Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Charest87

6.14 Carriers and the USN Issue: Why It Will Fail

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

18
[-WTP-]
Members
5 posts
4,194 battles

Normally, I just lurk on the forums but the purposed changes to the American line continues to show that the dev clearly don’t bother with carriers. Spamming a discount Enterprise (and giving annoying those who paid for it) is not the answer for the line’s problems. Since they are just throwing *edited* at the wall, it’s high time to describe in detail of what the main issues are and why USN CV’s fall so short. This rant will be split into several parts regarding the following: Overpowering IJN loadouts, AA power creep, and plane tier changes.

Note I’m focusing on tier seven (Ranger) and up. Indy and down isn’t totally useless, receive a gold star on that.

           

            Here is the major reason for the massive power issue: The concept used for cv “national flavors” are horrible. You have one line that is either entirely defensive (AS) or offensive (Strike with RNGfest DBs) or not enough planes in the sky (stock). The other does whatever it wants, always gains squads in each loadout, and never trades a single disadvantage outside of having about two or so fewer planes per squad. I say this because so far, the devs stated that they are happy with IJN cvs and wish to not change them. Which one wins in this situation?

 

To the surprise of no one, IJN sails away with WR and damage. Apparently, a basic understanding is in order.

 

The soviet tactic of spamming to insane levels is the main issue. Ranger gains a DB while losing both loadouts. Other than the enemy cv always knowing exactly what you have, this turns into a fair fight… for a stock Hiryu. Congrats, welcome to the national flavor issue. Gain a free fighter squad with zero trade-offs, enjoy exit strafing and being tied up with only a single squad to back up yourself and the fleet. Meanwhile, those two TB and DB squads do whatever they want while yours may be engaged by a second and there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s the issue in all of this. The AS loadout drops a TB for a third fighter squad. Three against one. There's also the issue of USN CVs being spotted from the moon while IJN Cvs get stealth technology or something. Take a wild guess on how that will go. For the final insult consider the Kaga, which will send DBs after DDs while those three TB squads come over and nuke ranger at the start. Kaga is now completely uncontested. Do you want more tier seven misery? Because that’s how you get more misery.

 

3-1-2 or 2-2-2 vs 1-1-2

Or

2-3-2 vs 1-1-2

 

Lexington is in a better boat this time around however that’s because anything is an improvement on the current version. The same issue applies here with a 1-1-2 vs either a 2-2-2 or a shutdown 3-1-2. Thankfully, only one squad is AP but that’s only special if they even get there. This might have been fine but in comes the GZ and Big E. The newest GZ versions have a STUPID amount of planes in each squad, giving ten planes in fighters, nine or so in DB and a lot in TB.

Congrats, you stopped a GZ strike force… somehow. Now your only fighters are out of ammo and must return to Moon Lex miles from the battle. Oh, by the way, the GZ send in another strike or two unopposed with that silly turnaround time and concealment. Enjoy having everything crumble around you while the team spam reports the “totally potato cv”. Outside of having the dumbest torp drop pattern in existence, the Big E does everything better with those oh so special AP bombs. Scrap what I said at the start.

 

Or you could just go back to when it had a 2-1-1 setup. Plenty of fighters and lacking strike to keep the easy mode captains happy.

 

1-1-2 vs 2-2-2 or Billy Mays style of MORE

 

Essex turns into stock Midway (2-1-2). Nice! What’s the issue her…. Oh. Of course. Goody, you paid for a tier nine ship and you get tier 8 fighters and torpedo squads. You know how tier 8 always fights 9 and 10 AA? How useless a tier 8 cv is in a tier 9/10 fight? Surprise (or not), Taiho loses absolutely nothing and stays tier 9. This time around, they get a squad without tradeoffs in either direction because that’s fair.

2-1-2 (DOWN TIERED) vs 2-3-2 or 3-2-2

Anyone seeing a pattern here? Understand the problem? Thinking of having 2-3-1 is too hard it seems. Honestly, no carrier needs three death squads that ignore all AA and delete everything including Iowas and Montanas.

