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

IJN vs US Carriers

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,574
[PSP]
Members
6,284 posts
8,912 battles

I've played the US carriers through the Lexington. In all this time, I've found myself struggling to hold my own. Usually I only did reasonably well when faced with the same US carrier. I thought that, perhaps, I was just really bad with carriers.

 

However, I finally unlocked the introductory IJN carrier and found it to be much better than the US carriers at damaging ships. The first time I took the stock Hosho, with its untrained ex-ARP captain out for a spin, I got a Confederate and a High Caliber, though I actually only sunk one ship.

 

The ability to cross-drop torpedoes really gives one an advantage. I'd heard about torp cross-drops but this was impossible in any US carrier I've played (though I think the Saipan may have a load-out with two torp bombers).

 

Does anyone else think that the US carriers in WOWS are at a disadvantage? I was just in a game where a tier VIII US carrier, with 4 squadrons was easily taken out by a tier VII IJN carrier with 6 squadrons.  Why do you think this is so? Are they basing their model from Pearl Harbor to Midway, when IJN carriers sort of ruled the Pacific?

 

 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,382
[HINON]
Members
9,031 posts

It's mainly just due to a design decision at this point where the IJN cvs have more but smaller squadrons leading to much great flexibility and utility while the USN cvs have larger but fewer squadrons. This isnt based on some historical difference. I hope at some point they find a way to let there be parity between equally skilled cv players of both nations while still allowing some flavoring so they arent exact mirrors of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[KNTI2]
[KNTI2]
Members
169 posts
8,387 battles

Carrier balance and mechanics in the game has been broken since beta days (2 years). IJN CVs are simply better for the reason that they are more versatile than USN CVs. Since IJN CV doctrine had small fighter squadron, WG gave IJN smaller squads (national flavor) which allowed more types of planes in the sky while USN emphasized larger squadrons and therefore less versatile (both nations should have similar number of TOTAL PLANES IN THE SKY, it's just that one has small squad but more of them while other has less squads but bigger). IJN dominates in the current state of CV state but if you let T8-T10 USN strike CVs do their thing, they can devastate harder than IJN since DBs can initiate their attacks more easily against heavy AA compared to TB which IJN depends on. USN CVs air superiority tend to be stronger than IJN also because of their larger squad and deadlier strafes.

 

USN CV requires some level of strategy which a lot lack and unreliable since if you strike, you lack a lot of air power and if you go for air power, you lack damage. IJN does both but not as strong as USN when it comes to single attributes. And no, the game isn't modeled historically speaking and if it was which a lot proposed, then IJN should destroy USN CVs from T4-T7, T8 is equal, and T9-T10 USN should reign supreme (that logic just doesn't make any game sense).

Edited by AdmiralHattori
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
9,543 battles

With the USN CV's, only the Saipan and Enterprise can cross drop. Saipan with 2 groups of 3 torps with ok patterns, Enterprise with 2 groups of 5 that sort of end up with torps going all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,432 posts
3,875 battles

Squadron parity is one of the big things that has to happen in order for carriers to be balanced between the national lines. So long as the USN is less versatile, the USN carriers are going to be objectively worse than the IJN ones. This is not a problem that WG's balance devs are capable of fixing, as has been proven over the past 2 years of their utter failures at trying to do so.

 

Parity needs to happen because balancing that is easy enough for this team to handle. The current state of carrier squadrons is beyond their ability to balance.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,382
[RLGN]
Members
8,265 posts
17,288 battles
On 10/12/2017 at 9:32 PM, AdmiralHattori said:

IJN should destroy USN CVs from T4-T7

 

Langley should NEVER  lose to a Hosho in a 1 v 1 battle; how bad the rest of the team may spud out is an entirely different matter; but 1 v 1 and the Langley driver has half a brain? I'd bet on the Langley coming out on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,382
[RLGN]
Members
8,265 posts
17,288 battles
59 minutes ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

CVs need a fundamental redesign. 

 

And it's not coming. 

 

This late in the year and three premium CVs later after being promised? Yeah; probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,432 posts
3,875 battles
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

This late in the year and three premium CVs later after being promised? Yeah; probably not.

WG's been promising a carrier rework for 2 years. Don't hold your breath.

 

At this point, any statements by WG staff that carriers will get a rework "this year" or "next year" is just a lie they spread around to try and calm people down.

