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

How to have a better CV simulation in WoWs

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
21 posts
3,590 battles

Lot of talk about changing CV game play but I haven't heard much which would really change its character.

Historically you have 2 missions for the CV: air superiority and fleet attack. Pacific battles, however, were not determined by who established air superiority first, they were determined by who destroyed the other forces CV first. By default, sinking the other sides CV gives you air superiority.

In WoWs, however, it is very rare for one CV to go after the other, for a number of reasons. First, ship AA, especially as you get to higher tiers, is so fierce it is near impossible to fly directly from your CV to the enemy CV. Fly your air wing over an AA spec'ed ship and see what happens. So instead of using aggression, most have their aircraft loitering about waiting for a vulnerable target. Second, the fighter strafe mechanism means that if you group up your strike assets, they can be completely annihilated in less than 15 seconds by a single fighter squadron with absolutely no losses to the attacking fighter squadron. It therefore doesn't make any sense to launch attacks until you have a clear opening. And lastly, because aircraft have no fuel limitations, you can keep your fighter and attack squadrons airborne the entire game and hide your CV at the back of the map.

Thus we are reduced to playing CVs on a par with the Japanese situation after Midway, in which, because your strike aircraft are so fragile that you don't have sufficient strength to battle your way to the enemy CV, you attack the closest, isolated or damaged ship because of its vulnerability. This is why in competitions, most CVs use an AS loadout as their mission is primarily air superiority.

And this is also why folks complain when a CV successfully attacks their ship because they expect (rightly so) that the CV should be maintaining air superiority via his fighters instead of attacking the enemy's CV.

To remedy the situation, IMO, you need to change the emphasis from air superiority to fleet attack. More specifically fleet attack against the opposing CV. To do this only requires a few adjustments.

1) Put limitations on aircraft flight time.This not only prevents fighter squadrons from remaining airborne the entire game but also prevents strike aircraft from loitering about waiting for a vulnerable target to be found. By limiting flight time the CV Captain will have to make a judgement as to when to launch his air wing to get maximum effect and force him to move with the majority of his fleet instead of seeking out the furthest corner to hide in. Loitering fighter aircraft flying Carrier Air Patrol (CAP) will also serve as a big indication of where the enemy CV is and will also force the Captain to either stay close to his fleet to guard against incoming strikes (to allow for quick turnaround times to get them back on station), conduct fighter sweeps (which could leave the fleet vulnerable due to long distances and time required to return for fuel) or giving fighter cover to outgoing strikes. The limitation of aircraft flight time would change the whole character of CV game play and open up a myriad of different strategies which could be used... especially openings for a well timed attack on the enemy CV.

2) Apply CV damage to aircraft turn around times. A fire on an aircraft carrier is a catastrophic event which normally would put it out of commission for the remainder of the fight not just because of the fire, but because of secondary explosions of fuel and armaments. By applying CV damage to aircraft turn around times it would mean that if a CV has lost 50% of its hit points, it doubles the time it takes to re-arm/re-fuel and launch its aircraft. By applying CV damage to aircraft turn around times, attacking the opposing CV (even if you don't sink it) pays a much higher dividend not only for the CV Captain because he reaps greater air superiority but also for his team as the opposing CV has less opportunity to launch strike aircraft. It also makes covering your CV from an attack even more important.

3) Replace the Captain Skill "Emergency Takeoff" to "5 or 10% extended flight time. Launching aircraft while your CV is on fire is so out there that it really needs to go away. Give a boost to flight time instead as it would simulate an experienced air wing capable of getting the maximum time in the air as possible by flying optimum flight profiles.

Making these 3 adjustments would, IMO, not only change the complete character of CV play but bring it more in line with a simulation of WWII tactics.