Finally, there’s Midway with only one option… stock. You either choose 3-0-2 and have zero striking power at tier 10 with RNGfest DBs or you get the same problem plaguing the entire tree. Losing an entire fighter squad in 1-1-3 to pick up a single worthless DB is not worth it in the slightest.

The newest one offers an AP squad with 20% more accuracy in manual drop. Add in a fire squad and it becomes quiet nasty. 

 

WAIT… 2-2-2 you say? Wonderful, maybe it’s… oh. The TBs are tier 8 on a tier 10 ship. Tier 8 TBs that can be swatted out of the sky by DDs now (more on that later.)

 

Meanwhile Hakuryu gets… 2-3-2 stock, 4-2-2 (lose something in return? Shocker) or 2-3-3 with zero downsides. But it’s 2-2-2 you say, it’s totes more OP than two-four spotting squads and two sets of pure death that even BBs can’t live through. Maybe it was the case when it had jets perhaps, but the current speeds are about the same. Now USN strike planes can be caught by IJN fighters starting at Essex unloaded while the other strike groups are more than able to fly away from harm. So, while They mess with plane tiers, the IJN stay the tier they’re supposed to be. That’s the true cause of all the problems. IJN never give up anything at any point while the USN is in “pick how you want to die” mode.

 

I also know about Mod3. This will be covered in AA.

 

You cannot mess with plane tiers if you have AA murder with irreplaceable squads.

 

Tier 10 Midway TBs have 2438hp with the mod at 151 knots. Using Lex’s tier 8 gives them super slow 136 knots and 1710hp to start. Even with the mod, the planes are far too slow for tier 10 AA and map size. This just won’t fly.

 

            The next major problem is the AA power creep. Don’t scream to the heavens about how wrong I am on this one. I can’t be the only one annoyed at AA acting like radar (firing at impossible angles over islands). This is entirely fixable by running a check on AA gun angles, where the planes are, and if LOS allows them to hit it (are they miles behind an island?)

It’s obvious how a meh premium or new line is made worthwhile. Simple! Just add stupid amounts of AA until every single ship is AA! You get AA, you get AA, EVERYONE GETS AA! Oh, Hood is turning out to be a garbage ship compared to the rest (battle-cruiser issue). What should we do? Give it DF and the most insane rockets of doom in the entire game of course. Not even a tier 10 squad will last a single second once he presses the magic “I Win” button. Americans I understand because of the fear of suicide planes and planes in general. Brits were allies.

What’s odd is that Germany was somewhat poor to descend in the ship AA department. The Japanese had next to no radar assisted AA and the slowest rate of fire in the war. "Glorious waifu" Yamato outright knocked her own AA guns out because her guns were far too large. 18.1 turned out to be more than unnecessary.

Cruisers are a tad high on AA insanity but that is their job. The problem is all the new BBs just have a slap on AA magic. Can’t made a ship worth playing over another? Just make it cv proof! Wouldn’t want to make it somewhat inconvenient now would we?

 

DDs shouldn’t be knocking planes out the sky. That’s just how it is for them. Apparently, WG had no idea why CVs gun for them first. They go for them because they are alone and all BBs at the beginning of the battle have too much AA to go after. Freedom boat’s national flavor was AA right? So why does every single ship get it?

 

The true reason for AA murder is because IJN ships can drop three squads directly next to you, deleting any ship. It’s as if having so many strike planes is a problem or something. Maybe increase the activation time passed two seconds? Have DBs be the ones to drop directly on the ships instead? Too much to ask for? People hate IJN unbalanced carriers. That is why it’s called sky cancer.
 

The Simple Solution

1.      If they insist on a single flight mode, then it should be 1-1-2 stock and 2-1-2 as an upgrade. You have to work on blocking with two fighters while dragging far behind three torp spam and what not.

2.      Tone down AA in general. Read: don’t have something like a Mino be capable of swatting planes from a full cap circle and a half away.

3.      Do not mess with plane tier on tech tree ships. If someone gets a tier 9 or tier10, they get those tiers’ airplanes.

4.      Tone down the amount of strike in IJN or have them give something up in loadouts. Everything is just a straight upgrade now.

