Carrier and Surface Combatant Interactions

[sulghunter331]

The main problem with the current interactions between a carrier's planes and a surface combatant is that AA is based off of a RNG dice-roll DPS system where aircraft experience damage by simply being within an aura around each ship. This results in a nearly binary situation, with a knife's edge to balance the situation on, where either the AA is too weak/planes too durable and the surface ships get sunk too easily, or AA is too strong/planes too flimsy and the carriers do a grand total of jack and sh*t in each game, as far as damage and, consequently, experience and silver is concerned. By making AA an automatic system, with little input from the player aside on/off and priority targets, the developers sort of painted themselves into a corner on this one. In this case, what would a "balanced" situation even look like? With such a system in place, it would have to look like planes and ships being destroyed in proportional measure, but in that case, what would be the "correct/balanced" proportion?

Now, I can already see the immediate hatred, crying for the prompt removal of carriers from the game. The lone wolf destroyers carrying vendettas against the carriers that ruined their stealth plays, the battleships that were sodomized by successive waves of aerial strikes, etc... .Before you tune me out and return to your seething hatred of anything that flies or launches anything that flies, please here me out: what if anti-air warfare became more involved for both parties concerned?

This is my idea: Have aircraft be allowed to fly at three different altitudes(low, medium, high) and allow for AA suites to be focused on any one of these aforementioned altitudes.

For the aircraft, there will be advantages and disadvantages for each altitude.

• At low altitude, they will enjoy an increase to their maximum speeds and a reduction to the distance at which they are spotted, whilst the disadvantage will be an increased vulnerability to AA fire( ~20% increase maybe?)
• For high altitude, the planes will have a reduction to AA damage experienced(10% or 15% reduction), but they will have their speeds reduced and the distance at which the planes will be spotted is increased.
• Medium altitude will be the middle ground( surprise to probably no one in particular), with no speed, stealth or AA damage modifiers.

Also, each aircraft type will have special interactions with each altitude.

• Fighters squadrons that attack another squadron at a lower altitude will enjoy a momentary increase to damage output. Fighter squadrons that engage other squadrons at the same, or higher altitudes than themselves will enjoy no such increase. The fighter squad will also descend to the same altitude as the target once engaged however.
• Torpedo bombers will be able to travel any altitude, but must make their attack runs at low altitude( they will automatically descend to low altitude if ordered to attack)
• Dive bombers will be able to commence their attacks any altitude, but lower altitudes will allow for smaller bomb dispersion( high altitude will have the greatest dispersion, low altitude the smallest dispersion).

For the AA suites, focusing on each altitude will allow full damage application, but the at other altitudes the damage will be reduced.

• Example 1: AA batteries are focused at low altitudes to repel a torpedo squadron. The torpedo squad receives full damage (on top of the low altitude damage penalty), the dive bomber squad at medium altitude receives ~50% of the damage, and the fighter squad at high altitude would receive ~25% of the damage (along with the high altitude damage reduction). If the AA were focused at high altitude(you must really hate fighters, huh?), it would be reversed, with high altitude receiving full damage (high altitude damage reduction still in play), medium altitude still ~50%, and low altitude a whopping ~25% (still getting the low altitude damage penalty though).
• Example 2: AA batteries are focused at medium altitudes, medium altitude aircraft receive 100% damage, whilst low and high altitudes receive ~50% damage.

Also, to switch between each altitude, for both AA and aircraft, will obviously need to take some measure of time to conduct the swap, but AA suites will be able to switch altitudes faster than the aircraft( maybe 6 seconds for the AA guns, but 10 for the aircraft).

• To switch between each altitude for the AA guns, press P to cycle to a higher altitude, O for a lower altitude, and L to turn off the AA batteries. A momentary delay before the AA suite carries out the switch to allow for the player to input the desired altitude, turning on/off is immediate.
• For the aircraft carriers, while the carrier itself is selected, P, O, and L will perform the same functions as on the other surface ships for the AA batteries. When an aircraft squad is selected, P will cycle for a higher altitude, and O for a lower altitude (L does nothing). For multiple squads selected, they will be effected at the same time as if as one squad. Same momentary delay as the AA guns before executing the altitude change.

