Jump to content

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1 post
274 battles

The USS Ranger was definitely put into the game for very good reasons, but she is frankly UGLY and I think we should get a little sexier ship in the gameplay that few people have seen or heard of before!! Enter, USS Wasp: the forgotten warrior !!!!!!!!

 

USS Wasp (CV-7)

2qx702x.jpg

USS Wasp CV-7 was a United States Navy aircraft carrier commissioned in 1940 and lost in action in 1942. She was the eighth ship named USS Wasp, and the sole ship of a class built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time. As a reduced-size version of the Yorktown-class aircraft carrier hull, Wasp was more vulnerable than other United States aircraft carriers available at the opening of hostilities. Wasp was initially employed in the Atlantic campaign, where Axis naval forces were perceived as less capable of inflicting decisive damage. After supporting the occupation of Iceland in 1941, Wasp joined the British Home Fleet in April 1942 and twice ferried British fighter aircraft to Malta. Wasp was then transferred to the Pacific in June 1942 to replace losses at the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. After supporting the invasion of Guadalcanal, Wasp was sunk by the Japanese submarine I-19 on 15 September 1942.

uss-wasp-cv-7-large-56a61c3a3df78cf7728b

USS%20Wasp%20CV-7.jpg?m=1471546025

wasp210205388.png

Wasp is just much sexier, has same displacement, same speed, same flight group size, same AA strength, and can be configured in the matchmaking system to perform just like Ranger. I think this would be a good change for the game and give players something new to play with!!!

 

Any thoughts from my fellow wargamers???

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,558
[HINON]
Supertester
18,966 posts
12,487 battles

1) What's with the funky fonts, bold, size and color changes? Why you gotta make us work to read your post?

2) How much time do you spend looking at your ship when you're playing a CV?

3) Putting Wasp in instead of ranger closes off the possibility of getting Wasp, a very storied ship, as premium some time in the future.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles

Great looking CV, would love to see her in game. But, when I play a cv, I very rarely ever LOOK at my own ship. Spend 99% of battle hovering in eagle eye mode over enemy ships and my own planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
378
[PROJX]
Members
967 posts
15,509 battles
40 minutes ago, Captain_Gett said:

The USS Ranger was definitely put into the game for very good reasons, but she is frankly UGLY and I think we should get a little sexier ship in the gameplay that few people have seen or heard of before!! Enter, USS Wasp: the forgotten warrior !!!!!!!!

 

USS Wasp (CV-7)

2qx702x.jpg

USS Wasp CV-7 was a United States Navy aircraft carrier commissioned in 1940 and lost in action in 1942. She was the eighth ship named USS Wasp, and the sole ship of a class built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time. As a reduced-size version of the Yorktown-class aircraft carrier hull, Wasp was more vulnerable than other United States aircraft carriers available at the opening of hostilities. Wasp was initially employed in the Atlantic campaign, where Axis naval forces were perceived as less capable of inflicting decisive damage. After supporting the occupation of Iceland in 1941, Wasp joined the British Home Fleet in April 1942 and twice ferried British fighter aircraft to Malta. Wasp was then transferred to the Pacific in June 1942 to replace losses at the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. After supporting the invasion of Guadalcanal, Wasp was sunk by the Japanese submarine I-19 on 15 September 1942.

uss-wasp-cv-7-large-56a61c3a3df78cf7728b

USS%20Wasp%20CV-7.jpg?m=1471546025

wasp210205388.png

Wasp is just much sexier, has same displacement, same speed, same flight group size, same AA strength, and can be configured in the matchmaking system to perform just like Ranger. I think this would be a good change for the game and give players something new to play with!!!

 

Any thoughts from my fellow wargamers???

I kinda agree w/ Lert here - Wasp was historically a bit of a compromise designed to fit within the tonnage limits of a naval treaty.  She’s a good looking CV that may be suitable for a Premium ship in the future (particularly in that she gained notoriety as being a victim of one of the single most damaging torp spreads in history (the NC, a DD & the Wasp hit)).