5.      Extend torp activation time to about 3- 5 seconds.  

6.      I've seen a suggestion on a more balanced national flavor. USN cvs allowed for pilots to switch around squads or fly off another carrier if they where shot down previously. If two of the same type of squad can't reform into a new one (out of reserves) then it molds the squad into one. IJN don't get this because they already have very fast turnaround time and were historically very strict about squad structure.

 

These reasons are why USN CVs fail in the current system. Everyone and their grandpa have stated what I’ve said only to be ignored. If this goes through without the IJN getting the same treatment, which so far, the devs don’t want to change, it will be the final nail in the coffin of USN CVs. I don't want ranked and random to be impossible in a USN CV.

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,226 battles

One could already tell the 6.14 CV fix is not a fix at all. It will be nothing but a fail. Why WG has this fixation with going backwards is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,420 posts
3,413 battles

It won't fail; it'll just be part of a series of changes made to the USN CV line that they started testing with Enterprise. If anything, this is just the first step towards their goal of simplifying CV play and making it more accessible, at the expense of some flexibility/player skill.

Share this post


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

10/10, very well thought out and presented. These are my concerns as well, even though I'm only a part time CV player. 

 

Too bad WG will just ignore this as always. 

Edited by Show_Me_Your_Cits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[GREPT]
[GREPT]
Beta Testers
6,739 posts
7,090 battles

Eh, I'm just seeing more "the sky is falling" from so many people. If they do small changes then nothing will change, if they do big changes idiots will automatically assume it's bad and do posts like this. Shut up and see how this works before you start crying. once it's active and it is confirmed how it works then we can talk about where it did or did not fail. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,206 posts
1,939 battles
2 hours ago, Charest87 said:

Normally, I just lurk on the forums but the purposed changes to the American line continues to show that the dev clearly don’t bother with carriers. Spamming a discount Enterprise (and giving annoying those who paid for it) is not the answer for the line’s problems. Since they are just throwing *edited* at the wall, it’s high time to describe in detail of what the main issues are and why USN CV’s fall so short. This rant will be split into several parts regarding the following: Overpowering IJN loadouts, AA power creep, and plane tier changes.

Note I’m focusing on tier seven (Ranger) and up. Indy and down isn’t totally useless, receive a gold star on that.

           

            Here is the major reason for the massive power issue: The concept used for cv “national flavors” are horrible. You have one line that is either entirely defensive (AS) or offensive (Strike with RNGfest DBs) or not enough planes in the sky (stock). The other does whatever it wants, always gains squads in each loadout, and never trades a single disadvantage outside of having about two or so fewer planes per squad. I say this because so far, the devs stated that they are happy with IJN cvs and wish to not change them. Which one wins in this situation?

 

To the surprise of no one, IJN sails away with WR and damage. Apparently, a basic understanding is in order.

 

The soviet tactic of spamming to insane levels is the main issue. Ranger gains a DB while losing both loadouts. Other than the enemy cv always knowing exactly what you have, this turns into a fair fight… for a stock Hiryu. Congrats, welcome to the national flavor issue. Gain a free fighter squad with zero trade-offs, enjoy exit strafing and being tied up with only a single squad to back up yourself and the fleet. Meanwhile, those two TB and DB squads do whatever they want while yours may be engaged by a second and there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s the issue in all of this. The AS loadout drops a TB for a third fighter squad. Three against one. There's also the issue of USN CVs being spotted from the moon while IJN Cvs get stealth technology or something. Take a wild guess on how that will go. For the final insult consider the Kaga, which will send DBs after DDs while those three TB squads come over and nuke ranger at the start. Kaga is now completely uncontested. Do you want more tier seven misery? Because that’s how you get more misery.

 

3-1-2 or 2-2-2 vs 1-1-2

Or

2-3-2 vs 1-1-2

 

Lexington is in a better boat this time around however that’s because anything is an improvement on the current version. The same issue applies here with a 1-1-2 vs either a 2-2-2 or a shutdown 3-1-2. Thankfully, only one squad is AP but that’s only special if they even get there. This might have been fine but in comes the GZ and Big E. The newest GZ versions have a STUPID amount of planes in each squad, giving ten planes in fighters, nine or so in DB and a lot in TB.

