Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
db4100

An Across the Board CV Nerf Idea

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

259
[LWA]
Members
625 posts
8,947 battles

Would it not make sense for when an aircraft carrier gets damaged from enemy fire/bombs that there should be a good chance of the aircraft carrier's stored aircraft in her hangar be destroyed?  It would be like destroying AA and secondary guns on a battleship.  I am quite sure a DD driver gets pissed when his torpedo tubes gets destroy, and the same for a BB driver losing a main turret.  This would punish a CV player for letting the ship get too close to enemy ships and/or letting enemy planes attack her.  If this is a yes, then the second part of the discussion is how often and/or easy should the aircraft in the CV's hangar be destroyed by incoming fire?

It is just an idea that came to me....don't beat me up too bad.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

I think the only thing it would do is punish the worse CV players, who already take beatings on the regular.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[TBOW]
Members
1,263 posts
10,726 battles

One bad thing that might come out of such a nerf, you would see more Carrier Sniping.  If the CV is busy with a Snipe, they aren't doing other things helping the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
20 minutes ago, db4100 said:

Would it not make sense for when an aircraft carrier gets damaged from enemy fire/bombs that there should be a good chance of the aircraft carrier's stored aircraft in her hangar be destroyed?  It would be like destroying AA and secondary guns on a battleship.  I am quite sure a DD driver gets pissed when his torpedo tubes gets destroy, and the same for a BB driver losing a main turret.  This would punish a CV player for letting the ship get too close to enemy ships and/or letting enemy planes attack her.  If this is a yes, then the second part of the discussion is how often and/or easy should the aircraft in the CV's hangar be destroyed by incoming fire?

It is just an idea that came to me....don't beat me up too bad.

Just something complicated to bring into the games because how many planes would be destroyed? Would it be a chain reaction? What about when rearming, when CVs are truly at their weakest? etc.

4 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

One bad thing that might come out of such a nerf, you would see more Carrier Sniping.  If the CV is busy with a Snipe, they aren't doing other things helping the team.

CV players are already sniping each other. The only counter to this is "situational awareness" and defending yourself, defending your planes, defending the fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168
[ANZ4C]
Beta Testers
559 posts

why only CVs? Why not if a main battery is damaged on a BB theres a chance of losing all its primary ammunition?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[SW]
Beta Testers
1,890 posts
8,285 battles

Yes your idea is possible, but balance in game over all calculates this potential damage into the Carriers overall health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,062
[ARGSY]
Members
6,455 posts
4,321 battles
13 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

If the CV is busy with a Snipe, they aren't doing other things helping the team.

The counter-argument to this is that if you can knock out the enemy carrier(s) early, you have air supremacy and a walkover is in the offing.

My solution would be just to restrict everyone to autodrops and remove strafes, and take away a carrier's ability to mount planes of a tier higher than itself. However, I shall await WG's proposed solution with interest. Until then, I will satisfy my curiosity regarding carrier play in co-op battles on the public test server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[TF03]
Members
739 posts
2,710 battles
42 minutes ago, db4100 said:

Would it not make sense for when an aircraft carrier gets damaged from enemy fire/bombs that there should be a good chance of the aircraft carrier's stored aircraft in her hangar be destroyed?  It would be like destroying AA and secondary guns on a battleship.  I am quite sure a DD driver gets pissed when his torpedo tubes gets destroy, and the same for a BB driver losing a main turret.  This would punish a CV player for letting the ship get too close to enemy ships and/or letting enemy planes attack her.  If this is a yes, then the second part of the discussion is how often and/or easy should the aircraft in the CV's hangar be destroyed by incoming fire?

It is just an idea that came to me....don't beat me up too bad.

just a quick question do you know that if a CV is on fire we can't launch planes, we can get rid off them once then were screwed if on fire again, as long as you keep the CV burning they cant launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
10 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The counter-argument to this is that if you can knock out the enemy carrier(s) early, you have air supremacy and a walkover is in the offing.

My solution would be just to restrict everyone to autodrops and remove strafes, and take away a carrier's ability to mount planes of a tier higher than itself. However, I shall await WG's proposed solution with interest. Until then, I will satisfy my curiosity regarding carrier play in co-op battles on the public test server.

Man, if carriers can only do auto drops and dogfights, they might as well be playing wows blitz on their phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
10 minutes ago, cometguy said:

Man, if carriers can only do auto drops and dogfights, they might as well be playing wows blitz on their phone.

