Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
That1Villain

AS vs Strike

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

what do you prefer?   70 members have voted

  1. 1. USN

    • Strike
      20
    • AS
      14
    • Balanced
      36
  2. 2. IJN

    • Strike
      44
    • AS
      4
    • Balanced
      22
  3. 3. Bacon?

    • BACON!
      55
    • No bacon
      15

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

25 posts in this topic

Balanced Across the board. The reasoning is pretty simple. If it's worth bringing a CV, then bring one that can do as many jobs as possible.

A fighterless CV can't protect the rest of the fleet, or itself.

A Carrier without a useful strike element has no teeth, and also has limited usefulness.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balanced Across the board. The reasoning is pretty simple. If it's worth bringing a CV, then bring one that can do as many jobs as possible.

A fighterless CV can't protect the rest of the fleet, or itself.

A Carrier without a useful strike element has no teeth, and also has limited usefulness.

 

Simplest way to sum it up. If USN had a more viable balanced option above tier 6 and before tier 10, I'd be using it. Only reason I'm using strike is A is OP as **** at tier 7 and above and AS means squat because 95% of the time the team needs you doing damage, and two DB groups does not cut it. Mix tiers 7-9 leaves you too handicapped against the enemy. And only reason AS is a real option on IJN is that fighter balance is nonexistent and you need all those fighters trying to hold back USN's unless it's strafe wars in which case games already over.

 

This is why most CV players want just short of a ground up rebuild. USN needs better flexibility, IJN needs to be competitive in air control, AA needs a nerf, manual drops need to be removed at least from TB's as well as a slight damage nerf to help facilitate nerfing AA to a reasonable level, strafing as it is is broken a blind man can see that and that's the short undetailed list. 


4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put strike for USN because I played it at T5 and loved it, despite AS Bogues making me useless. I play Balanced right now at T6. Whenever possible, I want to play Strike at higher tiers. I also put strike for IJN because it looks awesome in action, despite never having played IJN CVs myself. And I also put Bacon because...BACON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I'd pick balanced or strike for USN, depending on the CV. Bogue and Independence can do very well with balanced, while Ranger is passable with it.

E: IJN strike/balanced are the same thing

Edited by Flashtirade

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted in the minority on all questions.

My CVs are all strike load outs all the time - to do as much damage as possible.

 Yes, sometimes you lose all your planes but you have the ability to kill more enemy ships.

As to Bacon - I like it with eggs for breakfast - otherwise, OP, get lost with a stupid reference to Bacon in your poll.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

As to Bacon - I like it with eggs for breakfast - otherwise, OP, get lost with a stupid reference to Bacon in your poll.

Bacon is an important part to any poll because A: it provides an unbiased opinion and B: Bacon is delicious

Edited by That1Villain

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balanced Across the board. The reasoning is pretty simple. If it's worth bringing a CV, then bring one that can do as many jobs as possible.

A fighterless CV can't protect the rest of the fleet, or itself.

A Carrier without a useful strike element has no teeth, and also has limited usefulness.

 

Skill being equal between CVs...

 

All Stock Spec CVs > Tier X have less units than the Air Superiority and Strike Specs.  That right there is an immediate warning about Stock Spec CVs. 

 

Secondly, no IJN CV player >Tier X will use Stock Spec willingly, i.e. they're working up the XPs and Credits for AS/Strike Spec.  Otherwise they always sport AS or Strike, typically Strike.

 

Thirdly, while the Stock Spec USN CV can be very effective against a USN Strike CV (which tend to lack fighters below Tier IX), it falters completely against AS USN CV or any upgraded IJN CV spec.

 

The real issue arises against any IJN CV spec.  Strike Hiryu, Shokaku are both 2/2/2.  That's 8 IJN fighters vs 6.  Even with Air Supremacy trait, the IJN fighters in Strike configuration will still bury the USN fighters.  So the buffed values are 7 USN fighters to a now comical 10 IJN fighters.  Then the IJN CV's 2 TB, 2 DB units can freely attack surface ships.  Let's not even talk about Air Superiority IJN CVs, much less Air Supremacy Traited IJN AS CVs (3 fighter units, from 12 fighters to now 15...).

