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

How WG Can Change the USN CV Line

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

137
[MIA-A]
Members
341 posts
9,669 battles

I have been thinking of two ways that WG can make the USN CVs better. First add 1 extra fighter group to the strike package since some potato decided that USN CVs don't get fighters for their strike but IJN and KM get them. Secondly, if you don't want to do this the other option is to start at Langley for T4. Then cut out all the CVs from T5-T9 since they are incredibly worthless to the IJN counter parts and bam Midway at T10. People give KM did a bad rap for being worthless the most worthless line is USN CVs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[5IN]
Members
1,785 posts
8,109 battles

This may not be the thread, but maybe someone can explain why you can't customize your CV loadout package?

 

Why not let someone go full AS or full Strike (yes, I know some CVs have no fighters).

 

I've been playing Bogue today and some games, the DBs do good damage, in others I get nothing at all.  I know RNG is at play here, but I'd rather keep my 2 fighter squadrons and have a TB instead.

 

Thanks,

 

B

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,292 battles

Or, you know, they could just give them more flexible loadouts. 

 

T4: 1/1/1

T5: 1/1/1 (Bogue doesn't need any other options, with three squads at T5 you get cancer, cancer and bigger cancer otherwise) 

T6: 1/1/1, 1/1/2, or 2/1/1

T7: 2/1/1, 1/1/3, or 3/1/1

T8: 2/1/1, 1/2/3, or 3/1/2

T9: 2/1/2, 2/2/2, or 3/1/2

T10: 2/2/2, 1/2/3, or 3/1/2

 

Reduce torp alpha slightly, and reduce torp squadron size to 5 to avoid the Midway of Old. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,697 posts
3,459 battles

If you allow everyone to take whatever squads they want you'll never see another DB. DBs aren't only unreliable, but nit very fun. They are also the USN specialty and the least accurate weapon of all CV weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[TAFY3]
Beta Testers
429 posts
5,929 battles

My only problem with the current CV loadouts is that USN doesn't get as many fighter squadrons as same-tiered IJN.  While I enjoy Strike loadouts I feel that a couple of fighter squadrons are necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,244
[SCCC]
Members
1,132 posts
5,563 battles

Only the T6 & T7 tech tree USN CVs are blatantly underpowered. Just give it a 1/1/2 loadout and 2/1/1 loadout and fixed. They can strike, maintain air control and scout. Although they shouldn't get 5 squadrons of 6 planes because that's for T9. The tech tree cvs in-game at T7& T8 should be fine with these loadouts because they have the same amount of planes in the air.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,420 battles
7 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

If you allow everyone to take whatever squads they want you'll never see another DB. DBs aren't only unreliable, but nit very fun. They are also the USN specialty and the least accurate weapon of all CV weapons.

Make them like Enterprise DBs, that evaporates. I mean Big E with AP DBs are HIGHLY accurate. If those DBs could be given in Ranger through Midway in the AS setup 2/0/2 and 3/0/2, might have some setups that can actually hurt battleships and then play spotter for the smaller fry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[5IN]
Members
1,785 posts
8,109 battles
7 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

If you allow everyone to take whatever squads they want you'll never see another DB. DBs aren't only unreliable, but nit very fun. They are also the USN specialty and the least accurate weapon of all CV weapons.

I was just curious... never really thought about it until today.  

 

Makes sense though.

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,767 posts
5,805 battles

Everyone loves to oversimplify this problem. The CV's need to be brought down to equal squadron size and the exact same loadouts and rebuilt from there. The US line cannot be fixed on its own without adjusting the IJN line.

3 minutes ago, FayFay731 said:

Only the T6 & T7 tech tree USN CVs are blatantly underpowered. Just give it a 1/1/2 loadout and 2/1/1 loadout and fixed. They can strike, maintain air control and scout. Although they shouldn't get 5 squadrons of 6 planes because that's for T9. The tech tree cvs in-game at T7& T8 should be fine with these loadouts because they have the same amount of planes in the air.

 

No. The 2/1/1 loadout was available for Lexi before. It is the ONLY load ppl used and it easily dominated the IJN. Even the 1 fighter squad the US currently receives has the ability to easily handle the IJN 1 vs 1, as well as carry enough ammo to defeat both IJN fighter squads 1 vs 1 and then move on to mow down some bombers.

 

This stuff has been posted 1000 times before. Even in CBT most players werent happy with CV setup/balance/gameplay. It will be a long time coming before there are serious changes and we will know long....LOOOONG...in advance because a CV fix will require a lot of testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,767 posts
5,805 battles
2 minutes ago, IvanPonomarev said:

Lexington at T8 is a joke.

2/0/2 is the only thing that works. It will give you a little bit of damage and you can control the sky as well as do a CV's most important role....spot.