Having served on A-6 Intruder strike aircraft onboard aircraft carriers and as a Tactical Action Officer and Strike Warfare Officer on the staff of a Carrier Group Commander, I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my [edited]. We can keep fighters on station because of inflight refueling, but they didn't have that back in WWII. Back then the decision to launch strike aircraft was based on the spotting of the enemy fleet... and even then, as in the Battle of Midway, the distances required to travel meant that aircraft barely had enough fuel to make it back (and some didn't). For anyone who is experienced with Naval Aviation, one of the primary planning factors is always fuel because there is only one airfield to land on.  It also means that if players want to stray off by themselves away from the main body and their CV, they only have themselves to blame when the CV cannot provide air support. While OTOH, it means that strike aircraft aren't going to be just loitering around forever until its target has activated it's repair party.

We need more balance with CV play and with a few fairly minor adjustments I believe that is possible.

  • Cool 6
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
657
[TF16]
Modder
1,004 posts
7,762 battles

A well thought out post that succinctly states a problem; in a positive, coherent manner; with recommendations on how to try and correct it. o7 to you. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,002
[RLGN]
Members
10,111 posts
19,503 battles

Buff the accuracy of divebombers, remove strafe, and nerf the myriad of things players already have to stop airstrikes and maybe then we can worry about flighttime restrictions.

Carriers camp because moving with the fleet often results in perforation and a quick trip back to port thanks to generally low concealment values, especially for USN.

Otherwise; what USNA_76 said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
563
[WDS]
Members
1,532 posts
8,270 battles

Really well written post , even I was able to understand that .  

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
1,542 posts
26 battles
4 hours ago, BWC_LAVA said:


1) Put limitations on aircraft flight time.

2) Apply CV damage to aircraft turn around times.

3) Replace the Captain Skill "Emergency Takeoff" to "5 or 10% extended flight time.

Thanks for taking the time to share all that great insight BWC, we appreciate your feedback on CVs

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[USNGL]
Members
87 posts
5,019 battles

I like that you put your ideas in a good manner but I disagree with all of them. Flight time limitations make no sense as the flight time was measured in hours back then and with a match of 20 minutes the "no fuel limitation" makes perfect sense. 

CV damage to aircraft turn around times makes sense from a realistic standpoint but would make carriers susceptible to trolling/griefing also since this is by no means a simulator of a naval experience realism isn't that important. Also have to remember if a carrier is being attacked it needs its planes ASAP so this is just a bad idea for this more arcadey game. 

I like the idea of replacing emergency takeoff as its useless but not with the flight time for my earlier reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles
1 hour ago, C6tom said:

I like that you put your ideas in a good manner but I disagree with all of them. Flight time limitations make no sense as the flight time was measured in hours back then and with a match of 20 minutes the "no fuel limitation" makes perfect sense. 

With CVs in the game one would normally strike the other from a much greater distance. So like many game play mechanics sometimes you have to make some compromises IOT get a better simulation.

In this case, the higher the tier and better aircraft which come with them, I would imagine that their flight time would become longer. One would have to test it out but I would guess something on the lines of 5 minutes for a Tier IV CV with an additional 30 seconds per tier as you go up the tree would be a some where in the ball park. That would mean a Tier X aircraft would have 8 minutes of loitering time plus say 10% for the Captain's perk for a total of roughly 9 minutes. Don't think you would even notice much difference at Tier X, but it would make things a little more interesting as the Captain would be forced to refuel his fighters at a minimum of once per game. By loitering time I mean the time that the aircraft is actually flying around. Once that time is reached, the aircraft automatically returns to the CV for refuel. So a Tier IV aircraft flies about for 5 minutes at which time, just as when a fighter runs out of ammo or an attack aircraft drops it's payload, the planes automatically return to base (RTB).

I don't think that would really hurt very good CV Captains, but it would place a limitation based on tier that would be more in line with history, result in a bit less seal clubbing, offer more tactics and you would be able to leave the actual mechanics of attacking and strafing in place. And the turn around times based on damage would also make a large difference in game play at basically all tier levels.