Congrats, you stopped a GZ strike force… somehow. Now your only fighters are out of ammo and must return to Moon Lex miles from the battle. Oh, by the way, the GZ send in another strike or two unopposed with that silly turnaround time and concealment. Enjoy having everything crumble around you while the team spam reports the “totally potato cv”. Outside of having the dumbest torp drop pattern in existence, the Big E does everything better with those oh so special AP bombs. Scrap what I said at the start.

 

Or you could just go back to when it had a 2-1-1 setup. Plenty of fighters and lacking strike to keep the easy mode captains happy.

 

1-1-2 vs 2-2-2 or Billy Mays style of MORE

 

Essex turns into stock Midway (2-1-2). Nice! What’s the issue her…. Oh. Of course. Goody, you paid for a tier nine ship and you get tier 8 fighters and torpedo squads. You know how tier 8 always fights 9 and 10 AA? How useless a tier 8 cv is in a tier 9/10 fight? Surprise (or not), Taiho loses absolutely nothing and stays tier 9. This time around, they get a squad without tradeoffs in either direction because that’s fair.

2-1-2 (DOWN TIERED) vs 2-3-2 or 3-2-2

Anyone seeing a pattern here? Understand the problem? Thinking of having 2-3-1 is too hard it seems. Honestly, no carrier needs three death squads that ignore all AA and delete everything including Iowas and Montanas.

Finally, there’s Midway with only one option… stock. You either choose 3-0-2 and have zero striking power at tier 10 with RNGfest DBs or you get the same problem plaguing the entire tree. Losing an entire fighter squad in 1-1-3 to pick up a single worthless DB is not worth it in the slightest.

The newest one offers an AP squad with 20% more accuracy in manual drop. Add in a fire squad and it becomes quiet nasty. 

 

WAIT… 2-2-2 you say? Wonderful, maybe it’s… oh. The TBs are tier 8 on a tier 10 ship. Tier 8 TBs that can be swatted out of the sky by DDs now (more on that later.)

 

Meanwhile Hakuryu gets… 2-3-2 stock, 4-2-2 (lose something in return? Shocker) or 2-3-3 with zero downsides. But it’s 2-2-2 you say, it’s totes more OP than two-four spotting squads and two sets of pure death that even BBs can’t live through. Maybe it was the case when it had jets perhaps, but the current speeds are about the same. Now USN strike planes can be caught by IJN fighters starting at Essex unloaded while the other strike groups are more than able to fly away from harm. So, while They mess with plane tiers, the IJN stay the tier they’re supposed to be. That’s the true cause of all the problems. IJN never give up anything at any point while the USN is in “pick how you want to die” mode.

 

I also know about Mod3. This will be covered in AA.

 

You cannot mess with plane tiers if you have AA murder with irreplaceable squads.

 

Tier 10 Midway TBs have 2438hp with the mod at 151 knots. Using Lex’s tier 8 gives them super slow 136 knots and 1710hp to start. Even with the mod, the planes are far too slow for tier 10 AA and map size. This just won’t fly.

 

            The next major problem is the AA power creep. Don’t scream to the heavens about how wrong I am on this one. I can’t be the only one annoyed at AA acting like radar (firing at impossible angles over islands). This is entirely fixable by running a check on AA gun angles, where the planes are, and if LOS allows them to hit it (are they miles behind an island?)

It’s obvious how a meh premium or new line is made worthwhile. Simple! Just add stupid amounts of AA until every single ship is AA! You get AA, you get AA, EVERYONE GETS AA! Oh, Hood is turning out to be a garbage ship compared to the rest (battle-cruiser issue). What should we do? Give it DF and the most insane rockets of doom in the entire game of course. Not even a tier 10 squad will last a single second once he presses the magic “I Win” button. Americans I understand because of the fear of suicide planes and planes in general. Brits were allies.

