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

The real problem with CV's

73 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

262
[WOLF5]
Members
600 posts
11,991 battles

You know, it dawned on me why WG is having such a hard time balancing CV's. (I am not a historian, so forgive the big broad strokes coming next)

 

Going into WWII, Battleships had been the queens of the sea. As WWII progressed, we saw CV's rapidly evolve into the new rulers of the waves. Battleships quickly became outdated, and were relegated to secondary roles when they managed to come back from the dead (Iowa Class). 

 

So basically, before WWII you had BB's and their support ships. After WWII you have the Carrier Task Force. The two forces are mutually exclusive. They don't co-exist in reality for the simple fact that CV's are truly OP in the real  world. 

 

You either have BB's or CV's...not both. 

Edited by RevTKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles
4 minutes ago, RevTKS said:

You either have BB's or CV's...not both. 

Apparently The Battle of Leyte Gulf didn't get the memo.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[CAST]
Members
1,397 posts
5,794 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

Apparently The Battle of Leyte Gulf didn't get the memo.

The memo went out on December 7, 1941.  Leyte Gulf (or more accurately, Surigao Strait) was the exception.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,766 posts
5,805 battles
33 minutes ago, Harv72b said:

The memo went out on December 7, 1941.  Leyte Gulf (or more accurately, Surigao Strait) was the exception.

Try November 11-12, 1940.....Raid on Taranto...look it up, it was the blueprint for Pearl. Or May 41 as that was the first time naval air power brought down a battleship at sea. Swordfish didnt kill the Bismarck, but may as well have.

Americans (bit of an assumption there).....ya know, WW2 became a 'world' war in '39. Before that it was only a war in China. The US was one of the last countries to join the fighting war.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[CAST]
Members
1,397 posts
5,794 battles
7 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Try November 11-12, 1940.....Raid on Taranto...look it up, it was the blueprint for Pearl. Or May 41 as that was the first time naval air power brought down a battleship at sea. Swordfish didnt kill the Bismarck, but may as well have.

Americans (bit of an assumption there).....ya know, WW2 became a 'world' war in '39. Before that it was only a war in China. The US was one of the last countries to join the fighting war.

Hey, Billy Mitchell was showing the US Navy as early as 1921 what aircraft could do to warships...those in charge just chose to largely ignore him.

America also chose to ignore Taranto because, A) bases like Pearl Harbor were located much further from potential aggressors than in Italy's case, and B) their racist belief that the Japanese were incapable of fighting at the level of white men, let alone above it.  So I use Pearl Harbor as the "official" memo delivery simply because that was the attack which dispelled any possible notion that traditional naval gunnery was on par with airpower in the current day.  That's definitely an America-centric point of view, but hey--I am one, and even at that point in time the United States was (at the least) among the strongest naval powers in the world. :Smile-_tongue:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,610
[INTEL]
Members
8,410 posts
25,252 battles

Many have noted that CVs don't belong in a surface warfare game. Unfortunately the devs didn't get that memo, so everyone must suffer. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,193
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,328 posts
9,387 battles

Here we go again on this 'It Ain't Real' nonsense.

First of all, Battleship Captains didn't aim their guns.  It was performed by a duty section of operators feeding data into an ILLEGAL AIM HACK fire control system.

Secondly, it took HOURS or DAYS to reload torpedo tubes in all but the upper tier IJN DDs.  And even with them, it was 6-7 minutes for the only ONE reload they had.

Thirdly, we aim our guns as if we are stopped.  We are not adding/subtracting our own movement from the 'leading' of the target.

And CVs...   Oh don't get me started.....

1) They must be running at full speed into the wind to launch/recover planes, not hiding behind an island.

2) The captain doesn't manually drop anything.  The skill on target is entirely up to the flight crews, and their flight training/experience as to drop pattern and attack strategy.

3) The CV is much, much further back.

4) During WW2, surface engagements were pretty much restricted to night-time -- flares, searchlights, radar, etc.  Ships caught out in the daylight == DEAD.

Edited by AVR_Project
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,748 posts
6,232 battles
1 hour ago, AVR_Project said:

Here we go again on this 'It Ain't Real' nonsense.

First of all, Battleship Captains didn't aim their guns.  It was performed by a duty section of operators feeding data into an ILLEGAL AIM HACK fire control system.

Secondly, it took HOURS or DAYS to reload torpedo tubes in all but the upper tier IJN DDs.  And even with them, it was 6-7 minutes for the only ONE reload they had.

Thirdly, we aim our guns as if we are stopped.  We are not adding/subtracting our own movement from the 'leading' of the target.

And CVs...   Oh don't get me started.....

1) They must be running at full speed into the wind to launch/recover planes, not hiding behind an island.

2) The captain doesn't manually drop anything.  The skill on target is entirely up to the flight crews, and their flight training/experience as to drop pattern and attack strategy.

3) The CV is much, much further back.

4) During WW2, surface engagements were pretty much restricted to night-time -- flares, searchlights, radar, etc.  Ships caught out in the daylight == DEAD.

