Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
IH8PEPL

What's the point?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[HSPS]
Members
8 posts
4,384 battles

I'll admit I'm new to CVs - I'm only up to t6.

But what's the point of this line?  If played semi competently, a US CV of equal level will jump your fighters, gut them, then farm your attack planes - his fighters are faster than yours, there's more of them, and then he can hover near you waiting for you to launch.  I'm usually reduced to waiting with the planes on my carrier hoping he gets bored, or driving to the front and using battleships AA to get your planes in the air, but at best you're reduced to shooting at DDs who get greedy and try to close to torp you.

I realize if you play against a monkey who's willing to get baited and pinned over a CA you can do fine, and you potentially have greater strike potential, but - why introduce a line that, when played by a player of equal skill, is basically an XP farm for the US CV?  Historical accuracy?  If that's what you're going for, where are my kamikazis?

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[H-W-C]
Members
1,258 posts
3,306 battles

*someone thinks IJN CVs are less powerful than US CVs in this game*

 

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360
[ARP2]
Members
1,221 posts
3,566 battles

Take some time in coop and practice alt attacks.  Straffing his fighters (and the rest of his planes) is a great way to remove them.  T6 changes the CV game considerably because you have access to manual attacks.

Learn to use them and CVs will be very rewarding, fail to use them and the lines are next to useless the higher you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,603 posts
3,573 battles

You are at T6,  the absolutely last tier until 10 when USN can stand anywhere near on footing with their IJN counterparts.  Course...past this tier you hit premium territory so that's not exactly going to be fun either.

But to answer your question,  be where he isn't.  He has one fighter,  he can't canvas the map.  Yes,  I know you really want to go after that Fuso but if he's got it covered,  go after that DD instead.  Quick,  local strikes.  Also remember,  you aren't going to win a one on one fighter engagement and in fact you should not try to.  Strafe and failing that,  lock him down.  If he's good he'll strafe out but you've still bought yourself some time.  And the important factor is still being where he isn't.  Any engagements with him should have been after a successful strike while your planes are returning,  not on the way out.

One more honest suggestion here is to go play USN CV's for a while.  That...should help you learn their ins and outs as well as relative power level.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles
On 2/3/2018 at 7:01 PM, Hatework said:

Straffing his fighters (and the rest of his planes) is a great way to remove them.

But strafing as a mechanic is absurd. It skews game play so far from reality that it makes a mockery of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[WOLF6]
Members
1,768 posts
4,790 battles
10 minutes ago, BWC_LAVA said:

But strafing as a mechanic is absurd. It skews game play so far from reality that it makes a mockery of history.

Not a CV player, but you know that the game has multiple mechanics not reflected in reality, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles
8 hours ago, Thornir said:

Not a CV player, but you know that the game has multiple mechanics not reflected in reality, right?

The question is not whether there are multiple mechanics which do not reflect reality but do the game mechanics give at least a fairly representative simulation of what you are trying to play?

When a single fighter squadron can delete up to 3 opposition squadrons in the space of 10 to 15 seconds without any damage you are not dealing with a simulation of CV air war, you are dealing with total fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[WOLF6]
Members
1,768 posts
4,790 battles
3 hours ago, BWC_LAVA said:

The question is not whether there are multiple mechanics which do not reflect reality but do the game mechanics give at least a fairly representative simulation of what you are trying to play?

When a single fighter squadron can delete up to 3 opposition squadrons in the space of 10 to 15 seconds without any damage you are not dealing with a simulation of CV air war, you are dealing with total fantasy.

Well, as something of an expert on what the real thing looks like, I'd say it's all fantasy.

As long as a mechanic is freely available to all players, it isn't unfair. Absurd? Ok. But not unfair. So, the choice is to accept and play, or not accept, and don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles
11 hours ago, Thornir said:

Well, as something of an expert on what the real thing looks like, I'd say it's all fantasy.

As long as a mechanic is freely available to all players, it isn't unfair. Absurd? Ok. But not unfair. So, the choice is to accept and play, or not accept, and don't.

I didn't say the mechanic was unfair. I accept the mechanic and I play.

And while I agree that it is all fantasy, it is a shame that the CV play is so unrepresentative of WWII war-at-sea; where air wing strikes between carrier battle groups was the norm. The breakdown occurs because the fighter strafe is so massively OP. Think about it. If an enemy plane flies over your cruiser, you don't have to click on it for your AA to start firing. Sure it will increase accuracy, but the AA gunners aren't off on a coffee break. In a strafe all the target pilots and AA gunners are off on a siesta allowing whole squadrons to be vaporized in a matter of seconds and not a lick of damage to the attacking fighter squadron. That's totally absurd.

Folks have been asking for CV's to be re-worked. The place to start is on the strafe mechanic.