What’s odd is that Germany was somewhat poor to descend in the ship AA department. The Japanese had next to no radar assisted AA and the slowest rate of fire in the war. "Glorious waifu" Yamato outright knocked her own AA guns out because her guns were far too large. 18.1 turned out to be more than unnecessary.

Cruisers are a tad high on AA insanity but that is their job. The problem is all the new BBs just have a slap on AA magic. Can’t made a ship worth playing over another? Just make it cv proof! Wouldn’t want to make it somewhat inconvenient now would we?

 

DDs shouldn’t be knocking planes out the sky. That’s just how it is for them. Apparently, WG had no idea why CVs gun for them first. They go for them because they are alone and all BBs at the beginning of the battle have too much AA to go after. Freedom boat’s national flavor was AA right? So why does every single ship get it?

 

The true reason for AA murder is because IJN ships can drop three squads directly next to you, deleting any ship. It’s as if having so many strike planes is a problem or something. Maybe increase the activation time passed two seconds? Have DBs be the ones to drop directly on the ships instead? Too much to ask for? People hate IJN unbalanced carriers. That is why it’s called sky cancer.
 

The Simple Solution

1.      If they insist on a single flight mode, then it should be 1-1-2 stock and 2-1-2 as an upgrade. You have to work on blocking with two fighters while dragging far behind three torp spam and what not.

2.      Tone down AA in general. Read: don’t have something like a Mino be capable of swatting planes from a full cap circle and a half away.

3.      Do not mess with plane tier on tech tree ships. If someone gets a tier 9 or tier10, they get those tiers’ airplanes.

4.      Tone down the amount of strike in IJN or have them give something up in loadouts. Everything is just a straight upgrade now.

5.      Extend torp activation time to about 3- 5 seconds.  

6.      I've seen a suggestion on a more balanced national flavor. USN cvs allowed for pilots to switch around squads or fly off another carrier if they where shot down previously. If two of the same type of squad can't reform into a new one (out of reserves) then it molds the squad into one. IJN don't get this because they already have very fast turnaround time and were historically very strict about squad structure.

 

These reasons are why USN CVs fail in the current system. Everyone and their grandpa have stated what I’ve said only to be ignored. If this goes through without the IJN getting the same treatment, which so far, the devs don’t want to change, it will be the final nail in the coffin of USN CVs. I don't want ranked and random to be impossible in a USN CV.

you are harnessing your inner Nostradamus dear good sir. shame WG will not foresee this

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,699 posts
3,459 battles

These changes remove any ability of the USN CVs to win matchups against Premium or AS specced CVs.

 

The changes to Tier 8 aircraft Tiering means not only will the USN bombers be markedly inferior to their IJN counter parts, but they'll lose more aircraft with each strike, meaning less weapons on target and more time waiting for complete loss reloads.

 

AP being carried over from Enterprise means you have an extremely limited target selection that is utterly useless against most BB sized targets and best against 2 of the 3 hardest to attack Tier 10 Cruisers.

 

HE being unchanged (circle) means same old RNG, same old frustration.

 

The Enterprise only represents a poor gimmick done in enough volume to make up for the bad design.

 

The Ranger and Lexington are essentially worse now than before.

 

None of the ships are now viable in competitive play.

 

The Bogue now will have its fighter tied up, and get [edited] horribly before it can win enough dogfights to make an impact while the enemy CV wrecks it's incredibly limited attackers.

 

The need tp grind hangar space for now [edited]reason remains unfixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,038 posts
12,524 battles

The only things that are negotiable in this phase are whether the changes to USN carriers brings them in line with their IJN counterparts. For that, they're only interested in experience-based comparisons across lines. Lexington-to-Essex scaling is the wrong comparison; what matter is whether they match IJN at those tiers. "T8 TBs sound too weak on a T10 carriers" is just speculation -- they've already done the math, and napkin calculations aren't going to convince them. "IJN CV is too powerful" is basically true but also not up for negotiation right now.

Only feedback along the lines of "Hiryu still wipes the floor with equal-skill Ranger and I can verify that it happens on PTS in the following way..." would carry actual weight at this point.

Spoiler

 

The CV changes are taking place in two phases.

Phase one is easy short-term changes that bring USN carriers in line with IJN ones. That's the one we're seeing now.

