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

A Simple Fix for CV's

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

50
[SOUS]
[SOUS]
Members
290 posts

A few thoughts recently occurred to me regarding the CV issue that I would like to "throw out there":

When the WG devs originally nerfed USN CV loadouts, they used a meat cleaver when they really needed a scalpal. Unfortunately, the USN CV line has never recovered from this "slice and dice" approach and this has left a considerable level of frustration with the USN line. Instead of eliminating the dual TB loadouts, why couldn't they just reduce the number of planes in each squadron to 5 (or 4 if necessary) only for TB squadrons? "National flavor" could have been preserved with the other squadron types remaining at 6 planes. Of course, that "flavor" difference has little effect for loadouts with no fighters, so....

Here is what I think should be done as a starting point to fix CVs:

  1. Bring back dual TB loadouts with (only) TB squadron sizes reduced to five planes.
  2. Eliminate fighter-less loadouts by adding a fighter squadron where necessary (i.e. Ranger strike and Lexington strike).
  3. Bring back the space-bar zoom (from map) function (not specific to USN but CVs in general).

Testing could then be performed on this configuration to determine if 5 plane TB squads are still too OP, keeping in mind that high tier IJN CVs already have tripple TB loadouts. If necessary, USN TB squad size could be dropped to 4 planes.

I have not seen this idea discussed before but there are plenty of threads out there so I could have missed something. For all I know, the devs have already discussed this, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that so far.

What are your thoughts?

Edited by Chief_Runamuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,787
[SALVO]
Members
17,039 posts
17,659 battles

My thoughts are that ALL squadrons on ALL CV's should be set to the same size, and that balancing should then be done on a by-plane basis.

I do agree with removing all loadouts that have no fighters (unless of course, fighters were removed across the board).

I personally think that they should also get rid of load out options.  There should be the stock loudout, and then the single upgraded loadout.  And that's it.  It sucks almost beyond words to have the choice of a "bad" ("bad" meaning you bring a pure strike, no fighters loadout and the enemy CV brings an anti-strike loudout; and you're pretty much toast before the battle started) loadout before a battle nearly pre-ordain the outcome of the CV vs CV battle, if not the entire battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[SOUS]
[SOUS]
Members
290 posts
4 hours ago, Crucis said:

My thoughts are that ALL squadrons on ALL CV's should be set to the same size, and that balancing should then be done on a by-plane basis.

I do agree with removing all loadouts that have no fighters (unless of course, fighters were removed across the board).

I personally think that they should also get rid of load out options.  There should be the stock loudout, and then the single upgraded loadout.  And that's it.  It sucks almost beyond words to have the choice of a "bad" ("bad" meaning you bring a pure strike, no fighters loadout and the enemy CV brings an anti-strike loudout; and you're pretty much toast before the battle started) loadout before a battle nearly pre-ordain the outcome of the CV vs CV battle, if not the entire battle.

I can't disagree with any of your points. WG definitely needs to eliminate the "choice of bad", as you put it; and your other steps would also solve the balance issue. The only possible downside I see is that equal squadron sizes and more limited loadout options would effectively "dumb down" the game a bit... not sure whether or not that would be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
81 posts
12,720 battles
On 9/15/2017 at 5:58 PM, Crucis said:

My thoughts are that ALL squadrons on ALL CV's should be set to the same size, and that balancing should then be done on a by-plane basis.

I do agree with removing all loadouts that have no fighters (unless of course, fighters were removed across the board).

I personally think that they should also get rid of load out options.  There should be the stock loudout, and then the single upgraded loadout.  And that's it.  It sucks almost beyond words to have the choice of a "bad" ("bad" meaning you bring a pure strike, no fighters loadout and the enemy CV brings an anti-strike loudout; and you're pretty much toast before the battle started) loadout before a battle nearly pre-ordain the outcome of the CV vs CV battle, if not the entire battle.

I don't agree. The players are different and choices are good. I play the CV - Japanese CV get more squadrons - Americans get more planes per squadron. The issue is with strike package for a Jap CV - you get some fighters - American -- well you are screwed - if you play an American with strike package and not part of a Division then you are an idiot or wanted to take a big gamble to inflict damage. If you make the planes equal - the squadrons equal then why play a Jap or American Carrier - they would be the same. I do wish the American CV's got more squadrons (tier 7 Jap CV gets 6 and American gets 4 at best and the same with tier 8). Most complaints i see are about this (hence Lexington and Ranger) and not squadron size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,787
[SALVO]
Members
17,039 posts
17,659 battles
8 minutes ago, BlackOP6 said:

I don't agree. The players are different and choices are good. I play the CV - Japanese CV get more squadrons - Americans get more planes per squadron. The issue is with strike package for a Jap CV - you get some fighters - American -- well you are screwed - if you play an American with strike package and not part of a Division then you are an idiot or wanted to take a big gamble to inflict damage. If you make the planes equal - the squadrons equal then why play a Jap or American Carrier - they would be the same. I do wish the American CV's got more squadrons (tier 7 Jap CV gets 6 and American gets 4 at best and the same with tier 8). Most complaints i see are about this (hence Lexington and Ranger) and not squadron size.

