...do not like CVs.  WG has admitted this, they have come right out and said their players do not want Midway, they want Jutland.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not an empty statement.  The majority of players, as evidenced by the number of sky cancer hate threads...do not like CVs.  WG has admitted this, they have come right out and said their players do not want Midway, they want Jutland.

 

Yes, give me Jutland!  I rewatch those Jutland documentaries all the time!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Total nonsense. You can't move in groups, not with ships dying and caps spread out. CVs are cancerous and need to be removed from the game.

 

WG only keeps CVs in to reduce its costs. They have no positive game function, and game after game without them works perfectly well. Interactions with other players, especially when they are good, are enjoyable and stimulating. No interaction with a CV is enjoyable, except burning them.

 

No one ever writes posts in the forum complaining that they played five games that day without a CV and how terrible that was. Instead the forum is filled with complaints about CVs, and rightly so, since they degrade gameplay and inflict pointless cancerous damage on ships for no reason at all. 

 

CV play is unethical, unethical to put them in the game, unethical to play them. 

 

 

CVs need to be more common not less to counter BBs running roughshod over everything else. I mostly run cruisers with full AA specs and skills and they do not concern me at all when they show up in MM. Those that do get wrecked by CVs almost invariably outrun their support- that's on them- at least in my experiences.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap am I tired of seeing carriers. Admittedly, you run into them a lot more at lower tiers, but playing my Yamato, bumping into a tier IX or X carrier is... pretty rare. Like, maybe 1 in 7 or 8 games, if I'm lucky. But this weekend? This weekend I am lucky to see a game without. And it has been... illuminating.

 

Getting torpedoed and shot at is a way of life for a Yamato captain. Your ship turns about as well as a freight train with a steering wheel, you're slow, your AA blows... so not only are you being primaried by everything under the sun, but it's just a flat-out bad ship for carrier warfare. If there's a carrier in a match I'm in, I expect he's going to hurt me - especially if our CV isn't very good. So I don't really have a problem with getting nailed by carriers per se; encounters with these venomous pit vipers are rare, and chances are pretty good they suck.

 

Basically, this post isn't specifically a battleship whine.

 

Rather, I'm tired of being a carrier teammate who is consistently let down by such an important roleplayer in our fleet. As an example, a couple of games ago, we had a match with a pair of tier IX CVs. Their CV had fighters, and was doing his best to stay fairly close to the action (keeping his squadron cyclic rate high), while nuking priority targets. Our CV, on the other hand, sailed in the opposite direction, had no fighters, and spent almost a full third of the match time sending his four squadrons on an exhaustive pan-global jaunt in an enormous circle route to the north, all to commit a single strike on their carrier that didn't even take half his health. The squadrons were decimated on their return trip. So, while the enemy carrier racked up 3 kills and something like 180k damage, our's spent the rest of the map ineffectually performing attacks on an Iowa.

 

Bravo.

 

And this is the problem with carriers. Because their presence in a game represents such an enormous potential to influence outcome, having a dud CV is faaaaaar worse than say, a crap cruiser, or a pitiful destroyer. Potato teammates are just a thing in WoWs - I get that; I know. They are, mercifully, a thing on both sides. But it's very, very difficult for me to reconcile the unicum vs. tater debate when you're talking about carriers. And that's what's wrong. That's what's broken. These units have too high a skill cap, too low a basement, and too much influence on the ebb and flow of gameplay.

 

So I'm completely fine with eating a full spread of torpedoes because I got tunnel vision - poop happens. But I am really, really exhausted with being let down by the poor play of a single teammate who can't carry his own immense weight.

 

 

Is Yamato AA really that bad? It looks like it is so loaded with AA??? Granted some of the guns are probably dual purpose so they need manual aim for AA?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CVs need to be more common not less to counter BBs running roughshod over everything else. I mostly run cruisers with full AA specs and skills and they do not concern me at all when they show up in MM. Those that do get wrecked by CVs almost invariably outrun their support- that's on them- at least in my experiences.

 

Occasionally a ship will get taken out very early if the CVs rush everything to enemy soawn early and manage to avoid the worst of the AA fire.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is Yamato AA really that bad? It looks like it is so loaded with AA??? Granted some of the guns are probably dual purpose so they need manual aim for AA?

Yamato AA is poor to begin with, and made worse by being laughably short ranged. This wasn't a thread to moan about it, however.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehl oh ehl.

Players like OP are the reason things get nerfed into uselessness. Its not enough that his mountain of a ship cant out turn planes 1/1000 of its size while lolpenning anything in range. Oh while having the best torpedo belt in game too. He has to have no weaknesses come 6.3. 


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yamato AA is poor to begin with, and made worse by being laughably short ranged. This wasn't a thread to moan about it, however.

 

lol guess the solution is to have a cruiser or 2 provide AA screening. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night a Taiho hunted down my DD with 3 full torp squadrons then crossed dropped all 3, it would take an act of God to survive that attack. At the end of the match he had 6kills. It was frustrating yet impressive to see how a skilled cv player can solo carry and wreck havoc all across the map with ease.

