Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SeigeTank2010

What was the reason for removing USN CV plane configuration options?

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
105 posts

When I played USN, I used the multiple fighter configuration because I liked supporting allies and protecting them from enemy planes.   I heard the devs changed the game so that USN would have at least 1 fighter because so few USN players ever brought fighters (?)  (Is this reason true?)   

And if it IS true, then why ruin it for those who wanted to bring multiple fighters?   If I had known USN CVs would have NO options for changing the plane configuration, I would have never wasted hundreds of hours leveling one up.  

So just trying to figure out the "logic" behind the move of the devs to make it so USN carriers have NO options for variety, while IJN has all options still?   Thanks for any info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[SPTR]
Members
3,459 posts
5,674 battles

AS_BOGUE_IS_A*S_CANCER

On a more serious note, this is because WG considers Air Superiority loadout USN CVs to be either overtly oppressive or underperform terribly. And personally, I think mid-tier USN CV captains shouldn't be given an easy way to beat IJN CV captains with superior skill just by having a massive fighter impact while getting a "participation award" when it comes to determining the outcome of surface engagements.

I think currently the CV rework is a work in progress, more changes, more variety are sure to come.

Edited by The_first_harbinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,487
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,456 posts
3,418 battles

AS Bogue was the only way I could attempt reasonable Clear Skies achievements. ;_;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[7RET]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
114 posts
6,287 battles

This is why I stopped at Essex.

1 hour ago, SeigeTank2010 said:

When I played USN, I used the multiple fighter configuration because I liked supporting allies and protecting them from enemy planes.   I heard the devs changed the game so that USN would have at least 1 fighter because so few USN players ever brought fighters (?)  (Is this reason true?)   

And if it IS true, then why ruin it for those who wanted to bring multiple fighters?   If I had known USN CVs would have NO options for changing the plane configuration, I would have never wasted hundreds of hours leveling one up.  

So just trying to figure out the "logic" behind the move of the devs to make it so USN carriers have NO options for variety, while IJN has all options still?   Thanks for any info.

 

52 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

AS Bogue was the only way I could attempt reasonable Clear Skies achievements. ;_;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-AIM-]
Members
342 posts
1,023 battles

It was to try and create a more balanced matches but blew up in Wg face something terrible as now you get a lot of hate to CV player due to either A lack of skill and or B lack of air power to perform. They gained in certain areas but lose a lot in the other areas that made US CVs so attractable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[CAFE]
WoWS Community Contributors
151 posts
15,745 battles

CV balance (or lack thereof) has been status quo for the dev team @ WG. I don't think they've decided on how to balance them.

Much less mitigate the devastating impact a bad CV can have on your team. 

As for USN CV nerfs, I remember a time where Midway was King, and a CV player could see an enemy team sans CV... yep... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,472
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,040 posts
12,536 battles

Both USN CV options were too extreme and made the game suck. Two strike Lexingtons created unbalanceable misery for all the surface ships in the match because neither one would prevent any of the other's damage. Pure AS builds made the game grossly un-fun for the other CV, especially the infamous AS Bogues. So they took away the extreme builds and left only a single balanced one. It's likely that this is a temporary measure while the promised full CV rework is in development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[AR]
[AR]
Members
313 posts
11,657 battles

We were never given a reason for why the loadouts were taken away for USN CVs. This was very disappointing for me, just a few days before the major USN CV load out changes, I had just reached the Ranger. I was looking forward to using the 202 loadout of which I liked very much and fit the Ranger quite well.

 

Now, I really dread going up against 3-1-2 Hiryu and Kagas. They should at least have 2 different load out options for USN cvs. It is not just that having 1 fighter squad  that limits those CVs, what is unreasonable is the really high service time for USN planes. You can't go with the servicing time upgrade for those CV's either, because you need the extra Fighter buff from it just to make the best of your fighters. Especially at T7. USN planes serving time is around 32-39s for its different planes. For IJN, it is around 19-22s.