 

0-1-3 is fun as hell, get craptons of damage. However that damage is usually done to ships that can repair and you still cannot reliably kill a DD.....and a good Shokaku driver will just run his fighters hard and do the occasional strike

 

1-1-1 is weak as hell.

 

In all seriousness, knock down US squad size to IJN  and reduce fighter ammo and give Lexi a 2-2-1, 2-1-2 or a 3-1-1

 

Or to combat micromanagement fatigue, increase the IJN squad size to US size and give it the same loadouts the US carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
854
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,805 posts
4,224 battles

First of all, to anyone who says that "USN CVs are 'Fine'," I invite you to look at the Warships Today stats for the past two weeks of all ships at a given tier. For every tier from 6 to 10, the respective tech-tree USN CV is dead last out of all ships. There are no exceptions.

 

As I've said before, and will likely say again, the issue with USN CVs is not needing a fighter in their Strike. If that was the issue, it would have been resolved already.

 

The USN CV has 3 critical issues that must be resolved before they are useful again:

  1. Their configurations are horrifically gimped compared to what the IJN has, and this hasn't been helped by "fighter-centric" buffs which promote the passive and underpowered AS playstyle. Whatever the USN does in its AS, the IJN Strike does better, and whatever the USN does in Strike, the IJN AS does better. This has to stop.
    1. Solution Part 1: Change USN Configurations at T8+ as follows (current to new)-
      1. Lexington: 1/1/1 Stock to 1/1/2 Stock, 0/1/3 Strike to 1/1/3 Strike, and 2/0/2 AS to 2/0/3 AS
      2. Essex: 2/1/1 Stock to 2/1/2 Stock, 1/1/3 Strike to 1/2/2 Strke, and 3/0/2 AS to 3/1/1 AS (Gives the USN more Flexibility in Stock and AS loadouts)
      3. Midway: 2/1/2 Stock stays the same, 1/1/3 Strike to 1/2/3 Strike, and 3/0/2 AS to 3/1/2 AS
      4. Buff the health of all Ranger aircraft significantly
    2. Solution Part 2: Reduce each IJN configuration in a manner determined by configuration-
      1. Strike- Loses 1 fighter squad and that squad's worth of reserves, compensated with increased Torpedo Bomber reserves.
      2. AS- Loses 1 Torpedo Bomber squad and that squad's worth of reserves, compensated with increased Fighter reserves.
      3. Stock- Stays the same, but loses some reserves of all planes.
  2. The prevalence of Defensive Fire AA amongst so many ships, as well as the prevalence of so much high AA ships, has made it difficult for the USN CV to do what it does best, damaging capital ships, while making it easier for the IJN to do what they do best: nuking destroyers. This is because battleships, contrary to popular belief, tend to sail around in packs or so far behind their team that you've lost all your squads before you've gotten half-way there, while Destroyers are called-upon more and more to spot, which means more distance from their team, meaning that they are more isolated targets.
    1. Solution Part 1: Make Cruiser Defensive Fire a USN CL+DDexclusive consumable. Other nations are compensated in the following ways (only ships that had DF are compensated)-
      1. Russia: No Compensation (Cruisers), 2nd DD line gets CV Defensive Fire
      2. Germany: Gets CV Defensive Fire (reduced effect and limited to short-range mounts)
      3. RN: Hood still retains her unique defensive fire
      4. IJN T8+: Gets a Gun Reload Booster (reduces Main Battery reload time by 15% for 30s [T8], 35s [T9], 45s [T10])
      5. IJN T6-7: Improve the Hydroacoustic Search range to normal range instead of short-range
      6. France: Gets short-range (6km) Radar that lasts for 30s
    2. Solution Part 2: Reduce all AA DPS by 50% of its total value (after bonuses are applied) while in smoke (gunners can't accurately see their targets through the smoke cloud); USN CL and DD AA is only reduced by 30% (since the USN vessels were often fitted with advanced Air Search Radar)
  3. The fact that a ship on 1 health can still put-out full AA DPS, provided its mounts aren't destroyed, and the difficulty of destroying mounts makes it so that ships maintain their high AA levels throughout most of the battle
    1. Solution: Give all ships AA thresholds so that their AA loses effectiveness with all damage, calculated as percents of maximum health-
      1. 100%-81% Health: No change
      2. 80% to 51% health: -30% to AA DPS
      3. 50% to 31% health: -60% to AA DPS
      4. 30-11% health: -80% to AA DPS
      5. 10% Health or less: -100% AA DPS

 

This would fix most of the issues with the USN CV line.

 

8 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

as well as carry enough ammo to defeat both IJN fighter squads 1 vs 1 and then move on to mow down some bombers.

