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

Get ready for the new carrier meta post 6.14

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

345
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,521 battles

IJN 2-2-2 aren’t going to cut it anymore. You will need AS builds to handle the new USN load outs from what I am seeing.

Edited by GreyFox78659
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,561
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Members, Supertester, WoWS Community Contributors
4,681 posts
15,199 battles

Why?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[-K-]
Members
642 posts
8,567 battles
8 minutes ago, Lord_Zath said:

Why?

Zath have you even played the game you pleb? This new patch is going to absolutely shred the IJN CVs due to the new squadrons and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Edited by MrEndeavour
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,303 battles

How will only 1 fighter completely shut down T4-8 with 2 fighter squads? Last I checked 2/x/x worked just fine. 

 

Essex also only has T8 fighters, so it might as well only have 1.5 squads. Midway... Basically didn't change fighter wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,161 battles
4 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

I clicked this thread expecting a detailed analysis. 

 

OH well. 

It's the fake forum fox what do you expect?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
212
[VFW]
Members
904 posts
20,733 battles

  Yes, why?   

 The changes to the USN CV line are "Balanced"...I don't agree with WG on this.   Only giving a Fixed load out vs other fixes they could of made is maddening.   They could of done: 1) Given one torp sq to the fighter load out, or 2) Given one fighter sq to the Strike loadout.

  As for the Midway, I like that CV.   Giving it in the next patch T8 torp sq is a bit rough due to the buffs to some AA on DDs plus the already high AA spec ships at that tier.   Also, the new "aiming reticle" for the CVs using the bombers is good in one way, bad in another.   It is the narrow oval which lessens the RNG if angled correctly, but that's the trick...must be either full head-on or full rear attack.   

  Any way, not sure about the dumbing down of USN CVs and not really getting at the real issues at hand (UI sluggish/unresponsive at time, power creep of AA/DF on ships, fixed or little real choice on Aircraft loadout on USN CVs).

 

Rant over, with respect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,561
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Members, Supertester, WoWS Community Contributors
4,681 posts
15,199 battles

I appreciate that WG is trying things and experimenting.  With all things, we can predict as much as we want, but it's ultimately the data that will indicate the results of this change.  I urge everyone to look at this change with an open mind and see what happens.  No need for doom and gloom right now!  Maybe a few months after the patch, we can start looking at data and people will have had enough games' worth of experience to comment on this change. For now, let's try it out and see what works and what doesn't :).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[APOC-]
Members
117 posts
4,740 battles

I mean, people have been asking to increase the viability of USN Carriers since beta now, and this rightfully does just that. No doom and gloom here yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,229 posts
6,194 battles
28 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

I clicked this thread expecting a detailed analysis. 

 

OH well. 

if it is a topic by this guy, it is 99.99999999999999999999999999% clicbait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[APOC-]
Members
117 posts
4,740 battles
Just now, 212thAttackBattalion said:

if it is a topic by this guy, it is 99.99999999999999999999999999% clicbait

wots the other .00000000000000000000000001% then.

                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,229 posts
6,194 battles
Just now, MVPBluntman said:

wots the other .00000000000000000000000001% then.

                       

committing identity theft by claiming to be a forum fox when there is only 1... and that is Kitsune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[-VT3-]
Members
1,610 posts
3,346 battles
4 minutes ago, MVPBluntman said:

wots the other .00000000000000000000000001% then.

                       

Just a completely empty post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[KENT]
Members
480 posts
3,037 battles
49 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

I clicked this thread expecting a detailed analysis. 

 

OH well. 

I can make a detailed analysis if you want, however I'm pretty scrub at the Midway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles

The only ship that I can see kinda suffering from these changes is the Hakuryu, since Midway will have god-tier strike power against any ship with less-than-amazing AA. But for the rest? Nah.......

 

Also, for anyone that says Midway with T8 bombers is going to be weak, just check out how the Kaga's T6 bombers do against T8 ships. Hint: they do fine, because they just can't shoot down all 12 TBs before they hit. On top of that, Midway has a huge hangar, meaning it can throw away some planes and still have plenty to spare. 

Edited by Aduial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,521 battles
1 hour ago, DerKrampus said:

I clicked this thread expecting a detailed analysis. 

 

OH well. 

I keep it simple numbers are boring. Go read LWM’s write up she goes through the numbers. I cater to those that want it short and sweet and to the point. Point is the changes will be meta upsetting. For the good or bad is up to the individual experience. I think it is for the good if you play USN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,774 battles

We also only know of the USN CVs adjustment.  I would suspect that the IJN CVs are going to be "balanced" out shortly after.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[RKN]
Members
1,634 posts
3,352 battles
2 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

IJN 2-2-2 aren’t going to cut it anymore. You will need AS builds to handle the new USN load outs from what I am seeing.

