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

Battleships sunk by aircraft carriers

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
537 posts
2,753 battles

We all know there are too many BBs in the game and they have a great presence.

 

What is, truly, the ultimate destroyer of worlds for BBs?  Aircraft Carriers.

 

How was the Yamato sunk?  Aircraft carrier.

How was the USS Alabama (BB-8) sunk? Aircraft carrier.

How was the USS Arizona sunk? Aircraft carrier.

How was the Tirpitz sunk? Aircraft carrier.

 

The list goes on.  We wouldn't have the 'BB problem' we have now if CVs were a viable-class (especially the USN line, which the ranger/lexington are absolutely garbage).  

 

However, Wargaming has shown they are either entirely incompetent when it comes to aircraft carriers; or they simply don't want them in the game.

Edited by Desmios
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[FDK]
Members
1,070 posts
6,039 battles
2 minutes ago, Desmios said:

We all know there are too many BBs in the game and they have a great presence.

 

What is, truly, the ultimate destroyer of worlds for BBs?  Aircraft Carriers.

 

How was the Yamato sunk?  Aircraft carrier.

How was the USS Alabama (BB-8) sunk? Aircraft carrier.

How was the USS Arizona sunk? Aircraft carrier.

How was the Tirpitz sunk? Aircraft carrier.

 

The list goes on.  We wouldn't have the 'BB problem' we have now if CVs were a viable-class (especially the USN line, which the ranger/lexington are absolutely garbage).  

 

However, Wargaming has shown they are either entirely incompetent when it comes to aircraft carriers; or they simply don't want them in the game.

 

How was the CV Glorious sunk? Gunfire from Scharnhorst/Gneisenau  :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,020 posts
9,584 battles

if you ask me, the shouldn't have beefed any AA on any of the other nations BBs. the only nation that really focused AAA protection for BBs was the USN. Also by allowing the USN BBs to have superior AA compared to other nations, it gives them an easy niche and don't have to be given any other special abilites!:fish_book:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,088
[SIM]
Members
2,443 posts
4,080 battles

We don't have a BB problem, and CVs are currently so busted that they're either garbage barges, or death incarnate. Maybe you should play the game instead griping about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
537 posts
2,753 battles
1 minute ago, SkaerKrow said:

Maybe you should play the game instead griping about it?

 

Right, because it is impossible to play the game whilst same-time providing historical references and my viewpoint of the current meta.  It is either one or the other.  Forever and ever.

What a useless contribution to the discussion.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,080 posts
12 minutes ago, Desmios said:

How was the Tirpitz sunk? Aircraft carrier.

Lancasters with Tallboys taking off from an Aircraft Carrier xu82H.png

 

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,497 posts
2,065 battles

Yes, you have a point. The lack of CVs means that the primary counter of the BB is gone. However, WG has stated that a CV rework is in progress, and hints I've heard say it's getting closer. Maybe not end of the year, but I don't think it's too far away. WG wants CVs in the game, but balancing a class that historically made every other class of ship obsolete is a bit tricky, and it's taking them a while. CVs will be back, don't worry.

 

Of course, I'll still probably be able to YOLO down a flank while laughing at an equal tier CVs efforts to stop my AA specc'ed USN BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
618
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles
15 minutes ago, Desmios said:

How was the Tirpitz sunk? Aircraft carrier.

Actually, Tirpitz was sunk/capsized at anchor by 4-engined bombers with 12000 pound bombs.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636
[PLPT]
Members
9,915 posts
10,333 battles
5 minutes ago, Desmios said:

 

Right, because it is impossible to play the game whilst same-time providing historical references and my viewpoint of the current meta.  It is either one or the other.  Forever and ever.

What a useless contribution to the discussion.

and your OP was useFUL how exactly????

 

oh and how exactly also is there a BB "problem"?   I haven't played a BB in days and have no problems sinking them....NOT in a  cv.....'I don't see and issues with too many BBs in any games I have played in some time now.... if ANYTHING, I have seen too many DDs in more games than any other classes at time.s... but not BBs..... but then again I dont [edited] about the game I just play it as qued

Edited by pmgaudio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,497 posts
2,065 battles
Just now, renegadestatuz said:

Bama wasn't sunk by a carrier. She was sunk as a target by the Army Air Service after she was decommissioned.

I was going to look that up, didn't remember any of our BBs getting sunk except at Pearl. Figured it was a target thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
537 posts
2,753 battles
Just now, mavfin87 said:

Actually, Tirpitz was sunk/capsized at anchor by 4-engined bombers with 12000 pound bombs.

