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

Who thought this US CV rebalancing was a good idea?

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,244
[SALVO] Crucis
15,784 posts
16,612 battles
On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 3:17 AM, LizardKin19 said:

I have been playing my Lexington recently, and I agree that having to rely on one fighter squadron for defense of a whole fleet is rediculous.  The Shokaku, at the same tier, has a 3/1/2 loadout, which gives it TWELVE fighters (or fifteen with air supremacy) versus six (or seven with air supremacy.)  This means the one torpedo and two dive bomber squadrons have NO chance of making it past those fighters intact unless the Shokaku captain isn't paying attention for some reason.  Also, the rearm time for American squadrons is too long.  When you inevitably lose your fighters and bombers to either the AA guns of higher tier ships, or to IJN fighters, then they take forever to deploy a new squadron...and your now worse off than before.  At least make it so that each carrier is launching an equivalent number of each plane, either by equalizing squadrons, or by giving the Lexington, for example, 2 squadrons of six (12, or 14 with supremacy) which is still one less than a supremacy Shokaku has with it's three squadrons of fighters.

On another note, while I know that high tier ships are supposed to be more difficult to attack, one unsupported ship should not be able to totally annihilate an airstrike in seconds, with only one or two planes making their attacks, then getting wiped out on the way out.  With the recovery times that carriers have, they are basically out of the battle until new planes can be launched, and then they are also wiped out.  Instead of being a useful part of the team for attacking enemy ships, the CVs are basically relegated to scouting and hoping their teams can destroy the enemy.  This problem is most prevalent from Tier VII and up, when a Tier VII CV can face Tier IX ships.  That stacks the odds even more against the CV.  I'm not saying that AA is too strong, it's that planes are too fragile.  Should losses to squadrons occur?  Yes.  Total wipeouts?  No.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post.

While I think that the tweaking of the USN CVs was a generally good thing, I think that the IJN CV's also required a tweaking, though less for their benefit than for balance vs USN CV's.   IJN CV's should also not be allowed to have loadout options (particularly anti-strike options).  No CV's should.  

 

Regarding tier 7 CVs vs tier 9 ships, I'd say that the problem is operator error.  Are the tier 7 planes going to be fragile vs higher tier AA?  of course.  But what the CV player needs to do is recognize that  fact.  And rather than bash his head against the wall of that higher tier AA, start looking for lower tier targets, particularly loners, to attack.  Try to find some lone DD that you can pick off, particularly early on.  Give your HE spammers time to wear down the AA of targets.  Also, if you see some enemy BB that's been getting hammered by a friendly HE spammer, attack him if you can do so and he doesn't have AA support from other ships.  That BB is probably considerably weaker than he was to start.  And just to be safe, you might consider sending in a single squadron of bombers to see how strong his AA is.  If it's still too strong, don't bother following up on him and go find some other target.

I think that the problem here is that too many so-so CV players are thinking that just because they're in a CV they should be able to nuke anything they choose to.  If they could, they'd be OP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634 posts
3,833 battles

They forgot that JPN carriers still have all the option that they removed from the US carriers, and some more.

I can't help but think that overhauling carriers as a whole would take such a massive scale of change that will move the first digit of version number up.  I expected changes to be made on the JPN end as well, but nothing happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[BANT] NTRabbit
120 posts
4,146 battles

Just top quality balance work

0KRuVhl.jpg

The Ranger meganerf is a real treat, the AS loadout was the only good one it ever had. The current singular loadout may well be the worst carried by any CV that has ever appeared in this game, which is just fabulous in a tier where your most common opponent is Saipan, a ship that has always been so broken overpowered it makes the "too powerful to be sold" Nikolai and Gremy look like minor bumps in the graph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
636 posts
5,968 battles

Tell that to Essex. Has been crappy MM with team getting kill fast and last one not kill. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[WLDD] DrPuffin
37 posts
7,706 battles
On 1/26/2018 at 11:21 AM, NTRabbit said:

Just top quality balance work

The Ranger meganerf is a real treat, the AS loadout was the only good one it ever had. The current singular loadout may well be the worst carried by any CV that has ever appeared in this game, which is just fabulous in a tier where your most common opponent is Saipan, a ship that has always been so broken overpowered it makes the "too powerful to be sold" Nikolai and Gremy look like minor bumps in the graph.