 

2016 was "a year that promises to be exciting for carriers" and contained nothing but nerfs, and the release of Saipan.

 

2017 was "the year of the carrier" and the only positive thing was a very miniscule, optional tweak to the control scheme.

 

The problem with telling the same lie over and over is every time you say it and get exposed as a fraud, fewer people believe it and the devs are steadily losing what little credibility they have with this practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[DPG]
Members
897 posts
4,435 battles

I take out the IJN CVs when I want to take out ships.  I go with USN CVs when I want to shut down the enemy cv.  I find that strafing, for me at least, is much more relaxing then trying to line up the perfect drop.   As long as you stack dots you can do fairly alright damage wise in a US CV.  The other option is to go stock and get the 1/1/1 loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,449 posts
8,107 battles

Looks can be deceiving. IJN TB's are great against capital ships, and any cruiser/DD that can't dodge. But, especially at the lower tiers where strafe was removeand balance not corrected, your gonna learn real fast just how much IJN trades in ability to control the air. USN has a higher chance/second to shoot down enemy planes (the "lower" DPS is per plane, it's larger squadrons give it higher DPS), and those larger squadrons mean DPS drop off isn't as sharp as IJN - why once IJN usually lose 1 fighter in combat it can seem like it steam rolls from there. Even lower tier USN planes can easily beat IJN ones in some cases. I'll put the TL;DR right here - Wargaming not since beta, but day one of beta weekends/alpha they were introduced, has had them poorly designed and implemented, and done nothing to make it better, and what attempts they did actually make made things worse. Both lines are horribly balanced in both directions. You want the details, read the wall/s of text below.

 

Wargaming's idea has been this with the two lines we have - USN controls the air, focuses on DB's, IJN basically stomps ships, mainly with TB's. The problem is these two extremes just do not work. IJN is racing against a clock to deal damage before it runs out of planes, USN is racing to don them while just trying to do damage. And Wargaming has never made a serious attempt to fix this adding skills and mechanics that only made things worse. And said mechanics then made V's appear more OP than they really were, causing nerf, after nerf, after nerf, that hurt both lines. But USN slightly more because - it relies on DB's that have to fly into the heaviest AA. And it doesn't help that USN DB's are the same accuracy or in some cases, worse, than IJN DB's. That said, a USN CV can park his fighters just outside the CV's AA and basically down planes as they take off. It's why IJN CV's lean so heavily on the CV snipe tactic. And they have been in this state 3 years come next January (so, a little over 2 months) which is why some of us have run out of patience and why there was some really hostile lash out over GZ. To many of us, myself included, the last sign that Wargaming clearly hasn't the slightest clue how to do carriers, that too few if any play them and that possibly those who who do understand nothing of what is wrong with them and what needs to happen.

 

Fighters need the overall DPS changed. USN needs a slightly lower shoot down chance/sec than IJN. While keeping plane numbers and possibly reducing USN ammo a little but more so cutting down on IJN's, USN essentially looking to go 15 rounds, IJN for the quick knock out. USN needs it's DB's made at least a little more accurate, maybe an Hp increase, focusing  these that they can take a BB out if they stack fires to burn it over time but are more geared as DD/cruiser hunters. NO AP BOMBS. Strafing needs to be reworked to an accuracy debuff (DPS debuff against fighters) to cut back on that unwarranted attrition. Wargaming needs to finally just acknowledge it full that manual drop is OP and broken and remove it, which is than the key to nerfing AA to a reasonable level (that my just bought Iowa with a couple modernization's, a trained captain now of about 12-13 points I think, and still having TWO  hull upgrades to boost AA and at least one more skill has 40-50% shoot down chance a second against my fully upgraded Essex/Taiho is flat out WRONG, especially because that's not even counting things that get in 20 mm range, that's just things in the 127 and 40 mm range). To go with some of these changes, loadouts need reworking that "AS" loadouts have the same number of fighter groups, and strike/mix as well have the same number of fighter groups, so hat the only edge is that if you CHOSE to not bring AS and they did, you have a disadvantage of a fighter for an extra bomber group. It should basically break out like this -

 

Fighters - USN has durability and ability to stay aloft longer, IJN is more hit and run, having to reload more often which, it's faster rearm helps with.

