British Carriers

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

Where are they? When will they be coming to the game? What is the excuse for their absence? #neverhappy

teaser :

 (Hawker Sea Hurricanes and Fairey Albacores on the flight deck of HMS INDOMITABLE during a Malta convoy.)

Yeh yeh, I know, we are getting new British BBs, so why the complaint? Well because Xmas is 'only' 4&1/2 months away, and marketing departments always start their Xmas preparations in July. (Extra strong and subtle hint for WG there.) Now I have heard that one reason for the delay is that devs need to balance existing CVs, but to me that sounds wrong. The problem of poor CV balance in the current meta is that there is too little diversity and too few CVs in the game. Counter intuitive perhaps. We do need a premium RN carrier to gather data in game, and fill Christmas stockings, or even RN Armoured Carrier day (which is whenever we feel like celebrating it).

To wet appetites : http://www.armouredcarriers.com/operation-pedestal-august-10-12-1942/

[Unabletony]

WG adding a new CV line before they can fix the whole thing is like (blah blah blah it's too early in the morning)

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

27 minutes ago, Unabletony said:

WG adding a new CV line before they can fix the whole thing is like (blah blah blah it's too early in the morning)

It is never too early.. A new CV line is the only way to fix 'the whole thing', more diversity is the answer, more options to explore, alternative strategies.

[dangerhamster]

Rumour is that WG are still working on the "Massive Broom" consumable to deal with hits on the flight deck.

[Kapitan_Wuff]

CVs need more than added diversity to fix them.

[ExploratorOne]

Very interesting read.

Thanks!

[BrushWolf]

1 hour ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

CVs need more than added diversity to fix them.

 

Diversity aka a new line doesn't address the underlying CV issue of their play being overly complicated compared to the other classes.

[Umikami]

2 hours ago, Unabletony said:

WG adding a new CV line before they can fix the whole thing

And yet I keep seeing threads where they quote sub_Octavian saying CV's are just fine right now. LOL!

[Captain_Dorja]

I wrote this message on my phone using speak to text while at work and I'm too lazy to edit it for grammar so if you find weird grammatical things please Overlook them.

 

The main reason why British carriers aren't in the game is the same as the main reason why it took so long for them to do British battleship.

 

Britain's carriers are weird.  Things that are weird are hard to balance. If you compare the u.s. in the Japanese aircraft carriers, they have readily comprable counterparts of all shapes and sizes and they have aircraft of similar capabilities to match against their opponents. So you have things like Shokaku and Lexington. You can put aircraft of similar capabilities on each ship, they both carried an air wing of comprable strength, a lot of their performance characteristics are similar, and ones that aren't  similar aren't terribly important (like Lexington belt armor). On the other hand if you look at the British, their carriers really aren't comfortable with the ones that are already in the game. They tend to fly very small air wings, and until pretty late in the war they often relied on some pretty bad airplanes. If you look at carriers like Graf Zeppelin and Saipan, which are also known for their small air wings and unusual aircraft loadouts, it's easy to understand why it would be a time-consuming and difficult process to implement British royal Navy aircraft carriers. That's before you even consider things like wanting to do any type of major overhaul of the system. If game mechanics got largely altered, they'd have to scrap everything and pretty nearly start again. 

 

I understand that everybody wants their own pet projects in the game immediately, but people really do need to be more mindful of the difficulties of implementing things. I need to be more thought and more patience. There's a reason why we have Proverbs like good things come to those who wait, Save The Best For Last, and to measure twice but cut once.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

2 minutes ago, Captain_Dorja said:

I wrote this message on my phone using speak to text while at work and I'm too lazy to edit it for grammar so if you find weird grammatical things please Overlook them.

 

The main reason why British carriers aren't in the game is the same as the main reason why it took so long for them to do British battleship.

 

Britain's carriers are weird.  Things that are weird are hard to balance. If you compare the u.s. in the Japanese aircraft carriers, they have readily comprable counterparts of all shapes and sizes and they have aircraft of similar capabilities to match against their opponents. So you have things like Shokaku and Lexington. You can put aircraft of similar capabilities on each ship, they both carried an air wing of comprable strength, a lot of their performance characteristics are similar, and ones that aren't  similar aren't terribly important (like Lexington belt armor). On the other hand if you look at the British, their carriers really aren't comfortable with the ones that are already in the game. They tend to fly very small air wings, and until pretty late in the war they often relied on some pretty bad airplanes. If you look at carriers like Graf Zeppelin and Saipan, which are also known for their small air wings and unusual aircraft loadouts, it's easy to understand why it would be a time-consuming and difficult process to implement British royal Navy aircraft carriers. That's before you even consider things like wanting to do any type of major overhaul of the system. If game mechanics got largely altered, they'd have to scrap everything and pretty nearly start again. 

