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

HMS Attacker...Why Not?

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

937
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
1,332 posts
9,920 battles

It's basically a British Bogue. Shouldn't be too hard for the devs to make a few minor tweaks and give a premium Tier 5 Royal Navy carrier. It's a shame the RN is so under represented in this game, this seems an easy way to get a CV for the nation that pioneered aircraft carriers. 

HMSAttackerD02.jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
937
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
1,332 posts
9,920 battles

We got the Murmansk by slapping some paint on an Omaha, we got Admiral Makarov by slapping some paint on a Nurnberg...why not Attacker? Use the same Wildcats (Martlets),maybe some dev work on Swordfish....but seems like an easy R&D project. Bet we'd have her if she was Russian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,102
[CHASE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,944 posts
11,260 battles

Bc we still don't have vanguard, which is a far more important ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,555
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,390 posts
11,904 battles
1 minute ago, KalishniKat said:

We got the Murmansk by slapping some paint on an Omaha, we got Admiral Makarov by slapping some paint on a Nurnberg...why not Attacker? Use the same Wildcats (Martlets),maybe some dev work on Swordfish....but seems like an easy R&D project. Bet we'd have her if she was Russian!

Well, the Murmansk was really the USS Milwaukee and the Makarov was the Nurnberg given to the Soviet Union as war reparations so I see no reason not to do the Attacker other than the fact that CV's are broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles

how about we FIX the existing CVs first then think about adding new ships and CV lines in, OK?:Smile_sceptic:

 

or do we want another graf Zeplin issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,582
[RLGN]
Members
11,277 posts
20,288 battles
2 minutes ago, BladedPheonix said:

how about we FIX the existing CVs first then think about adding new ships and lines in OK?:Smile_sceptic:

Personally, atm, I don’t believe there’s ever going to be a ‘fix;’ at least one that isn’t a further nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles
Just now, Estimated_Prophet said:

Personally, atm, I don’t believe there’s ever going to be a ‘fix;’ at least one that isn’t a further nerf.

I must agree, it seems every time they "fix" something the USN is getting slapped in the face with the nerf bat. which is stupid because the USN CVs under perform in almost every tier except tier 7 and that's only  because of Saipan.:Smile_sceptic:

 

had WG given IJN fighters more HP to begin with, most of the changes they've implemented so far wouldn't have been needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[FGNE]
Members
627 posts
3,208 battles

I agree with having British CVs in game, although the carrier rework thing is certanly desirable first.

Anyway, I’ve fancied that British CV bombers have rockets instead of bombs (low alpha but fire chance)... could it even work?

edit: and give us proper rocket animation for Hood!:cap_rambo:

Edited by CO_Valle
Hood’s rockets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[INTEL]
Members
1,478 posts
12,224 battles
21 minutes ago, KalishniKat said:

We got the Murmansk by slapping some paint on an Omaha, we got Admiral Makarov by slapping some paint on a Nurnberg...why not Attacker? Use the same Wildcats (Martlets),maybe some dev work on Swordfish....but seems like an easy R&D project. Bet we'd have her if she was Russian!

 I can see that now. Swordfish torp bombers at T5... so every DD with a 2 AA rating can finally feel the thrill of shooting down an entire squad of bombers. Seriously, those things were marginal even when used in crap visibility weather or night attacking a harbor of anchored ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,582
[RLGN]
Members
11,277 posts
20,288 battles
1 minute ago, Ares1967 said:

 I can see that now. Swordfish torp bombers at T5... so every DD with a 2 AA rating can finally feel the thrill of shooting down an entire squad of bombers. Seriously, those things were marginal even when used in crap visibility weather or night attacking a harbor of anchored ships.

They are, however, invincible against Bismarks, but can only score rudder criticals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles
1 minute ago, CO_Valle said:

I agree with having British CVs in game, although the carrier rework thing is certanly desirable first.