Phase two is a long-term rework of carrier mechanics, including AA and spotting. That's not coming soon.

I'm not saying it's ideal, or that they're achieving their goals currently, but you do need to keep the distinction in mind because solutions that don't fit that pattern are non-starters. So, while we all know AA scaling is broken, it's not going to get fixed before the large-scale rework.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
630 posts
705 battles

isn't it amusing that AS, the only place a USN CV could win against an IJN one, is getting removed? WG loves shafting USN CVs unless they are premium.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,214
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,196 posts
3,871 battles

I firmly believe that the only way WG will be able to balance carriers is to ditch asymmetrical squadrons entirely and give USN squadron parity with the IJN.

 

The current double-vic setup doesn't even make sense anyway.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[NOVA]
Members
11,026 posts

The quick fix to CVs is to nerf IJN.

 

USN CVs as they are are already strong ships vs anything but a USN CV.

 

Nerf IJN loadouts to mirror current USN, and then just swap TB for DB. Tweak the resulting loadouts so that nothing has more than 2 TBs, and poof, done.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,214
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,196 posts
3,871 battles

Whether you gut IJN so they're just as trash as the USN, or buff the USN so they're just as good as the IJN

 

The answer is still squadron parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[-WTP-]
Members
5 posts
4,194 battles
12 minutes ago, issm said:

The quick fix to CVs is to nerf IJN.

 

USN CVs as they are are already strong ships vs anything but a USN CV.

 

Nerf IJN loadouts to mirror current USN, and then just swap TB for DB. Tweak the resulting loadouts so that nothing has more than 2 TBs, and poof, done.

I usually don't agree with some things you've said, but this is golden. It's what my idea would be

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
37 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

I firmly believe that the only way WG will be able to balance carriers is to ditch asymmetrical squadrons entirely and give USN squadron parity with the IJN.

 

The current double-vic setup doesn't even make sense anyway.

 

It makes less than no sense since the IJN often flew the vic, because the radios were so bad they needed the close formation for hand signals.  When they didn't remove the radio to save weight.

 

On the other hand, USN flew finger four.  Using the pair of pairs approach and the Thatch weave.  I guess the most generous interpretation is WG considers the 6 man fighter group 3 pairs, or possibly 2 finger four formations, one of which took two losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,214
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,196 posts
3,871 battles
3 minutes ago, Grizley said:

 

It makes less than no sense since the IJN often flew the vic, because the radios were so bad they needed the close formation for hand signals.  When they didn't remove the radio to save weight.

 

On the other hand, USN flew finger four.  Using the pair of pairs approach and the Thatch weave.  I guess the most generous interpretation is WG considers the 6 man fighter group 3 pairs, or possibly 2 finger four formations, one of which took two losses.

 

No. The 6 plane formation is two Vics. They fly in a staggered double V formation.

 

Honestly if we want to go totally historical the IJN should have 7-plane squadrons. But that's just reversing the problem from one line to the other. All carriers getting 4-plane squadrons and the same number of squadrons (per tier) excluding premiums should be the rule of thumb, here.

 

Premiums like Saipan or Enterprise can be used for "abnormal" squadron setups, but all line carriers should be the same because WG has, over the past 2 years, proven their utter incapability at managing balance with asymmetrical loadouts in line carriers.

 

This change that WG is trying to force through is not going to solve the problem they're claiming they want to fix. I'd be surprised if it has any impact at all on the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,699 posts
3,459 battles
3 hours ago, Edgecase said:

The only things that are negotiable in this phase are whether the changes to USN carriers brings them in line with their IJN counterparts. For that, they're only interested in experience-based comparisons across lines. Lexington-to-Essex scaling is the wrong comparison; what matter is whether they match IJN at those tiers. "T8 TBs sound too weak on a T10 carriers" is just speculation -- they've already done the math, and napkin calculations aren't going to convince them. "IJN CV is too powerful" is basically true but also not up for negotiation right now.

Only feedback along the lines of "Hiryu still wipes the floor with equal-skill Ranger and I can verify that it happens on PTS in the following way..." would carry actual weight at this point.