 

I understand that everybody wants their own pet projects in the game immediately, but people really do need to be more mindful of the difficulties of implementing things. I need to be more thought and more patience. There's a reason why we have Proverbs like good things come to those who wait, Save The Best For Last, and to measure twice but cut once.

Hardly a pet project. But carriers were by and large, as we know them today, a very British invention. 

Yes the interwar and ww2 cvs are very different to both Japanese and American carriers, well spotted. hence the interest of seeing them in game. Patience? I am exceedingly patient, I expect the carriers yesterday rather than last year. 

No they are not the best, quite the contrary, they are likely to be tricky to play well in higher tiers, Saipan-lite on steroids. Yes in real life they often deployed very average airplanes (though adequate) in the 39-45 period, carrier plane development was not a priority. But excellent and combative carrier launched fighter-bombers were developed, built and test flown. More than good enough for WOWS. 

WOWS needs another CV line, badly, the Brits can supply everything required for one, while they practically invented the damned things, everything from catapult launch, arrested landing, flight deck layout and more besides.

[Captain_Dorja]

I'm not disputing any of that, except the patient bit which I expect with a joke. I'm not good at jokes so cut me some slack on that one.

 

I'm just saying that it is easy to understand why the British carriers are not in the game at this point if you look at it from an objective viewpoint with a development standpoint in mind and not from the viewpoint of somebody who really really wants them.

 

I don't play my carriers hardly at all anymore because they're so broken (the balance between USN and IJN is just god awful). I want there to be more in the game. I'd like to see British and German at least. Britain built and operated many and designed even more. Germany never got one in service but they had a lot of design work and a lot of conversions underway and I think it would be reasonable to the Germans to be able to field an entire line and I'd like to see that. However I'm not encouraged that Kaga, Enterprise, and Graf Zepplin are all either in game or coming soon because I remember pigeon of War saying they were not going to add any more premium carriers until the underlying issues with the class at been fixed. Those issues haven't even begun to really be addressed from what I can see, so the developers either believe they've done everything they need to (which is terrifying because that's obviously not true when a blind man can see it) or they've just decided that it's not worth putting it off any longer to make things actually work right and instead that just going to add more things into a broken machine. I don't know a lot about machines but I know that when you get a broken machine and you leave it running and add more parts to it without ever fixing it the machine becomes more broken.

 

Aside from the weirdness making them inherently difficult the balance, putting a full line of British carriers into the game it's just going to make the machine more broken and that's not good for anybody. It's not even good for you because you'll end up getting something that you really really want, but it'll probably be in a garbage form that won't be any fun and then you'll be upset because the thing you really want is crap. I'd wait 5 years if it meant that I got fixed problems. Then again I come from Eve Online. That's where I got my start in gaming, so what leave time of years for something that I want is a thing that I'm very familiar with... 

 

Anyway I'm not arguing, I'm just giving a very likely couple of reasons why British carriers aren't in the game and why I think it would be prudent to not hope that they get rushed in anytime soon. It sucks not having things that you really look forward to in game, but it sucks even more having them be trash.

[Palladia]

You guys realize British Carriers are on the way,  right?  They were planned along with British BB's and we may have them by the end of the year.

[HMS_H00D]

I must have British CV's!

[ArmouredCarriers]

Objectivity requires like-time comparisons.

Such as the Fulmar being in service when the USN primary fleet fighter was the F3F

 

And there was  a reason why the RN stuck with biplanes longer than other nations: its doctrine called for night and bad weather torpedo strike (as evidenced by Taranto, the hunt for Bismark and the Battle of Ceylon). Biplanes made that possible in the early war years (39-42), a time which - oddly enough - the Avenger was not in service.

 

The FAA fell in a 'hole' in 42-43 because of the Battle of Britain.

Remember how all production was halted except for Spitfires, Hurricanes and a couple of bombers?

The fallout of actually being the front line with the Nazis deeply hurt work on the 'next generation' FAA aircraft such as Firefly, Firebrand and Barracuda. (The bombing of Coventry hit the FAA facility there, for example)

Which is why the RN was an early adopter of the Corsair (the USN didn't want it initially) and Avenger (USS Robin, 1943).

 

How does this translate to WoWs?

Poorly.

It can't handle night or bad weather.

But the close-combat, narrow-waters map it imposes on game-play is somewhat closer to RN carrier doctrine (which is why they armoured their ships) than the Pacific scenarios.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

6 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Objectivity requires like-time comparisons.

