Graf Zeppelin's AP Bombs (They're still WIP btw) and Why WG (Also my emotional complaint)!?

[AdmiralMudkip]

 

From the video, which I'll link below, the GZ's AP bombs have a lower threshold to arm (GZ's 35 mm vs Enterprise's 68 mm) and are generally better than the Enterprise's own AP bombs. The unique thing about GZ's AP bombs is that one squadron has the potential to cut off half of a Tier 8 cruiser's health.

 

 

I've also seen the gameplay video (though I can't find it anymore on YouTube) where the GZ's AP bombers have taken down Edinburgh and New Orlean's health by half using just one dive bomber. German AP bombs vs Izumo, Yamato, North Carolina, and Iowa seem... relatively underpar, though he only used 1 dive bomber against them and only dealt about 10,000 damage.

 

But seriously (and this is kinda going off tangent here)! If this is going to be the final stats, then I'm not happy about it! I prefer the AP bombs to be a USN CV thing and somehow, the Graf Zeppelin as of August 11th is already better than the Enterprise in terms of AP bombs! It devalues the already shoddy-performing Enterprise! If the GZ has the ability to deal good damage against cruisers, then do something about the Enterprise and buff it! There's no way in hell that I'm going to accept that a carrier that got symbolically sunk by the Luftwaffe performs better than the Enterprise with a theoretically more versatile loadout! I saw the gameplay video of it and I was not happy about it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Madwolf05]

Having the expectation for the USN to have an competitive CV design isn't currently within the realm of reason.

 

The Enterprise sold based on being the most decorated ship to ever be in the service of the USN. So War Gaming was able to fudge the testing, and half [edited]the entire design, as long as they got it out for July 4th.

 

The Graf Zepplin on the other hand was never actually finished. It has to be good in order to be sold in good numbers. So War Gaming is being incredibly careful with it. They've revised and designed it very well and are doing intense testing to make sure that it is not only viable but doesn't have a narrow scope like the USN CVs, and the even more narrow Enterprise.

 

It is fairly safe to assume that the entire USN CV rework is currently not even on the design phase, and it is very obvious that the state of the USN CVs is just simply being ignored since even minor adjustments haven't been made in months.

[Sakuzhi]

5 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

The Enterprise sold based on being the most decorated ship to ever be in the service of the USN. So War Gaming was able to fudge the testing, and half [edited]the entire design, as long as they got it out for July 4th.

To be honest with the Enterprise, all that they'd need to do with her is decrease the torpedo spread (which is still usable just difficult) some and it'd be fine.

[Hatework]

I'm still patiently waiting for a 2/1/2 or 1/1/3 loadout.  I'm having a hard time convincing myself to buy her,pretty as she is, with only dive bombers for strike aircraft.

[RipNuN2]

Getting emotional over a ship that isnt even out of testing seems rather silly. I'll wait till the actual reviews are out to judge the final product.

[Madwolf05]

Just now, Sakuzhi said:

To be honest with the Enterprise, all that they'd need to do with her is decrease the torpedo spread (which is still usable just difficult) some and it'd be fine.

 

I agree for the most part.

 

I believe they should fix her bomb circles to be the same for HE and AP, and just reduce the damage as needed on the HE, and make them more of a DoT attack. I think they should do the same for torpedoes and do it across all nations. Make CVs lower direct damage, since planes must be able to carry the payload, and make them more about proper awareness and attacking targets who used DCP or they forced to use DCP.

 

I would also like to see them experiment with AP bombers replacing torpedo bombers instead of HE bombers after such a change was implemented.

 

Making the Enterprise the most difficult ship to attack Cruisers and DDs in with torpedoes and then making her AP bombs almost only useful against BBs is just a much to narrow focus.

[Captain_Doll]

I'll wait to pass judgment until the final product is placed in the game. But WG's treatment of USN ships should not be a surprise to you at this stage. It took WG nearly two years to buff USN BBs and USN cruisers that at least made them competitive. Prior to that, tier 7-9 USN cruisers were the IJN's punching bag. For the USN BBs, the Colorado's pre-buff performance was nearly legendary for being truly awful. And the Montana has never come close to knocking the Yamato off it's position as top tier 10 BB.

[AdmiralMudkip]

2 minutes ago, Captain_Doll said:

I'll wait to pass judgment until the final product is placed in the game. But WG's treatment of USN ships should not be a surprise to you at this stage. It took WG nearly two years to buff USN BBs and USN cruisers that at least made them competitive. Prior to that, tier 7-9 USN cruisers were the IJN's punching bag. For the USN BBs, the Colorado's pre-buff performance was nearly legendary for being truly awful. And the Montana has never come close to knocking the Yamato off it's position as top tier 10 BB.

 

It doesn't need to knock off the Yamato as the top Tier 10 battleship. It just needed to be comparable to it like how the Gearing and the Des Moines can hold its own against other destroyers and cruisers.

 

That's what I want for the Enterprise, but apparently, the Graf Zeppelin will take what the Enterprise is supposedly good at and make it better! I can't accept that!

