Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
4KOPTIKS

CV fighter/bomber progression system

2 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1
[IN3PT]
[IN3PT]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
14 posts
3,655 battles

1st. Because CV gameplay is kind of like an RTS game inside of another game lets add some elements of some older and new RTS games into CV gameplay. Add a progression system for each individual squadron. So let's think about the game Company of Heroes for a second, in that game each unit has its own progression that over time will accumulate into that unit becoming faster, stronger, and more deadly. So taking that into warships you could make it so with each fighter squad that shoots down the opposing CV's fighters or bombers they gain XP that over time will make that fighter squad faster, stronger and more deadly. Also if that fighter/bomber has gained the highest progression they will continue to accumulate extra XP that can be used to train other squad leaders of the same squad type, and if the squad gets shot down completely it will lose all of its gained XP and become a base fighter squad again. Now onto dive and torpedo bombers, if they get a certain amount of damage or consecutive hits on enemy ships they will become faster, stronger,  and instead of becoming more deadly they will have a better tail gunner that is more accurate or have better damage. Again if they get shot down there individual XP will be lost and they will have to start over, but if the fighter/bomber squadrons don't get completely shot down during the match that XP would carry over into the next match. So instead of starting with regular planes that CV captain would have better planes at the beginning. I feel like this would encourage more people to learn how to play carriers better to gain an advantage over other people that don't put in the extra thought. 2nd. Add squadron leaders to the individual fighter/bomber squads. They would function the same as the ship captain by having a point system and specific XP but they would have a skill tree that would benefit that type of squadron. So a fighter squad leader would have skills to make the fighter squad that he commands better in some way. Adding what I said in the first part to this, if the squadron gets completely destroyed before it gets sent back to the carrier and rearms the squad leader will lose all XP and lose all of the skills that were gained thus far.  Personally, even though I don't play carriers that often this would add another level of thought that would entice players to get into CV play and I would definitely get into CV's more if something like this was added. 3rd. Also, something that would add more gameplay to CV's. Add the ability to change the skill set of the fighter and bomber squads while in the match allowing the player to change how he plays depending on how the game is progressing for his or her team. This gives the CV player the ability to adapt to the game that is being played allowing him or her to make a more noticeable contribution the match. This would also take away the nation type, so for the Americans, they have planes that are slow but strong and the Japanese have planes that are fast but have low HP. This could mitigate the huge differences between each nation and give the player a distinct advantage depending on the skill set he chooses. The way that the player would change the skill set in game would be done using the aforementioned squad leader XP that was gained over time by playing. 4th. you could cap the ability to use this to tier 6 to 10 only as to allow less skilled players from tier 4 and 5 to learn the basics of CV gameplay before getting into something that is more complex. 

Edited by 4KOPTIKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,229
[RLGN]
Members
14,843 posts
26,354 battles

Nice idea, one I wouldn't personally dislike, (for all such is worth,) though I wonder if they will go with an xp system for squadrons, or just CV exclusive skills to 'flavor' such things...

In any case; such ideas always come down to how much coding WG may have to do; and they seem at times disinclined to do such in responce to numerous suggestions which have been made.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×