Edited by BWC_LAVA
  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
657
[TF16]
Modder
1,004 posts
7,762 battles

Like all problems, the answers are typically developed by the team, working together, for a common goal, without ego getting in the way. It’s getting the ego out of the equation that’s the hard part. Keep up the good work on this. What it will take is coming up with a plan and testing it for viability, making changes and testing it again, without the ego creeping back into the equation before you finish . Bravo ? 

Edited by USNA_76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[USNGL]
Members
87 posts
5,019 battles
On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 7:32 PM, BWC_LAVA said:

With CVs in the game one would normally strike the other from a much greater distance. So like many game play mechanics sometimes you have to make some compromises IOT get a better simulation.

In this case, the higher the tier and better aircraft which come with them, I would imagine that their flight time would become longer. One would have to test it out but I would guess something on the lines of 5 minutes for a Tier IV CV with an additional 30 seconds per tier as you go up the tree would be a some where in the ball park. That would mean a Tier X aircraft would have 8 minutes of loitering time plus say 10% for the Captain's perk for a total of roughly 9 minutes. Don't think you would even notice much difference at Tier X, but it would make things a little more interesting as the Captain would be forced to refuel his fighters at a minimum of once per game. By loitering time I mean the time that the aircraft is actually flying around. Once that time is reached, the aircraft automatically returns to the CV for refuel. So a Tier IV aircraft flies about for 5 minutes at which time, just as when a fighter runs out of ammo or an attack aircraft drops it's payload, the planes automatically return to base (RTB).

I don't think that would really hurt very good CV Captains, but it would place a limitation based on tier that would be more in line with history, result in a bit less seal clubbing, offer more tactics and you would be able to leave the actual mechanics of attacking and strafing in place. And the turn around times based on damage would also make a large difference in game play at basically all tier levels.

Well if you are going to have the fuel limit that high you may as well not implement it. I've never had planes in the air that long at Tiers 7 8 and 10. ( What I play CVs at) I get the idea behind it but that's just too long for the kind of impact you are looking for. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles
9 hours ago, C6tom said:

Well if you are going to have the fuel limit that high you may as well not implement it. I've never had planes in the air that long at Tiers 7 8 and 10. ( What I play CVs at) I get the idea behind it but that's just too long for the kind of impact you are looking for. 

It was a proposal.

Personally, I notice things get a bit wonky when aircraft are airborne for more than 5 minutes. Perhaps the increase in flight time could be increased by 10 secs (instead of 30) per tier which would result in a Tier X aircraft being airborne for 6 minutes.

I'm certainly open to debate and suggestions.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
539
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,075 posts
6,206 battles

Here are some things to consider when proposing CV changes.

1) The CV population is generally the 'old guard', frequently beta testers or players who started playing at release and most have been very vocal about changes and have suggested all of yours.....and thousands of other suggestions. But at least you are willing to wade into the CV balance pool and propose changes rather than join the witch hunt, so props to you for that!

2) CV's were considered broken in CBT...we said so, WG didnt listen. CV's turned into God's Hammer after release and were subsequently nerfed for 3 consecutive patches and then occasionally after that. They are still 'broken' in many ways and the dozens of band aids applied havent 'fixed' anything.

3) Any changes to CV's moving forward will make them LESS complicated to play, not more. Adding fuel restrictions makes them more complicated which goes against WG's ideology for a successful game. Some of us proposed/were on board with this in CBT as a way to nerf CV's spotting ability and it was directly shot down.

My prediction for the rewrite is CV play will be nothing like what we see now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,492
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,676 posts
8,217 battles
On 27/03/2018 at 6:46 PM, BWC_LAVA said:

1) Put limitations on aircraft flight time.

I like this idea, it would add to a sense of immersion, create a sense of urgency and committment. A smidgen of realism too.

On 27/03/2018 at 6:46 PM, BWC_LAVA said:

2) Apply CV damage to aircraft turn around times.