You just took the fun out of the game AVR!! You're telling me the captain on the bridge didn't have a big red "Fire" button thought would launch laser guided shells 30 miles with pinpoint accuracy every 15 seconds? Hogwash, I read it on the internet that's the way it was done.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[-BRS-]
Members
1,604 posts
13,175 battles
54 minutes ago, Turbotush said:

If CV's where not a part of this game I would spend more money on it.

Oh I totally agree with that

I'm here to play surface battles not dodge a bunch of airplanes and get deleted if I happen to be the one they pick on at that moment

 

And it seems lately there are just more and more aircraft carriers out there and this game is getting less and less enjoyable

Edited by silverdahc
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,766 posts
5,805 battles
3 hours ago, Taichunger said:

Many have noted that CVs don't belong in a surface warfare game. Unfortunately the devs didn't get that memo, so everyone must suffer. 

This is an incorrect theory dispelled by the first navyfield game, which the devs played. 3 CV's per side in the 48 player matches and cvs were not the problem they present here. Likely because AA guns were aimed just like main guns, had to be at the correct altitude to be effective. AA didnt change in power by tier, same AA guns were present for a lvl 3 DD as were available to the final level 10 BB's. The planes didnt change much either, nor did their damage capability to ships. That may be the problem, planes too good, AA too good, damage increased by tier.....a torp is a torp, shouldnt do twice as much damage at tier 10.

Torp bulge armour also worked differently. If you had bulge armour you could take a couple torps before it really did any damage.

Burning also wasnt the cancer it is in WoWs either.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,031 battles

The real problem with CV is simple, the class utilizes game mechanics way too well, with almost no detriment to itself.

 

There is no "fix" to CVs, not under current game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,610
[INTEL]
Members
8,410 posts
25,252 battles
23 hours ago, hipcanuck said:

This is an incorrect theory dispelled by the first navyfield game, which the devs played. 3 CV's per side in the 48 player matches and cvs were not the problem they present here. Likely because AA guns were aimed just like main guns, had to be at the correct altitude to be effective. AA didnt change in power by tier, same AA guns were present for a lvl 3 DD as were available to the final level 10 BB's. The planes didnt change much either, nor did their damage capability to ships. That may be the problem, planes too good, AA too good, damage increased by tier.....a torp is a torp, shouldnt do twice as much damage at tier 10.

Torp bulge armour also worked differently. If you had bulge armour you could take a couple torps before it really did any damage.

Burning also wasnt the cancer it is in WoWs either.

3 CVs per side in 48 player matches means that CVs constituted 1/16, not 1/12 (or even more), of the team's power. More functions were automated, at least according to what I've read, and the performance of torpedo planes and DBs was more rng-driven and erratic, friendly fire could shoot down friendly planes, and management of squads was more difficult.

The developers of Navyfield obviously understood that CVs didn't belong in the game, diluted their power, presence, and effects, and reduced player control. WG still hasn't got that memo. In Navyfield 2 CVs were the least played ship, according to player complaints in the forums. That should tell you something....

The fact that CVs are in a naval surface warfare combat game and working ok does not mean that they should be in such a game. It only means that their presence can be made inoffensive enough that the majority of players will tolerate them. You can live with cancer, if it doesn't affect you much.

But the problem with CVs is structural and inherent, and can only be addressed by reworking the structure of the game and the ships, which WG won't do. It  has locked itself into the current CV model with sales of premium CVs, which were no doubt good for the bottom line but very bad for game balance and game enjoyability, and more importantly, for flexibility of game structure.  

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[WOLF5]
Members
600 posts
11,991 battles

It's not that I am looking for historical accuracy, it's that history has shown us that BB's and CV's don't co-exist for long. The CV literally makes the BB obsolete.

 

So, that tells us why it's so hard to balance them...one is clearly superior, as history has shown, and you would need to seriously reduce it's capabilities to make it work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[CAST]
Members
1,397 posts
5,794 battles
1 minute ago, RevTKS said:

It's not that I am looking for historical accuracy, it's that history has shown us that BB's and CV's don't co-exist for long. The CV literally makes the BB obsolete.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your original post based on poor phrasing, but this simply isn't true.  The first aircraft carriers were launched prior to 1920, and even if you argue that their true potential wasn't revealed until WWII, battleships remained in active service up through the 1990s.  They were no longer the focal point of a navy's power projection capabilities, but they were certainly not obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[WOLF5]
Members
600 posts
11,991 battles
2 minutes ago, Harv72b said:

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your original post based on poor phrasing, but this simply isn't true.  The first aircraft carriers were launched prior to 1920, and even if you argue that their true potential wasn't revealed until WWII, battleships remained in active service up through the 1990s.  They were no longer the focal point of a navy's power projection capabilities, but they were certainly not obsolete.

 

The Iowa Class has been amazing, but they weren't doing anything like what they were built to do. They fire Tomahawk missiles now. As much as I love the grand ladies of the sea, the Carriers ended their reign with WWII. I am not a historian, and I know the Iowa's remained somewhat active, but I am not aware of a single BB that was designed, built, and commissioned after WWII. 