Except Strafe Escapes and Strafes are a thing, you know? If an IJN player allows a USN player to 1v1 their squads, then they deserve to lose them because they aren't playing correctly.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,741 posts
5,464 battles
14 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Everyone loves to oversimplify this problem. The CV's need to be brought down to equal squadron size and the exact same loadouts and rebuilt from there. The US line cannot be fixed on its own without adjusting the IJN line.

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[7FLT]
Members
115 posts
5,574 battles

please give the midway one more of any type of squadron ie for the as loadout 4 0 2 or 3 0 3, for the strike 1 2 3 or 1 1 4 or 2 1 3, its just that the midway has the same squad number as the essex while the japanese get another squad at t9 and at t 10.the hak can have 37 planes up in the strike loadout or 38 in the as loadout while the midway can only put up 34 in mod 1 and 2, and 35 in mod 3. the problem isn't necessarily the number of planes because theyre quite close but the fact that the americans are only getting 5 squads to the hak is getting 8.  theres traditionally only a 2 squad difference through out the previous tiers and it seems odd that theres suddenly a 3 squad difference at tier 10, so far with my limited play of the midway its seems that the planes arent powerful enough to merit the japanese getting a 3 squad difference, but im open to others input on this.

edit

on the topic of strafes and aa, i would love to see strafes put in to target aa on ships ( a tactic uses irl by the us) and in game friendly ships shell fire and bomb hits do destroy aa so enemy aa is strongest early on in the game but is gradual reduced as the game goes on ( assuming the ship is attacked ) it would be nice to see a stronger presence of dogfighting in this game rather than strafing being the end all be all but i also acknowledge that strafes are a major factor of cv skill and as i've seen in low tier the removal of manual drops and strafes create boring gameplay.

Edited by The_Red_Butcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[7FLT]
Members
115 posts
5,574 battles
8 minutes ago, centarina said:

IJN CV need to be nerf'd down to US CV level,  very simple to do by matching USCV  squadrons  :D

i dont necessarily agree, the ijn cv's are actually in a pretty good spot the us arent in a particularity bad spot either they just need more diverse loadouts. in my experience an american cv an beat a ijn cv with out too much trouble. i would rather see usn buffs to cv's though they would need to be careful not to go to far and create a monster out of the usn line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
6,975 posts
3,942 battles
59 minutes ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

Reduce torp alpha slightly, and reduce torp squadron size to 5 to avoid the Midway of Old. 

There is more of an issue than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,292 battles
14 hours ago, Sakuzhi said:

There is more of an issue than that.

Not really. Midway was OP AF because AA was bad and the planes just did not die, along with the alpha of 12 USN torps. 

 

AA has improved dramatically, and the way it works, fewer planes per squadron means more planes shot down. So by adjusting torp alpha in line with (or just slightly above) IJN CVs, you can bring back the versatility of 2 torp squads without the insta-delete all day every day aspect. 

 

Or reduce all the squadron sizes to 5 base, like Enterprise. That would help too. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
6,975 posts
3,942 battles
5 hours ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

Not really. Midway was OP AF because AA was bad and the planes just did not die, along with the alpha of 12 USN torps. 

It isn't 'just' the Loadouts that are a problem, there are a variety of issues that aren't just USN CV Specific, which is what I was talking about.

 

First there's the RNG nature of things involving AA, which likely needs to be canned.

Then there's this curious case of Strafing, and how the F6F-5 can drop 3 Bombers a flight against lex bombers, but can literally wipe the entire strike group and fighters in a single strafe from the Graf Zeppelin. 

 

It isn't 'just' the Midway being bad, it's how pretty much everything starting after the Bogue is subpar. 

 

It isn't a simple issue of just adjusting Flight groups, anyone with any degree of experience could tell you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[IP]
Beta Testers
330 posts
21 hours ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

First of all, to anyone who says that "USN CVs are 'Fine'," I invite you to look at the Warships Today stats for the past two weeks of all ships at a given tier. For every tier from 6 to 10, the respective tech-tree USN CV is dead last out of all ships. There are no exceptions.

 

As I've said before, and will likely say again, the issue with USN CVs is not needing a fighter in their Strike. If that was the issue, it would have been resolved already.

