My suggestions for fixing carriers

[HobGoblin0]

I know.  No one cares, nothing is getting done... etc, hear me out.  And read each of the idea because they don't work separately.

 

Nerf carriers -- They do too much damage.  Most battles have 1 carrier and early on they are the most valuable ship in the game because of the damage they can do.  That's no fun for anyone.  Greatly reduce plane health, reduce bomb/torp damage per plane.  It should take waves of attacks to sink something like a Yamato or Montana.  It doesn't and a CV can't afford to attack with waves anyway.

 

Simplify carriers  -- No more strafe, no more alternate attack.  You're a ship captain, not a pilot.  Tell your planes where to go and what to do when they get there, they have to handle the details.

 

Buff carriers -- more planes, more squads in the air, regenerate planes (simulate repairing damaged planes), balance the nerf (above) by trading quality for quantity.  Let fighters directly attack smaller ships.  Also increase cv AA, hp/armor, and give them repair parties.  A CV should be as good of a tank as any cruiser because most were built on cruiser hulls and have larger crews.

 

Smarter planes -- Commands to defend ships/locations/attack squads actually work.  Different  altitudes.  Planes shouldn't even be attackable by ships unless they are engaging the ship or ships nearby.

 

To be more historically accurate there should be more carriers per battle (4-5) and really more carriers than battleships.  CV's shouldn't be single ships hiding in a corner.   There should be swarms of planes in each battle, and the winning team ought to be the one with the cv(S!) that coordinate themselves the best.

[BrushWolf]

54 minutes ago, HobGoblin0 said:

Simplify carriers  -- No more strafe, no more alternate attack.  You're a ship captain, not a pilot.  Tell your planes where to go and what to do when they get there, they have to handle the details.

I have been saying this since alpha. The class is extremely heavy in the micromanaging department already and I feel the skill should not be in making perfect drops but in setting up those drops. Select what you are sending and what you are holding back, air defense aka CAP, send them off and it should be more like the scene in Midway when the dive bombers strike and all they can do back at the carrier is listen. AA would need to be addressed so it would not be a factor during the travel time but then would be much stronger when planes are attacking.

[Umikami]

I'm actually ok with most of this.

[Reymu]

Would like to see some implication. Frankly I'm not motivated to run Haku with the ridiculous AA and the headache of managing fighters with the strafe-out mechanic as well. Too much effort.

[GreyFox78659]

At this point anything is better than what is in game. I disagree with nerfing them but then again I support getting rid of manual drops and strafing which players consider a nerf. It really the only way to open up the class as it really takes to much dedication and practice to master than should be expected of most players. 

[GreyFox78659]

12 hours ago, HobGoblin0 said:

 

 

 

Simplify carriers  -- No more strafe, no more alternate attack.  You're a ship captain, not a pilot.  Tell your planes where to go and what to do when they get there, they have to handle the details.

 

 

Smarter planes -- Commands to defend ships/locations/attack squads actually work.  Different  altitudes.  Planes shouldn't even be attackable by ships unless they are engaging the ship or ships nearby.

 

Totally agree I think instead of control planes in the air a carrier captain should be monitoring what's in the air and assigning jobs, priorities, and load outs of returned planes on deck the planes should be doing the targeting and attacking decisions themselves. This would end the destroyer job overlap as DDs would 100% be in charge of scouting for planes.

[Taylor3006]

I agree as well. Too much going on lots of times and setting up manual drops and strafes makes it a chore sometimes. I would also like to see a nerf to AP bombs but give a carrier the option of switching between AP and HE in game like every other ship. Adding a 1/1/1 load out for the Bogue and Saipan would be a nice change as well. I know it wouldn't be optimal for Saipan, I just like options. 

[xKSNx]

15 hours ago, HobGoblin0 said:

I know.  No one cares, nothing is getting done... etc, hear me out.  And read each of the idea because they don't work separately.

 

Nerf carriers -- They do too much damage.  Most battles have 1 carrier and early on they are the most valuable ship in the game because of the damage they can do.  That's no fun for anyone.  Greatly reduce plane health, reduce bomb/torp damage per plane.  It should take waves of attacks to sink something like a Yamato or Montana.  It doesn't and a CV can't afford to attack with waves anyway.

 

Simplify carriers  -- No more strafe, no more alternate attack.  You're a ship captain, not a pilot.  Tell your planes where to go and what to do when they get there, they have to handle the details.

 

Buff carriers -- more planes, more squads in the air, regenerate planes (simulate repairing damaged planes), balance the nerf (above) by trading quality for quantity.  Let fighters directly attack smaller ships.  Also increase cv AA, hp/armor, and give them repair parties.  A CV should be as good of a tank as any cruiser because most were built on cruiser hulls and have larger crews.

 

Smarter planes -- Commands to defend ships/locations/attack squads actually work.  Different  altitudes.  Planes shouldn't even be attackable by ships unless they are engaging the ship or ships nearby.

 

To be more historically accurate there should be more carriers per battle (4-5) and really more carriers than battleships.  CV's shouldn't be single ships hiding in a corner.   There should be swarms of planes in each battle, and the winning team ought to be the one with the cv(S!) that coordinate themselves the best.

