Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Verios44

UsN vs IJN CV question

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
100 posts
352 battles

Why do the IJN carriers have upgrades to the flight control module in all tiers, but the USN carriers have absolutely zero flight control upgrades? Makes almost no sense to me. 

 

This is from a new player figuring out the best way to play CV's, and on paper the IJN ones seem to just smash up the USN carriers just on their ability to have different flight control setups. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
8,868 battles

WG hiding vital information and withholding explanations is not new. They've been doing it since WoT alpha.

WG's games are not simulators and WG has long been forgo even shred of historical reasoning in design. WG's current design philosophy is purely based on game play aspects.

Therefore, the differences between the two lines are there for performance balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,129
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,894 posts
8,457 battles

USN CVs were recently changed by removing fighter and strike heavy loadouts and replacing them with balanced loadouts. The Midway and Essex also lost upgraded planes and the Midway was recently nerfed by removing its upgraded fighters. Its not exactly as bad as it looks because the USN planes are individually stronger and are in bigger squads but its not always the case. So overall keep in mind that 1v1 USN fighters should be able to win and individual squads will hit harder but the IJN CVs have more planes and can gang up more if they choose. 

 

Depending on who you talk to USN CVs are either incredibly over powered (a vocal minority of people that dont like powerful USN ships ) or a punishing line to play for the majority of the experience. They are however easier to play with less squads to control and each squad is generally more powerful than an IJN squad. They will have lots of problems in the tier 7-8 range because they can play against incredibly powerful premiums (saipan, kaga, enterprise) that either have a more powerful strike or better fighters. They also have to face IJN CVs that can choose if they want fighters and if the enemy CV knows how to use those fighters it can be a big issue. 

 

As of right now if you want the Midway its probably still worth the grind but there is going to be some pain along the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,720
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles
22 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

USN CVs were recently changed by removing fighter and strike heavy loadouts and replacing them with balanced loadouts. The Midway and Essex also lost upgraded planes and the Midway was recently nerfed by removing its upgraded fighters. Its not exactly as bad as it looks because the USN planes are individually stronger and are in bigger squads but its not always the case. So overall keep in mind that 1v1 USN fighters should be able to win and individual squads will hit harder but the IJN CVs have more planes and can gang up more if they choose. 

 

Depending on who you talk to USN CVs are either incredibly over powered (a vocal minority of people that dont like powerful USN ships ) or a punishing line to play for the majority of the experience. They are however easier to play with less squads to control and each squad is generally more powerful than an IJN squad. They will have lots of problems in the tier 7-8 range because they can play against incredibly powerful premiums (saipan, kaga, enterprise) that either have a more powerful strike or better fighters. They also have to face IJN CVs that can choose if they want fighters and if the enemy CV knows how to use those fighters it can be a big issue. 

 

As of right now if you want the Midway its probably still worth the grind but there is going to be some pain along the way. 

z1m hits the nail right on the head here.  USN CVs are the "easier" line to play....in a type of ship that gets it's power via it's complexity.  I think vs weaker players, the USN CV is going to frustrate them.  Against stronger CV players, the USN CVs are just another target.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[YETI]
Beta Testers
2,905 posts
23,928 battles

Answer is Just don't play American Aircraft Carriers , problem Solved. As a matter of fact don't play Carriers at all . I have all of them up to tier (8) have not played them in over a year. Better off without them,,,,,,,

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
614 posts
5,529 battles

As a US CV driver you had three choices. First was to stick with the original "balanced" loadout, but this gave you 1 less squadron to play with. Second was to move to an air superiority package, or move to a strike package.

The whole reason US CVs were seen to be inferior to their IJN counterparts was because:

1) An air superiority package left you with a very limited ability to cause damage to the enemy team. Your entire purpose was the stop the enemy CV from causing damage to your team. You're on the defensive for the entire game, and against an IJN CV of the same Tier you have one less defensive squadron then they have offensive, and their squadrons are faster than yours. At best you were countering the enemy CV to nil advantage. At worst they ran rings around you causing damage to your team until they run out of planes.