 

The USN CV has 3 critical issues that must be resolved before they are useful again:

  1. Their configurations are horrifically gimped compared to what the IJN has, and this hasn't been helped by "fighter-centric" buffs which promote the passive and underpowered AS playstyle. Whatever the USN does in its AS, the IJN Strike does better, and whatever the USN does in Strike, the IJN AS does better. This has to stop.
    1. Solution Part 1: Change USN Configurations at T8+ as follows (current to new)-
      1. Lexington: 1/1/1 Stock to 1/1/2 Stock, 0/1/3 Strike to 1/1/3 Strike, and 2/0/2 AS to 2/0/3 AS
      2. Essex: 2/1/1 Stock to 2/1/2 Stock, 1/1/3 Strike to 1/2/2 Strke, and 3/0/2 AS to 3/1/1 AS (Gives the USN more Flexibility in Stock and AS loadouts)
      3. Midway: 2/1/2 Stock stays the same, 1/1/3 Strike to 1/2/3 Strike, and 3/0/2 AS to 3/1/2 AS
      4. Buff the health of all Ranger aircraft significantly
    2. Solution Part 2: Reduce each IJN configuration in a manner determined by configuration-
      1. Strike- Loses 1 fighter squad and that squad's worth of reserves, compensated with increased Torpedo Bomber reserves.
      2. AS- Loses 1 Torpedo Bomber squad and that squad's worth of reserves, compensated with increased Fighter reserves.
      3. Stock- Stays the same, but loses some reserves of all planes.
  2. The prevalence of Defensive Fire AA amongst so many ships, as well as the prevalence of so much high AA ships, has made it difficult for the USN CV to do what it does best, damaging capital ships, while making it easier for the IJN to do what they do best: nuking destroyers. This is because battleships, contrary to popular belief, tend to sail around in packs or so far behind their team that you've lost all your squads before you've gotten half-way there, while Destroyers are called-upon more and more to spot, which means more distance from their team, meaning that they are more isolated targets.
    1. Solution Part 1: Make Cruiser Defensive Fire a USN CL+DDexclusive consumable. Other nations are compensated in the following ways (only ships that had DF are compensated)-
      1. Russia: No Compensation (Cruisers), 2nd DD line gets CV Defensive Fire
      2. Germany: Gets CV Defensive Fire (reduced effect and limited to short-range mounts)
      3. RN: Hood still retains her unique defensive fire
      4. IJN T8+: Gets a Gun Reload Booster (reduces Main Battery reload time by 15% for 30s [T8], 35s [T9], 45s [T10])
      5. IJN T6-7: Improve the Hydroacoustic Search range to normal range instead of short-range
      6. France: Gets short-range (6km) Radar that lasts for 30s
    2. Solution Part 2: Reduce all AA DPS by 50% of its total value (after bonuses are applied) while in smoke (gunners can't accurately see their targets through the smoke cloud); USN CL and DD AA is only reduced by 30% (since the USN vessels were often fitted with advanced Air Search Radar)
  3. The fact that a ship on 1 health can still put-out full AA DPS, provided its mounts aren't destroyed, and the difficulty of destroying mounts makes it so that ships maintain their high AA levels throughout most of the battle
    1. Solution: Give all ships AA thresholds so that their AA loses effectiveness with all damage, calculated as percents of maximum health-
      1. 100%-81% Health: No change
      2. 80% to 51% health: -30% to AA DPS
      3. 50% to 31% health: -60% to AA DPS
      4. 30-11% health: -80% to AA DPS
      5. 10% Health or less: -100% AA DPS

 

This would fix most of the issues with the USN CV line.

 

Except Strafe Escapes and Strafes are a thing, you know? If an IJN player allows a USN player to 1v1 their squads, then they deserve to lose them because they aren't playing correctly.

 

I fully support this, you got some great stuff here.  But i'd remove defensive fire also from Germany, give them something else.  IJN I'd change from a improved reload consumable to a torpedo consumable.  The IJN Navy's guns where no where near on par with the US and in game they are still so much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
854
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,805 posts
4,224 battles
1 minute ago, GenSphinx said:

I fully support this, you got some great stuff here.  But i'd remove defensive fire also from Germany, give them something else.  IJN I'd change from a improved reload consumable to a torpedo consumable.  The IJN Navy's guns where no where near on par with the US and in game they are still so much better.

Yeah. Germany's is a stop-gap for now, while I try to work on something better.

 

IJN ships....well, for the most part, what I've seen of the IJN is that they are hampered by their long reloads much more than they are by their torpedoes (which are rarely used since they require so much broadside or that you be running away from the target). So... still trying to work on something for them that fits-in with their flavor while not infringing upon anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[IP]
Beta Testers
330 posts
55 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

Yeah. Germany's is a stop-gap for now, while I try to work on something better.

 

IJN ships....well, for the most part, what I've seen of the IJN is that they are hampered by their long reloads much more than they are by their torpedoes (which are rarely used since they require so much broadside or that you be running away from the target). So... still trying to work on something for them that fits-in with their flavor while not infringing upon anyone else.

 

Well their flavor I think is good torpedoes.  The have the best torpedoes in the game and they should be, in WW2 they did have some the best torpedoes in the world.  So I think their guns should remain high reload but they should get enhanced torpedo reloads.  The US on the other hand where known for having great anti air abilities and great gunnery (best in the world) at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×