Curious about the “LEGO” Wasp tho...that’s different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles

@Captain_Gett  

Fix your god damned formatting!  No one can read white text on a white background!!!  :Smile_facepalm:

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
32 posts
1,237 battles

Wasp certainly would have been more appropriate at tier 7 than Ranger.  However I think the real change should be to replace Ranger With Lexington and allow Yorktown to take her rightful place at tier 8.  Wasp should have been the tier 7 premium instead of Saipan.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[--1--]
Members
156 posts
2,512 battles

I think USS Wasp deserves to be T8 and they already have a line and a premium CV at T8 so I don't think it will come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,604 posts
3,573 battles

Weren't there rumors floating around about a CV line split?  Maybe put her in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles
On 5/29/2018 at 11:51 PM, Palladia said:

Weren't there rumors floating around about a CV line split?  Maybe put her in there.

Yeah agreed. If a split is at all possible then I'd love to see Wasp and Yorktown in the tech tree, they'd be great for the 7/8 slots, we'd just need something for 9 and 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[TIMT]
Supertester
473 posts

Or buffed at least to match her up with Saipan.  I'd actually buy her back at that point, as I hated her in T7 so much, sold her for Tier 8 and play my Lexington more often than Essex and Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[THF41]
Members
240 posts
3,678 battles

Gentlemen, I am in agreement that Ranger might not be the best choice at Tier 7. However instead of replacing it totally, I believe that Ranger should be moved down to Tier 6 (with Independence moved over to a new light carrier line). Then Lexington would be moved down to Tier 7 and Wasp added as a Tier 7 Premium Fleet Carrier. Then finally add in Yorktown as the new Tier 8 and then the line just continues on as currently. Further more, Bogue can be moved over as the Tier 5 for the new Light carrier line with the proposed CV conversion of the SS Normandie (called the Lafayette) as the new Tier 5 for the Fleet Carrier Line.

Edited by LordHood2552

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,340 posts
9,433 battles

Tier 7 Ranger faces Saipan, Kaga, and Hiryu....

Ranger is simply not good enough.  By any real or imagined thought patterns....   I simply don't see that as a match-up.  It's like we put the Colorado of carriers at T7...    PAYWALL !!!!

Then again, Lexington versus Shokaku and Enterprise isn't all there either.

It's like the whole IJN line is derailed by one tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,886 posts
5,656 battles

Perhaps we can simply add 1 fighter squadron to both Ranger and Lexington?

Maybe tweak the tiers, but it's what worked for Lexington back before USN CVs got nerfed to [edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,691 battles
16 minutes ago, Avenge_December_7 said:

Perhaps we can simply add 1 fighter squadron to both Ranger and Lexington?

Maybe tweak the tiers, but it's what worked for Lexington back before USN CVs got nerfed to [edited].

That's the problem WG has screwed around with CV so much that they are out of balance big time most of all the Ranger and Lexington from Ranger up US CV do need a 2nd fighter squad they are not able to compete at the moment with just 1 squad. The problem is if WG gives US CV a 2nd fighter squad we know the IJN CV players will complain that the US CV are OP with 2 fighter squads with 7 planes at tier 7.

To make it work and have some sort of balance if Ranger got a 2nd squad of fighters is maybe change the number off planes in squad, be it for all of them fighters, TB and DB allowing US CV to have other loadout options or just change the number of planes in fighters allowing US CV to get two fighter squads and able to compete with other CV and they could just give US CV a 2-1-2 loadout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,604 posts
3,573 battles

Knock'em down to five planes per squadron.  USN still has the air advantage but not by as much,  IJN still has the strike advantage.  Done.  The problem is,  this screws with concurrent number of planes in the air.  Personally I'd handwave that since IJN maintains a torpedo bomber advantage but WG might see that as an issue. Give'em a third dive bomber squadron for those tiers to solidify that IJN are primarily strike based while USN are primarily fighter based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,385 posts
7,979 battles
On 5/29/2018 at 8:21 PM, Iron_Salvo921 said:

I think USS Wasp deserves to be T8 and they already have a line and a premium CV at T8 so I don't think it will come.

Is this a joke? Cause it isn't even REMOTELY close to tier 8 material. Hell, of 2 premium CV's Enterprise is at best BARELY a tier 8 and GZ flat out isn't from it's AA, to it's airplanes (1938 vintage 109E's re-designated T's after carrier modifications, and Ju-87c DB's of similar vintage - both at best tier 6 aircraft), even to it's line of thinking. The ONLY carrier in game to have a similar heavy secondary battery, and funny enough similar time frame of aircraft, is Kaga at tier 7. To which those that argue "but it's HP would be high" - well aside from HP of CV's being a trivial number as there is no clear formula because they are sporadically their tonnage plus some number, just their tonnage and I think a couple may be slightly under it, maybe that's part of the gimmick of the ship that it's a bit more of a brawler cause she was built as a commerce raider and to fight against ships that would escort them like DD's and all. The only other ship that was designed that way was Lexington, and her sister Saratoga. However, the ship we have in game isn't actually Lexington, but mid-late war refits of Saratoga where that heavy battery was removed for DP 127mm guns really more for additional AA, not surface defense. And Wasp is a downsized Yorktown class with several compromises in design that led to it's fate. So it's basically "smaller, worse Enterprise".