While realistic, conversely this would encourage passive, defensive camping. I am not convinced this would improve gameplay. Specifically it would hurt the more entertaining CV players (inc one of our fav Twitch streamers!). And myself, as I use Adrenaline Rush on the GZ.

On 27/03/2018 at 6:46 PM, BWC_LAVA said:

3) Replace the Captain Skill "Emergency Takeoff" to "5 or 10% extended flight time.

Absolutely, nobody uses that skill anymore anyway, changes to "repair party" have made it obselete.

+1 for the ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles

Hey guys, thanks for the comments.

You know turnaround times in the game are done at the speed of light.

When an aircraft lands it is taxied forwarded and parked. Refueling and rearming begin. Once all planes have landed, they are pushed physically by the deck crew to the aft of the deck; known as re-spoting. Once all aircraft have been moved aft, fueled and re-armed, they are ready for take-off. Here is an excellent documentary on landing, parking and re-spoting. Re-spoting begins around minute 16.

Given the time it takes to land, arm, fuel and re-spot in World War II, compared to the time it takes in the game; even a 100% increase in the time to launch aircraft because of damage to the CV (which really shouldn't be in action at all) doesn't even come close to the actual time required and should not be considered to be a simulation as the time-compression is just so high as to be almost insane.

I understand it is just a game... and compromises have to be made. The problem here is that the "simulation" of carrier air warfare has been so badly distorted as to be almost unrecognizable. And the problem is how to bring CV operations more in line with reality without having to make massive changes to the way the game already plays.

Edited by BWC_LAVA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
539
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,075 posts
6,206 battles
15 hours ago, BWC_LAVA said:

 

I understand it is just a game... and compromises have to be made. The problem here is that the "simulation" of carrier air warfare has been so badly distorted as to be almost unrecognizable. And the problem is how to bring CV operations more in line with reality without having to make massive changes to the way the game already plays.

Cant be done in a game were the developers desire to have a simplistic game. I, like many of the dev's and a handful of other players, played a game called NavyField. It was a Korean MMO SUPER grinding game that was significantly more complicated and CV's were amazing but once again, only a few could play them well. CV's worked well in the system and were not the dominant force we currently have. What you have with WoWs is a significantly dumbed down version of NF with vastly (NF is 15ish years old now and it used dated graphics then!) superior graphics and better game play.

Reality has no place in a game where a DD can sink a BB using gunfire alone.

BTW, the IJN refueled and rearmed their planes in the hangars, not certain how the UK did it but I suspect they either did the same as IJN or had the option given the weather conditions in which the UK operated their carriers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
3,590 battles

I really do think it is possible to have a better simulation without increasing complexity. That is the approach I have taken here in this tread.

Precision attacks using the "alt" key is not a difficult mechanic, it is simply a matter of practice. I really don't have any problem with that. As I stated in my OP, the simulation breaks down because aircraft have unlimited flight time. Even when they are forced to rearm, they turnaround so quickly there are no windows of opportunity for the opponent to use, especially against the opposing CV. Of course, you can try to snipe the opposing CV but if you fail to sink her, you will lose tons of strike aircraft and even if you do a lot of damage, there is no real benefit gained.

My proposition is that if you limit flight times (which create windows of opportunity) and reduce turn around times based on damage to the CV, you will significantly increase the opportunity for CVs to actually try to attack each other and reap a benefit for doing so even if you don't sink her. In so doing, you also ramp up the simulation of war-at-sea and it becomes a much more fun ship to play therefore increasing player participation.

As for turning around aircraft, the process was a slow one, no matter what nation you want to talk about and didn't change significantly, I believe, until the invention and use of the angled deck by the British (post war) coupled with the catapult launch system (in use during WWII).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3 posts
2,693 battles

In theory, I agreed with your idea on limiting aircraft flight time. At first glance it shouldn't hamper normal CV plane strategy besides permentaly spotting.