  Hide contents

 

The CV changes are taking place in two phases.

Phase one is easy short-term changes that bring USN carriers in line with IJN ones. That's the one we're seeing now.

Phase two is a long-term rework of carrier mechanics, including AA and spotting. That's not coming soon.

I'm not saying it's ideal, or that they're achieving their goals currently, but you do need to keep the distinction in mind because solutions that don't fit that pattern are non-starters. So, while we all know AA scaling is broken, it's not going to get fixed before the large-scale rework.

 

 

 

The problem is that it has been demonstrated repeatedly even that doesn't matter. WarGaming is always hell bent on forcing through bad changes, especially to the USN CVs, no matter what the math or testing says.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339
[5D]
Members
1,217 posts
7,119 battles

The problem lies in how Wargaming is bent on deeming the US CV's as the people's carriers. Ensuring that the most popular CV line (to new players looking in) is by far the more user friendly is an understandable goal.

 

However, it's not going to work unless they make the few squads of the US flights brutally overpowered. Without that, I don't see how there can ever be parity with the IJN's supreme flexibility no matter how many times they use the word flexible in conjunction with US CV's.

 

And please... no nerfing of the IJN CV's... there needs to be at least one skill intensive line lest they irradicate the long faithful existing CV players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[-I-]
Members
1,719 posts
10,255 battles

I'd guess the downtiering of planes will be the biggest issue that will plague the new line. Tier 8 planes can barely hang with Tier 9 AA, much less Tier 10. Seems like a pretty bad idea to me. ::shrug::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,611
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,631 posts
14,017 battles
3 hours ago, issm said:

The quick fix to CVs is to nerf IJN.

 

USN CVs as they are are already strong ships vs anything but a USN CV.

 

Nerf IJN loadouts to mirror current USN, and then just swap TB for DB. Tweak the resulting loadouts so that nothing has more than 2 TBs, and poof, done.

 

I don't mind this, but the problem, issm, is that WG has gone on record and saying they like where IJN CVs are at now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,586
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
4 hours ago, AraAragami said:

I firmly believe that the only way WG will be able to balance carriers is to ditch asymmetrical squadrons entirely and give USN squadron parity with the IJN.

 

The current double-vic setup doesn't even make sense anyway.

Ara, if you're saying that squadron sizes need to be the same, regardless of nation, I agree with you.  And I've been saying this from the start.  It doesn't have to be 4.  It could be 6, or 5.  But pick a single size and work from there.

 

1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

I don't mind this, but the problem, issm, is that WG has gone on record and saying they like where IJN CVs are at now.

Then in all honestly, I'd say that the devs are flat out wrong.  The best way for IJN and USN CV's to be balanced is for them to have the same squadron sizes (i.e. planes per squadron) and then you can mirror the setups, with perhaps a minor tweak for national flavor, where if the IJN had 121 loadout, the USN might have a 112 loadout.  It seems to me that as long as the devs continue to insist on having different nations have different squadron sizes, balancing one nation's CV vs another nation's CV at the same tier will be very difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,214
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,196 posts
3,871 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

Ara, if you're saying that squadron sizes need to be the same, regardless of nation, I agree with you.  And I've been saying this from the start.  It doesn't have to be 4.  It could be 6, or 5.  But pick a single size and work from there.

 

I've been saying that for over a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,586
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
3 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

That's a good post, Ara.  Thanks for the link.  +1  :Smile_great:

BTW, for what it's worth, I actually think that going with 6 plane squadrons might have better results than dropping down to 4 plane squadrons.  My reason is that fewer squadrons results in simpler micromanagement of those squadrons.  Fewer balls in the air to juggle.

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,214
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,196 posts
3,871 battles
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

That's a good post, Ara.  Thanks for the link.  +1  :Smile_great:

BTW, for what it's worth, I actually think that going with 6 plane squadrons might have better results than dropping down to 4 plane squadrons.  My reason is that fewer squadrons results in simpler micromanagement of those squadrons.  Fewer balls in the air to juggle.

If you can't handle micro, than carriers are probably not the right class for you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×