The Yorktown's, Wasp included, are really tier 7 ships, and would be great if we divvy the line up between purpose built CV's (with a bunch of fake upgrades to put them at 8, or Wargaming added USS United States or the Axial deck Forestall [angled deck was added mid construction] as the tier 10 and shuffled lines and all in fixings things so that line runs either Ranger, Yorktown, Essex, Midway from tier 7 or the same with US/Zippo at the end starting at tier 6) and CV conversions (Lex, proposed Iowa are first to mind). Other than yeah, some tweaks in game mechanics and MM to cut off tier 4 and 5 CV's from T6 ones, maybe keep tier 4 away from 6 CV's period, replace Bogue with Independence, and then move Ranger and either Hiryu or another IJN fleet CV to 6, Yorktown at 7, rest is the same really. Line continuity of development, mostly (yes it kinda irks me seeing Lexatoga up there), and then tier 6 CV's actually have sufficient reserves to actually deal with some of the same and higher tier ships they have to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,886 posts
5,656 battles
6 hours ago, Palladia said:

Knock'em down to five planes per squadron.  USN still has the air advantage but not by as much,  IJN still has the strike advantage.  Done.  The problem is,  this screws with concurrent number of planes in the air.  Personally I'd handwave that since IJN maintains a torpedo bomber advantage but WG might see that as an issue. Give'em a third dive bomber squadron for those tiers to solidify that IJN are primarily strike based while USN are primarily fighter based.

The problem with specializing roles like this is that damage to surface ships is what wins battles, not shooting down planes.

If a 3-0-1 Saipan manages to completely deplane a 2-2-1 Kaga, but that Kaga has already nuked 3-4 ships by the time it's lost all its planes, then the team with the Kaga has a far higher chance of winning than the team with the Saipan.

Air superiority is only a means to the end, not the end itself.

An additional problem with the IJN specialization in torpedo bombers is that torpedo bombers are a carrier's most reliable way of doing damage to a target.

For the USN, a full squadron of 1000 lb HE bombs or AP bombs may hit just as hard as one torpedo, but it's heavily RNG-based to the point that even a perfect drop on a still target could potentially still result in 0 hits. Torpedoes, on the other hand, always do damage as long as they have time to arm and actually hit the target. This is not to even mention the different status effects each attack can have: fire is far less lethal than flooding.

Also, the fact that the IJN CVs get 2 torpedo bomber squadrons makes them far more capable of hitting maneuverable targets like destroyers and cruisers, the two surface ship classes that most influence if a match will be won or lost.

Notice how at the higher tiers, the only USN CVs that can reasonably compete with their IJN counterparts are Saipan, Enterprise, and Midway, all of which have two torpedo bomber squadrons and two fighter squadrons.

  • Saipan's ability to strafe out without losing planes combined with her tier 9 planes are what give her the edge in air combat. Her strike package makes up for their small size with their fast reload times, the ability to cross-drop, and their high durability relative to their tier. Overall, however, Saipan is feared due to her air control, not because of her strike capabilities.
  • Enterprise makes up for her tier 7 fighters with fairly large squadron sizes and a massive reserve. However, this it at the cost of lower reserves for her tier 7 bombers (although they're de facto tier 8 due to the bomber upgrade slot that's normally reserved for tier 9+ carriers). She may get two squadrons of torpedo bombers, but their drop pattern is absolutely atrocious compared to standard USN and even the standard IJN drops. As for her dive bombers, she either can equip Ranger's HE bombs (which will impress pretty much nobody) or AP bombs which terrify certain ships in exchange for being utterly useless against others.
  • Midway has the benefit of her large reserves, USN strafes, and 2 torpedo bomber squadrons, but the nerf to her reserves, Hakuryu's buff to 3 fighter squadrons, and the fact that her fighters are tier 9 while her torpedo bombers are tier 8 means that her position as Hakuryu's equal is very tenuous, if she isn't already outright inferior at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,604 posts
3,573 battles