[YamatoA150]

You also have to consider that the Germans won't be getting a CV line any time soon; the latest is around 2020 or so, as the greater priority is the remaining DD/BB/Cruiser lines of the French, Italians, British, and Russian nations, and whatever oddball lines they toss in (Pan Asian for example) or line splits they wish to do (USN Cruiser line split the only tentatively confirmed one, but others to not happen until the other nations and their 3 main lines are completed).  French, Italian, German, and Russian CVs are not a priority until later on due to both a lack of interest in the ships and a lack of interest in paper CVs (or so WG themselves said).

 

So Graf Zeppelin is going to need to be good enough for the next several years and also as a testbed for whatever future plans they have for a KM CV line; much in the way Warspite remained an early testbed yet good enough despite several meta changes up to when she got buffed.  Also, G.Zeppelin still in testing, so there's plenty of other changes that could happen then.  The pure TB-only setup proved too OP, so it remains to be seen if the pure APDB-only setup would also be OP.  It may end up having the DBs split into 1 APDB squad and 2 HEDB squads, or vice versa.

 

We can likely expect any token French or Italian CV to also get a better-than-average bomber performance if only to make them good enough to sell, in addition to further testbeds for CV ideas.

 

I still vote that Graf Zeppelin should still get a Fritz X bomber squad as a gimmick, even if she couldn't actually carry one.  Have it replace one regular DB squad and make the remaining two HEDBs.  That provides enough punch regardless of whether or not the Fritz X pens or citpens.  As well, we're already full alternate history in-game anyway, and WG is aiming to add more novel/new weapons into the game bit by bit, so it's fair game.  Here's one concept of how to incorporate a Fritz X bomb squad was written up awhile back, as a possible replacement for torpedo bombers.

Spoiler

 

On 5/31/2016 at 2:30 PM, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

On 5/31/2016 at 2:28 PM, YamatoA150 said:

On 5/31/2016 at 1:43 PM, Dr_Venture said:

 

German CV's may now choose between guided rocket bombs and dive bombers.

 

Gimme dat Fritz X 

Spoiler

 

 

That would actually be a nice and valid option for German CVs, but they'd only get what, 1 guided bomb per bomber?  I mean, they hit pretty hard (it's a 3k lb HEAP bomb), and would be almost always a 100% hit, if not a consistent 90%, without AADF conditions.

It'd basically be a guided citadel penetration. Just ask Roma how effective one hit is.

 

given the power of the Fritz X, i think one bomb per squadron is fair if it always cit-pens.

 

EDIT: I should point out though that the likelihood of a German CV line is small at best. More likely we'll get a tier 7-8-9 premium in Graf Zeppelin. Who may also have the BF109T torpedo-fitted carrier fighters and Ju-87D carrier-remodeled Stuka dive bombers.

 

On 5/31/2016 at 3:11 PM, YamatoA150 said:

On 5/31/2016 at 2:59 PM, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

On 5/31/2016 at 2:50 PM, YamatoA150 said:

While it's true there may not be a German CV line at all outside of Zeppie, or some weird upper-tier only CVs branching off German BBs at a higher tier, the question would be how many bombers per Fritz squad would be considered balanced?

 

Let's assume that the Fritz has a solid 50% chance of a full cit-pen (balancing reasons), but otherwise always does a 100% regular pen level damage and possible module damage and/or fire from the HE portion (assuming it's not just made an AP bomb for gameplay reasons).  As well, they may be dropped a bit further away than a normal DB bomb drop due to the guided nature.  Would 3 planes per squad be sufficient, or 2?  It's likely the reload/rearm time will be artificially lengthened vs a regular German Dive Bomber to make up for the major damage potential and slightly further safe drop of the Fritz, so that is an assumed given, and it's just a matter of how many planes is balanced.

 

It would definitely be useful vs DDs at any rate, even with the loss of no pen damage, their high accuracy would guarantee at least one hard hit on a destroyer.  Moreso if the HE is applied as high fire/module damage.  Alternatively, if the Fritz is an AP bomb to all non-DDs, it could be set as an HE bomb vs DDs.

 

Here is what I see happening with Graf Zeppelin

 

4 planes per squadron

- BF109T fighters

- Ju-87D dive bombers

- Fritz-X bombers replace torpedo bombers.

 

All squadrons have 4 planes in them. Fritz-X group still only drops one Fritz. Consider the other 3 planes fighter escorts for the single 'high value' Fritz bomber.

 

Why 4 planes? Because the Germans pioneered the four-plane Schwarm formation that evolved into the Finger-4 formation used by everyone else later in the war and to this day by the USAF. It's much more effective than the Vic formations of 3 planes used by the USN carriers currently in-game (two Vics mashed together).

 

3 Fighters + 1 Fritz Bomber in a squad?  That's pretty novel.  Might help reduce the turnaround time some vs 2+ Fritz Bombers in a squad, as well as providing better AA coverage vs enemy fighters.  I'd assume that the bomber would always be the last one to be shot down per squad, and that despite fighters, there's no strafing option for that particular squad.

 

Assuming WG can get that to work then, how many Fritz squads for say, a loadout dedicated to sinking ships?  I think 2 at least would be reasonable, with the remaining being DBs and a token Fighter force. (2 Fritz, 2 DBs, 1 Fighter).