 

Again, no IJN CV in their right mind will sport Stock at Tier IX or less.  AS / Strike IJN CVs will simply overwhelm the Stock USN CV.

 

Now, a Strike or even AS IJN CV can perform all the functions people would love the CV on their team to have.  Fighter cover, fighter recon / spotting, bombers to help in the surface engagements.  They do it all.  The USN CV below Tier IX cannot, they are too super specialized with significant weaknesses.


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments, and great post by Haze.  The CV definitely needs rebuild vs rework.  I am on the side that AS is invaluable.  It can defend the fleet in multiple forms.  One of the most underated is the value in spotting vs destroyers and torps.  That can win a game as much as a couple good strikes.

 

But in terms of discussion, it has been manhandled to much in the name of balance creating ackward mechanics and comparison.  The squadron and planes launched not only creates player frustration but at times just silly.  The plane loadout should be something in the player's hands.

 

1.  Planes no longer "tiers"  Each tier has a selection of planes.  Research limit to hull and slight plane variant.  Planes balanced for competitiveness on individual level vs the whole loadout.

2.  Player chooses which and how many planes to loadout with like tanks ammo selection

3.  Carriers given command rating.  Players configure number of squadrons and plane count for it up to this command rating.

 

How difficult?  I do not know, but it does put initial control into hands of players.  It would allow more meta and counter meta.  Some limits placed to prevent extreme minmax.  It would match more with ship configuration where you can fine tune a hull to play in reasonably different ways.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1-7 carriers without Defensive AA Fire: Flat bed is too vulnerable. Using AS loadout is just asking your strike loadout opponent to snipe your flat bed, which makes no sense to me. For me when I have strike loadout, I always find it relatively easy to deceive my opponent(s)'s fighters and sneak in my bombers for a snipe.

 

Tier 8-10 carriers: Both are viable for helping your team win, but I still prefer strike loadout. WG currently under-rewards fighter kills, For me, it's very discouraging after I'm intensely focused in the whole game to shoot down a ton of enemy bombers and protect my team, I end up way way down on the scoreboard.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes AS load outs for U.S CV bad is not the load out itself but the  players that attempt to use it.  

 

For example Essex 3-0-2  if used properly can shut down a Taiho  and still take out 2 enemy ships per match along with keeping almost each and every DD lit up for your team to fire at the whole match. I literally can keep my fighters out on the map almost the entire time. 

 

So as most strike load outs go, once you have dropped your Bombs and Torps it is back to reload and most CV strike captains are not willing to leave out their bombers to fly around and spot empty for any period of time.

 

The key to AS is making use of your limited damage potential.  This means choosing the right targets mainly DD and low health ships that may have repaired or strayed away from the team.

 

I see so many  U.S CV with AS  send their one DB or TB  or 2 DB towards some full health BB or worse AA stacked Cruiser.

 

The issue  i see with IJN strike with 2 fighters such as Taiho is that they do not use the fighters to spot but mainly only to defend their bombers.  Once their bombers are on the way back to the ship they do not try and spot mainly retreat until the next strike wave is ready to be escorted.

 

In the mean time the  U.S  AS load out CV is still spotting DD's and using their limited Strike capability for their team awaiting the next wave of planes to shoot down.

 

I also have read it is a courtesy to the other CV not to run AS so the game is more fun for them in like every other CV thread.

 

Well as  Mainly a BB player I would like every DD player to please make it a courtesy to me not to use Torps so i do not have to WASD my [edited]off each match so i can enjoy it more please lol.

 

The biggest negative about AS though is end game situations, Like you against 3 or 4 enemies for the win and this is why strike wins out as the better load out for any CV.

 

But if it gets to that point then your team most likely sucked anyway and the fact that it is up to you to overcome the odds should not have ever happened in the first place.