And you aren't wrong,  but the issue is that right now,  IJN at T7-9 are either just flat out better at everything or are far better at one thing and only a little worse at another.  Preferably I'd have both nearly equal but that's easier said than done.  Course this is all moot with the both the changes coming and with Wargamings staunch refusal to change things like squad sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
Members
400 posts
2,441 battles
On 4/14/2018 at 2:17 PM, Captain_Gett said:

The USS Ranger was definitely put into the game for very good reasons, but she is frankly UGLY and I think we should get a little sexier ship in the gameplay that few people have seen or heard of before!! Enter, USS Wasp: the forgotten warrior !!!!!!!!

 

USS Wasp (CV-7)

2qx702x.jpg

USS Wasp CV-7 was a United States Navy aircraft carrier commissioned in 1940 and lost in action in 1942. She was the eighth ship named USS Wasp, and the sole ship of a class built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time. As a reduced-size version of the Yorktown-class aircraft carrier hull, Wasp was more vulnerable than other United States aircraft carriers available at the opening of hostilities. Wasp was initially employed in the Atlantic campaign, where Axis naval forces were perceived as less capable of inflicting decisive damage. After supporting the occupation of Iceland in 1941, Wasp joined the British Home Fleet in April 1942 and twice ferried British fighter aircraft to Malta. Wasp was then transferred to the Pacific in June 1942 to replace losses at the battles of Coral Sea and Midway. After supporting the invasion of Guadalcanal, Wasp was sunk by the Japanese submarine I-19 on 15 September 1942.

uss-wasp-cv-7-large-56a61c3a3df78cf7728b

USS%20Wasp%20CV-7.jpg?m=1471546025

wasp210205388.png

Wasp is just much sexier, has same displacement, same speed, same flight group size, same AA strength, and can be configured in the matchmaking system to perform just like Ranger. I think this would be a good change for the game and give players something new to play with!!!

 

Any thoughts from my fellow wargamers???

stop playing U.S CVs. These devs dont care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[--1--]
Members
156 posts
2,512 battles
18 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Is this a joke? Cause it isn't even REMOTELY close to tier 8 material. Hell, of 2 premium CV's Enterprise is at best BARELY a tier 8 and GZ flat out isn't from it's AA, to it's airplanes (1938 vintage 109E's re-designated T's after carrier modifications, and Ju-87c DB's of similar vintage - both at best tier 6 aircraft), even to it's line of thinking. The ONLY carrier in game to have a similar heavy secondary battery, and funny enough similar time frame of aircraft, is Kaga at tier 7. To which those that argue "but it's HP would be high" - well aside from HP of CV's being a trivial number as there is no clear formula because they are sporadically their tonnage plus some number, just their tonnage and I think a couple may be slightly under it, maybe that's part of the gimmick of the ship that it's a bit more of a brawler cause she was built as a commerce raider and to fight against ships that would escort them like DD's and all. The only other ship that was designed that way was Lexington, and her sister Saratoga. However, the ship we have in game isn't actually Lexington, but mid-late war refits of Saratoga where that heavy battery was removed for DP 127mm guns really more for additional AA, not surface defense. And Wasp is a downsized Yorktown class with several compromises in design that led to it's fate. So it's basically "smaller, worse Enterprise".

The Yorktown's, Wasp included, are really tier 7 ships, and would be great if we divvy the line up between purpose built CV's (with a bunch of fake upgrades to put them at 8, or Wargaming added USS United States or the Axial deck Forestall [angled deck was added mid construction] as the tier 10 and shuffled lines and all in fixings things so that line runs either Ranger, Yorktown, Essex, Midway from tier 7 or the same with US/Zippo at the end starting at tier 6) and CV conversions (Lex, proposed Iowa are first to mind). Other than yeah, some tweaks in game mechanics and MM to cut off tier 4 and 5 CV's from T6 ones, maybe keep tier 4 away from 6 CV's period, replace Bogue with Independence, and then move Ranger and either Hiryu or another IJN fleet CV to 6, Yorktown at 7, rest is the same really. Line continuity of development, mostly (yes it kinda irks me seeing Lexatoga up there), and then tier 6 CV's actually have sufficient reserves to actually deal with some of the same and higher tier ships they have to. 

