Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Dr_Venture

My take on the Zeppelin.

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,020
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,721 posts
4,522 battles

I'm not the best CV player, but considering I've played several lines...and got a good sample size...I think maybe...dare I? I'm no unicum, I'm no lead game designer, I'm just a fan of German naval engineering, I'm also an avid model builder and I've sat in on several "what-if" sessions if that happened, or this happened. 

 

So I watched the reviews, I read the comments, I sat back and watched the world literally burn on this subject. It was very clearly to me that WG marketing stepped up and pushed a half baked product to get the sizzle from a con (which is a very very very tempting thing to do.) Yet now I and they and everyone realized it was a poor choice and now we're here to pick up the pieces....so...now what? 

 

So as it stands we're sitting here with multiple threads, but I think the most glaring thing here is the choice of planes used for the load out...frankly the idea is silly and here is why:

 

The Graf Zeppelin we have here is a 1945 model, a model based upon "what if the war went on and she entered service." We now have a carrier who's loadout is clearly based upon the 1939 idea of the airwing...and frankly it just doesn't fit! In 1945 the Kriegsmarine would not be using obsolete aircraft if they were well supplied/funded/in fantasy land. My vision for the 1945 Graf would have naval versions of the Focke Wulf 190 (as we have on late stage ships in the game.) By 1945 the Luftwaffe were shelling out planes that were armed pretty much solely with 20mm and 30mm cannons....if anything I would translate it like this into game play: strafing has a less duration but is more powerful...IE you have 20/30mm cannons but the range is shorter and the ammo is less...which would be accurate. So now we have 2 squadrons of 109's that can punch above their weight...which frankly needs to happen....you have less of them period and ANY decent CV player is going to shred them rapidly. This way those of us with the skill ceiling will not instantly be shut down by a AF loadout CV.

 

The attackers should be FW190's period...by 1945 the only place the Stuka was seen was on the Eastern Front busting tanks. It was clear that it was obsolete as hell, and unless we've got a magic fighter/bomber that was replacing it in the groun.....oh wait we do!

 

My proposal on this front would to give it a variable load out...FW190 torpedo bombers, and or FW190's with ROCKETS. If you want something "cool" then slap a pair of 120mm rockets under the wings...make them some form of damage dealing HE bomb that actually acts like armor piercing HE shells. It has the chance to cause a damage spike on superstructure sorta like cruisers do when facing battleships...I think the AP bomb gimmick was nice, but has the chance to be highly specialized and overused...rocket pods for naval attacks would be rather special. 

FW190's should be obviously faster than Stuka's...but not overly as fast as the fighter's meant to protect it. The idea here is these planes should be fast to sneak around and damage cruisers and destroyers but also be a credible threat to battleships. 

 

As for the secondary build...I say give them the range secondary wise as the battleships for which they pull the guns from. If someone wants to spec for secondaries...I say why not. It's a feature of the Germans to have strong secondaries and the carrier should follow suite. You would be risking harming your airwing by specifying for being cornered and attacked.  Destroyers are hard to kill in CV's and a secondary build CV makes it HIGH RISK/HIGH REWARD. Which is what I feel the game should be more focused towards...and if you wanna gear for secondaries well hey...cool...that's your call. 

 

 That said, I'd love to test the Graf Zeppelin, because I'm bored and I wouldn't mind doing something productive!

 

I'm anxious to see what other people have to say, constructively!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,317
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,475 posts
6,653 battles
21 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

 

So I watched the reviews, I read the comments, I sat back and watched the world literally burn on this subject. It was very clearly to me that WG marketing stepped up and pushed a half baked product to get the sizzle from a con (which is a very very very tempting thing to do.) (...)

 

 That said, I'd love to test the Graf Zeppelin, because I'm bored and I wouldn't mind doing something productive!

 

I'm anxious to see what other people have to say, constructively!

So did you buy it? If not why complain? Basing your own view on recycled reviews of a pre-release iteration of the CV is hardly constructive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,020
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,721 posts
4,522 battles
34 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

So did you buy it? If not why complain? Basing your own view on recycled reviews of a pre-release iteration of the CV is hardly constructive. 

 

No I based my opinion off pre-release and what WG considered a public release ready for market. I think in order to be objective you should really look at everything you have in front of you. I trust what the community contributors have to say, they are strong and objective people. 

 

I also based my reviews on logical design evolution of naval aviation of the Kriegsmarine, based upon evolution of the Luftwaffe throughout the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,317
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,475 posts
6,653 battles
1 minute ago, Dr_Venture said:

 

No I based my opinion off pre-release and what WG considered a public release ready for market. I think in order to be objective you should really look at everything you have in front of you. I trust what the community contributors have to say, they are strong and objective people. 

 

I also based my reviews on logical design evolution of naval aviation of the Kriegsmarine, based upon evolution of the Luftwaffe throughout the war.

So you admit your review is not based on the in game (admittedly- as a Graf Zeppelin owner - mediocre ship) version? Where is your own objectivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,020
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,721 posts
4,522 battles
Just now, nuttybiscuit said:

So you admit your review is not based on the in game (admittedly- as a Graf Zeppelin owner - mediocre ship) version? Where is your own objectivity?

 

Now it appears you're just fishing for ways to tear someone down on the internet for having some ideas and sharing them....c'mon man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

190's would need heavy modification, the landing speed is unsafely high.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,020
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,721 posts
4,522 battles
Just now, crzyhawk said:

190's would need heavy modification, the landing speed is unsafely high.

 

I proposed the 190's for two reasons: the luftwaffe was moving towards using them as ground attackers, and a radial engine was clearly the way to go for naval aviation (looking at the us navy). 

 

Yet it could be done, and it would be more thematic for the line, as the tier 9 and 10 ships have 190 fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

Yeah, I point out the landing speed because it had the same problem as the navalized Mustang did.  While it COULD land on a carrier, the stall speed was such that there was only a narrow speed window in which the aircraft could safely land.  The 190 has an even higher stall speed than the P51 does so landing would be pretty tricky.  It could certainly be done; the USN landed a B-25 on the Shangri-la in 1944.  it would likely require some heavy modifications to make it work though.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×