 

 

On 5/31/2016 at 4:54 PM, YamatoA150 said:

On 5/31/2016 at 3:20 PM, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

That's how I'd do it. It effectively only counts as 1 bomber, with 3 planes screening it. No strafe option. Assume the fighters are shot down before the Fritz plane is. No manual drop option either, given it literally is the world's first homing missile.

 

Turnaround time would be ~about the same as their Stukas. Maybe a little longer. It is guaranteed damage so it shouldn't be allowed to be in the air that much. Fritzes were also vulnerable to fighters and AA fire since they had to linger, so some component to represent that would be good as well.

 

they'd still pull from dedicated TB pool, including escorts, rather than pulling escorts from the fighter pool. I'd presume so due to game engine limitations.

 

Maybe they drop further off than DBs (but still closer than TBs), and perform maybe a quarter circle (minimum) around the target ship, in the direction closest towards their CV, in what would be the middle AA ring of most ships before retreating to carrier.

 

So if a Fritz Bomber came in from the left, and their CV was straight south relative to the target, the Fritz Bomber would begin their run, dropping the bomb, then fly near the target for about a second or two (given time and range compression) in a rough quarter circle towards the south, so that as soon as the bomb hits, they can hit the boost and fly back to the CV without passing through the target's inner AA range.

 

MS Paint Example (Green is Bomb release, Blue is flight path, and Red is the target):

 

If the CV they belong to was North, then their flight path would have them circling north instead of south.  If the CV is further out than a quarter circle, the Fritz bomber would spiral out and away from the target (getting it out of the AA guns of the target ship) before returning to the CV.  Basically, just to be fair to the Fritz users, their bombers won't just charge straight through the target's AA rings after a drop and a hit just to get back to the ship, although they will still charge through said target's allies and their AA rings like all other bombers do.

 

That would leave the Fritz Bomber within the middle AA danger zone just long enough for it possibly be shot down, although for gameplay purposes, shooting down the Fritz Bomber before the bomb makes contact doesn't make the bomb miss, it just sets CitPen chance to 0% while retaining the regular Pen damage and Module/Fire chance (if included) since the bomb would already be on target; the guide simply couldn't get it right on the spot for a possible Citadel before being vaped along with the plane.

 

If the middle AA ring proves to still be too effective, then let the bomber fall back to the outer AA ring and loiter there for almost a half-circle instead of a quarter-circle.  However, I feel middle circle AA should be sufficient in most cases; allowing a fair enough chance for the victim to try and shoot down the Fritz Bomber before the bomb is fully guided in with a 50% risk of a CitPen level of damage, instead only taking a regular Pen damage and any associated "debuffs", if again Fire/Module damage is included with the Fritz bomb (given that it's an AP-HE).

 

On the other side of things, Enterprise would sell off name alone, and she did.  She still gets to claim first use of APDBs in-game, but was focused more between general-purpose HEDB or anti-battleship and anti-superheavycruiser APDB.  Which the USN CV line is likely to end up becoming; the anti-BB APDB specialists while a theoretical future KM CV line becomes a general-purpose APDB line (less effective vs battleships, but more effective vs cruisers).

[Sakuzhi]

1 hour ago, Madwolf05 said:

I think they should do the same for torpedoes and do it across all nations.

Honestly Air-Dropped Torpedoes don't do that much in single waves at T8+. It's still only 9k~ damage a hit(Pre-TDS). The reason the Taiho and friends can nuke non-DDs so easily is the ability to stack a bunch of hits with accurate Manual Drops.

[skull_122_steel]

52 minutes ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

 

From the video, which I'll link below, the GZ's AP bombs have a lower threshold to arm (GZ's 35 mm vs Enterprise's 68 mm)

 

52 minutes ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well the GZ has 250 Kg bombs so they're about half the size of the enterprise so it makes sense that they have half the threshold tto arm

[AdmiralMudkip]

16 minutes ago, skull_122_steel said:

 

well the GZ has 250 Kg bombs so they're about half the size of the enterprise so it makes sense that they have half the threshold tto arm

Supposedly they're 500 Ibs.

 

20 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

snip

 

If that is true, then I'm going to be sad that there won't be a lot of CV lines aside from the USN CV and the IJN CV's. I'm really hoping that WG releases RN CV's this year. (I can't comment on your Fritz X bomber squad gimmic idea since I don't know much about it). Still, I'm waiting for that CV rework they're doing. Plan is that they're putting really really really superheavy AP bombs on the Midway and the 500 Ib bombs on the mid tier USN CV's. But no general word on how it's going to work. 

[Madwolf05]

I just don't get it with the AP bombs anymore. They're going to be big trouble for BBs, but useless against other ship types, which isn't exactly the USN problem. Not that I don't appreciate AP bombs, I do believe they're a nice addition. However, when the Devs come out and say the issue with USN CVs is that they're too specialized, I'm not sure how doubling down on an admitted mistake can be demonstrated to be a logical solution.

[YamatoA150]

2 minutes ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

If that is true, then I'm going to be sad that there won't be a lot of CV lines aside from the USN CV and the IJN CV's. I'm really hoping that WG releases RN CV's this year. (I can't comment on your Fritz X bomber squad gimmic idea since I don't know much about it). Still, I'm waiting for that CV rework they're doing. Plan is that they're putting really really really superheavy AP bombs on the Midway and the 500 Ib bombs on the mid tier USN CV's. But no general word on how it's going to work. 