 

Anyone that posts up a performance with Kraken or more kills, team carries, nobody bats an eye.  The moment a CV does that, everybody loses their friggin' minds. Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70% WR carrier player doesn't want his clubbers touched.

 

FTFY

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting torpedoed and shot at is a way of life for a Yamato captain. Your ship turns about as well as a freight train with a steering wheel, you're slow, your AA blows... so not only are you being primaried by everything under the sun, but it's just a flat-out bad ship for carrier warfare. If there's a carrier in a match I'm in, I expect he's going to hurt me - especially if our CV isn't very good. So I don't really have a problem with getting nailed by carriers per se; encounters with these venomous pit vipers are rare, and chances are pretty good they suck...

 

...Our CV, on the other hand, sailed in the opposite direction, had no fighters... So, while the enemy carrier racked up 3 kills and something like 180k damage, our's spent the rest of the map ineffectually performing attacks on an Iowa.

 

...So I'm completely fine with eating a full spread of torpedoes because I got tunnel vision - poop happens. But I am really, really exhausted with being let down by the poor play of a single teammate who can't carry his own immense weight.

 

I think these criticisms reveal far more about BB play than they do about CV play.

 

Yes, a CV can mitigate - and sometimes eliminate - an incoming attack on the team, but that only occurs if the enemy CV is completely incompetent.  No CV can eliminate an incoming attack in the higher tiers - in short, what you are unknowingly demonstrating is not incompetence on the part of the CV, but incompetence on the part of the entire team (of which you are part of that failing).

 

You're not demonstrating any real insight as to how CV play can really turn a game.

 

If a CV is killing ships left and right with 200k damage, it's either an end-game scenario in which the CV is just cleaning up, or (more likely) it's because the team refused to move together in formation and overlap their AAs, going in different directions heedless of any strategy to counter the CV threat.  Competitive play constrasts Random play in this regard more than any other.

 

Invalid criticism: "CV not doing enough damage and letting enemy CV kill us."

 

Valid criticism: "CV failing to spot."

 

The first demonstrates the inability to comprehend how CVs work - and with it, the inability to adjust your play to counter the enemy CV, while helping your own. 

 

The second demonstrates at least some understanding of what a CV's most important skillset is; not manual drops and killing planes, but map awareness and reconnaissance.   Yes, farming damage and killing planes have a role, but any CV captain learns this.  The truly advanced Captains (of any ship) know that a CV can "do nothing", jockey with the enemy CV planes without killing any planes or ships, hover around the team's formation, spot, send an empty DB as an area-denial for flanking DDs, etc. and win convincingly.  Manual drops are rather prosaic to high-tier CVs - it's the other parts and the ability to manage all those objectives and resources at once that's hard. 

 

If a T10 CV is killing ships left and right with 200k damage, that says more about the opponent than the CV.  Your team refused to get in formation and overlap their AAs, going in different directions heedless of any strategy to counter the CV threat.  That may be typical in Random play, but bad play is still bad play.  AA has already been been buffed to the point where isolated ships can eliminate entire strike waves.  This (and the lack of team play envisioned by WG) has led to a dearth of CV players which has also led inadvertently to lower USN win rates (they'd probably still be low, but not as low).  The USN line is roundly considered the weakest line of ships; a look at their win rates amassed at the bottom of the Win% charts makes this indisputable.  However, the USN Win% might have been better if there were more CVs and teams that knew how to make use of the USN AA (which has become a diluted strong suit with recent AA buffs).

 

The best way to counter a CV attack is to sail in tight formation with other units.  In fact, just sailing with a single cruiser is enough to blunt any air attack.  If you can't do that, you're clearly not skilled enough at this game.  If you choose to disregard it because it just doesn't fit your style, you deserve any damage you get.  If you're complaining that one of the most OP units in the game has one weakness (and not much of one because teh Yamato AA is still daunting; unlike a DD, a CV can't delete you when you make a boneheaded mistake), and doesn't have every advantage over a Montana (which Yamatos happily farm damage from every game), well...

 

...you're blaming someone or something else by complaining about not being protected by CV fighters, which is not really a CV's job.  That's the job of the team.   Get into formations of overlapping AA when you know the enemy planes are closing.  It's really a simple mechanic. 

 

https://wowreplays.com/Replay/31940

 

This game from last night is exactly why I do not like CV's. Our CV is no slouch, in most other ships. Checking out his page, he is a very good player in most ships, but faced off against the very, very good enemy Shokaku, there was just no hope for this round. Even though we had players in all of our other ships that were theoretically stronger....

 

There were a few mistakes early on that helped out. One of our strongest cruiser players was deleted early. We let a Benson have free reign to harass myself and our FDG for the whole game, just to name a few. But, based on the skill levels of the other players, we should have easily had this round, the CV changed all of that.

 

I really believe that 66% of your chance of winning or losing is solely on the back of your CV. And that is where they aggravate me. I feel like nothing more than fodder on the playing field while the two CV drivers play their own game against each other, while farming token damage off the other 11 players.

 

No.

 

It is clear to me that your team lost for one reason: you attempted to take all 3 caps and divided your forces across all 3. 