TL,DR: Aircraft can fly at one of three altitudes to enjoy certain benefits but also receive some penalties, while AA guns can focus their damage at one of the three altitudes at the expense of damage at the other two altitudes.

As always, whether you think this idea is great and should be implemented, or that it is completely terrible and should never see the light of day, please make your comments known. And yes, I know that this idea would involve will reworking a significant portion of the game, and as such may never be implemented, but a guy can dream, can't he?

[Viper5delta]

I think it definitely seems interesting, would definitely make the AA feel like it's more in your hands instead of praying to RNGesus which I think is one of the main cause of CV hatred.

[SwordSmith95]

I like it, it adds a depth that is currently lacking to CVs (especially AS), I however don't know hoe hard it will be to implement...

 

I am unsure how you would set it up so ships other than the CV can tell the aircraft's current altitude.

I also think that setting AA at an altitude should give a damage bonus to that altitude, but still work for the rest of the altitudes, so that if someone is focusing on something else they aren't totally vulnerable to the other altitudes.

[sulghunter331]

10 minutes ago, SwordSmith95 said:

I like it, it adds a depth that is currently lacking to CVs (especially AS), I however don't know hoe hard it will be to implement...

 

I am unsure how you would set it up so ships other than the CV can tell the aircraft's current altitude.

I also think that setting AA at an altitude should give a damage bonus to that altitude, but still work for the rest of the altitudes, so that if someone is focusing on something else they aren't totally vulnerable to the other altitudes.

An indication of altitude would certainly be useful, perhaps some sort of symbol next to the squadron icon perhaps( L for low, M for medium, and H for high)?

Well, the damage bonus is supposed to come from the strike squadrons attacking at low altitudes to either yield the best results(dive bombers), or to attack at all(torpedo bombers). The CV player will have to expose his torpedo bombers to the extra damage to conduct a torpedo drop, and will have to accept lesser results from his dive bombers should he decide to avoid the maximum AA damage, but at the same time, the CV player should still have some means of countering his opponents actions.

Yeah, I realize that this would be quite a weighty system that may very well take a not insignificant amount of resources on part of the developers, resources that they may prefer to focus on putting out more ship lines.

[Ajatcho]

well increasing the altitude also decreases the chances of your aircraft being spotted and you spotting targets (ex. hiding in cloud formation which works both ways like smoke)

[sulghunter331]

8 minutes ago, Ajatcho said:

well increasing the altitude also decreases the chances of your aircraft being spotted and you spotting targets (ex. hiding in cloud formation which works both ways like smoke)

Well, my idea with this was that the aircraft are much higher, and thus the horizon doesn't shield them from observation as much whilst low altitude aircraft are shielded by the horizon more. I wasn't really considering cloud cover.

[Slightlyaskewed]

I kinda see where you are trying to go with this and will roll it around in the empty space inside my cranial cavity for a while. But this shows a lot of differences of trying to balance RL vs arcade to me. 1: your idea of being slower at higher altitude. Most aircraft fly more efficiently and thereby faster with lower fuel costs at higher altitude. This is especially true of high performance aircraft such as military combat aircraft. 2: Spotter aircraft flew as high as they could get away with to spot ships easier. Spotters don't need to see a ship to find it, the wake is visible for a much greater distance so that was looked for first and then used to find and identify the ship/ or fleet. Of course size of ship and speed influenced the wake immensely. If cloud cover was to thick you flew below it at the cost of spotting range but if sparce you sucked it up worked with it.

There is more but of course this is an arcade game and you can balance things to make gameplay work any way you desire.

[sulghunter331]

1 hour ago, Slightlyaskewed said:

I kinda see where you are trying to go with this and will roll it around in the empty space inside my cranial cavity for a while. But this shows a lot of differences of trying to balance RL vs arcade to me. 1: your idea of being slower at higher altitude. Most aircraft fly more efficiently and thereby faster with lower fuel costs at higher altitude. This is especially true of high performance aircraft such as military combat aircraft. 2: Spotter aircraft flew as high as they could get away with to spot ships easier. Spotters don't need to see a ship to find it, the wake is visible for a much greater distance so that was looked for first and then used to find and identify the ship/ or fleet. Of course size of ship and speed influenced the wake immensely. If cloud cover was to thick you flew below it at the cost of spotting range but if sparce you sucked it up worked with it.