Anyway, I’ve fancied that British CV bombers have rockets instead of bombs (low alpha but fire chance)... could it even work?

depends on the rocket model. we must also remember  that most unguided rockets weren't very accurate during WW2, so there'd be a low chance of it hitting anyways. as for anti-ship rockets, the rockets that the USNA developed for the corsair in 44-45 were powerful enough to knock out small patrol craft and older model IJN DDs. so assuming we add them to fighters it could be an option! Though I suggested this at least 5 times during CV alpha testing and WG said it would be to complicated. Personally I'd love to have it so that fighters of certain types (like the USNA corsair and the iJNA's Tony) could mount rockets.:fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

They are, however, invincible against Bismarks, but can only score rudder criticals.

to be fair, the Bismarks AA guns were built to combat modern planes, not relics like the swordfish.... had the swordfish been made of more modern material they'd have been shot out of the skies like ducks on a pond.:fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[INTEL]
Members
1,478 posts
12,224 battles
1 minute ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

They are, however, invincible against Bismarks, but can only score rudder criticals.

Yeah, thats in those low light conditions and they were so slow the German AA directors couldnt track them.

 

 I mean seriously, a plane that could be chased down by pretty much every fighter built since 1916 wouldn't stand a chance vs a Langley's fighters. I think a Wildcat could ram the thing and come out combat capable. Just imagine a 4 CV match, 2 Bogues vs a Bogue and Attacker.. yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
913
[HINON]
Members
3,938 posts
4,342 battles

I believe WG has stated no new carriers until they finish their rework (SoonTM), since no matter what they try to do with them, something inevitably breaks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,004
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,918 posts
12,246 battles

Putting another premium carrier at T5 produces another 'locked point' for a type in dire need of either a rework or euthanizing.

Although it's low hanging fruit I don't really see much attraction in a British Bogue, they were pretty terrible ships and there are far more existing examples such as Eagle which might work around T5 if WG could be bothered.

7 minutes ago, Ares1967 said:

 I can see that now. Swordfish torp bombers at T5... so every DD with a 2 AA rating can finally feel the thrill of shooting down an entire squad of bombers. Seriously, those things were marginal even when used in crap visibility weather or night attacking a harbor of anchored ships.

11 torpedo armed attackers at Taranto for 5 hits. Not really 'marginal' - better success rate than the IJN at Pearl Harbor enjoyed during daylight and with no declaration of war.

The problem as I see it, is that carriers are over-tiered by aircraft. When the T5 Bogue (which pairs up with ships such as the 1920 Emerald, WWI era Kongo, Iron Duke, Kaiser etc. etc.) gets the 1941 Wildcat and SBD-2, there's going to be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
4 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

I believe WG has stated no new carriers until they finish their rework (SoonTM), since no matter what they try to do with them, something inevitably breaks.

 

Yep, sure did. And after that statement came the Kaga, Enterprise and Graf Zep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[INTEL]
Members
1,478 posts
12,224 battles
1 minute ago, mofton said:

Putting another premium carrier at T5 produces another 'locked point' for a type in dire need of either a rework or euthanizing.

Although it's low hanging fruit I don't really see much attraction in a British Bogue, they were pretty terrible ships and there are far more existing examples such as Eagle which might work around T5 if WG could be bothered.

11 torpedo armed attackers at Taranto for 5 hits. Not really 'marginal' - better success rate than the IJN at Pearl Harbor enjoyed during daylight and with no declaration of war.

The problem as I see it, is that carriers are over-tiered by aircraft. When the T5 Bogue (which pairs up with ships such as the 1920 Emerald, WWI era Kongo, Iron Duke, Kaiser etc. etc.) gets the 1941 Wildcat and SBD-2, there's going to be a problem.

 

 Correct. At night vs Italian units that were in no way as responsive as the USN was during Pearl.  My god, at Pearl there were ships in DRYDOCK shooting back! Then there's the relative size of Taranto as compared to Pearl. Ever been to Taranto? I have. It's tiny.

 

 When speaking of the Swordfish I'm in no way denigrating the Swordfish crews, its the plane itself that would be hopeless at T5. Of course we could go to the other historical TB option, the Avenger. Only way that wouldnt be OP at T5 would be if it was 3 plane squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
913
[HINON]
Members
3,938 posts
4,342 battles
18 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Yep, sure did. And after that statement came the Kaga, Enterprise and Graf Zep.

No, after the GZ Fiasco, Sub said in the most recent Q&A that they aren't going to do any more carriers. Including premiums.