 

RN CVs were confirmed as in the works (ETA unknown), but WG themselves have stated that there will not be a German/French/Italian/Russian CV line for a long while due to the predominantly paper designs needed to make them work and the additional amount of time needed to make them balanced in comparison to the other classes (and the less-than-enthusiastic feedback they got over CVs in general; esp. paper CV lines, their own Russian CV line included).  Moreso now that they've been working with Italians on getting ship design blueprints and last mentioned they're working on French BBs and British CVs and DDs.  With the Pan Asian line cribbing completed ships from the RN DD line in addition to the IJN and USN DD lines and just getting new gimmicks.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if WG does pull in another CV line earlier than planned; though it'd likely be the VMF CV line as they had started work on it but shelved it due to both player outrage (it was supposed to come alongside the VMF BBs, BEFORE the KM BBs and any RN lines) and a lack of viable aircraft designs for the lower tiers and certain middle tiers.

[Hatework]

53 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

I just don't get it with the AP bombs anymore. They're going to be big trouble for BBs, but useless against other ship types, which isn't exactly the USN problem. Not that I don't appreciate AP bombs, I do believe they're a nice addition. However, when the Devs come out and say the issue with USN CVs is that they're too specialized, I'm not sure how doubling down on an admitted mistake can be demonstrated to be a logical solution.

I wish I could have articulated one of my issues this well.  

[Sakuzhi]

50 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if WG does pull in another CV line earlier than planned; though it'd likely be the VMF CV line as they had started work on it but shelved it due to both player outrage (it was supposed to come alongside the VMF BBs, BEFORE the KM BBs and any RN lines) and a lack of viable aircraft designs for the lower tiers and certain middle tiers.

That's because everyone would fit their crapover the pure fantasy line that it would be.

 

Good that they realized that people want actual Ships before paper trash.

[Anumati]

Graf zep's bomb circle is what all usn CVs should have...

[Psicopro]

2 hours ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

 

From the video, which I'll link below, the GZ's AP bombs have a lower threshold to arm (GZ's 35 mm vs Enterprise's 68 mm) and are generally better than the Enterprise's own AP bombs. The unique thing about GZ's AP bombs is that one squadron has the potential to cut off half of a Tier 8 cruiser's health.

 

(vid removed)

 

I've also seen the gameplay video (though I can't find it anymore on YouTube) where the GZ's AP bombers have taken down Edinburgh and New Orlean's health by half using just one dive bomber. German AP bombs vs Izumo, Yamato, North Carolina, and Iowa seem... relatively underpar, though he only used 1 dive bomber against them and only dealt about 10,000 damage.

 

But seriously (and this is kinda going off tangent here)! If this is going to be the final stats, then I'm not happy about it! I prefer the AP bombs to be a USN CV thing and somehow, the Graf Zeppelin as of August 11th is already better than the Enterprise in terms of AP bombs! It devalues the already shoddy-performing Enterprise! If the GZ has the ability to deal good damage against cruisers, then do something about the Enterprise and buff it! There's no way in hell that I'm going to accept that a carrier that got symbolically sunk by the Luftwaffe performs better than the Enterprise with a theoretically more versatile loadout! I saw the gameplay video of it and I was not happy about it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A country that never fielded an Aircraft Carrier has more effective ordnance than the country that has revolutionized the weapons platform?

 

Sounds about right.  Waiting for the 50 knot Russian version with jets to come out.

[WanderingGhost]

I'm more curious about the fighters on the stern, it could be that the angle and all is wonky, but those look like Fw-190's. Flatter nose typical of radial engines, metallic silver with a yellow stripe aft of the cockpit, and it looks like the landing gear has that cover on the outside of the wheel fitting with how the gear of the 190 folds up, not the 109. Which, while I still disagree, heavily, with the Stuka being tier 8, sounds like changes that if I have the money I'll consider buying the ship. Still not happy they magically double the numbers it could hold, tier 8 Stuka and some other details, but this is better than the nonsense it was before and if I'm right ID'ing the aircraft, glad they seem to be listening. Fw-190 is a way better fit for tier 8 than a Battle of Britain era 109.

 

Never assumed USN would get AP and no one else, never even assumed they would get the biggest (always figured that would be Germany). And from what I'm hearing, USN is getting the ones that decimate a BB, GZ is more a cruiser breaker, almost fitting as if you look at Scharn, Gnei, Bismarck and Tirpitz, even if in some areas meant to engage larger ships were looking to be used as commerce raiders which in game makes them great against cruisers, and GZ was essentially looking to become a commerce raider. It also makes sense that GZ would be DB focused because they did not put a lot of RnD into TB's, with more research since I posted up my take on a German CV line (will update it eventually) I can maybe, keyword maybe, patch together a line of TB's. But I think that part of the issue for some is not really quite understanding the role of each nations CV's, or maybe, Wargaming hasn't made it well defined in the strike aircraft.