CV's are being built and commissioned as we speak. BB's are obsolete.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[CAST]
Members
1,397 posts
5,794 battles
2 hours ago, RevTKS said:

 

The Iowa Class has been amazing, but they weren't doing anything like what they were built to do. They fire Tomahawk missiles now. As much as I love the grand ladies of the sea, the Carriers ended their reign with WWII. I am not a historian, and I know the Iowa's remained somewhat active, but I am not aware of a single BB that was designed, built, and commissioned after WWII. 

CV's are being built and commissioned as we speak. BB's are obsolete.

That's the key, and that's what really spelled the end for true battleships.  There were/are still things that a battleship can do which a carrier cannot: bringing sustained firepower to bear on a beachhead or entrenched positions.  Aircraft can obviously attack such targets, but they are limited in how much fuel they have to loiter over the area, what munitions they can carry, and the potential for losses which goes up exponentially with each minute spent over the target area.  The proliferation of highly accurate cruise missiles effectively ended the need for the heavy guns of a battleship, even as the last remaining Iowa class ships were re-fitted to launch those very missiles--what need is there for a huge, expensive ship which remains very vulnerable to submarine or missile attack when identical weapon systems can be placed on small & agile frigates and destroyers?

At any rate, carriers can indeed be too powerful for their own good in WoWs, much the same as they could dominate sea battles during the 1940s and '50s.  TBH, with cruise missiles already fitted to every major combatant on the seas and other promising weapon systems such as railguns looming on the horizon, the day of the traditional aircraft carrier might also be nearing its end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[LWA]
Members
604 posts
8,725 battles

The battle off Samar island...the saga of Taffy 3.  You need to look up that battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[LWA]
Members
604 posts
8,725 battles

in addition....the German battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst sunk the British aircraft carrier Glorious.  I know, this is damning facts to your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[WOLF5]
Members
600 posts
11,991 battles
22 minutes ago, db4100 said:

in addition....the German battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst sunk the British aircraft carrier Glorious.  I know, this is damning facts to your argument.

No, those events occurred during WWII. There were no BB's built after WWII. In fact, I checked and the HMS Vanguard was the last BB made and that was 1944. 

So, for our purposes, WWII signaled the end of BB dominance. 

The point of all of this is that balancing CV's for this game is essentially very difficult, without changing the very nature of what CV's are and what they can do. Battleships and CV's just don't work well together. 

I know I'm late to this conclusion, but it really seems on this one that the only real solution is going to be a drastic change in game play. Barring that, we will have to limp along with various attempts to put a square peg into a round hole. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[LWA]
Members
604 posts
8,725 battles
1 minute ago, RevTKS said:

No, those events occurred during WWII. There were no BB's built after WWII. In fact, I checked and the HMS Vanguard was the last BB made and that was 1944. 

So, for our purposes, WWII signaled the end of BB dominance. 

The point of all of this is that balancing CV's for this game is essentially very difficult, without changing the very nature of what CV's are and what they can do. Battleships and CV's just don't work well together. 

I know I'm late to this conclusion, but it really seems on this one that the only real solution is going to be a drastic change in game play. Barring that, we will have to limp along with various attempts to put a square peg into a round hole. :)

I disagree.  World of Warships is NOT a simulator, it is a game based of real events.  There is balance, as after T7(?) there is only one CV allowed per team.  Now, with that said the CV is OP as a single ship, but if you group your ships together they can easily nullify the powers of the CV.  Go off by yourself with a CV in the game and you will reap the CV whirlwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[WOLF5]
Members
600 posts
11,991 battles
1 hour ago, db4100 said:

I disagree.  World of Warships is NOT a simulator, it is a game based of real events.  There is balance, as after T7(?) there is only one CV allowed per team.  Now, with that said the CV is OP as a single ship, but if you group your ships together they can easily nullify the powers of the CV.  Go off by yourself with a CV in the game and you will reap the CV whirlwind.

I agree that it is based on real events. Those events have shown us that you either have BB's as a dominant unit, or CV's as the dominant unit. That's the problem, it's one or the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[LWA]
Members
604 posts
8,725 battles
12 minutes ago, RevTKS said:

I agree that it is based on real events. Those events have shown us that you either have BB's as a dominant unit, or CV's as the dominant unit. That's the problem, it's one or the other. 

You haven't seen what my AA spec'd Des Moises can do to a wave of attacking aircraft.  I am quite sure that CV driver isn't feeling over powered when I shoot down 30 of his attacking aircraft in a less than a minute.  The real problem with CVs are the players.  You might have a CV player on your team willing to attack ships that can melt them away, while the enemy CV player is smarter/patient and attacks lone battleships that are foolish enough to wonder off by themselves and can't fend off attacking aircraft.  That is the real problem with CVs, the disparagy of skill levels between the CV players.  If only match maker would somehow match CV opponents based on their skill instead of the tier level.  

Without CVs, battleship camping will be even more rampant.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×