Such as the Fulmar being in service when the USN primary fleet fighter was the F3F

 

And there was  a reason why the RN stuck with biplanes longer than other nations: its doctrine called for night and bad weather torpedo strike (as evidenced by Taranto, the hunt for Bismark and the Battle of Ceylon). Biplanes made that possible in the early war years (39-42), a time which - oddly enough - the Avenger was not in service.

 

(...)

Quibbles, The priority must be on gameplay, and an enjoyable experience. No shortage of experimental and limited production aircraft available to fill gaps for the purposes of balance, surely. BTW I keep meaning to ask when I see your sig, are you related to the (brilliant) Armoured Carrier website?

Their introduction, in any form, will be an excellent point for further discussion. 

Quote

But the close-combat, narrow-waters map it imposes on game-play is somewhat closer to RN carrier doctrine (which is why they armoured their ships) than the Pacific scenarios.

I think you are right, it would be an obvious point of distinction in the game, battle carriers...

[ArmouredCarriers]

Yes, that site is my hobby whenever I find some spare time.

Just one or two more pages before it is finished...

Perhaps next holidays.

[KaptainKaybe]

WG badly needs to rework CV gameplay and the gross balance issues between IJN and USN carriers before they come even remotely close to testing and releasing a new line.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

4 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

WG badly needs to rework CV gameplay and the gross balance issues between IJN and USN carriers before they come even remotely close to testing and releasing a new line.

Relax, British Carriers will rebalance everything. The problem with balance at the moment, is the absence of the RN carrier fleet, which historically experimented with and defined the doctrine of naval air warfare most closely relevant to WOWS gameplay, At the moment CV plays has Scissors (IJN), Paper (USN) but no Rocks!

 

6 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Yes, that site is my hobby whenever I find some spare time.

(...)

Only a hobby... 

[ArmouredCarriers]

6 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Only a hobby... 

 

Okay.

Part-time obsession.

Started tinkering with it 10 years ago. Started putting it online about four years ago.

Love exploring original documents and testimonies, and finding relevant pictures and video to build up a view of their experiences.

 

I had been similarly interested in USN carriers as a kid.

This was something new. And much harder to find details about.

So I dug it up myself

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

On 09/09/2017 at 2:37 PM, HMS_Formidable said:

 

Okay.

Part-time obsession.

Started tinkering with it 10 years ago. Started putting it online about four years ago.

Love exploring original documents and testimonies, and finding relevant pictures and video to build up a view of their experiences.

 

I had been similarly interested in USN carriers as a kid.

This was something new. And much harder to find details about.

So I dug it up myself

It is a very generous (and professional) website, makes me think of those expensive hardcover table top books (hint) that cost a small fortune. It deserves more recognition.

[ArmouredCarriers]

Submitted it to three or four publishers about five years ago. They said it wouldnt appeal to a US audieence, so would therefore be unviable. 

Shrug.

Either way, the issue would be pix. Places like the Imperial War Museum and US Naval Archives dont mind not-for-profit sites using low res images with attrubution for free. Print a book, and suddenly the bill mounts up....

 

there are two very good books out there now by professional historians (both have some annoying errors, but hey ...) British Carrier Aviation by Norman Friedman, and British Aircraft Carriers by David Hobbs.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

2 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Submitted it to three or four publishers about five years ago. They said it wouldnt appeal to a US audieence, so would therefore be unviable. 

Shrug.

Either way, the issue would be pix. Places like the Imperial War Museum and US Naval Archives dont mind not-for-profit sites using low res images with attrubution for free. Print a book, and suddenly the bill mounts up....

 

there are two very good books out there now by professional historians (both have some annoying errors, but hey ...) British Carrier Aviation by Norman Friedman, and British Aircraft Carriers by David Hobbs.

Try again, and keep trying. Obvious tie ins possible, in coming year. Don't sell yourself down. Also, amazon and similar, ebooks are a good intermediary/halfway, also widens your audience, makes it global. Self publishing on amazon kindle store if still no joy with publishers.. Heavens, serialize your work.

Oh and tweet your website to these people : https://twitter.com/RN_History

and similar. You would be sure to pick up informed readers.

[_KlRlTO_]

This is a line I am most excited to see in the game. I imagine the main tech tree progression will look something like this:

IV Argus

V Hermes or V Eagle

VI Courageous

VII Ark Royal

VIII Indomitable

IX Indefatigable

X Audacious or X Eagle (Depending on tier V)

 

As to what the ships will specialize in, they will obviously have thicker armor, but there will probably be something else giving them their own national flavor.

[GreyFox78659]

Supermarines not submarines!

[Grathew]

But just think of flying submarines firing torpedoes into battleships. Wouldn't that be fun?