 

With the two we have now, IJN is the capital ship hunter, while cross drops make it more effective directly taking out a cruiser or DD as well, broken manual drop mechanic does not help, the way it is set up with torps and it's just a little more than show DB's lean this toward able to hit other ships, but geared toward BB's, other carriers. Lumbering ships that can't turn into the gaps fast. Other side, USN with it's DB's that are more accurate because more bombs in the same circle only, and numerous DB groups, are actually better to hunt DD's and Cruisers, before AA was overbuffed especially with their more durable planes. Torps merely helped taking out a BB which can be done if you stagger DB attacks and light them on fire, but has it's own issues with how the game currently is. Problem is that some don't want to acknowledge this and demand it crush BB's like IJN and in some cases, this doesn't work in game.

 

Now take Germany who had limited TB development, and UK which had limited DB development, you essentially have the extreme versions of both, albeit, I can patch together DB's from fighters and all capable of carrying bombs for UK far easier than German TB's. 

 

I think that long term, it needs to basically look like this for the strike component of the ships (as fighters should be equal in power, but different in use and ability IE high damage, low health and ammo vs high health and ammo low damage vs moderate of all, etc).

 

UK/IJN - One of these should be basically geared in strike package to be a capital ship hunter, plain and simple, the other should lean toward it, but have DB's/the better DB's to not be as efficient at hunting BB's, but better than the other at cruiser/DD hunting.

 

IJN for the ship keeps it's stealth, UK makes use of those armoured decks to resist bomb damage and long range gun fire better.

 

USN - Maybe keeps the heavier bombs and dials the circle in a bit more than IJN's to be a bit more accurate and better define it's role that it is the opposite of above, better geared to hunt DD's and cruisers with it's DB's but torp planes, or AP bombs, give it some punch against BB's - not nearly as much as it currently does, but a hefty one. I would also say of the nations involved and likely fighter options, I think what should really make the US planes stand out is make theirs the ones that can attack enemy ships with rockets, as all their fighters tier 5+ could equip rockets, namely HVAR's, to add to strike ability against smaller ships and disabling AA guns for attack runs. Also making AS somewhat more useful once the sky is clear. With their ship trait being of course AA.

 

German CV's - Like I said in my write up of a line, TB's should really be limited on the line, if used at all. I do think that this should focus more on DB's, maybe instead of TB's it flat out gets an AP mix in if they insist it have a heavy hitter against BB's. But with a DB focus, it should have the most accurate DB's in the game - like Saipan levels of accuracy though maybe not the same damage devastation from that bungling of balance, to really solidify it as a DD/cruiser hunter. Couple it with the fact a lot of their designs were heavier with DP guns than others that may be at tier or a ship like GZ, flat out anti-ship guns, could continue much like the BB's having the best secondaries or at least, secondary range, truly making German CV's the bane of a DD because it's strike aircraft are geared to attack them, and secondaries to better keep them at bay. Though I really think it should work against BB the same way USN AS does, staggering strikes, more on that below.

 

Russia, France, and Italy between what I and others have found, can also field lines, as to what they may have over others, and I don't know enough about those  planes and test beds to fill out lines without possible allied planes, so I can't speak to those here, but likely would be plays on one of the 4 differentiated in plane performance and other small changes to make them different enough in strike ability.

 

1 hour ago, Madwolf05 said:

I just don't get it with the AP bombs anymore. They're going to be big trouble for BBs, but useless against other ship types, which isn't exactly the USN problem. Not that I don't appreciate AP bombs, I do believe they're a nice addition. However, when the Devs come out and say the issue with USN CVs is that they're too specialized, I'm not sure how doubling down on an admitted mistake can be demonstrated to be a logical solution.

 

The thing is, as crazy as this may sound, while fighters is an issue, I think it's less that they are over specialized, and more that other changes have affected it's ability and that it's specialization isn't highlighted well enough. When this game came out, USN AS was the way to go, but over time, almost in line with the AA buffs Wargaming made to try and nerf manual drops, which in turn screwed over DB's the USN primary weapon, the meta shifted to IJN and USN strike, and part of that is attrition. Thing is a match the other day, I had USN AS and in a shorter match managed 40-50k  because I was top tier, meaning for the most part I was able to take my 2 DB's, drop with one group to start fires, make him pop DC, and set him on fire again to burn all the way. It, and a German CV line, could actually make use of DB's only if they make USN a little more accurate, and Germany very accurate, and either buff the plane HP of DB's at least to get through AA or better yet fix/remove manual drop and nerf ship AA to give fighters and staying together more of a purpose. And they just wear down a ship by hitting it and waiting on DC to be used or watch them let it burn keeping the next strike, or in Germany's case 2-3 strikes, waiting in the shadows to hit once the fires burn out and just stacking the DoT's when possible. HE DB's could still be effective against a BB, Wargaming just needs to make a couple tweaks. UK/IJN would still be more devastating, and likely to get a devastating strike on a BB, but USN and KM CV's once they are done mopping up cruisers/DD's or if need be focus on a BB and wear it down working towards witherers as they turn them into a burning hellscape to help the team sink it. To their credit, Wargaming, for all I bash them for on CV's, has the right ideas at the core, the right concepts, mostly, but the execution is abysmal. This is just another case of it.