 

 

 

Edited by GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments, and great post by Haze.  The CV definitely needs rebuild vs rework.  I am on the side that AS is invaluable.  It can defend the fleet in multiple forms.  One of the most underated is the value in spotting vs destroyers and torps.  That can win a game as much as a couple good strikes.

 

But in terms of discussion, it has been manhandled to much in the name of balance creating ackward mechanics and comparison.  The squadron and planes launched not only creates player frustration but at times just silly.  The plane loadout should be something in the player's hands.

 

1.  Planes no longer "tiers"  Each tier has a selection of planes.  Research limit to hull and slight plane variant.  Planes balanced for competitiveness on individual level vs the whole loadout.

2.  Player chooses which and how many planes to loadout with like tanks ammo selection

3.  Carriers given command rating.  Players configure number of squadrons and plane count for it up to this command rating.

 

How difficult?  I do not know, but it does put initial control into hands of players.  It would allow more meta and counter meta.  Some limits placed to prevent extreme minmax.  It would match more with ship configuration where you can fine tune a hull to play in reasonably different ways.

 

​Overall I agree with everything that Vaporisor has said. The number of planes you could carry or by type should be the left up to the cv player. There is a Nintendo Game called Called "infinite Space" (I know, I'm a heathen) that had the capacity of planes you could carry based upon the "volume" the fighter would take up in the hanger. If we could Implement a system that used the loadout rating for aircraft to limit the amout you could carry of type and tier, I'm down with. (That being said, I would not be surprised if I seen langleys with 1-2 squadrons of planes max, of t10 equivalent planes seal clubbing or midways with with dozens of squadrons of t4 aircraft swarming) It would offer huge levels of customization and possibilies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a CV scenario.

 

Your team:  Air Superiority Lexington, 2/0/2

Enemy team:  Strike Lexington, 0/1/3

 

This becomes very apparent when the aircraft of both CVs are in the air for all to see.

"We got an AS CV vs a USN Strike, our CV should have an amazing game!" and thus, the rest of us should be able to fight more effectively.

Right?

... RIGHT????

WRONG

 

oGumnaD.jpg

 

The opposing CV did amazing work, never losing ANY aircraft to our CV's 2 fighter squadrons.  NONE!  He was proficient.  He attacked at one point, then our CV shifted fighters to protect the attacked group, but the bombers already were gone.  He then attacks at a point completely opposite where he last attacked.  Again our CV shuffles fighters that way and fails to catch any bombers.  I shot more aircraft down with my Non-BFT/Non-AFT/Non-AAGM2 or AAGM3 Hindenburg than our Fighter Spec CV.

 

The hilarious part was watching the Strike Lexington nuke our Baltimore with an airstrike.  An "AA is our National Flavor" Baltimore!

 

"But Haze, it's just that the CV on your team sucked."

Sure, I fully agree with that.

 

However, think back on your times playing as a regular surface combat ship.  Think of those times when you had an AS USN CV against a Strike (USN or IJN) CV.  Do you not remember those enemy bombers still getting to attack your surface ships?  And when your CV finally responds with fighters, it's already too late, the bombers already have dropped their torpedoes and/or bombs.  The CV shooting down a couple bombers after they have dropped ordnance means absolutely NOTHING to the BB or DD that just lost a catastrophic amount of HP or was sunk.


But hey, the AS CV got a few aircraft kills, right????


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pointing to one or a few games is not very convincing in my opinion. And while the strike score wasn't bad, it wasn't particularly impressive either (even considering CV reward imbalance). On top of that, it's much easier for a CV (esp strike) or any ship to hit harder when your team got as steamrolled as they did (basing off high number of high enemy scores and high number of low friendly scores), their CV did not seem to make as much an impact so much as it was the entire team.

 

I'm one of the few (or only?) who think USN CVs are mostly fine, at least in terms of configuration. The real challenge is playing USN AS effectively. Many a player simply use them to protect their useless DBs, or figure since they have the numbers they'll auto-win an aerial dogfight and thus don't account for strafe or AA. 

