Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Baineblade

So...USN Carriers....

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7
[NNC]
[NNC]
Beta Testers
30 posts
4,046 battles

I've been off the game in regards to Carriers for a long time, so long in fact, that they bunted my IJN carrier off completely (Seriously, I had tier 6 across the board researched at one point before a patch dragged that all off) and haven't even bothered playing IJN again. SO that only leaves me with my tier 6 Independence. I remember back in the day that this carrier was actually decent...Now I've found that I literally am limited to an Escort loadout for the remaining tiers. Either Fighters or dive bombers. Who's 'brilliant' idea was it to completely abandon Torpedo bombers for the USN line? I'd love to know so I can congratulate them on forever ruining this line of ships for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,634 posts
9,728 battles

I just started my CV grind.  I free XPed to Independence as I cant stand the idea of not being able to alt attack. 

 

I have not felt that 1/1/1 has left me at a huge disadvantage.  I might have to play defensively with my fighters till I can bleed the enemy CV threat a bit, but thats what I consider balanced.  The only thing I dislike is the tiny hanger size of Indy.  Any losses hurt bad.

 

I dont think load out becomes an issue until Ranger, and Lexington.  Thats where IJN strike CV still gets two fighter squads to go along with the bombing capability.  I would love to see 2/1/1 or 1/1/3 options for Ranger and Lexington.  Essex and Midway US CVs gain some ground back against their competition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,722 posts
4,314 battles

With the US practical torpedo spread having two of those TBs is perceived as totally and utterly unfair...in exchange DBs get 1000lbers that deal up to 10k a pop, but ships where 1000lbers come into play are so well armored that HE can't citadel them like in low tiers, so that 10000 number is more like 2000-3000 a pop.

The US carriers just can't get a break...then it almost got power creeped by GZ with 3 torpedoes, but that didn't came through as GZ got changed into 3 DBs (Historical Stuka!) instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[TF16B]
Members
8,054 posts
16,991 battles
1 hour ago, Destroyer_KuroshioKai said:

I would love to see 2/1/1 or 1/1/3 options for Ranger and Lexington.  Essex and Midway US CVs gain some ground back against their competition. 

 

If nothing else; Ranger and up need a 1-1-2 option, instead of the totally OP or completely helpless (depending on the opponent) 0-1-3 loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[M_L]
[M_L]
Beta Testers
321 posts
8,831 battles

Well the USN need to stack fires and floods. Which is why I use the 0/1/3. The 1000lb bombs may not do that much alpha. But when they have a minimum of a 69% fire chance, with the target doing everything they can to not burn and well over 100% for the majority of targets. Thus making ships burn from stem to stern is easy. Although I do agree a version with some kind of fighters would be an improvement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
220 posts
6,385 battles

i find the only viable loadout for Ranger at the moment is AS, independence she is a good ship but yeah losses hurt expecially when you are going up against T8. Imo the best loadout for Independence is balanced 1,1,1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[MIA]
Members
25 posts
13,629 battles

The Independence's 1/1/1 composition is the best and compared to the Ryujo is one of the most balanced USN CVs to its IJN counterpart. Your 1/1/1 composition will annihilate the enemy Ryujo's 1/2/2 loadout which is the most common random battle loadout seen while being able to one shot most equal tier battleships and cruisers (assuming you use DoT to your advantage). 

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.

×