Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
GreyFox78659

Simple Carrier revamp and balance

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

In keeping with just go with I say go with it.

 

Get rid of manual drops and staffing.

 

All carriers should have the exact same load outs and squad sizes. Hangar capacity, plane quality, and ship endurance/armaments should be the differences.

 

National flavor should be in the planes themselves. 

 

American: lots of health but easy to spot 

 

Japanese: fragile but Kamikaze option

 

British: stealthy but fragile

 

German: fast fighters laser like but slow bombers 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

No. The IJN will never get a "kamikaze" option. It is distasteful, and wrong.

 

All carriers having the same load outs removes any specialization for carrier to carrier action.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,085
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,321 posts
6,609 battles
8 minutes ago, Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper said:

Nein

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,290 posts
4,117 battles
On 10/15/2017 at 4:15 AM, GreyFox78659 said:

In keeping with just go with I say go with it.

 

Get rid of manual drops and staffing.

 

All carriers should have the exact same load outs and squad sizes. Hangar capacity, plane quality, and ship endurance/armaments should be the differences.

 

National flavor should be in the planes themselves. 

 

American: lots of health but easy to spot 

 

Japanese: fragile but Kamikaze option

 

British: stealthy but fragile

 

German: fast fighters laser like but slow bombers 

 

 

1. Get rid of auto drops and fighter lockup

 

2. Enterprise proves that USN > IJN with even loadouts.

3. Tanky plane>slightly better damage plane. A slight damage increase does not offset the lose of damage from losing a plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[SXXKT]
Members
49 posts
3,699 battles

The things I think need to be fixed are strafing (completely unrealistic mechanic that brings totally upside down reality to flights - bombers traveled in groups and their rear gunners were more effective in numbers, but the strafe mechanic forces you to separate the squadrons whereas they really would not).

Strafing should be a mechanic that fighters use to attack ships - this would be historically accurate, and would give an AS load out some damage options.  Notably particularly effective vs DDs, but would use most or all ammo.

 

Other issue is the fighter-less load outs.  I doubt any fleet carrier ever carried all bombers with no fighters for CAP (Combat Air Patrol) as it was suicide.  There should be 1 squadron minimum of fighters.  This would help with the USN strike load outs for mid tiers, and the GZ Test 1 which are effectively shutdown by opposing CV with fighters, and even opposing strike that has a squadron of fighters severely impacts them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[TARFU]
[TARFU]
Members
913 posts
5,939 battles
On 10/15/2017 at 7:24 AM, Doomlock said:

No. The IJN will never get a "kamikaze" option. It is distasteful, and wrong.

 

All carriers having the same load outs removes any specialization for carrier to carrier action.

 

i'm sick of you shitting on everybody constantly, what is you're problem dude?

 

player feature suggestions will never be implemented ANYWAY. you get a high off picking on people.

Edited by HorrorRoach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
20 minutes ago, HorrorRoach said:

 

i'm sick of you shitting on everybody constantly, what is you're problem dude?

 

player feature suggestions will never be implemented ANYWAY. you get a high off picking on people.

:Smile_amazed:  What? You have literally been the first person ever to say I do that. I don't do that, nor do I have any problems.

 

And I don't pick on people, if anything, I try to help people on the forums as best I can when they ask for help. So, I am sorry to hear you think I am like that, but I am not. You can ask many people here on the forums, you'd see I am not what you claim I am, or what you claim I do.

 

This was also said a month ago, in response to something that I felt was distasteful.

 

Fair winds and following seas captain. :Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
864
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,856 posts
4,224 battles
1 hour ago, HorrorRoach said:

 

i'm sick of you shitting on everybody constantly, what is you're problem dude?

 

player feature suggestions will never be implemented ANYWAY. you get a high off picking on people.

Umm...... what? You must have Doomlock mixed-up with someone else. Perhaps you should get your facts, and your basic understanding of what constitutes reality, together before you start attacking him.

 

Because, as things currently stand, the only person shitting on anyone in this thread is you.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[5IN]
Members
1,792 posts
8,139 battles
1 hour ago, HorrorRoach said:

 

i'm sick of you shitting on everybody constantly, what is you're problem dude?

 

player feature suggestions will never be implemented ANYWAY. you get a high off picking on people.

Wow.  I think you may be confused with someone else because it isnt Doomlock.  Look up his past posts and tell us where he's crapping on everyone.  Sorry mate, he's about as stand-up as they come.

 

b

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[SXXKT]
Members
49 posts
3,699 battles

Not like you suggest.

I think strafe does need to be changed, to a ship attack instead of against aircraft.  Thus DDs would be vulnerable to fighters strafing (fire & damage), CAs & BBs taking lesser damage due to armor, but reducing their AA effectiveness - this makes it a valid attack method to use the fighters to soften the target before sending in the bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×