Well, that is a spectacular example of really good players clubbing, or just really lucky ones. I love the Ranger's and Lex's new load-outs, it's heresy I know, but I've never had a problem with that type of play. I almost exclusively ran the 1-1-1 Ranger back in the day, and I would get a clear skies against everyone I fought (well, almost everyone). Yes, Saipans are incredibly annoying to fight, but they aren't invincible. I'd love to say that the Saipan has some easy counter, but it doesn't. Skill between players will decide a battle like this. I recommend being less aggressive with USN carriers with a single fighter squads, instead of rushing the enemy fighters at the beginning of the game, try and hold back a bit. You will most likely ignore my advice in favor of complaining how OP the Saipan is, but I've made Saipans rage quit in a 1-1-1 Ranger. True, they were far below my skill level, but there will always be better players. Mistakes will be made and you will run into very good players, so it's how you react and learn from these trials that will decide how good you will become. 

Should you feel to ask me any questions (or yell at me), I'd be happy to explain more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts
7,309 battles
On 1/13/2018 at 9:46 PM, Crucis said:

Absolutely not.  CV battles should NEVER be decided by the loadout lottery.  They should only be decided in game.

 

Says WHO ... bull crap.  Everyone who says this change was absolutely STUPID has common sense.  The change was asinine.   Fix the match-up.  Another Match-up case in point is this: why should it be okay to pit a Tier V CV against a Tier VI that has the ability to strafe and melt away the planes from the Tier V CV?  And who's the moron who decide that it is common sense to pit three Japanese squadrons against one U.S. squadron (yea, I said it .. .Moron - obviously someone who has no idea of what CVs are supposed to do, and someone why thinks that the fighters should be camped over their individual ship throughout the match)?  It is one thing if the Captain chooses to roll with no fighters, or with one fighter group; it is another for WoWs to not only FORCE this problem, but make it happen regularly by match-up.  Horse crap.  Crucis is CV clueless, it seems, along with some other people here.  CVs may have been slightly broken before, but now they're completely bullshi!.  Fix Match-up first.  I said it before, if you're going to screw with the CV flight control options, don't DELETE them, change them.  But Noooo

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339 posts
8,034 battles
On 1/14/2018 at 4:49 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The USN CV Revamp needed to happen because Tech Tree USN CVs were ALL garbage.

 

Post Revamp, Bogue is competitive with Zuiho:  Look at the historical stats of the two, it was so lopsided in favor of Zuiho it's freakin' hilarious.

Post Revamp, Midway is a desirable ship once again.

 

But post Revamp, Independence hasn't gotten better.  Ranger, Lexington, Essex have gotten worse.  Lexington is the first of these Revamped CVs to go through Ranked and she is absolutely getting slaughtered.  Next Ranked Season, expect Ranger to do even worse than her already embarrassing performance from last Tier VII Ranked.

 

1 fighter unit in Tier VII-VIII does not cut it with the array of squadrons the competing CVs there have.  I don't know who at WG thought it a good idea to go down to 1 fighter unit when you got Hiryu, Shokaku, Enterprise sporting 6 units in the air, including multiple fighter units and more bombers than your dumb 1 fighter unit can stop.

5d9cad6d-137f-42e5-a6b8-73dc91df5f96.jpg

 

6 USN CVs have undergone the Revamp and only 2 of them are any good, the rest undesirable trash.

Your entire post should be in everyones sig every time they post from here until WGing fixes this mess.   Which given the balancing we've seen come out of WGing for the last year, likely means forever.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SIDE] Kijjy23
3 posts
5,309 battles

I'd just like to add that one of the biggest issues I have with WG downteiring Midways planes is that they get absolutely shredded by T10 AA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584 posts
3,573 battles
On 1/17/2018 at 7:43 PM, Numbah18 said:

What is this we you speak of :Smile_sceptic: If all the squadrons were the same size then the only thing that would make one nation better than the other would be stats. Why would you pick IJN anymore when is the same except for better AA and a few more spare planes.

 

You can't really buff DB accuracy to much without them being an undogeable squad that can hit everything.

Yeah,  I know.  And that raises issues like being TOO good against DD's.  But right now USN CV's bombers are wildly inaccurate and that makes them unreliable and that's hurting the damage they can deal.  I'm not suggesting a huge reduction,  just enough to make them more reliable,  with manual dropping being even more so.

Its not an easy thing to fix but it needs to at least be worked on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 posts
710 battles
On 1/21/2018 at 7:30 AM, Crucis said:

Right now, why would anyone pick USN CV's?  It would be vastly better to have squadrons be the same size, and balance CVs by balancing their planes.