 

And as to YamatoA150's Fritz-X bit for those unaware of what it is - it was basically the first guided bomb, and fairly accurate, the problem is that sure, it was in fact accurate, but it actually between shape, speed, etc, was TOO effective at piercing, resulting in many going straight through ships. I think regardless, maybe it's best to keep the guided munitions away, especially as only the highest tier German CV's would be able to maybe carry the kind of plane typically used to deliver it.

 

It's understandable to wait a while for the lines that are more paper till they get the real ships, while I'm all for paper lines, I agree existing ships should have priority. My bigger issue Wargaming in the past has made it out they will make no other CV lines, namely Germany, saying a "lack of aircraft" for most which, aside from it's a game, you can slap a tailhook on anything which they had no problem doing when the game was released (J7W1 anyone), was the route some countries, like Germany, were going there's enough 109 and 190 variants ending in the Ta 152 to get it to tier 10, as well as Stuka variants, the Fw-190 GA variants, and the Ju-187 or, because a tier X may need to be created if they have no insane design I haven't found yet, go to a twin engine lighter bomber like the Ju-88. And like I said, I can find a way to patch together TB's if I have to. Only RU, France and Italy stump me a little on planes, and if we go back to Tier x fighters being jets, that solves more or less my issues with RU fighters, I do think that we can bring Jet fighters, and only fighters, back at the top tier, we just trade hp and damage for speed. But I disagree with "USN, UK, IJN and alt branches of them only" when France had a carrier or 2 and several designs, Germany had one mostly built (two counting Aquila which they helped with and captured), and several that were starting conversions to carriers, and even Italy working on a couple I  think it was (definitely one, Aquila, with some help) and had other designs. Bu if they do give us those lines, discounting Russian bias, I'd say actually Germany (We have a premium, some planes are already modeled for the game, at least had 1-2 fully physical, and several physical that were starting conversion, and easily has planes) and France (physical ships, plans, mostly seems to have planes, may need to borrow from USN, UK, or RU to fill out aircraft though) are the more likely to be first because they had physical ships and I think are much easier to figure out air power for. And Germany has a pretty clear design line through it to lean a bit on DP guns.

 

But if that is GZ with 190's, sporting the Stuka's as just DB's, I'm actually fine with it that way and am back on board with it, as on board as I can get with tier 8 anyway (still say cause it's doable an all 6 would have been better). I can agree that because the worked on the conversion maybe make it 2,1,2 or something, further separate it from a German tech tree that is DB's only maybe and just DP guns, no others with cruiser type guns. Wargaming just needs to make it that I can stack some fires on ships because a lone group can get through AA without getting totally slaughtered without dropping a bomb , don't even need AP bombs they do that.

[YamatoA150]

29 minutes ago, Sakuzhi said:

That's because everyone would fit their crapover the pure fantasy line that it would be.

 

Good that they realized that people want actual Ships before paper trash.

 

From what I recall, it was more the fact that it was VMF anything before the KM and RN at all.  And the biggest outrage actually came from the Russian server itself.  For a long while, they hated their own VMF cruisers insisting they were underperforming when compared to the USN cruisers they so loved.

 

It's clear though that WG has at least been working on the VMF BB line in some level, even if it's just one ship every few months; they whipped out October Revolution so fast and right out of the blue already entirely modeled and coded; just needed testing, days after KanColle released their Gangut.  I wouldn't be surprised if they've also done work on the VMF CV line as well, but possibly just omitted the lower tiers and starting it from T6 or T7 instead, if they couldn't copy over theoretical Russian planes to fit the necessary lower CV tiers.  I could see WG probably copying some German plane tech with somewhat inferior performance (similar to the Japanese copies of German plane tech) over to the Russian CVs, with the Russian CVs making up for it with German-range secondaries (as many of their designs use 100mm or larger guns as casemates or deck-mounted).

 

13 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Now take Germany who had limited TB development, and UK which had limited DB development, you essentially have the extreme versions of both, albeit, I can patch together DB's from fighters and all capable of carrying bombs for UK far easier than German TB's. 

 

There's the possibility of balancing the RN CVs to initially start with USN style 6-plane formations and lower number of squads, then later shift over to IJN-style 4-plane squads and more squads in the air, in a manner similar to how nations adopted the German 4-plane style of combat and deployment as the war progressed (or afterwards).  On the KM end of things, balance more by the number of bombers per squad (the TB setup originally had 5 bombers per squad), while leaving fighters to 4-plane squads and maybe 2 fighter squads available at any time, to harass enemy bombers or lockdown two separate enemy fighter groups (or lockdown one and then strafe them with the spare squad).

 

13 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

It's understandable to wait a while for the lines that are more paper till they get the real ships, while I'm all for paper lines, I agree existing ships should have priority. My bigger issue Wargaming in the past has made it out they will make no other CV lines, namely Germany, saying a "lack of aircraft" for most which, aside from it's a game[...] But if they do give us those lines, discounting Russian bias, I'd say actually Germany (We have a premium, some planes are already modeled for the game, at least had 1-2 fully physical, and several physical that were starting conversion, and easily has planes) and France (physical ships, plans, mostly seems to have planes, may need to borrow from USN, UK, or RU to fill out aircraft though) are the more likely to be first because they had physical ships and I think are much easier to figure out air power for. And Germany has a pretty clear design line through it to lean a bit on DP guns.