There is more but of course this is an arcade game and you can balance things to make gameplay work any way you desire.

1. Well, fair enough, I'm just rather uninformed with aircraft performance versus altitude. I just thought it sounded reasonable when I cooked it up in my head. Actually, reversing the speed bonus/penalty for the altitudes could accentuate the weakness of low altitude flight to AA fire.

2. Wasn't really thinking about cloud cover. The increased chance for the squadron to be spotted by surface ships was supposed to be a penalty to balance out the extra resistance to AA fire.

[Yvonne_Swanson]

just to let you know that someone suggested this in one of the many CV idea threads but yeah i think this is a good idea i was writing up my ideas so this will prolly make its way into it (as soon as im done with it) :P

[sulghunter331]

10 hours ago, Yvonne_Swanson said:

just to let you know that someone suggested this in one of the many CV idea threads but yeah i think this is a good idea i was writing up my ideas so this will prolly make its way into it (as soon as im done with it) :P

Yay, my idea will live on, and not be stranded in a forgotten thread.

[Ensign_Pulver_2016]

Doesn't designating a specific squadron do this from the AA platform? A fighter squadron accompanying a TB or DB squadron will dilute AA effect on attack aircraft unless I mark the squadron I wish. Two attack squadrons and one VF will force me to either accept 1/3 damage to each, or focus all damage on the selected most-feared target. 

I don't CV but this would appear to be a good use of a depleted TB squadron. I fear TB more than DB. If both attack I will focus theTB even if it's behind the DB.

I may be mistaken on how the designated AA fire works. There is likely a way for me to see there's only one TB before I see only one fish in the water. Yet, if a TB and DB attack simultaneously, I will designate the TB  11 klicks. And realize when it disappears that I have only one kill. And 4 bombs fall around me. I will try to delete the empty DBs so they cannot rearm and do it again.

 

[sulghunter331]

2 hours ago, Ensign_Pulver_2016 said:

Doesn't designating a specific squadron do this from the AA platform? A fighter squadron accompanying a TB or DB squadron will dilute AA effect on attack aircraft unless I mark the squadron I wish. Two attack squadrons and one VF will force me to either accept 1/3 damage to each, or focus all damage on the selected most-feared target. 

I don't CV but this would appear to be a good use of a depleted TB squadron. I fear TB more than DB. If both attack I will focus theTB even if it's behind the DB.

I may be mistaken on how the designated AA fire works. There is likely a way for me to see there's only one TB before I see only one fish in the water. Yet, if a TB and DB attack simultaneously, I will designate the TB  11 klicks. And realize when it disappears that I have only one kill. And 4 bombs fall around me. I will try to delete the empty DBs so they cannot rearm and do it again.

 

1. The point of this system is to make AA more involved for both parties concerned, the surface combatants and carriers, to make it such that you aren't gambling on whether an automated system will be able to chew through a wave strike squadrons before they drop their ordnance. This is to go beyond JUST designating a singular squadron to focus AA on, but also to give carriers some tools to vary their strategies besides massed attacks and baiting strafes and defensive fires.

2. Well, that's the point of a massed attack. Throwing everything you have in your wing to overwhelm the enemy AA to ensure that at least some of the ordnance gets through. Although, the point of the multiple AA levels will allow you to better set your self up against an enemy air attack. If you see a torpedo squad coming, set up for low altitude, see some dive bombers coming in at high altitude to exploit the AA resistance buff, set up for high altitude. See dive bombers at medium/high and torpedo bombers coming, well looks like that carrier really wants you dead is willing to put up everything he has to make it happen, set up for low, and start dodging.

3.Designated AA fire is rather self-exclamatory, AA will focus at those planes you choose at the expense of damaging other squads at all. You can also see the squadron strength underneath each squadron icon as pips in a bar. Bright pips indicate remaining planes, whilst dark pips indicate missing planes.