Edited by Aiser50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,487
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,456 posts
3,418 battles

USN CVs are now focused on either being anti-German (AP-DBs), or general performance (HE-DBs) with slightly more potent air wings and better auto-drops than the IJN. Trade-off is the lack of loadout flexibility and number of squads in the air at any time. If I'm not misremembering, USN maual-drops are now only 10~20% better than auto-drops, and at T4/T5, are especially potent against the unprepared. I mean, even I got called a hacker when I recently took my Bogue out for some AA-related missions and landed plenty of hits with the lone torpedo bomber squad. Supposedly, Enterprise plays even better and could play the whole match on auto-drops with minimal adverse effects.

As far as WG's internal metrics go (do recall they debunked the reliability of using stat sites since they only operate on public metrics, or so they've said), it seems that things are fine as-is in regards to the current CV meta, considering that only Midway was touched in the least damaging way thus far. I mean, they could have nerfed the TBs down to 4 or 5 TB planes per squad or nerfed the torpedoes or even change the drop pattern to Enterprise's, but they didn't. They could have nerfed the DB drop performance or aircraft tier, but they didn't. Thus they chose to slightly weaken the fighter component by downtiering the planes without affecting the number of planes in the squad (throw in adding +1 fighter and +1 DB per squad with a 4pt Captain skill).

Edited by YamatoA150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8,086 posts
17,047 battles
1 hour ago, YamatoA150 said:

AS Bogue was the only way I could attempt reasonable Clear Skies achievements. ;_;

Never liked AS Bogue. Saw too many of them dominate an opposing CV, then die like dogs because they couldn't defend themselves.

Personally; I learned to CV with Bogue using the Stock and Strike options way back in early 2016 when the 300k vs BBs and 300k vs CVs carrier challenge came out.

My first Clear Sky, (back before the requirements changed,) was with a STRIKE Bogue. AA and tailgunners all the way.

23 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

I mean, even I got called a hacker when I recently took my Bogue out for some AA-related missions and landed plenty of hits with the lone torpedo bomber squad

Doing so isn't really that hard; you just have to know your target, and how to manipulate the attack-angle-adjustment tab.

23 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

Supposedly, Enterprise plays even better and could play the whole match on auto-drops with minimal adverse effects.

To me; Enterpise's wide torpedo drop is more about attacking groups of ships than a single target. You could even use manual drops at auto-drop ranges to help tighten the spread, while staying further away from close AA.

The bombs... I don't know what to think about the bombs; I always seemed to manage to have the wrong bomb type for the enemies that showed up... :Smile_facepalm:

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,487
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,456 posts
3,418 battles
12 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Doing so isn't really that hard; you just have to know your target, and how to manipulate the attack-angle-adjustment tab.

To me; Enterpise's wide torpedo drop is more about attacking groups of ships than a single target. You could even use manual drops at auto-drop ranges to help tighten the spread, while staying further away from close AA.

The bombs... I don't know what to think about the bombs; I always seemed to manage to have the wrong bomb type for the enemies that showed up... :Smile_facepalm:

While true on the attack angle adjustment, I did notice that it's much harder for enemies to slip through Bogue's torpedo drop, almost always landing 1 torp unless the angle of attack was already bow-on. As for Bogue's DBs, they've landed more consistently on DDs even without managing the angle of attack. Again, my experience, so some RNG could have been at play too.

As for Enterprise, I currently only have the experience of Enterprise teammate who straight-up admitted their DBs didn't need babying unlike their TBs and fighters, save for the manual-drop into smoke. I'm kind of waiting for an "easy" T8 scenario akin to Narai to happen so I could test it out that way, or maybe a regular Co-Op match, if I didn't keep forgetting. Saipan was fun on Narai, figuring out strafing and bombing. Had a bit more trouble with Kaga (but I was happy I was able to manual drop the Missouri).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
301
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,999 posts
2 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

On a more serious note, this is because WG considers Air Superiority loadout USN CVs to be either overtly oppressive or underperform terribly. And personally, I think mid-tier USN CV captains shouldn't be given an easy way to beat IJN CV captains with superior skill just by having a massive fighter impact while getting a "participation award" when it comes to determining the outcome of surface engagements.

Yeah, that's why they released the Saipan and Enterprise...oh wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×