Also to consider is the different role it assumes - to negate or heavily mitigate the enemy CVs influence. So many people forget the fundamental concept of out-damaging the opponent.

 

I'm not advocating for USN AS and they definitely could use revision, but I don't think it's as big an issue as others believe (unpopular opinion), most of the times it's the captains commanding them.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing to one or a few games is not very convincing in my opinion. And while the strike score wasn't bad, it wasn't particularly impressive either (even considering CV reward imbalance). On top of that, it's much easier for a CV (esp strike) or any ship to hit harder when your team got as steamrolled as they did (basing off high number of high enemy scores and high number of low friendly scores), their CV did not seem to make as much an impact so much as it was the entire team.

 

I'm one of the few (or only?) who think USN CVs are mostly fine, at least in terms of configuration. The real challenge is playing USN AS effectively. Many a player simply use them to protect their useless DBs, or figure since they have the numbers they'll auto-win an aerial dogfight and thus don't account for strafe or AA. 

Also to consider is the different role it assumes - to negate or heavily mitigate the enemy CVs influence. So many people forget the fundamental concept of out-damaging the opponent.

 

I'm not advocating for USN AS and they definitely could use revision, but I don't think it's as big an issue as others believe (unpopular opinion), most of the times it's the captains commanding them.

 

The bombers always get through.

 

They always will and AS CVs do not stop that.  I am at a point right now where I'd rather have a Strike USN CV than a AS USN CV because I know the Strike one can at least try to do something meaningful, i.e. ship damage and sinkings, while the AS CV plays a seperate game of counting airplanes shot up while the team is still getting bombed.

 

They count up how many planes they've shot down AFTER they've already dropped their bombs and torpedoes on someone.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lotsa hate for US AS.  I have seen many AS carriers win the day.  The main part is playing a proper AA cap and for the team to not spread everywhere so can share that way.  Working with AA US ships, the value of well positioned cap becomes apparent.   we end up with a pain train where their carrier is limited on what they can do while our carrier can split between DB and div escort.  The strike carrier doesnt have the benefit of trying for perfect angles or drops cause gets shredded in mean time.  Only get one shot at it and it will cost.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree Haze. But that's because 90% of AS players are the ones that couldn't hack it otherwise. Lexington being the first tier that 7 usn vs 10 IJN is a problem. A strike shokaku can point and click his way through Lexington's fighters and give his bombers free rain on the fleet. In the scenario Haze described that was one of those 90%. It sounds like he blobed his fighters up and was chasing his tail all game.  It is my biggest complaint against AS modules. It is so op in the hands of a good player that it needs is damage capabilities castrate. But players don't learn how to actually win the air war because bogue on they just stack their fighters and point click their xp. 

 

Perfect case in point. One late night with my balance Lexington I ran into the same shokaku player either 3 games total or 3 losed straight. He simply point and clicked through my fighters. Even when I started and killedbenough to make it a fair fight my fighters were combat ineffective and needed to land. So out of frustration I switched to AS. Started the same as last game scouted early. This time however when I started his first fighter squadron like had been the pattern and his second squadron closed in my second squadron strafe the whole melee and deleted everything. Then proceeded to wipe out the rest of his air wing. His planes didn't show back up so I kept a squadron hanging back but close enough to stop his pending snipe. The rest of my squadrons were spotting and harassing. Sure enough "spotted by aircraft" icon and another complete air wing wipe. With air superiority cemented and my team having all the extra vision was taking the toll on the red fleet. The AS noose just continued tightening. He tried attacking different places but I had my fighters covering both flanks with db providing vision as well, any misdirection he tried was spotted early enough that it ultimately failed. The worst part was that despite beating me 2-3 times in a row. He stopped queuing up. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Skill being equal between CVs...

 

All Stock Spec CVs > Tier X have less units than the Air Superiority and Strike Specs.  That right there is an immediate warning about Stock Spec CVs. 

 

Secondly, no IJN CV player >Tier X will use Stock Spec willingly, i.e. they're working up the XPs and Credits for AS/Strike Spec.  Otherwise they always sport AS or Strike, typically Strike.