Changing squadron size isn't about complaints.  it's about making it easier to balance carriers.  Carriers should be balanced by the specific planes they carry.  But the more complex they make carrier balance due to the increased number of elements involved, the more difficult they are to balance.  Make all squadrons the same size, and you eliminate that factor from the balance equation. 

As for "choices", how many non-carriers get choices in their weapons.  I'm not counting upgrades where there's absolutely no reason not to upgrade.  I'm talking about a ship like the Mogami with 2 completely different sets of guns that are each useful and each offers a different reason to use them.  Most ships have only their stock guns and that's it.  A few have somewhat upgraded guns that you want to take because they're a straight up improvement with no down side.  A few DD's have choices in torpedoes where there are reasons to use each one.  But these are all, as a group, the minority from what I've seen.  Upgrade paths tend to not have real choices.  You upgrade because the upgraded item is just plain better with no reason not to upgrade.

So, I strongly disagree with you here.  I think that all carriers should have a base loadout and a straight upgraded loadout that would be a direct improvement over the stock loadout.  And that's it.  All loadouts should have at least one fighter squadron.  And once again, this would also make balance easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12 posts
3,821 battles

Here is my perspective. I have said it in the forum before:

                             Let the Captain SELECT all Carrier Load-out configurations.

 

If Midway wants 5 fighter groups of 4 planes,

and 3 bomb groups of  planes

and 3 torpedo groups of 4 planes

 

                                        - that should be up the Air Boss/Captain.    Just like you select HE or AP or Torps or consumable loadouts. 

Why pre-decide what a captain should do or not do to run his own ship ?

                           

 

Edited by soundman_yeagerfly
completion/formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[SOUS]
[SOUS]
Members
290 posts
On 9/16/2017 at 5:45 PM, soundman_yeagerfly said:

Here is my perspective. I have said it in the forum before:

                             Let the Captain SELECT all Carrier Load-out configurations.

 

If Midway wants 5 fighter groups of 4 planes,

and 3 bomb groups of  planes

and 3 torpedo groups of 4 planes

 

                                        - that should be up the Air Boss/Captain.    Just like you select HE or AP or Torps or consumable loadouts. 

Why pre-decide what a captain should do or not do to run his own ship ?

                           

 

Interesting point... Particularly at T9 and T10 where CVs use the same aircraft for both TB and DB... seems like a good case for the ability to switch loadouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[EASY]
[EASY]
Members
81 posts
12,720 battles
On 9/16/2017 at 8:08 PM, Crucis said:

Changing squadron size isn't about complaints.  it's about making it easier to balance carriers.  Carriers should be balanced by the specific planes they carry.  But the more complex they make carrier balance due to the increased number of elements involved, the more difficult they are to balance.  Make all squadrons the same size, and you eliminate that factor from the balance equation. 

As for "choices", how many non-carriers get choices in their weapons.  I'm not counting upgrades where there's absolutely no reason not to upgrade.  I'm talking about a ship like the Mogami with 2 completely different sets of guns that are each useful and each offers a different reason to use them.  Most ships have only their stock guns and that's it.  A few have somewhat upgraded guns that you want to take because they're a straight up improvement with no down side.  A few DD's have choices in torpedoes where there are reasons to use each one.  But these are all, as a group, the minority from what I've seen.  Upgrade paths tend to not have real choices.  You upgrade because the upgraded item is just plain better with no reason not to upgrade.

So, I strongly disagree with you here.  I think that all carriers should have a base loadout and a straight upgraded loadout that would be a direct improvement over the stock loadout.  And that's it.  All loadouts should have at least one fighter squadron.  And once again, this would also make balance easier.

Non-carriers don't get choices -- you must be playing only British cruisers with AP only then my friend --- everyone else can switch from HE TO AP during the match. I believe its the 2/3 buttons -- i didn't suggest changing squadron sizes - the other tier 8 premium carrier has MORE PLANES and more squadrons.   How about i cut the number of guns and torps tubes of your Mogami - make you pay REAL money for it and play it against other players with the normal ship --- YOU GAME FOR IT

 

OH yeah = and you have to get a special captain for it that you CAN'T use in other ships - at T8 level fighting ALOT of tier 10's -- try that with a new captain with 3 or so points --- its will be an eye-opener.  All and i mean ALL other premiums can use other captains and the player gets the BENEFIT of that premium ship -

Edited by BlackOP6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×