2) A strike set up left you with no fighter cover at all. Against an IJN CV running strike you would still be up against a fighter squadron. This was better for your team, because you have more offense and are causing more damage to the enemy team while your planes last, but the IJN CV has the potential to cause greater damage with their additional offensive squadrons, and you're open to an early game snipe.

An idiot will tell you that option 1 was the best option for US CVs, but option 1 relies on your team pulling it's weight to a greater extent, making up for the damage that you can't deal and compensating for the damage the IJN CV is causing.

A smart guy will tell you that option 2 was the better option, because although you are vulnerable you are also an offensive juggernaut. You have more torps and bombs in the air than the IJN CV (although in fewer squadrons), and the ability to knock out 1-2 ships in the early stage of the game before you run out of planes or are sniped gives your team a massive early game advantage. You're still relying on your team to finish the job though.

A unicum will tell you that the best option for US CVs is to forgo either specialist package and stick with the stock balanced load. One less squad in the air, but then more planes are available to replace losses throughout the game. A fighter squad to protect yourself and to some extent your team, with twice the offensive potential than the air superiority load gave. That fighter squad is more than capable of going 1 on 1 against an IJN fighter squad, and even without strafing can empty an IJN CVs hangers quite capably with their greater ammo capacity meaning they stay airborne longer. 

WG have attempted to balance US CVs by forcing people to play the best loadout. People now need to get better at playing them. Smarter play. US CVs now have to rely on damage over time. Setting fires to BBs who have used damage control to repair flooding. Dropping on DDs who are making torp runs and not paying attention. US CVs can't cross drop until much later in the game, but their wider manual drop torp spread is more likely to hit a DD sitting in smoke. US CVs need to use Strafe against enemy squadrons, and they can do it more often before having to reload. The skill ceiling with US CVs is quite low, fewer squads to control etc, but the mastery level is much higher than IJN.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
220 posts
2,267 battles
2 minutes ago, HyperFish said:

As a US CV driver you had three choices. First was to stick with the original "balanced" loadout, but this gave you 1 less squadron to play with. Second was to move to an air superiority package, or move to a strike package.

The whole reason US CVs were seen to be inferior to their IJN counterparts was because:

1) An air superiority package left you with a very limited ability to cause damage to the enemy team. Your entire purpose was the stop the enemy CV from causing damage to your team. You're on the defensive for the entire game, and against an IJN CV of the same Tier you have one less defensive squadron then they have offensive, and their squadrons are faster than yours. At best you were countering the enemy CV to nil advantage. At worst they ran rings around you causing damage to your team until they run out of planes.

2) A strike set up left you with no fighter cover at all. Against an IJN CV running strike you would still be up against a fighter squadron. This was better for your team, because you have more offense and are causing more damage to the enemy team while your planes last, but the IJN CV has the potential to cause greater damage with their additional offensive squadrons, and you're open to an early game snipe.

An idiot will tell you that option 1 was the best option for US CVs, but option 1 relies on your team pulling it's weight to a greater extent, making up for the damage that you can't deal and compensating for the damage the IJN CV is causing.

A smart guy will tell you that option 2 was the better option, because although you are vulnerable you are also an offensive juggernaut. You have more torps and bombs in the air than the IJN CV (although in fewer squadrons), and the ability to knock out 1-2 ships in the early stage of the game before you run out of planes or are sniped gives your team a massive early game advantage. You're still relying on your team to finish the job though.

A unicum will tell you that the best option for US CVs is to forgo either specialist package and stick with the stock balanced load. One less squad in the air, but then more planes are available to replace losses throughout the game. A fighter squad to protect yourself and to some extent your team, with twice the offensive potential than the air superiority load gave. That fighter squad is more than capable of going 1 on 1 against an IJN fighter squad, and even without strafing can empty an IJN CVs hangers quite capably with their greater ammo capacity meaning they stay airborne longer. 