 

Thirdly, while the Stock Spec USN CV can be very effective against a USN Strike CV (which tend to lack fighters below Tier IX), it falters completely against AS USN CV or any upgraded IJN CV spec.

 

The real issue arises against any IJN CV spec.  Strike Hiryu, Shokaku are both 2/2/2.  That's 8 IJN fighters vs 6.  Even with Air Supremacy trait, the IJN fighters in Strike configuration will still bury the USN fighters.  So the buffed values are 7 USN fighters to a now comical 10 IJN fighters.  Then the IJN CV's 2 TB, 2 DB units can freely attack surface ships.  Let's not even talk about Air Superiority IJN CVs, much less Air Supremacy Traited IJN AS CVs (3 fighter units, from 12 fighters to now 15...).

 

Again, no IJN CV in their right mind will sport Stock at Tier IX or less.  AS / Strike IJN CVs will simply overwhelm the Stock USN CV.

 

Now, a Strike or even AS IJN CV can perform all the functions people would love the CV on their team to have.  Fighter cover, fighter recon / spotting, bombers to help in the surface engagements.  They do it all.  The USN CV below Tier IX cannot, they are too super specialized with significant weaknesses.

 

I consider the old strike spec for IJN CV's to be a balanced spec ever since it was "nerfed" and was forced to bring an additional fighter at expense of a flight of strike aircraft. They don't have a real strike spec after tier 6. The Hiryu's and Shokaku's strike packages are thier stock load out, they only have one fighter in it. (I don't really see it as a nerf, they took an over powered, almost as questionable as a US Navy strike load out, and made it a nearly perfectly balanced weapon)

 

And yes, I hate the Ranger and all of the US Navy CV's I've driven so far aside from the Saipan. It all boils down to you can make 3 choices:

You can support your team, and not be rewarded.

You can say "F*@$% the team" and do damage if you don't run into an AS carrier or IJN Balanced load CV that has your number.

You can choose to do some support, some damage, do nothing well, and still not get rewarded.

 

Not seeing any good options for the US Navy CV Skippers.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CV's are already barely fun to play...SL loadout is barely fun..though manual drops are pretty fun...AS loadout...YYAAAWWNNNNNN....


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as strike for IJN CV. Just balanced and AS. You cannot substitute fighters for additional bombers.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on what CV is on the other side, but i would feel completely useless if i did not have at least 1 squadron of strike aircraft.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balanced USN mid-tier, Strike upper-tiers.

 

Stike all the way with IJN, though I'm only up to T8.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as strike for IJN CV. Just balanced and AS. You cannot substitute fighters for additional bombers.

 

Beat me to it.  Also USN only has three viable balanced loadouts,  Langley,  Indy,  and Midway.  Every other 'balanced' loadout sacrifices current airborne numbers and that's never good.  Course it may still be better then the all or none options that sacrifice either all of your ability to affect the air battle or most of your ability to affect the sea battle.

 

Honestly?  They need to bump up stock loadouts to balanced and rebalance IJN strike to be more strikey.  Drop a fighter for a dive bomber.

 

Also,  I do not like bacon.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly?  They need to bump up stock loadouts to balanced and rebalance IJN strike to be more strikey.  Drop a fighter for a dive bomber.

Also,  I do not like bacon.

Exactly. IJN Strike needs to be Strike, not mini-AS. Frankly, I think that the IJN should only have one "balanced" configuration, and the USN should be the only ones allowed to specialize.

 

Also, what is the deal with USN 2 VT Strike? I understand they were very powerful at the time they existed, but, with more and more AA and fighters at high tiers that has developed recently as opposed to at the time that the USN had 2 VT strike configurations, I'm not sure I see the problem anymore. Especially since a German Battleship can be tuned to have a comprable AA DPS to a US Cruiser.

 

And, finally... :(

Although British Back Bacon is better, in terms of pork. And, even better, Jagerschitzel.

Edited by Carrier_Lexington

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.