 

Thank you for the clarification.  I had thought it was sunk by secondary batteries of the CV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
130 posts
1,053 battles
24 minutes ago, Desmios said:

We all know there are too many BBs in the game and they have a great presence.

 

What is, truly, the ultimate destroyer of worlds for BBs?  Aircraft Carriers.

 

How was the Yamato sunk?  Aircraft carrier.

How was the USS Alabama (BB-8) sunk? Aircraft carrier.

How was the USS Arizona sunk? Aircraft carrier.

How was the Tirpitz sunk? Aircraft carrier.

 

The list goes on.  We wouldn't have the 'BB problem' we have now if CVs were a viable-class (especially the USN line, which the ranger/lexington are absolutely garbage).  

 

However, Wargaming has shown they are either entirely incompetent when it comes to aircraft carriers; or they simply don't want them in the game.

 

 

This is completely true, the problem with BB imbalance has been on for some time now (A lot due to CV's being nerfed). I hope that a BB rework (Not like the CV nerfs) in in the production

 

I'm looking at you update :Smile-angry: 

Edited by MR_BATTLESHIP_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
537 posts
2,753 battles
7 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

Bama wasn't sunk by a carrier. She was sunk as a target by the Army Air Service after she was decommissioned.

 

I see the point that 'planes destroy Battleships' completely FLEW over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
618
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles
Just now, Desmios said:

Thank you for the clarification.  I had thought it was sunk by secondary batteries of the CV.

 

She was attacked by FAA aircraft at an earlier time, with not a lot of damage.  I believe the carrier was around at the main bombing for help with air cover, but I could be wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,218
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,208 posts
3,871 battles

Seriously, more insisting that carriers counter battleships and destroyers counter carriers?

 

You cannot claim you are balanced because you are supposedly countered by a ship type played by less than 10% of the playerbase.

 

Where the hell did this idiotic theory come from? Out of nowhere 2 days ago and now I'm seeing it everywhere.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,522 posts
7,578 battles
10 minutes ago, Desmios said:

 

I see the point that 'planes destroy Battleships' completely FLEW over your head.

Didn't fly over my head at all. I was just pointing out an inaccuracy in the OP. Even if you changed it to what I stated it would still prove your point. Though not 100% since all the others were sunk in combat and she was sunk as a target dummy. Sorry, I'm a nut when it comes to historical stuff.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,020 posts
9,584 battles
3 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Seriously, more insisting that carriers counter battleships and destroyers counter carriers?

 

You cannot claim you are balanced because you are supposedly countered by a ship type played by less than 10% of the playerbase.

 

Where the hell did this idiotic theory come from? Out of nowhere 2 days ago and now I'm seeing it everywhere.

$5 says its because people are wanting UK CVs in the game but they can't because CVs are rare and WG has yet to (despite saying for almost 9 months that they would) implement the CV changes promised in January!.....:fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[NG-NL]
Members
4,964 posts
8,109 battles

Have to wonder if WG's idea of a CV "rework" is just the AP bombs introduced in Big E. Honestly, Ranger/Lex kinda need more than just the default strike or AS package to be effective against a competent Hiryu; speaking from facing those during my Hiryu grind.

 

Just the 2/1/1 loadout (with 2/1/2 available if buy all aircraft loadouts) would probably be sufficient to start. IJN has fewer planes anyway, hence the numbers problem, but US sticking to tougher planes and more of them per group seems to do reasonably well--though main issue seems the long servicing time on US planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
582 posts
4,205 battles

The problem with buffing CVs to counter BBs is that then you have to massively buff most cruisers and destroyers just to allow them to survive.

 

Give CVs enough strike power to realistically kill same-tier BBs and they'll absolutely decimate cruisers that aren't totally AA spec. Really only cruisers like the Mino, DM, and Balti would be able to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Uh... Tirpitz was sunk by Lancaster heavy bombers carrying Tallboy bombs... not by a carrier.

 

^ I see that has already been discussed.

 

 

In fact, never once did a single aircraft carrier ever sink a battleship! Never once! It was always more than one carrier. In every event where a battleship was attacked by just 1 aircraft carrier, the battleship survived the attack.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
618
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles

in this case RL experience is not relevant to gameplay, anyway.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,976
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,743 posts
7,373 battles

Ah, if you mean the WW2 Alabama, I regret to inform you she she's moored in Mobile, Alabama, and has been for a very, very, very long time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,522 posts
7,578 battles
6 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

Ah, if you mean the WW2 Alabama, I regret to inform you she she's moored in Mobile, Alabama, and has been for a very, very, very long time.

He is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,378 posts
7,974 battles
1 hour ago, Desmios said:

Thank you for the clarification.  I had thought it was sunk by secondary batteries of the CV.