What it would come down to is that IJN CV's would trend towards more TB heavy loadouts while USN CVs would trend towards more DB heavy loadouts.  And when I say "trend", what I mean is that in any situation where the USN and IJN CVs of the same tier had the same number of squadrons and that number was odd, the USN CV would have 1 more DB sq while the IJN CV would have 1 more TB sq.

 

Another way that they could deal with the squadron size mismatch, though it's a nasty and almost certainly controversial solution would be to get rid of fighters entirely.  The benefit here would be or seem to be that squadron size mismatches in TBs and DBs seem to be relatively unimportant.  of course, having no fighters whatsoever would mean that it'd be entirely up to ships and their own anti-air capabilities to defend themselves from enemy bombers.

 

Or here's yet another thing they could do.  Rather than making all squadrons the same size, why not make only fighter squadrons the same size?

Exactly on the last part. Part of the reason people choose between the nations is because of the playing capabilities of the bombing squadrons. You want a thicker spray of torpedoes, go USN, but there aren't as many squads. You want to be able counter ship movements to get hits, go with IJN, but there aren't as many torps. The only reason why we make such a big deal about these dam fighters is because how much of a difference it makes between having only 1 squad or 2. Its retarded to think that you can play a game when the only option you can choose for flight groups is to only get one fighter group and expect to be able to fight planes that can out man you and also be able to provide air cover for IJN's multiple fighter groups.

As for your idea of getting rid of fighters, I kinda want to agree with you. I also have an idea I'd like to propose. Lets say we get rid of fighters entirely, and WG balances ship AA and bombers (Like this could ever be perfect). That just leaves CVs to play with bombers to attack and to RNG survive, sounds kinda dull right? What if we replace fighters with spotting squadrons? Keeping enemies spotted is already a key factor for any ship, but it's the easiest for CVs. Now this is just me throwing this out to give you an idea of what it could look like:

Since spotting would be a key factor for CVs, they could reduce the spotting range of ships by air. That way you would have to keep the planes constantly moving so they stay close to the ships. Having to keep constant track of your spotters makes up for the movement game play of fighters and gives CV players having to constantly keep track of all of their planes

To make choosing a carrier line more important we can have it to where one line has 4 planes in a squad that gives it a increased spotting range, but limited to 1 squad. While the other line could have 2 squads but only have 2 or 3 planes in each squad, which gives it a smaller spotting range. Giving this choice to the player could mean either keeping more ships spotted in a area or keeping certain ships spotted across the map, but only those few ships. But how would Air Supremacy effect this? WG could alter it to where it only adds planes to bombers. That way you don't have 5 planes just sitting in the middle of the map spotting the majority of the fleet.

To make up for the XP loss that fighters had destroying planes, they could make an XP tick system to where they can gain a small amount of XP every few seconds they spot an enemy ship for each ship. Example:

4 XP for every 10 seconds they keep a ship spotted. The timer resets everytime they lose visualization of the ship (if they spot a ship for 9 sec but loses sight, then they dont get the XP). So if a player is spotting a ship for 3 constant minutes, then the person gets 72 XP. If a player keeps 4 ships spotted constantly for 4 minutes, he or she then gets 384 XP. It isn't gonna be perfect balance, but it gives you an idea of what it could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115 posts
1,519 battles

I have to say, the changes to US CVs have taken all the fun out of them for me. I was already on the fence as to whether I liked them or not, but now I think I'll just give up at Bogue. They took away custom loadouts for USN CVs, yet the IJN still has the option for that. If USN CVs have their options removed, I want to know the reasoning behind the IJN still having them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
sartt
400 posts
2,441 battles
On 1/13/2018 at 10:44 PM, MrSparkle said:

My Ranger is even more crapthan it was, but at least it used to have a chance. 1 fighter is simply not enough. Went against a Hiryu (which was always a bad matchup) and my 1 fighter got locked into fighting his 2 fighters, above two friendly ships with AA, and my fighter lost. My captain has Aircraft Servicing Expert and Air Supremacy, I have Air Group Mod 2, and they had no chance.

And it's TB squad seems nerfed. AA chews it up like it's made of paper, but the DBs survive fine. TBs can barely drop one or two torps before being blown out of the sky. It approached a New York - A tier 5 New York - and only three TBs survived long enough to drop. I tried dropping on a Ranger I previously set on fire with my DBs; the DBs both survived fine but the TB completely wiped before being able to drop (and no they didn't attack at the same time). Manual AA may have played a part I'm not sure but man it feels nerfed.

Ranger was never good compared to it's competition but now it's just a liability.

I thought the US strength was fighters and DBs?

Not with this dev team. They did it on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×