4. CVs already throw fighters/under-strength squadrons in first to distract AA guns now. I have seen this tactic since CBT in fact.

[Taichunger]

The solution is simpler. If we have to put up with game ruining Sky Parasites, then AA should grow in effectiveness as the planes loiter anywhere in the ship's AA bubble. Today I was deleted by a Ranger captain running Strike, who UFOed the torp planes around me until he had the right angle and then put five torps in me. If the AA increased in effectiveness geometrically over time in the AA bubble, planes would not be able to orbit ships until they found just the right position -- instead, they would have to get in and out, a bit more realistic.

That would reduce the load on the computer that would be caused by multiple levels/choices/AA effectiveness. 

[CaptGodzillaPig]

Now, doesn't the game already have a mechanic that greatly increases your AA ability?  Don't get me wrong, I get what you are saying and I like it.  Seems like it would add a lot of complexity and probably be harder to implement.  AA works on a similar metric as secondary guns, not the same, but similar.  By enhancing your secondary skills, you can specialize in that to gain the benefits at the risk of not getting some other skills.  AA has the same manual control ability, but most won't spec it because honestly you don't see planes that often.  At least not at high tier.  CV's can be a real hassle, especially the good CV drivers (Yes Fem I am looking at you and thank god I haven't seen you in awhile.)   But really this seems like a huge hassle and a huge NERF to CV's when they really, for the average CV driver, have enough to worry about as it is.  Trust me, I don't drive CV's, I hate the good drivers with a passion, but there aren't very many really good drivers and when I do see one, that isn't on my team,  god bless him/her for doing what they do.   Even better if they are on my team. 

[Ensign_Pulver_2016]

2 hours ago, sulghunter331 said:

1. The point of this system is to make AA more involved for both parties concerned, the surface combatants and carriers, to make it such that you aren't gambling on whether an automated system will be able to chew through a wave strike squadrons before they drop their ordnance. This is to go beyond JUST designating a singular squadron to focus AA on, but also to give carriers some tools to vary their strategies besides massed attacks and baiting strafes and defensive fires.

2. Well, that's the point of a massed attack. Throwing everything you have in your wing to overwhelm the enemy AA to ensure that at least some of the ordnance gets through. Although, the point of the multiple AA levels will allow you to better set your self up against an enemy air attack. If you see a torpedo squad coming, set up for low altitude, see some dive bombers coming in at high altitude to exploit the AA resistance buff, set up for high altitude. See dive bombers at medium/high and torpedo bombers coming, well looks like that carrier really wants you dead is willing to put up everything he has to make it happen, set up for low, and start dodging.

3.Designated AA fire is rather self-exclamatory, AA will focus at those planes you choose at the expense of damaging other squads at all. You can also see the squadron strength underneath each squadron icon as pips in a bar. Bright pips indicate remaining planes, whilst dark pips indicate missing planes.

4. CVs already throw fighters/under-strength squadrons in first to distract AA guns now. I have seen this tactic since CBT in fact.

Thanks for the tip. I am just unconvinced that changing the choices from squdron x to altitude x is a more fun game mechanic.  This is the only game I've ever installed. I've never owned a console. So a true noob I am.

[sulghunter331]

6 hours ago, Taichunger said:

The solution is simpler. If we have to put up with game ruining Sky Parasites, then AA should grow in effectiveness as the planes loiter anywhere in the ship's AA bubble. Today I was deleted by a Ranger captain running Strike, who UFOed the torp planes around me until he had the right angle and then put five torps in me. If the AA increased in effectiveness geometrically over time in the AA bubble, planes would not be able to orbit ships until they found just the right position -- instead, they would have to get in and out, a bit more realistic.

That would reduce the load on the computer that would be caused by multiple levels/choices/AA effectiveness. 

Well, there are several factors that go into your situation, more than just the Ranger's torpedo squad conducting an air show above your ship.