Even if it would be T7 they already have 2 T7 USN CV's so it will never come because T6 is out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,385 posts
7,979 battles
6 hours ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

Even if it would be T7 they already have 2 T7 USN CV's so it will never come because T6 is out of the question.

There are -

  • 3 Tier 5 IJN DD premiums.
  • 2 Tier 8 IJN DD premiums
  • 2 tier 5 RU DD premiums (one mostly pulled from sale)
  • 2 Tier 7 USN premium cruisers
  • 2 Tier 6 German premium  Cruisers
  • 2 Tier 3 RU premium cruisers
  • 2 Tier 5 RU premium cruisers
  • 2 Tier 6 RU cruisers
  • possible 2nd USN tier 8 premium BB with Mass as we already have Bama
  • 2 UK BB premiums at tier 7

And this is not counting the tech tree ships as you have (which adds +1 or 2 depending on line/lines), free xp/earned only ships (Nelson, Iowa, Musashi, ARP Kongo's/Myoko's/Takao), or counting the "lima" skins as separate ships.

Saying "They have two already, they won't add more" makes not even the smallest bit of damned sense.

Yorktown will eventually have to make it to the tree, people will riot if it were made premium. They already did once at it's exclusion and there's materials to add another branch, or even just [edited] a ship or two if needed. And either way, Yorktown may drive some to convert free XP, which means more money.

Wasp is a downsized Yorktown, literally between the size of an Independence and Yorktown. It's slower than both Inde and York, Her early air compliment was made up of F4F-3 and it seems later F4F-4's (tier 4 and 5 respectively in game), TBD's (considered T6 in game, highly debatable), and the SB2U which is not currently modeled in game (I believe it used to be) that would likely be tier 5 material at best (Albeit the SBD that replaced it starts at tier 5 with the SBD-2). And of those Tier 6 planes, the TBD's - from what I can find she had only 5 assigned to her torpedo group (VT-7) and possibly 8 more to a scout group assigned to her at one time (VS-71). And that is out of what appears to be between 60-70 planes she carried operationally, even if she could handle as many as her bigger sisters. Her displacement/HP ratio is as meaningless as it is for CV's overall - Lex is depending on number used, displacement +14-21k while Independence is displacement +25k, so theres room to set it's HP to whatever. Her AA armament as built was 8 DP guns, 4x4 1.1 inch "Chicago Piano's", and 24 .50 cal's - which sounds like a lot till you realize that Ryujo at tier 6 has 4 more DP guns and the only other ship that directly matches is Lex with he same 8x1 that puts out 64 DPS at 5 km, the only ships I can find with the 1.1's are the tier 4 Wyoming, C hull Pheonix, B Hull Omaha at tier 5, and the stock Pensacola at tier 6, that churn out maybe 27 DPS at a range of 3.1 km, and we assume same DPS as stock Ranger's 24 .50's, 91 DPS at 1.2 km. So, max AA DPS is 182. Half of that is at 1.2 km where it's near useless. Independence has 182 between 2-3.5 km out. Ryujo 135 between 3-5 km out, so, at best it's equal, at worst, inferior there. Likely a higher detection, no real armour or torpedo protection something even Independence has - one could easily put Wasp at tier 6, having numbers and possibly an extra slot to mount the strike plane HP upgrade usually reserved for the higher tiers to help compensate vs higher tiers of AA, It's AA starting at the range of Ryujo and matching Independence, but about half of it really only being useful vs DB's, lower tier aircraft than normal (tier 4-5), lower protection but decent speed, and not the stealthiest of the CV's at the tier. Maybe she harkens back to the old AS idea with few/no TB's and is mostly DB's and fighters, maybe her DB's have their accuracy dialed in a bit because it only runs maybe a 1,0,2 and needs them to be more effective.