Carriers somehow survived before manual drops were a thing; they'd survive without them now, and it would go a long ways to balance the skills differential between noob and vet CV players. Fighters should be removed completely, and ships forced to live or die on their AA alone. Big impact on those who yolo, and one (or more) less headaches for the CV driver to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[TBOW]
Members
1,263 posts
10,726 battles
25 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The counter-argument to this is that if you can knock out the enemy carrier(s) early, you have air supremacy and a walkover is in the offing.

My solution would be just to restrict everyone to autodrops and remove strafes, and take away a carrier's ability to mount planes of a tier higher than itself. However, I shall await WG's proposed solution with interest. Until then, I will satisfy my curiosity regarding carrier play in co-op battles on the public test server.

Not totally positive on this maybe cometguy can verify, I don't think any of the CVs use a plane that is a tier higher than itself.  At least not that I am aware of.  But many have planes that are a tier lower, in case of midway 2 tiers lower for the Torpedo Bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
2 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Carriers somehow survived before manual drops were a thing; they'd survive without them now, and it would go a long ways to balance the skills differential between noob and vet CV players. Fighters should be removed completely, and ships forced to live or die on their AA alone. Big impact on those who yolo, and one (or more) less headaches for the CV driver to worry about.

Before manual drops were a thing, anti-aircraft guns essentially weren't a thing on most ships. But now so many lines have been introduced with AA levels intended to cope with CVs as they are, that mega nerfs would be in order. Working to a world without fighters makes sense from a skill gap closure perspective.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
121 posts
7,080 battles
2 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

Not totally positive on this maybe cometguy can verify, I don't think any of the CVs use a plane that is a tier higher than itself.  At least not that I am aware of.  But many have planes that are a tier lower, in case of midway 2 tiers lower for the Torpedo Bombers.

The only one that did that I'm aware of was the Saipan.  She had Tier IX planes on a Tier VII, but her squad numbers were much smaller to compensate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[TBOW]
Members
1,263 posts
10,726 battles
Just now, muswp1 said:

The only one that did that I'm aware of was the Saipan.  She had Tier IX planes on a Tier VII, but her squad numbers were much smaller to compensate

Forgot about the Saipan, other than her I think they are all at or below the tier of the CV.  Thanks for Reminding me!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,062
[ARGSY]
Members
6,455 posts
4,321 battles
5 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

But many have planes that are a tier lower, in case of midway 2 tiers lower for the Torpedo Bombers.

That also needs fixing. Just my 2c worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
1 minute ago, gcangel82 said:

Forgot about the Saipan, other than her I think they are all at or below the tier of the CV.  Thanks for Reminding me!!

Zuiho still gets tier 6 torpedo bombers doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[-BMV-]
Members
346 posts
6,579 battles
6 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

Not totally positive on this maybe cometguy can verify, I don't think any of the CVs use a plane that is a tier higher than itself.  At least not that I am aware of.  But many have planes that are a tier lower, in case of midway 2 tiers lower for the Torpedo Bombers.

Both Hosho and Zuiho have +1 fighters and Zuiho has +1 TBs.  Not that it matters neither are anything special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168
[ANZ4C]
Beta Testers
559 posts
36 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Carriers somehow survived before manual drops were a thing; they'd survive without them now,

cruisers and destrpyers survived before concealment skills were a thing. I somehow dont see all them agreeing to up their visibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,617 posts
3,582 battles
1 hour ago, cometguy said:

Man, if carriers can only do auto drops and dogfights, they might as well be playing wows blitz on their phone.

Actually torpedo bombers are manual drops only in Blitz.  Dive bombers are click only, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
1 hour ago, cometguy said:

But now so many lines have been introduced with AA levels intended to cope with CVs as they are, that mega nerfs would be in order.

Although I would advocate this be done on a ship by ship basis, balance would, of course, need to be maintained, insuring that both ships had a chance to do damage, and both ships had a chance to survive, in any CV vs surface combatant battle. Now, convincing WoW to invest the time and effort it would require to make sure it was accomplished correctly ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
1 hour ago, Dareios said:

cruisers and destrpyers survived before concealment skills were a thing.

Not really sure that concealment is the issue; maybe you could go into a bit more detail on that? Concealment has only been changed for individual shipsto either buff or nerf then for purposes of balance; there really hasn't been an across the boards concealment change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
2 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Now, convincing WoW to invest the time and effort it would require to make sure it was accomplished correctly ... ?

Would be a sainthood level miracle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
Just now, cometguy said:

Would be a sainthood level miracle.

Can I get an "AMEN", brothers and sisters!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

Arcade game, not a simulator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[CB-77]
Members
167 posts
1,387 battles

Aircraft get shot down, this is the equivalent of a battery or torpedo tube being destroyed. Torpedo tubes and batteries ultimately always get repaired whereas planes have a limited number, so why nerf an already dead class of ship?

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.

×