 

 

No offense man, but seriously, even a quick google search would have told you otherwise. CV would NEVER get that close to a BB, let alone one trapped in port unless that was supposed to be Sarcasm.

 

And while Ranger has it's issues mainly cause it's at a weird tier, Lex, and the USN line, are not as hard done upon as people think. Sure, it should have more accurate DB's than IJN ships as that is it's focus, they need no AP bombs, but the thing is that would be an issue if done right this second because USN fighters own the skies. Lets take Ranger vs Hiryu - These ships with no captain skills or modernization's, Hiryu fighters have a 14.6% chance of shooting down a USN fighter every second (assuming no rounding) USN has a 23.8% chance shooting down the IJN fighter. And every fighter lost drops DPS, and USN almost always gets that first kill, and has more planes that losing one still keeps it's odds above IJN, it's why 1 USN fighter group can usually take on 2 IJN groups. Giving it what people want, 2,1,2 or 2,1,1 Lex means it owns the air and the sky, period.

 

-That number needs to be closer so that IJN group and USN groups are evenly matched for air control and the loadouts reworked accordingly.

-USN DB's need to be more accurate like Saipan or Kaga, with the focus still more towards DB's but ships like Lex getting a 1,1,2 option at most.

-Torpedo's need a slight nerf.

-Some members of the CV community need to acknowledge that Manual drop is broken and be willing to let it go, be replaced, or made that minimum range is closer to auto drop range because all those AA buffs - the question came up in a Q&A earlier this year and basically said MD is why we got all those AA buffs. 

-With that gone, we need to bring AA down to reasonable levels, though I will also say given the changes merge SBM2 and AAGM2 mods back together, and make it that USN has it's better AA, but not the nightmare it is now.

-CV's need "Emergency takeoff" integrated as a mechanic, not a skill, or the service time penalty drastically reduced so it's actually worth while, as well as tweaks to other skills.

-Strafe needs to be made into a bomber accuracy debuff and fighter DPS debuff, not an auto delete.

- Defensive AA at all tiers for CV's, or at least tier 6 and 7 need incluion

- any others I've missed in the long list of things that need to change.

 

BB's cant cry at those, they get to buff secondary and AA range, and drops are further away allowing time to maneuver so they can dodge or better minimize damage, which has been reduced from torps anyway, their main cry. CV's IJN gains ability to fight for the sky, USN gets a more defined DD/cruiser hunter roll but more accurate bombs mean more BB hits, means more fire chances to burn them down staggering strikes, with fighters keeping their alt attack meaning they can influence still their dogfights and debuff bombers for the team, and not losing stupid numbers of planes to AA, strafe and the rest, and added bonus some DD sneaks through and sets you ablaze your not screwed and can fight back. While also maintaining some level of skill but closing the gap tat can exist between the top/long time CV players and newer/average CV players.

 

Except the BB's want total immunity from air attack. Too many say removing manual drop will overly hurt and kill CV's (when a scrub like me still pulls in 100k+ damage using it when my planes aren't obliterated by AA). That changing strafe "removes skill". Too many people on all sides with their own agenda that makes it a case of yes, we want WG to fix this - but too many would rage at the fixes we need, not the ones we want. Making USN and IJN have to actually fight for the air and different ways of dealing damage, heresy, nerf anything about CV's that might be op, heresy, nerf AA that BB's might not down full strike groups unescorted, heresy.

 

Of the 3 lines we are guaranteed, IJN should be the capital ship hunter, USN, the DD/cruiser hunter, UK, somewhere in the middle. Of the 3 assured and 1 I know aircraft and ships for, IJN or UK is the BB/CV hunter, while the other has a focus toward BB/CV hunting but is slightly better at DD/cruiser hunting than the other. USN has more a DB focus, leaning toward DD/cruiser hunter but has ability vs BB's, better than the last I know for, Germany, that is straight up DD/cruiser hunter relying on dots to take out BB's if it has to. These can be made in ways that they are different, fill different roles, but still even, with all contesting the sky evenly beyond loadout choice, and their fighters excelling at air combat in different manners. CV's are not the only BB hunters, DD's are as well, namely IJN. But we want CV's to be balanced fairly for all, not OP, not too weak, not set up in a way that a new player stands no chance against long time ones, not having one nation trounce the others in anyway, not having tier be an issue, we need non-CV players, CV players, IJN CV players, USN CV players, Newbies, Veterans, and any other group I missed to stop saying "Mine needs buffs", "Theirs needs nerfs", or both, and be willing to give and take so that in the end, everyone wins.

Edited by WanderingGhost
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×