 

On an aside, I noticed your T10 KM CV idea was an enlarged Graf Zeppelin concept.  It reminded me of Xero_Snake's VMF CV line suggestion, and how its T10 is also an enlarged Graf Zeppelin concept (after being studied by Russians).  I wonder if a similar design could be applied to the KM T10 as well, but with obvious German influence; such as emplacements and aircraft.

 

Back to, I debate the usage of jets outside of the Germans, and only on a T9 KM CV at the earliest (T10 at the latest).  It could be their "gimmick" aside from maybe a Fritz X bomber squad on the T10 (maybe T9 at the earliest but no lower).  Just limit the "ammo" of the jet fighters so that they would need to rearm more often to keep strafing, and limit the jet bomber squad plane count to 4 with fewer squads in the air (to offset their faster speed).

[WanderingGhost]

8 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

There's the possibility of balancing the RN CVs to initially start with USN style 6-plane formations and lower number of squads, then later shift over to IJN-style 4-plane squads and more squads in the air, in a manner similar to how nations adopted the German 4-plane style of combat and deployment as the war progressed (or afterwards).  On the KM end of things, balance more by the number of bombers per squad (the TB setup originally had 5 bombers per squad), while leaving fighters to 4-plane squads and maybe 2 fighter squads available at any time, to harass enemy bombers or lockdown two separate enemy fighter groups (or lockdown one and then strafe them with the spare squad).

 

 

On an aside, I noticed your T10 KM CV idea was an enlarged Graf Zeppelin concept.  It reminded me of Xero_Snake's VMF CV line suggestion, and how its T10 is also an enlarged Graf Zeppelin concept (after being studied by Russians).  I wonder if a similar design could be applied to the KM T10 as well, but with obvious German influence; such as emplacements and aircraft.

 

Back to, I debate the usage of jets outside of the Germans, and only on a T9 KM CV at the earliest (T10 at the latest).  It could be their "gimmick" aside from maybe a Fritz X bomber squad on the T10 (maybe T9 at the earliest but no lower).  Just limit the "ammo" of the jet fighters so that they would need to rearm more often to keep strafing, and limit the jet bomber squad plane count to 4 with fewer squads in the air (to offset their faster speed).

 

Could work for UK, just more it gets say 2,1,0 instead of 2,0,1. If you've looked at my German CV thing, you probably notice I'm the guy that thinks GErmany should focus on DB's and leave TB's to the rest, especially as I find it interesting that to a degree you would essentially have the ability to have the sides most likely to square off against one another actually being the other's polar opposite in strike ability. But that's just my preference. My main thing is just that the two lines most likely to be reliant on DB's, USN and KM, should be a bit higher in accuracy. But Cv's need a lot of work. Fighters if it's pure neutral point and click need to be 1-1, that is, 50/50 or close to it shot on who wins, but via different methods, using my example above, USN has high HP and ammo, but lower damage, in line with yes, 6. 50's was a lot, but not a 20 mm cannon, but carried more rounds and better durability, with IJN having higher damage, lower health and ammo, in line with use of cannons and planes that are better traditional dogfighters, but had less ammo and more fragile planes, with UK being somewhere in the middle, actually somewhat accurate to it's designs, maybe leaning a little more on damage with slightly lower HP and ammo, given they generally used liquid cooled engines more easily damaged, and had similar firepower to the Zero or a little more really, but not quite as nimble but more so than USN planes. Strafe needs to be just a debuff to bombers and maybe fighters (temporary lower DPS), not the auto delete it is, making it a more tactical thing to use in timing and more fair not causing attrition issues and makes keeping exit strafing better to increase the way fighter tactics can worked based around stats like speed and all, manual drop removal/rework, etc. Most of my changes and ideas fall in line with CV's getting a major overhaul. And I say jets for all tier X because this is supposed to go a little past WW2, and all countries were starting to put out jet fighters, Though I could also agree that despite that, Germany gets one at tier 9, before the rest, which I can easily go find one that could work and rework the plane tech tree, Which, ammo would still be in line with similarly armed aircraft (though if 30 mm cannons, yes less), the lower damage because less Time on Target to score the hits and less durability because jet engines especially back then were not really hard to mess up. Which with strafing not an auto delete, makes it less an issue plus how MM works at the moment. And literally speed is their life so yes, better for emergency intercept from across the map, not as great as dogfighting the piston planes.

 