 

In truth you never gave your CV any real opportunity to play a role, charging in so fast and being so spread out.  His planes weren't even in the air to be able to recon the enemy strength.  Common theme in Randoms, but still a huge mistake.  At no time whatsoever did you attempt to sail in formation.  At no time did you ask for spotting, let alone actually wait for it.  At no time did your DDs seem at all concerned with enemy planes spotting them - they charged the caps heedless of any support (typical).  You basically had a 3-pronged yolo attack on each of the caps; naturally, the prong that met the enemy main force at A disintegrated.  Your opponent sent their main force to A, and even their minor skirmishing force at B was in position to support A.

 

Again, this is a case of blaming the CV for what is a failure of strategy and teamwork - actually it's a failure of having no strategy or teamwork.

 

Nevertheless, if I had to put blame on this loss:

 

1) DDs, because they ultimately forced their strategy on the team (like always), being the cappers and the first to make contact; if they sail in one direction, every other ship is almost forced to follow and support them, including the CV.

 

2) BBs, because they are the center of gravity (like always).  They may be forced to support the DDs, but as your replay demonstrates, you had multiple opportunities to peel off C and head west to support your A elements which were obviously going to be overrun, or at least help your B element to survive and possibly win their yolo attempt.  Heck, a little communication might have been worth it; telling them to withdraw from A immediately after you saw the mass of ships south of A (and the lack of ships south of C).  Instead, you sailed right through C that had long since been capped and was empty of enemy ships in the vicinity (why?), blocking yourselves off from supporting A and B because you obstructed your own guns with big islands. Thus, two BBs took their big guns out of play, while the enemy team's big guns wailed away at the rest of your team.  Even when your DD and cruiser sailed to B, you decided not to support them, and sailed south putting another big island between you and the team (as opposed to sailing through a corridor which would have given you perfect shots right into B and indirect fire into A).  5 criitical minutes in the game passed and the 2 BBs at C had neutralized themselves, having no effect on the enemy strategy because they sailed themselves right into a "mission-kill".  By the time you sailed around C and to B, it was over, and the enemy, sensibly had bunkered itself behind islands to avoid your (obvious) BB flanking maneuver, a maneuver that is slow, can be seen from across the map, especially when an enemy CV can spot you easily - and he did along with a DD - which, again, you apparently disregarded. 

 

This is the biggest criticism with BBs: Position.

 

BTW, the only reason the enemy CV didn't focus on you was because of your T9 US AA, although I'm sure the Shokaku was more than happy that you took that critical AA bubble out of the fight, away from your teammates.

 

In short, damage farming aside, you screwed up.

 

3) Cruisers.  OK, they didn't use cover effectively, but if I'm those cruiser captains, I'm screaming at the DDs for pushing deep into the caps, forcing me to come out of cover to cover them with an AA bubble, while they put themselves out of range of my fire support and closer to the enemy's fire support.  Those DDs going right into the middle of the cap, rather than at the edges of the cap near cover, really put their cruisers on the spot.

 

4) CV.  He is a strike USN CV.  The opposing team's knowledge of this is probably the biggest effect your CV had on the game.  Their play-style trades attrition-rate and recon for a damage race and deterrence.  Other than that, he never had a chance to effect the game to a great degree because the damage race or jockeying stand-off never had a chance to come into play; your team's decision to argue about strategy at the beginning of the game and go their separate ways to charge the caps, then get flat-out annihilated, ensured that.  Is there any spotting he could have done that would have allowed you to hit more targets?  No. The enemy lit themselves up firing at your DDs who exposed themselves recklessly, even before his planes could get in the air and on station.  Could he have covered the DDs?  No, he's a strike CV, which means you need to bunch up in formation providing an AA bubble not just for your own ships but for the CV bomber planes.  Could he have blunted the enemy at A where your team got wiped out and saved the game?  No, the enemy ships were all bunched up (unlike your team).

 

Yes, a strike USN CV trades attrition rate and flexibility for the ability to deter and do damage.  It will never out-perform an IJN CV unless the disparity in skill (either CV or Team play) is sizeable.  And it will always be at a disadvantage no matter what configuration it has in the current meta because the greatest strength of USN squadrons (and the weakness of IJN), their survivability, rarely comes into play because 

 

A) Teams in random don't overlap their AAs to make IJN lives hard.

 

B) AA has been buffed to the point that it doesn't matter if it's IJN or USN planes, both will be annihilated.

 

C) Competitive play demonstrates that the flexibility of IJN is more important than the survivability of USN.

 

I played one match in my Ranger and knew from the get-go it was hopeless to compete with an enemy Hiryu, and I agree with the analysis that competing against an enemy Saipan is an exercise in futility).  However, that does not apply to your match because even had the CV types been equal, this match would have turned out the same.

 

In closing, your team disregarded the presence of the enemy CV.  Indeed, it disregarded the presence of its own CV - apparently, right up until the time you needed someone to blame.

 

In truth, the CVs - both enemy and friendly - were the least of your problems.  The CVs in your replay had far less to do with the outcome than the play of the DDs and BBs, and possibly the cruisers.

Edited by Jerych

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.