WG have attempted to balance US CVs by forcing people to play the best loadout. People now need to get better at playing them. Smarter play. US CVs now have to rely on damage over time. Setting fires to BBs who have used damage control to repair flooding. Dropping on DDs who are making torp runs and not paying attention. US CVs can't cross drop until much later in the game, but their wider manual drop torp spread is more likely to hit a DD sitting in smoke. US CVs need to use Strafe against enemy squadrons, and they can do it more often before having to reload. The skill ceiling with US CVs is quite low, fewer squads to control etc, but the mastery level is much higher than IJN.

 

Although you're completely right, it's hard to get DoT when your torps do an average of 3K and no flooding to enemies and you rarely get more than 1 fire from DB drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
220 posts
2,267 battles
1 hour ago, Verios44 said:

Why do the IJN carriers have upgrades to the flight control module in all tiers, but the USN carriers have absolutely zero flight control upgrades? Makes almost no sense to me. 

 

This is from a new player figuring out the best way to play CV's, and on paper the IJN ones seem to just smash up the USN carriers just on their ability to have different flight control setups. 

At this point, don't bother going past Bogue or Langley. I've made it to Lexington so no reason for me to stop grinding, but since you're just starting on them stay where they shine. Langley and Bogue are both great examples of what their higher tier counterparts should be like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,458 battles
2 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

z1m hits the nail right on the head here.  USN CVs are the "easier" line to play....in a type of ship that gets it's power via it's complexity.  I think vs weaker players, the USN CV is going to frustrate them.  Against stronger CV players, the USN CVs are just another target.

pretty much this.  usn cv's have a lower skill floor than ijn ccv's, but also have a lower skill ceiling.  and when it comes to cv's, because of mirror matchmaking it all comes down to how skilled each cv player is in a match compared to his counterpart. 

 

because usn cv's have a lower skill ceiling, that means that at the higher levels of play usn cv's will always be at a disadvantage compared to their ijn counterparts.  but that's only at the highest level of play; for your average player ijn and usn cv's are fairly balanced and at the lowest levels of play usn cv's have the advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,855 posts
9,017 battles

USN CVs have both more strike power and air control power total, but have a long cycle time and less squadrons, and their full strike power requires you to stack DoT correctly until you get up to AP bombs. With AP bombs you can blow up AA heavy cruisers which is something the IJN can't do. Ever since the change there's not much of a difference in power between the two and their playstyles are similar, unless you really like AP bombs you can choose whichever line you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,855 posts
9,017 battles
19 minutes ago, Shadeylark said:

pretty much this.  usn cv's have a lower skill floor than ijn ccv's, but also have a lower skill ceiling.  and when it comes to cv's, because of mirror matchmaking it all comes down to how skilled each cv player is in a match compared to his counterpart. 

 

because usn cv's have a lower skill ceiling, that means that at the higher levels of play usn cv's will always be at a disadvantage compared to their ijn counterparts.  but that's only at the highest level of play; for your average player ijn and usn cv's are fairly balanced and at the lowest levels of play usn cv's have the advantage.

USN CVs are not that simple. Their mechanics require you to be good at more than just dropping torpedoes. Their cycle times, reliance on DoT stacking, and facing off vs more fighter squads make them less forgiving than IJN CVs. This is probably why their winrate is generally lower despite good USN CV players having a lot less trouble even against other equally good players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,458 battles
1 hour ago, NeoRussia said:

USN CVs are not that simple. Their mechanics require you to be good at more than just dropping torpedoes. Their cycle times, reliance on DoT stacking, and facing off vs more fighter squads make them less forgiving than IJN CVs. This is probably why their winrate is generally lower despite good USN CV players having a lot less trouble even against other equally good players.

Granted I haven't played it in awhile, but I do have an Essex.  I never said usn CVS are simple; no CV is simple.  CVS are probably the most complex type of ship in the game.

What I said was that usn CVS are simple relative to ijn CVS.  Everything a usn CV has to deal with, an ijn CV also has to deal with, and often to a greater degree due to more squads and the general fragility of their planes.