Edited by Carrier_Lexington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,847
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,441 posts
16,847 battles
1 hour ago, KalishniKat said:

this seems an easy way to get a CV for the nation that pioneered aircraft carriers. 

Thought the Japanese pioneered carrier aviation with Hosho.

59 minutes ago, KalishniKat said:

Bet we'd have her if she was Russian!

Nah; no room for the 16" guns.

57 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

Bc we still don't have vanguard, which is a far more important ship

No, just another "LAST" ship, in this case, last of the RN BBs. NOTHING special or important at all.

56 minutes ago, BladedPheonix said:

how about we FIX the existing CVs first then think about adding new ships and CV lines in, OK?:Smile_sceptic:

Nobody is willing to wait that long given WoWs history of fixing things right away, LOL!

53 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Personally, atm, I don’t believe there’s ever going to be a ‘fix;’ at least one that isn’t a further nerf.

B I N G O !

29 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

I believe WG has stated no new carriers until they finish their rework (SoonTM), since no matter what they try to do with them, something inevitably breaks.

Something else we've been hearing for months on end.

27 minutes ago, mofton said:

The problem as I see it, is that carriers are over-tiered by aircraft. When the T5 Bogue (which pairs up with ships such as the 1920 Emerald, WWI era Kongo, Iron Duke, Kaiser etc. etc.) gets the 1941 Wildcat and SBD-2, there's going to be a problem.

YOU call this a problem; WOW calls this B A L A N C E !

25 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

Yep, sure did. And after that statement came the Kaga, Enterprise and Graf Zep.

B I N G O !

8 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

No, after the GZ Fiasco, Sub said in the most recent Q&A that they aren't going to do any more carriers. Including premiums.

YES, AND THEY NEVER NERF PREMIUMS EITHER! What a joke this is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles
16 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Thought the Japanese pioneered carrier aviation with Hosho.

Nah; no room for the 16" guns.

No, just another "LAST" ship, in this case, last of the RN BBs. NOTHING special or important at all.

Nobody is willing to wait that long given WoWs history of fixing things right away, LOL!

B I N G O !

Something else we've been hearing for months on end.

YOU call this a problem; WOW calls this B A L A N C E !

B I N G O !

YES, AND THEY NEVER NERF PREMIUMS EITHER! What a joke this is!

wikipidiea's your friend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

 

slight correction umikami

 

The USN was the first nation to launch a plane from a ship, it was done from the cruiser USS Birmingham and 2 later the USN would perform a landing on the armored cruiser Pennsylvania.

 

granted the Japanese didn't pioneer it but they did turn it into something far more than scouting seaplanes, Ironicly  it would eventually be perfected by the USN again by WW2's end and most navies still use the American CV docturns today, that is assuming they have a CV.:fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,847
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,441 posts
16,847 battles

Yeah, knew about Langley and the Birmingham and Pennsylvania (great stories there, by the way), my point was Hosho was the first purpose built ship intended for use as a carrier, launcher, and recovery vehicle for airplanes all in one ship, not the Royal Navy. And you're right, with the likes of Billy Mitchell pushing from the Army Air Corps and guys like Spig Weed pushing from the Navy side, naval aviation in America was a foregone conclusion no matter what.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles
3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Yeah, knew about Langley and the Birmingham and Pennsylvania (great stories there, by the way), my point was Hosho was the first purpose built ship intended for use as a carrier, launcher, and recovery vehicle for airplanes all in one ship, not the Royal Navy. And you're right, with the likes of Billy Mitchell pushing from the Army Air Corps and guys like Spig Weed pushing from the Navy side, naval aviation in America was a foregone conclusion no matter what.

Np, just trying to help out and make sure the facts are straight!:Smile_Default:

 

nothing worse in this world than misinformation, or at least in my opinion there isn't.:fish_nerv:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
562 posts
3,496 battles

How far you've come from "Remove CVs from this ship game" to, "this CV would be fun in-game". :Smile_honoring:

Either way, British CVs should be added to the game eventually, along with the second USN CV and IJN CV line. Second USN BB line, second USN DD line, second IJN BB line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,506
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
12,616 battles

BTW I didn't know we're clan mates Umi.:cap_look: lets do our best to represent our clan eh?:cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×