Bombers - IJN focuses on TB's, with fairly inaccurate, as they already are, TB's, great at BB hunting, leaves room for improvement against some lighter cruisers and DD's. USN focus, as it is, DB, gets better accuracy (dispersion) on it's DB's making it far better at knocking out DD's and some cruisers, but not as effective, directly anyway, at taking a BB down. IJN has Alpha that can miss smaller, agile targets, USN is basically using DoT's other than maybe the DD's due to their weaker armour. Which, properly balanced AA they can try to stack attacks to make enemy players use DC.

Planes (overall) USN should have the higher HP, that while less effective still in the dogfighting and all, means it's fighters and bombers can better survive going into enemy AA gun range. IJN, while still more fragile, has it's numbers as they can only focus one group at a time meaning the rest can try and punch through. 

Ships - USN, while maybe getting a slight buff on some ships to not be as insanely easy to be spotted now, is basically all about that AA so if fighters are off elsewhere when a snipe comes in, they can still more or less handle themselves. IJN, on the other hand, keeps it's lower detectability, meaning they are harder to spot and can position more aggressively.

 

Both get defined rolls that put them on equal footing still. IJN slightly more offense based, geared to go for the heavy hitters and basically come in, hit enemy planes hard, bug out. USN is still more defense based, it's fighters having ammo to stay up longer and more planes means losing 1-2 wont hurt them as much. Excellent at fleet defense as is and maintaining it against air attacks, while also being buffed to scout out and attack enemy DD's and stealthier cruisers, or even just cruisers in general that are setting your team on fire. And while they can still fill the others role, they just aren't quite as good at it. But, the "overhaul" was supposed to come before any new premium CV's and the UK CV line, no one knows though what their idea of overhaul is though, and so far, it hasn't happened. The January after release, or last year, I forget, we were promised "great changes to look forward to for CV players", the gist being changes we'd like. We were given more historical aircraft, jets removed completely, and AA was buffed multiple times and a couple nerfs to CV's outright. Oh, and I believe that was the same year as Saipan, another "What the :etc_swear: are you guys doing" moment that was horrible for balance. We've been promised changes that never came, that no premium CV would come out again before the overhaul. That this year, we'd get change, real change, that the captain skill rework would benefit us, That things would be better and that we'd enjoy the premium CV's. More lies or empty promises, not sure which would be worse at this point. The captain skill rework if anything hurt CV players. 2 skills are useless/borderline useless. Emergency take off is pointless unless you happen to get set on fire right as all your planes are rearmed. Evasive maneuvers kills too much speed, keeping you in AA longer and making it easier for fighters to catch and strafe you. DFE was made more broken by adding ammo that made USN and Saipan in particular that much more deadly and increased air time. Expert tail gunner received no buff but was made more points, and BFT was not only made more points (useful to a CV for the AA and secondary fire rate) but an additional buff to it's AA bonus which, really screwed us over against everything else. Basically the default go to skill of every non-CV is one that makes it harder for AA guns to be taken out. While AS was made easier to get by a point, meaning everyone and their mother has it and right back to things that help make Saipan OP, it also made manual AA more accessible and that skill can make things add to some nightmare inducing numbers. We were given 2 1/2 premium CV's plagued by issues. Kaga, with manual drop in play can put way too much on the doorstep but is thoroughly screwed against some of the higher tier ships AA. Enterprise had a ton of back and forth, I can't speak to the TB's players whine about till I get one and test it my way (aka not relying purely on manual drops), had to add a tier 9 slot to even try and get it's strike planes through AA, and is patient 0 of the now problematic AP bombs. And there is the mess that is GZ which 1. Should have never been tier 8 as a premium, tech tree yes but not premium, 2. should not have been released as it was, and 3. continues to be an issue because they went to super AP bombs basically, that was one shotting BB's, and now back to 3x5 TB's but now with deep water torps because THAT fixes what was wrong with the LAST TIME they tried it and it was too OP /sarcasm. When all they need to do is lower all the planes to tier 7, give it a bunch of planes in reserve to compensate, and more planes per group, keeping the accurate as hell DB's to make it THE DD hunter. Or make it 2,1,2 geared more at DD/cruisers hunting. You have the "UI improvements" which to someone like me who has used the same controls since alpha and hates the new controls and all, was utter trash and made it 10x harder to play because now there is a super small field of where I can click to give orders and planes do random stuff. And of course the rework, planned for this year, that we haven't heard a damn thing about since other than maybe it was pushed back to 2018 which really, at this point, is just unacceptable.