I like the idea, but i dont know if  its a "great" idea.

Sure having more planes and not having to drop every 20 seconds of the match to stay relevant is hard, and it is what draws most people out of cv's (also US cv line)

 

But, this is a part of the fun of playing my carriers

I love the fact that if a strategically play my limited planes i can decimate a target for not paying attention. That is fun.

And that's the part of playing cv, being the most important asset for your team because you defend against other cv strikes and sink important enemy targets.

But you are limited, you cant get spotted, and you cant cap points with your team because of the risk of getting spotted.

I think cv's aren't a broken as some people make them seem(besides US cv line) 

But again, taking away that feeling of importance, and just making more planes that scratch their targets, is not what Wargaming made carriers to be.

Everyone knows cv's can be hard counterd by AA ships. If anyone is tired of getting rekt by a cv. Go sit in a Des Moines. Problem solved.

And that's what cv's are about, Controlling the battle tempo while defending the team.

Not to mention, in WII cv's were dominant over any other class of ship, having 4/5 cv's in one game would just contribute to the salt and hate because they would just gang up on 1 target at a time.

 

This is all my opinion on cv's, and none of this should be taken as "shutting anyone down" or trying to upset the thread.

[Ducc_ducc]

35 minutes ago, xKSNx said:

I like the idea, but i dont know if  its a "great" idea.

Sure having more planes and not having to drop every 20 seconds of the match to stay relevant is hard, and it is what draws most people out of cv's (also US cv line)

 

But, this is a part of the fun of playing my carriers

I love the fact that if a strategically play my limited planes i can decimate a target for not paying attention. That is fun.

And that's the part of playing cv, being the most important asset for your team because you defend against other cv strikes and sink important enemy targets.

But you are limited, you cant get spotted, and you cant cap points with your team because of the risk of getting spotted.

I think cv's aren't a broken as some people make them seem(besides US cv line) 

But again, taking away that feeling of importance, and just making more planes that scratch their targets, is not what Wargaming made carriers to be.

Everyone knows cv's can be hard counterd by AA ships. If anyone is tired of getting rekt by a cv. Go sit in a Des Moines. Problem solved.

And that's what cv's are about, Controlling the battle tempo while defending the team.

Not to mention, in WII cv's were dominant over any other class of ship, having 4/5 cv's in one game would just contribute to the salt and hate because they would just gang up on 1 target at a time.

 

This is all my opinion on cv's, and none of this should be taken as "shutting anyone down" or trying to upset the thread.

Just one little comment on what you said, you can actually cap, especially on domination when both teams go to the same time, it's a lot of help for your team if you clear the third cap and sit there.

[xKSNx]

Just now, megadeux said:

Just one little comment on what you said, you can actually cap, especially on domination when both teams go to the same time, it's a lot of help for your team if you clear the third cap and sit there.

I now realise that was unclear on my part 

I meant moving with the fleet and such

 

Thanks for the correction 

[Ducc_ducc]

Just now, xKSNx said:

I now realise that was unclear on my part 

I meant moving with the fleet and such

 

Thanks for the correction 

But that's the fun part! It's parking 10km away from the enemy, and rapid fire nuking enemy ships, or wiping out half the enemy team on a cap, then confusing the enemy by taking "secured" caps.

[xKSNx]

5 minutes ago, megadeux said:

But that's the fun part! It's parking 10km away from the enemy, and rapid fire nuking enemy ships, or wiping out half the enemy team on a cap, then confusing the enemy by taking "secured" caps.

I guess we have different playstyles, lol

But your way of doing it is pretty cool, I've tried it once or twice. but, i don't really do it that often.

Faster resupply times and not having to worry abut getting flanked if pretty good

And that is part of the fun. Thank you!

[Ducc_ducc]

1 minute ago, xKSNx said:

I guess we have different playstyles, lol

But your way of doing it is pretty cool, I've tried it once or twice. but, i don't really do it that often.

Faster resupply times and not having to worry abut getting flanked if pretty good

And that is part of the fun. Thank you!

Your welcome, it's pretty safe most of the time, except once where I got cocky and charged a new Mexico I was burning down because I wanted C cap, lost half my health before I killed him. But I found that was the only way to do good damage in shoukaku.

[xKSNx]

Just now, megadeux said:

Your welcome, it's pretty safe most of the time, except once where I got cocky and charged a new Mexico I was burning down because I wanted C cap, lost half my health before I killed him. But I found that was the only way to do good damage in shoukaku.

I loved my shokaku. A sturdy, swiss(jap) army knife

[TheHunter2_EAD]

WG need to fix MM almost every time  I play tier VI CV I end up with a tier VIII battle with all my plane are gone at the end agents super buff BB AA witch not a thing. 

[HobGoblin0]

still REMOVE STRAFE.  I don't get why this mechanic is in there.  It'd be like making the horn a critical component of battleship combat.  Nor do I see any negative consequences with removing it.  It brings nothing to the table.  Let the stupid planes fight it out like they're supposed to.