Edited by BWC_LAVA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
701
[STW-D]
Members
1,842 posts
5,651 battles

To be honest, the whole nature of naval warfare changed with carriers. Since WoWs is primarily a surface warship game, lots of things had to change to make it work, and not just including the paper ships like Khabarovsk and Izumo (or paper planes, for that matter)

If WoWs were realistic, we'd have:

  • carriers:
    • be the center of the fleet, surrounded by battleships, cruises, and destroyers, rather than it hiding behind an island or behind the other ships
    • never be as close to a surface engagement as in-game places them in
    • prioritize the enemy carrier(s) as targets and send all their bombers to attack at once, rather than going for the escorting surface ships
    • no ridiculous loadout restrictions
    • not be able to do damage over time via fire/flooding (because damage control parties don't work that way)
    • strafing surface ships, and dogfighting enemy fighters (strafing is for surface targets, obviously); however, USN fighters could use their superior dive speeds at latter stages of the war to disengage and dive back on IJN fighters
    • dogfighting would be a lot more dynamic (whoever thinks that trying to out-turn a zero, even in the late years of the war, was a good idea would've washed out of flight school post haste)
    • aircraft fuel limits are a thing
    • Graf Zeppelin would be a wood storage facility
  • battleships:
    • unless you're in the Atlantic, are not meant to go at it alone
    • even then, you're incredibly vulnerable (as Bismarck demonstrated)
    • turtleback is not effective: all you do is take more damage that could've been avoided
    • some of them would be quite a bit more maneuverable
    • angling wasn't exactly too much of a trend
    • shells hit a lot less frequently (something like a 3% hit rate)
    • much longer ranges
    • brawls really aren't a thing unless in night battles (Guadalcanal, anyone?)
    • AA is king; get rid of that secondary s**t
    • also, radar firing is important; the USN was the dominant user during the war and used it to great effect against the Japanese; here, everyone gets it (gameplay reasons)
  • cruisers (admittedly, I don't know as much about them):
    • torpedoes are a liability (as the IJN found out on multiple occasions) instead of an asset; it's why the USN got rid of theirs except for destroyers
    • gunnery abilities are king (the fact that WNT-compliant Brooklyn class light cruisers had better gun characteristics than the Mogami-class heavy cruisers, which were not WNT compliant meant that the Brooklyns could give the Mogamis a very fierce fight despite the weight differences)
    • gun range would be much longer (for example, Des Moines IRL can fire over 30 km)
    • again, the whole radar firing shtick
    • defensive fire is not really a thing (more specifically, the goal of concentrated AA fire is meant to deter an attack or completely destroy it; it's not meant to simply "spread out" an attack, although that's oftentimes a side effect, depending on the discipline of the attacking pilots; see the attack on USS Hornet compared to the Marianas Turkey Shoot)
      • thus the reason why sometimes USN CVs would not fire their AA during night attacks, in order to not give away their position
    • more weight ≠ more capabilities (just compare the Hipper class with any other pre-war 8 in. cruiser, and you'll find that there wasn't any noticeable increase in survivability or range)
  • destroyers (again, not as knowledgeable compared to carriers/battleships)
    • versatility is important; a big flaw of the IJN destroyers was that they could provide effectively zero anti-air cover until the Akizuki class (and even then, it paled compared to what the USN put up)
    • again, weight ≠ capabilities (the German destroyers proved to be some of the worst in the entire war)
    • anti submarine patrol is an important matter (obviously not in this game)
    • fire control, fire control, fire control, etc.
    • the long lance proved to be a bit overhyped; the range was mostly theoretical and it had a nasty habit of detonating when hit by gunfire (thanks, oxygen)
    • sitting still camping in smoke is a terrible idea (of course, it still is in-game, but at least it's not a guaranteed kill compared to sitting still for any relevant amount of time IRL; sitting still generally speaking gets ships sunk IRL)
  • submarines
    • lol what submarines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,690 battles
On 27/03/2018 at 1:09 AM, BWC_LAVA said:

Folks have been asking for CV's to be re-worked. The place to start is on the strafe mechanic.

if they start playing around with that it could screw the CV up on many lvls, you just cant get rid off it cause then the US line will have no counter to IJN CV or premiums, if they get rid off it they have to look at changing load outs,  what tier the figters are, how many in a squad which leads to another problem premium CV they cant change them so they will have to balance US CV and  IJN CV to be able to have a chance with them, which then will have everyone else screaming even more that CV are OP. they can try and change it i.e you use more ammo per strafe but then you will have IJN CV upset cause they run out off ammo so fast.

they could try and make them do less dmg in a strafe i.e only kills half the planes but then your back to US having no real counter, take lex vs enterprise lex has 1-1-2 combo enterprise 2-2-2 how is the lex going to counter it if only doing half the dmg its bad enough with just 1 fighter squad.

the CV re-work is going to take time and people need to start to realise this its not just one tier that needs to be fixed but all off them, which would people want more a rushed rework that after its done people still complain about it and were back at square 1 or they take that bit longer and get it as close to right as they can and if any changes need to be made will be small ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
945 posts
5,673 battles
On 3/26/2018 at 12:06 AM, Thornir said:

So, the choice is to accept and play, or not accept, and don't.

In this point, at least, BWC_LAVA, is simulating a historic reality: Those who live in tactics of the past and do not adapt/develop tactics suitable to their current reality, are defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×