 

At their best, Wargaming's implementation, attempts at balancing, and handling of them and the community that ever dwindles that plays them, has been at best, misguided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[PSP]
Members
6,284 posts
8,912 battles
10 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

IJN is racing against a clock to deal damage before it runs out of planes

 

I found this out in the last game I played with my Hosho. About halfway through the match I had no more planes left and was pretty much dead weight. My mistake was getting my planes too close to grouped BBs. Next time I'm going to wait for a straggler. I actually knew this but, having two squadrons of torp bombers, the idea of getting multiple torp hits on grouped ships was just too tempting to pass up.

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
398
[R-F1]
Beta Testers
1,868 posts
6,866 battles
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

This late in the year and three premium CVs later after being promised? Yeah; probably not.

Apparently "year of the carrier" meant a bunch of premium Cv releases with no balancing changes.

 

At best, innocent miscommunication, at worst deliberate manipulation.  Either way, not many points in wg favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,810 posts
10,336 battles

I wonder which is more advanced: carrier rework or GRRM's next book...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,432 posts
3,875 battles
7 minutes ago, mofton said:

I wonder which is more advanced: carrier rework or GRRM's next book...

At this rate I expect Half Life 3 before any meaningful rework on carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,449 posts
8,107 battles
21 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

 

I found this out in the last game I played with my Hosho. About halfway through the match I had no more planes left and was pretty much dead weight. My mistake was getting my planes too close to grouped BBs. Next time I'm going to wait for a straggler. I actually knew this but, having two squadrons of torp bombers, the idea of getting multiple torp hits on grouped ships was just too tempting to pass up.

 

Yeah, but higher you get in tiers, the less your going to find stragglers and even if you do, some of them still have enough AA to make attacks pointless, unless your team hammers it ith HE that actually takes out AA guns but by that time, it may no longer be worth taking out, least for you. It's a reason AA needs a nerfing, though I also say in that that Secondary 2 and AA 2 upgrades should recombine that the upgrade boosts AA and secondary range again, to help offset them losing solo DPS, but keep the overlap bit. Attacking grouped ships, that should be hard under the best circumstances. Lone ships, not so much, even if their "thing" is AA. More captains that have ships built around AA or mix in AA buffs. More that focus your TB's, which adds 30% to DPS of basically everything they got. Factor in now it's also legit even tier USN fighters and even more can AND WILL abuse strafing, and USN strafe > IJN strafe, you ain't seen nothing let. I've had matches I attacked ships that were alone, not even fighter cover, and lost most of, if not the entire strike force, and only been able to essentially launch 2-3 attacks depending on reserve count. There's a reason so few play CV's, they enouter nonsense like this, it used to extend to tier 4 and 5 thanks to strafing, that drove them away from playing.

 

 

Edited by WanderingGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,449 posts
8,107 battles
7 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

At this rate I expect Half Life 3 before any meaningful rework on carriers.

 

15 minutes ago, mofton said:

I wonder which is more advanced: carrier rework or GRRM's next book...

 

 

And apologizing for double post but, still can't get the forum to do what I want in editing since they changed it.

 

GRRM's next book, maybe even two books. Also, Half-Life 3? I expect the Halo movie, a decent Assassins Creed movie reboot that does it right aka more time basically in the Matrix like world, Ghostbusters getting a sequel (it deserves one with a better director and/or writers), a good live action DBZ movie done by Hollywood, even a Netflix series maybe, and the Marvel getting the rights to all it's properties to fold in X-men, F4, and anything else still lingering out there, while also having the stones to make R-rated Deadpool movies, and have him show up in the others maybe at least a couple times making nods to the fact he can't use certain words and that things are "less splattery here" before we get the CV rework at this rate. Actually, I'll even toss on to that list a decent live action US adaptation of Fullmetal Alchemist (Manga/Brotherhood anime) and Hellsing (Manga/Ultimate anime).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[KNTI2]
[KNTI2]
Members
169 posts
8,387 battles
4 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

Langley should NEVER  lose to a Hosho in a 1 v 1 battle; how bad the rest of the team may spud out is an entirely different matter; but 1 v 1 and the Langley driver has half a brain? I'd bet on the Langley coming out on top.