And then you have Hornet, that was in the Doolittle raid, and could mount a setup related to it of 16 - 20 total B-25's (16 was the actual raid, 4 more reserves were about just in case during training, Balance and Wargaming overall would have to decide), as well as her fighters which, yes, Hornet still had her fighters they were just below decks, hard to find which exact type she was using at the time of F4F-3 or -4. She also had armour and protection unlike Wasp, her AA had at least replaced the . 50's by the time of the raid with 30x 20 mm guns, can't find the date they added 2 more 20 mm and another 1.1 station of 4 guns (total of 7x4 instead of 6x4). A bit much likely for tier 6, should still be decent enough for 7, adds something different. And before you go "They couldn't land those B-25's back on the CV" - it's a game, we bend reality as it is with some of this stuff, allowing it to recover the planes isn't the end of the world and not some open door for some insane stupidity like B-17's off an Independence class. Barring the ice carrier (that should really be kept out of the game), the only other things that should be operating any kind of twin engine attack aircraft like that are USS Shangri-La (PBJ-H launched and recovered on deck), maybe UK (haven't confirmed use of bombs from twin engine aircraft they used off CV's late/post war), maybe a high tier German CV in a line that uses the Ju-88 (Germany did seem to go for bigger is better by end war), and probably the inevitable RU CV line that has at least 1 or 2 using twin engine aircraft able to get off even a small carrier due to the will of Stalin and their Stalinium construction. And would still not be the craziest thing to be in this game that Wargaming had taking off and landing from CV's, such as the J7W1.

Not to mention the plain and simple fact of a single word - money.

One people may free xp to, and a tier 6 and 7 ship that people will buy up just cause they are the ships they are. Not to mention more captain trainers, more XP they can convert, etc. They had no plans for Haida - demand made it happen. They weren't going to do GZ and German CV's at all, and while what they have done with it is idiotic - demand made it happen. If they can make money off it, hell, they made money off 3 versions of the Kamikaze which was similar to the tech tree ship at one point, they'll do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,313 posts
9,410 battles

Wasp (AKA Baby Yorktown) should be tier 7 in a second USN CV tech tree line, with Yorktown at tier 8, one of the other Essex variants at tier 9 (with all 4 flight deck mounted guns just to look different) , and a long hull Essex (Ticonderoga) at tier 10.

The Biggest problem, and a mostly unsolvable problem with CV's going forward, only 3 nations made wide use of CV's historically. The United States, Great Britain, and Japan. Making piles of premium CV's might make WG some cash in the short term, but there will need to be a healthy number of tech tree CV's to provide some variation in matchmaker.

Japan, thanks to building so many different classes of carrier (or simply unique ones), has enough hulls for 2 lines.

The United States, while building the most, mass produced only a few designs, and is a bit of a stretch to get two lines out of them.

Great Britain,  has maybe one lines worth, with some mid tier premiums.

Germany, Italy and France each have a premium at most. 

Edited by SgtBeltfed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[LRM]
Supertester
550 posts
5,073 battles

An American CV Line split, frankly, does seem warranted. Historically, the U.S. made significant use of pocket carriers and escort carriers throughout the Second World War, and we still make use of similar vessels today. With a bit of research and fudging a bit it would be possible to run a line split somewhere between T5 and T7. The secondary line should be based around Escort CV's and focus on faster re-arm times, smaller attack squadrons, and better rudder shift than what the bigger Fleet CV's have, the trade off being a smaller HP pool, fewer squadrons, less flexibility, and fewer reserves. In order to preserve some uniqueness between the new split line for the U.S. and the Japanese line the secondary U.S. line should be capped at never being able to have a load-out that would give it a greater number of squadrons in the air than the current Japanese CV line, but with slightly faster re-arm times.

I think the best place for the split is at T7.

USS Sangamon would be at T7.

USS Wright would be at T8 (and play very similar to the Saipan, but without the uptiered planes).

USS Gambier Bay would slot in at T9.

USS Commencement Bay would slot in at T10.

Play style would focus on CV using fighters to escort their attack planes. CV would be able to swarm their target with quick strikes from attack aircraft, the trade being with fewer attack planes in the squadron the alpha damage per strike would be lower but the dispersion would be smaller as well. The ideal way to play them would be to go after DD's and enemy CV's, though that would require removing Defensive AA from DD's and re-balancing CV AA to some extent.

The major balance issue would be if/when a pocket CV was match-made by itself against a full-fleet CV or the Saipan (at T7) since a Saipan would absolutely eat the planes of one of these pocket CV's since they'd have smaller attack squadrons. One possible balance might be to increase the range at which pocket CV attack planes could launch torpedoes, allowing them to do so largely outside the worst of the AA umbrellas thrown up by CA, CV, and BB's.

The key to successful game play in a pocket CV would be to truly support the rest of the team, which was the role of the Escort CV in the first place, rather than to send planes off to go solo hunting, as many CV players do. To preserve planes most efficiently, the pocket CV player would have to keep their planes near the AA of their teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×