Greyfox sorry, but you're actually wrong on this one. As far as I can tell 2/2/2 will be effective in subduing the USN loadouts at tiers 7/8, tiers 4-6 are going to be a tossup depending on player skill/proximity to allied AA. Tier 9 is going to be a tossup (14 tier 8 planes vs 10 tier 9 planes) And tier 10 is a midway's victory, but the Hak will have more striking power against high AA targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,521 battles
3 hours ago, megadeux said:

Greyfox sorry, but you're actually wrong on this one. As far as I can tell 2/2/2 will be effective in subduing the USN loadouts at tiers 7/8, tiers 4-6 are going to be a tossup depending on player skill/proximity to allied AA. Tier 9 is going to be a tossup (14 tier 8 planes vs 10 tier 9 planes) And tier 10 is a midway's victory, but the Hak will have more striking power against high AA targets.

Agreeing to disagree on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,521 battles
6 hours ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

How will only 1 fighter completely shut down T4-8 with 2 fighter squads? Last I checked 2/x/x worked just fine. 

 

Essex also only has T8 fighters, so it might as well only have 1.5 squads. Midway... Basically didn't change fighter wise. 

With Lexington you have 1 squad but 6 to 7 fighters that are better. Also the IJN needs to stop torpedo bombers which have 6 planes with two squads of fighters with 4 to 5 IJN weaker plane squads. IJN fighters must be free should the they show and delete something or prime it for the now 2 squads of 6 to 7 divebombers to finish it off. Your IJN carrier will need 3 IJN fighter squads now 2 won’t cut it. Yes you might destroy the USN fighters but it means your team loses a ship now. Before the USN an AS might have had a dive bomber get through or have no fighter protection. Well not anymore you ignore the strike package with torpedo planes and dive bombers heading in and your team will pay. Which means as USN you bait fighters with the strike package and strafe them as they cannot ignore it.

 

Ranger Is the same package as Lady Lex and Essex gets an extra fighter squad. Midway’s 2/2/2 is now OP

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,303 battles
19 hours ago, GreyFox78659 said:

With Lexington you have 1 squad but 6 to 7 fighters that are better. Also the IJN needs to stop torpedo bombers which have 6 planes with two squads of fighters with 4 to 5 IJN weaker plane squads. IJN fighters must be free should the they show and delete something or prime it for the now 2 squads of 6 to 7 divebombers to finish it off. Your IJN carrier will need 3 IJN fighter squads now 2 won’t cut it. Yes you might destroy the USN fighters but it means your team loses a ship now. Before the USN an AS might have had a dive bomber get through or have no fighter protection. Well not anymore you ignore the strike package with torpedo planes and dive bombers heading in and your team will pay. Which means as USN you bait fighters with the strike package and strafe them as they cannot ignore it.

 

Ranger Is the same package as Lady Lex and Essex gets an extra fighter squad. Midway’s 2/2/2 is now OP

So basically what your saying is that to deal with 1/1/1 Lexington/Ranger that exists now, all IJN CVs should have been going AS this whole time? 

 

You have two groups of 4-5 fighters vs one group of 6-7 fighters. If you can't make that work, you should practice your fighter play. The key is baiting the USN fighters over friendly AA, strafing them, or doing a lock/strafe out/strafe in with both fighter groups. 

 

Literally nothing has changed fighter wise with USN loadouts except they don't have an AS option, and you get one extra fighter group with a strike centered layout, where before you only had none or one. I'm not seeing why you're saying the sky will fall in. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[M_L]
[M_L]
Beta Testers
321 posts
8,833 battles

Honestly it comes down to skill. Take these two games, one was GZ test 1 v Shokaku and the second is Shokaku v GZ test 2. 

Game 1:

Spoiler

shot-17_11.18_08_40.36-0247.thumb.jpg.09bde5b028271852bbb05b4aea2ca412.jpgshot-17_11.18_08_40.33-0108.thumb.jpg.0df3caf453c53e617685ab58e8bdeda8.jpg

Game 2:

Spoiler

shot-17_11.18_11_29.39-0187.thumb.jpg.b0f772c07e7828d789a175c5f5c84e94.jpgshot-17_11.18_11_30.48-0682.thumb.jpg.a655f96cd02907605985531f22b0976a.jpg

The first game I was out numbered in both fighter squads, figher numbers and out matched by fighter tier. Yet I cleared 43 aircraft and AP bombed the hostile team into oblivion. By using my speed and strafe power to dictate the engagements I would fight and often winning them before they started. The second game I was out powered in strafe and slower and still cleared 32 aircraft. I did this by forcing engagements by the fighters to save bombers and then strafing all of it down with my second squad. Also watching to make sure only one of my fighter squads could get hit by a strafe at a time helped keep my fighters strong and burn the low ammo of the German pilots. 

Shokaku was 2/2/2 both times.  The only reason I did so little damage in the Shokaku game came down to DD hunting and my rustiness with torpedo bombers due to taking a bit of a break from the game. That and GZ's torp auto drop has spoiled me. 

Edited by Grathew
forgot the analysis ops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×