You missed my point, there's a good portion of people wanted the game to reflect on historical performance which is why I said T4-T7 IJN CVs (Japanese were known for their early contribution to carrier tactics since they couldn't build anymore BBs until they left the treaty) should dominate in theory, I was not referring to the performance of the CV in the current game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,808
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,125 posts
14,528 battles

In WoWS, IJN CVs derive their strength from smaller units, but more of them.  As someone said earlier, it gives them map and function flexibility.  Even in Strike, they have fighters.  A Strike USN CV lacks fighters in Strike until Tier IX.  Tier IV-VIII, none for USN Strike... That's 5 friggin' tiers!

 

Skill being equal, IJN CVs do not win by sweeping the skies clear against the USN CV.  Air-to-air wise, IJN fighters have trouble in a head on fight against USN fighters.  But the IJN CV wins by having more units in the air than the opposing USN CV can handle, even an AS USN CV.  This is compounded by the fact that the larger USN units have a significantly longer rearming time.  IJN units, since they are smaller, rearm much, MUCH faster.  When one plays an IJN & USN CV, the difference is substantial.

 

In addition, IJN CVs as you climb the tiers maintain a good degree of stealth.  Yeah.  Meanwhile Lexington has worse concealment than most BBs.  This lets the IJN CV sail more aggressively, staying closer to the front while not detected.  A CV being close to where its planes are fighting cuts down the rearming time even more.  The IJN CV with better stealth accomplishes this more easily than the USN CV.

 

So, not only do the IJN CVs get more units for tactical flexibility, they literally can outsortie the opposing USN CV.  It's like for every one punch a USN CV can do, the IJN CV is doing 1.5 or 2 punches.

 

The big catch with the IJN CV is that eventually they have tons of units to juggle and demands micromanagement.  At Tier VII, Hiryu tosses out 6 units while Ranger tosses out 4 at most.  At Tier X, Midway tosses up 5 units, Hakuryu?  8!  If you can deal with that, then you're golden.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,774 posts
5,809 battles
4 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

Long post and very much worth the read!

 

Dead accurate post on how WG is seems to be playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' in a room with no lights. They dont seem to have a clear vision of what CV's should be and in this Im highly disappointed. Ive been told many of the Devs played NavyField....and NavyField 1 did carriers right. I dont know why WG is clinging to their plan of CV lines being totally different and such drastic nationality differences. They've made US and IJN so different in so many ways there isnt much room for the UK line to have its niche never mind adding a 4th CV nation, perhaps a French line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,936 posts
6 hours ago, Shadeylark said:

Apparently "year of the carrier" meant a bunch of premium Cv releases with no balancing changes.

 

At best, innocent miscommunication, at worst deliberate manipulation.  Either way, not many points in wg favour.

 

The worrying part is that with the "no nerfs to premiums" policy, the more premium CVs the more the hands of the devs are tied. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,382
[RLGN]
Members
8,265 posts
17,288 battles
8 hours ago, AdmiralHattori said:

You missed my point, there's a good portion of people wanted the game to reflect on historical performance which is why I said T4-T7 IJN CVs (Japanese were known for their early contribution to carrier tactics since they couldn't build anymore BBs until they left the treaty) should dominate in theory, I was not referring to the performance of the CV in the current game...

 

Sorry about that. I do agree IJN was ahead on CV tactics and use even as late as Santa Cruz. At that point the USN was still just barely starting to learn to use CVs together, instead of operating them in their own, individual little task groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
398
[R-F1]
Beta Testers
1,868 posts
6,866 battles
7 hours ago, why_u_heff_to_be_mad said:

 

The worrying part is that with the "no nerfs to premiums" policy, the more premium CVs the more the hands of the devs are tied. 

the depends on if you think balance would be better served with buffs or nerfs to cv's.

 

i don't particularly think cv's need to be nerfed anymore to balance them; if anything im of the mind that cv's need to be helped more than held down.  more that the core game mechanics need to be revamped.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[PSP]
Members
6,284 posts
8,912 battles
1 hour ago, Shadeylark said:

the depends on if you think balance would be better served with buffs or nerfs to cv's.

 

I'd like CVs to gain a bunch more health but have their attack planes' damage nerfed. With a large pool of health we could form carrier groups rather than having the CV run off to the far corner of the map, CVs should be moving along with the fleet but the way it is now, the CV is the first to be focus-fired.  

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×