And yeah, I never actually saw that thread, merely looked at the info for GZ and German CV development, and looked at other German projects and the direction they were going, the big, grandiose creations like the "landekreuzer", bombers etc and a general trend of "bigger, everything bigger". It made sense that GZ was meant to be bigger as it was, and they looked to remove the 15 cm guns for more 10.5's. Factor in IJN input, intelligence gathering on USN and UK ships like Malta, Midway, and Essex, and a design they had and, in this scenario, proven, fix what was needed and well, make it bigger than Midway or Malta, just not into ice carrier territory (I really hope, funny as it would be and the fact they modeled it, that it isn't going to show up in the tech tree), with the largest DP guns I could find (the 12.8's) and 10.5's making up a heavy secondary battery. Hell, much as I mention having 3.7 and 2 cm guns there, a version I have since come up with would have the 12.8's, 10.5's, and 8.8's with very few or no 3.7 and 2 cm guns, essentially focused more on a longer range flak wall with the 12.8's maybe being the longest range, the 10.5's a little shorter, and the 8.8 the shortest, or barring that, the 12.8 the slowest firing and the 8.8 the fastest. Crazy idea, yes, but the Germans had plenty. But the base version I put down there, especially when I intended GZ's sister essentially sporting that proposed design change was tier 9, made sense in terms of a technological leap for the next ship as to my knowledge, I can not find other German CV plans that are not the "Hybrids" that I honestly feel should kinda stay out of the game or be limited to premium/reward ships. Thing is some of these lines, like German BB's even, may need a stretch of history or a fake to take a spot at the top, at most, if you start the line at tier 5 instead of 4, something I think would actually be a good idea for Germany especially because they were a little late to the game on CV's, at most barring a standard CV plan I've not yet seen need 1 creation, at the absolute most depending on how they'd rule on use of certain ships, maybe 2. I've heard rumour of a Bismarck class conversion, as to if that was really a thing they designed, or something people came up with, I've not actually seen it, least not a full carrier. Thing is, proper application of logic, balance, and creativity, you can easily fill in technological gaps especially at the end of a tree. Hell, I could of built the USN tree with Lexington at the lower tiers with her biplanes or early war aircraft with Saratoga being a higher tiered premium. But then again, that would also be with AA balanced just right that fleet carriers at tier 5 or 6 wouldn't be an issue, with Escort carriers possibly being a sub branch.

[Sakuzhi]

1 hour ago, YamatoA150 said:

From what I recall, it was more the fact that it was VMF anything before the KM and RN at all.  And the biggest outrage actually came from the Russian server itself.  For a long while, they hated their own VMF cruisers insisting they were underperforming when compared to the USN cruisers they so loved.

It is was the fact that there were at least 4 navies that should be in the game before the RU at all.

 

Also, you ever play that other game you mentioned?

[Nanaki]

4 hours ago, AdmiralMudkip said:

But seriously (and this is kinda going off tangent here)! If this is going to be the final stats, then I'm not happy about it! I prefer the AP bombs to be a USN CV thing and somehow, the Graf Zeppelin as of August 11th is already better than the Enterprise in terms of AP bombs! It devalues the already shoddy-performing Enterprise! If the GZ has the ability to deal good damage against cruisers, then do something about the Enterprise and buff it! There's no way in hell that I'm going to accept that a carrier that got symbolically sunk by the Luftwaffe performs better than the Enterprise with a theoretically more versatile loadout! I saw the gameplay video of it and I was not happy about it. 

 

As things currently are, Graf Zeppelin is going to be worse than Enterprise. Yes, it has better DBs, and more of them, but Enterprise has better fighters, more fighters, far higher reserves, and it has torpedo bombers, even if they are bad torpedo bombers.

 

Graf, on the other hand, has overspecialized DBs, the worst fighters tier for tier, and that is it. Nothing else.

I already mentioned that the CV Gimmicks must stop

 

In order for Graf to even be considered as a decent CV, in my opinion, it would need 2-1-2, and much better fighters than it does now. The torpedo bomber spread would probably need to be improved, since it would only have one squadron to the Enterprise's two.

 

4 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

Getting emotional over a ship that isnt even out of testing seems rather silly. I'll wait till the actual reviews are out to judge the final product.

 

The outrage is at the perfect time, if we wait until it is already released, than it is too late and will not be changed substantially.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

I will say what the YouTuber did not: 
GRAF ZEPPELIN IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT.  ANYTHING ABOUT THE SHIP CAN AND WILL CHANGE BEFORE RELEASE.

Do not panic, people.  This (probably) isn't Graf Zeppelin's final form.  Creating a homogeneous carrier load-out (all torpedo planes / all dive bombers) lets Wargaming collect a lot of data quickly about the performance of given aircraft.  Once they have all of the stats, they can then figure out how to balance things.

[Nanaki]

1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I will say what the YouTuber did not: 
GRAF ZEPPELIN IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT.  ANYTHING ABOUT THE SHIP CAN AND WILL CHANGE BEFORE RELEASE.

Do not panic, people.  This (probably) isn't Graf Zeppelin's final form.  Creating a homogeneous carrier load-out (all torpedo planes / all dive bombers) lets Wargaming collect a lot of data quickly about the performance of given aircraft.  Once they have all of the stats, they can then figure out how to balance things.

 

Wargaming is dead serious about 2-0-3.

 

Take a look at this. More specifically...

 

Quote

Update 0.6.9, Graf Zeppelin testing

2-3-0 Flight control, that was tested before, turned out to be too efficient against destroyers. More versatile 2-1-2 option lacks any special flavor and is not interesting in general. Thus, we're testing 2-0-3 with PC-500 RS (Paulina) AP bomb as an optional module. In real life, such bombs were equipped with solid booster engine, which results in 245 mm in-game penetration. The fuse arms at 35 mm of effective armor. Such bomb parameters combined with high manual attack accuracy should allow to deal massive alpha damage to BBs, and even to cruisers, if squadrons are skillfully controlled.