• First, the Ranger could have had the upgraded planes, with the relevant mods and skills to increase the durability of his planes.
• Second, your ship plays very heavily in whether or not the Ranger can allow his planes to be around you for an extended period. If you were in a La Galissoniere without defensive fire/ a destroyer, than the Ranger would have significantly more time than he would have if you were in an AA-specced Cleveland running with defensive fire.
• Third, "UFOed the torp planes" doesn't really give us an idea of exactly how long the torpedo squadron was above your ship, but I'd imagine it must've several over-head passes, but again, doesn't give much detail as to duration.

[sulghunter331]

6 hours ago, CaptGodzillaPig said:

Now, doesn't the game already have a mechanic that greatly increases your AA ability?  Don't get me wrong, I get what you are saying and I like it.  Seems like it would add a lot of complexity and probably be harder to implement.  AA works on a similar metric as secondary guns, not the same, but similar.  By enhancing your secondary skills, you can specialize in that to gain the benefits at the risk of not getting some other skills.  AA has the same manual control ability, but most won't spec it because honestly you don't see planes that often.  At least not at high tier.  CV's can be a real hassle, especially the good CV drivers (Yes Fem I am looking at you and thank god I haven't seen you in awhile.)   But really this seems like a huge hassle and a huge NERF to CV's when they really, for the average CV driver, have enough to worry about as it is.  Trust me, I don't drive CV's, I hate the good drivers with a passion, but there aren't very many really good drivers and when I do see one, that isn't on my team,  god bless him/her for doing what they do.   Even better if they are on my team. 

 

8 hours ago, sulghunter331 said:

1. The point of this system is to make AA more involved for both parties concerned, the surface combatants and carriers, to make it such that you aren't gambling on whether an automated system will be able to chew through a wave strike squadrons before they drop their ordnance. This is to go beyond JUST designating a singular squadron to focus AA on, but also to give carriers some tools to vary their strategies besides massed attacks and baiting strafes and defensive fires.

 

[CCloak]

7 hours ago, Taichunger said:

The solution is simpler. If we have to put up with game ruining Sky Parasites, then AA should grow in effectiveness as the planes loiter anywhere in the ship's AA bubble. Today I was deleted by a Ranger captain running Strike, who UFOed the torp planes around me until he had the right angle and then put five torps in me. If the AA increased in effectiveness geometrically over time in the AA bubble, planes would not be able to orbit ships until they found just the right position -- instead, they would have to get in and out, a bit more realistic.

That would reduce the load on the computer that would be caused by multiple levels/choices/AA effectiveness. 

 

Except that is only one end of a spectrum in the experience of a tech tree T7 CV. Even discounting the fact that Strike Ranger is 100% hard countered by the likes of Saipan and Kaga. My experience is either get sent back to port quickly as IJN DD, or I get all their torpedo bombers destroyed in my full AA spec Iowa. Neither scenario is fun. That is the problem with CV games.

[Taichunger]

8 hours ago, CCloak said:

 

Except that is only one end of a spectrum in the experience of a tech tree T7 CV. Even discounting the fact that Strike Ranger is 100% hard countered by the likes of Saipan and Kaga. My experience is either get sent back to port quickly as IJN DD, or I get all their torpedo bombers destroyed in my full AA spec Iowa. Neither scenario is fun. That is the problem with CV games.

 

I think you missed my point. 

One problem with CVs is that they can UFO their airplanes around ships without suffering any penalty (wish I could UFO my shells so they struck however I wanted them to). Players hate that. The obvious solution is to increase the effectiveness of AA the longer the aircraft linger in the AA bubble, to force them to get in and out. That would add an element of realism and reduce the computational strain on the server.

 

 

[Drakausa]

I have noticed something about driving ships in WOWS since my first game. The player (captain) is not 'commanding' a ship full of officers and crew. He (the player) actually steers the ship personally. If you are approaching dangerously close to an island it gives a warning but the player must then divert his attention from his other duties and begin to steer (or halt) the ship or go aground. Also the player, more often than not, is required to manage aim, firing, damage control, heals, AA manual control (if used) as well as manage area awareness - all at the same time. So adding further jobs will only degrade ability of players to function (reduce efficiency further). Added complexity only reduces performance (especially in a game).