Also note, I didn't say anything about one or the other being less forgiving.  I said that, given equal skill levels between a usn CV and an ijn CV, at high levels of play the ijn CV will win, at average levels of play they'd be roughly equal, and at low levels of play usn CVS would have the advantage.

This is because, while no CV is simple, usn CVS are comparatively simple to ijn CVS.  At low skill levels of play where neither CV player can fully exploit their ships strengths, usn CVS are better.  But as you advance in skill levels, the usn CV loses its advantages because due to the inherent limitations of usn CV loadouts, plateauing eventually while ijn CVS continue to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
614 posts
5,529 battles
28 minutes ago, Shadeylark said:

Granted I haven't played it in awhile, but I do have an Essex.  I never said usn CVS are simple; no CV is simple.  CVS are probably the most complex type of ship in the game.

What I said was that usn CVS are simple relative to ijn CVS.  Everything a usn CV has to deal with, an ijn CV also has to deal with, and often to a greater degree due to more squads and the general fragility of their planes

I think both Neo and I disagree.

The USN CV is easier to play, but harder to master.

The initial skill ceiling is low, few squadrons to manage, stronger squadrons in 1 on 1.

When you get good, the IJN CVs start to shine. The extra squads give you greater flexibility across the map, and you can stack you torp bombers or cross drop for pretty much guaranteed hits. A Level 10 captain gives you an extra plane in your fighter and dive bomber squadron. Your fighters and bombers pretty much outrun anything. This is where most people sit.

When you get very good, the pendulum swings back towards the US CV, but to make them work your skill ceiling needs to be much higher. IJN squads have much faster reload times, so you need to be better at manual drops and strafing to keep up. You have to balance striking the enemy and targeting planes, using superior squad size to whittle down the IJN squads over time to counter their rearm time, more numerous squadrons, and speed. During lulls you need to make your strikes count because you have fewer strike sqads in the air and they take much longer to reload.

We're saying US CVs are easier to start with, but much harder to master. IJN CVs sit in the middle of the skill spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,384
Members
3,089 posts
12,080 battles

The two most comfortable carriers in this game are Kaga and Saipan.  Why complicate things...  I am permanently sticking to those two, they work best for specific division compositions.  Belfast and Atlanta come to mind... :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,944 posts
7,458 battles
1 hour ago, HyperFish said:

I think both Neo and I disagree.

The USN CV is easier to play, but harder to master.

The initial skill ceiling is low, few squadrons to manage, stronger squadrons in 1 on 1.

When you get good, the IJN CVs start to shine. The extra squads give you greater flexibility across the map, and you can stack you torp bombers or cross drop for pretty much guaranteed hits. A Level 10 captain gives you an extra plane in your fighter and dive bomber squadron. Your fighters and bombers pretty much outrun anything. This is where most people sit.

When you get very good, the pendulum swings back towards the US CV, but to make them work your skill ceiling needs to be much higher. IJN squads have much faster reload times, so you need to be better at manual drops and strafing to keep up. You have to balance striking the enemy and targeting planes, using superior squad size to whittle down the IJN squads over time to counter their rearm time, more numerous squadrons, and speed. During lulls you need to make your strikes count because you have fewer strike sqads in the air and they take much longer to reload.

We're saying US CVs are easier to start with, but much harder to master. IJN CVs sit in the middle of the skill spectrum.

Being harder to master is not the same as having a higher skill ceiling.

Hard to master refers to the difficulty in reaching the skill ceiling, it does not refer to where the skill ceiling is.

I'm not disputing that usn CVS may be harder to master... I'm stating that mastery of usn CVS, once achieved, doesn't permit the same as mastery of ijn CVS because usn CVS are inherently limited in what they can do relative to what an ijn CV can do.

So..  to reiterate, difficulty in mastering usn CVS has nothing to do with where the usn CV skill ceiling is.

Or to put it another way, if you take a usn CV master and an ijn CV master of equal maxxed out skill, the ijn CV master will be more effective because his platform permits him to do more than the usn cv driver.

A vertical climb is more difficult than a gentle incline, but the difficulty in the climb has nothing to do with how far the climb goes.

Edited by Shadeylark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×