 

However, it would also force fighters that are being held back to interact strike craft worse. A skilled CV captain could time his strike launch in such a way that they would know the enemy CVs fighters would be forced to refuel. In addition, a skilled CV captain could rotate the squads permentaly spotting enemy ships, so that effect would be diminished except for how many ships a CV can permanently spot. 

 

In conclusion, I think plane flight times could increase skill disparity between CVs without fully achieving its goal. I liked the thought though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
146
[NAUTY]
Members
548 posts
On 3/30/2018 at 11:58 AM, BWC_LAVA said:

I really do think it is possible to have a better simulation without increasing complexity. That is the approach I have taken here in this tread.

Precision attacks using the "alt" key is not a difficult mechanic, it is simply a matter of practice. I really don't have any problem with that. As I stated in my OP, the simulation breaks down because aircraft have unlimited flight time. Even when they are forced to rearm, they turnaround so quickly there are no windows of opportunity for the opponent to use, especially against the opposing CV. Of course, you can try to snipe the opposing CV but if you fail to sink her, you will lose tons of strike aircraft and even if you do a lot of damage, there is no real benefit gained.

My proposition is that if you limit flight times (which create windows of opportunity) and reduce turn around times based on damage to the CV, you will significantly increase the opportunity for CVs to actually try to attack each other and reap a benefit for doing so even if you don't sink her. In so doing, you also ramp up the simulation of war-at-sea and it becomes a much more fun ship to play therefore increasing player participation.

As for turning around aircraft, the process was a slow one, no matter what nation you want to talk about and didn't change significantly, I believe, until the invention and use of the angled deck by the British (post war) coupled with the catapult launch system (in use during WWII).

As a CV player also, I have to tell you its frowned upon, and taken as a cowardly tactic to snipe the other CV. There is an understanding amongst CV players that we the CV players have a lot of responsibility...and Gods simply don't battle each other...they goto task smiting the mear  mortals which litters the sea surface for us to squash like bug under foot!!!!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
260 posts
14,313 battles
On 3/27/2018 at 12:46 PM, BWC_LAVA said:

Lot of talk about changing CV game play but I haven't heard much which would really change its character.

To remedy the situation, IMO, you need to change the emphasis from air superiority to fleet attack. More specifically fleet attack against the opposing CV. To do this only requires a few adjustments.

1) Put limitations on aircraft flight time.This not only prevents fighter squadrons from remaining airborne the entire game but also prevents strike aircraft from loitering about waiting for a vulnerable target to be found.

2) Apply CV damage to aircraft turn around times. A fire on an aircraft carrier is a catastrophic event which normally would put it out of commission for the remainder of the fight not just because of the fire, but because of secondary explosions of fuel and armaments. 

3) Replace the Captain Skill "Emergency Takeoff" to "5 or 10% extended flight time. Launching aircraft while your CV is on fire is so out there that it really needs to go away

Making these 3 adjustments would, IMO, not only change the complete character of CV play but bring it more in line with a simulation of WWII tactics.

Having served on A-6 Intruder strike aircraft onboard aircraft carriers and as a Tactical Action Officer and Strike Warfare Officer on the staff of a Carrier Group Commander, I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my [edited]. 

We need more balance with CV play and with a few fairly minor adjustments I believe that is possible.

Your three points are well taken and should have been implemented years ago. But Wargaming wanted to go with full RTS style control in a FPS game, like that wasn't a bad idea from the start. And this is far from a simulation, it's an arcade game for the PC that plays like a console game except for Carriers.

The new balance for Carrier CV game play will be to dumb them down so that a console player using a console controller can play this ship type. This will greatly nerf them as the manual strafe and manual drop and loitering squadrons will all be gone when each squadron's strike has to be guided in by a third person view.

 

There is another thread on this with a video that seems to be very much like what Wargaming would need to do to dumb down CV play for a console game or phone app.

 

 

Edited by BigJohnsonLogan

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.

×