 

Adding the CV into this surface warfare game was virtually a requirement due to the intense nationality and historicity of the ships and their different class performance in real life. The CV was rarely in any sort of surface confrontation in the first place and being on the relatively small surface action maps was a game related design, not a real life actuality. (Yes, I know about TAFFY). Nor was warship survivability very good against aircraft, as the two RN battlecruisers in the pacific found. It seems that WG is still trying to balance out those IRL problems and still allow us to play with CVs. At present it seems best, if CVs are in the game, for any BB to get with another ship or two for both AA protection and focus fire and against DDs.

 

I have lately been prone to type in basic chat the following statement, "Groups push and focus fire". Do not try to make it any more specific in a Random game but have seen some success.

[Yvonne_Swanson]

8 hours ago, Taichunger said:

 

I think you missed my point. 

One problem with CVs is that they can UFO their airplanes around ships without suffering any penalty (wish I could UFO my shells so they struck however I wanted them to). Players hate that. The obvious solution is to increase the effectiveness of AA the longer the aircraft linger in the AA bubble, to force them to get in and out. That would add an element of realism and reduce the computational strain on the server.

 

 

this is already in game ... (the longer a squadron in AA begins to take more and more focus of AA to simulate your AA gunners getting more accurate)

also if you have crappy AA such as a DD then this bonus has a very small effect, I have found while playing ranger if you want planes to fall out of the sky have DF running or a AA rating of 60+. A DDs AA usually is like what 20 - 40 that is not going to shoot down too much for a while they would need either DF or a AA rating of at least 45 to start putting on the hurt on them aircraft.

[gurudennis]

Your logic is sound and I wholeheartedly agree, but the suggestion itself isn't going to work in its verbatim form. The reason being, more options for altitude => more micro for carriers already overloaded with micro => even higher skill floor => even greater divide between good and bad players => even more imbalanced matches.

 

It is decidedly impossible to address the carrier issues without first addressing the notion of them having to be equally matched and limited in quantity because that is where the heart of the imbalances lies. Make it so that there can be an arbitrary number of carriers in a match (e.g. up to the current soft limit of 5 of any ship type per team) and if it can work without breaking the game - congrats, you've done it. Any changes that are tangential to this purpose are ultimately tangential to fixing carriers.

 

Whether it's possible to accomplish the above or not, I'll leave it to you. Some say no and thus advocate for the removal of carriers, others entertain various milder views on the subject. If you ask me, CVs cannot be removed for business reasons at this point, but they also cannot be conclusively fixed. Hence the current -- and mark my words, the long-term -- state of affairs.

[Raptor_alcor]

Love the idea, wargaming will never impliment it though because they think their playerbase is dumber than a bag of rocks. 

[sulghunter331]

42 minutes ago, Raptor_alcor said:

Love the idea, wargaming will never impliment it though because they think their playerbase is dumber than a bag of rocks. 

Again, I realize that this may never be implemented, but it's just something that I am hoping for. Although, I wonder if an in depth tutorial series would remedy the apparent lack of competency among the general player base, something along the lines of a mini-campaign to show each function in the game.

[sulghunter331]

5 hours ago, gurudennis said:

Your logic is sound and I wholeheartedly agree, but the suggestion itself isn't going to work in its verbatim form. The reason being, more options for altitude => more micro for carriers already overloaded with micro => even higher skill floor => even greater divide between good and bad players => even more imbalanced matches.

 

It is decidedly impossible to address the carrier issues without first addressing the notion of them having to be equally matched and limited in quantity because that is where the heart of the imbalances lies. Make it so that there can be an arbitrary number of carriers in a match (e.g. up to the current soft limit of 5 of any ship type per team) and if it can work without breaking the game - congrats, you've done it. Any changes that are tangential to this purpose are ultimately tangential to fixing carriers.

 

Whether it's possible to accomplish the above or not, I'll leave it to you. Some say no and thus advocate for the removal of carriers, others entertain various milder views on the subject. If you ask me, CVs cannot be removed for business reasons at this point, but they also cannot be conclusively fixed. Hence the current -- and mark my words, the long-term -- state of affairs.

Yes, the problems for carriers is more than just AA interactions, my suggestion is to simply solve this particular facet of the overall issue of carriers.