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

American Carriers Ham Strung.

50 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[TF_58]
Beta Testers
3 posts
2,842 battles

Sir,

As a Beta tester and a long time Warships fan I am very unhappy with the way USA carriers are set up.   I would hope that a CV driver could choose his load out and not be ham strung with just one load out.   I would be happy to take 1 less dive bomber and torpedo plane to have an extra squadron of fighters on my Ranger.   I also see the same issue with the Independence.   I would love to be able to pick the planes that my carrier carried.   Then the problem is on the player and not the load out.  At least give the Ranger and The Independence the option of 2 1 1 and 2 0 1. 

V/R

Daryl ( Bohika )

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles

Considering how easily USN carrier aviation mauled the IJN carrier aviation I think it is wargamings passive-aggressive way to piss off Americans. Take their most dominant weapon system of WW2 and make it uncompetitive in game.......except the Saipan of course.....pure pay to win lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,208
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,621 posts
9,014 battles

My theory crafting guess is that the changes to the tier 4 & 5 cv's and restricting the US CV's to a single loadout was a live game test for the revamp. Not sure if I need tin foil or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,834 posts
11,180 battles

Wait till the rework and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,380
[RLGN]
Members
8,249 posts
17,264 battles
24 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Considering how easily USN carrier aviation mauled the IJN carrier aviation I think it is wargamings passive-aggressive way to piss off Americans. Take their most dominant weapon system of WW2 and make it uncompetitive in game.......except the Saipan of course.....pure pay to win lol.

Only if you’re a micro King, otherwise Saipan is garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[TNG]
Members
821 posts
6,188 battles
52 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Considering how easily USN carrier aviation mauled the IJN carrier aviation I think it is wargamings passive-aggressive way to piss off Americans. Take their most dominant weapon system of WW2 and make it uncompetitive in game.......except the Saipan of course.....pure pay to win lol.

well the Japs had better pilots and planes early on in the pacific theather. It was not until after key battles such as Midway when Japanese pilots all died and Americans ruled the sky.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,222 battles
14 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

well the Japs had better pilots and planes early on in the pacific theather. It was not until after key battles such as Midway when Japanese pilots all died and Americans ruled the sky.

True, but the Battle of Midway was only 6 months after Pearl Harbor, so how much does the game really need to give them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
45 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Only if you’re a micro King, otherwise Saipan is garbage.

I almost never see a Saipan player lose a game. Maybe it is just the luck of the draw that I only play with or against really good Saipan players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
29 posts
259 battles
1 hour ago, Belthorian said:

Considering how easily USN carrier aviation mauled the IJN carrier aviation I think it is wargamings passive-aggressive way to piss off Americans. Take their most dominant weapon system of WW2 and make it uncompetitive in game.......except the Saipan of course.....pure pay to win lol.

I don't even play carriers, but I am really depressed when people say the Japs somehow get the best carriers.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
33 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

well the Japs had better pilots and planes early on in the pacific theather. It was not until after key battles such as Midway when Japanese pilots all died and Americans ruled the sky.

I would disagree about the pilot part, the F4F Wildcat was terribly inferior to the Zero and yet our pilots managed to hold their own.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
359 posts
6,775 battles

Stick a Saipan in with a Ranger and the results are damn near always the same. Unless the Saipan player is a straight up NOOB, that Ranger's planes are toast.

Stick a Air Superiority Japanese CV (with its 3 fighter squadrons) against a Ranger and the results are the same.

The only Ranger player that can fight against them equally are those that either hide their planes over their ships most of the game,

Those who spend the entire game circling their planes along the edges of the map to avoid the enemies fighters,

or those who have outright mastered strafing to the point that they can do so 3 times back to back and hit the enemies planes each time.

Because once they get locked down into a dogfight, it's pretty much over.

 

There's really only one great counter against a Japanese CV that's gone for Air Superiority and that is their own lack of micromanagement. If you are facing a Japanese CV player that can keep his eyes on that little map on the bottom corner and react, you are in for a world of hurt.

Edited by Levits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,380
[RLGN]
Members
8,249 posts
17,264 battles
28 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I almost never see a Saipan player lose a game. Maybe it is just the luck of the draw that I only play with or against really good Saipan players.

While all I ever seemed to draw driving Saipan were Tier 9 games...

Yay. T9 planes on aT7 carrrier...

...too bad all the targets have AA to match them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
776
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,624 posts
5,949 battles

Man, this thread is somethin' else!  Historical revisionism, "realism", and complete ineptitude all on display.

-Japanese naval aviation was relevant, and on par with American, right up until the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.  The war didn't end in 6 months.  See the battles of Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz especially.  Going into 1943, the Enterprise was the only Allied carrier left in the entire Pacific.

-This is a game.  Balance is decided by what's fun.  Not by how bad the training was for the damage control crews, or the inexperience of pilots.  

-There is nothing wrong with American CVs.  This oft-repeated nonsense, usually combined with "All US ships sux becuz WG hates America", is usually said by incompetent players.  I scored much higher damage numbers, with much higher winrates in American CV line than I did Japanese one - and that was without any fighters....

....because, at the end of the match, only sunken ships and cap points count towards the score.  Not plane kills.  

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
2 minutes ago, _V12 said:

Man, this thread is somethin' else!  Historical revisionism, "realism", and complete ineptitude all on display.

-Japanese naval aviation was relevant, and on par with American, right up until the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.  The war didn't end in 6 months.  See the battles of Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz especially.  Going into 1943, the Enterprise was the only Allied carrier left in the entire Pacific.

-This is a game.  Balance is decided by what's fun.  Not by how bad the training was for the damage control crews, or the inexperience of pilots.  

-There is nothing wrong with American CVs.  This oft-repeated nonsense, usually combined with "All US ships sux becuz WG hates America", is usually said by incompetent players.  I scored much higher damage numbers, with much higher winrates in American CV line than I did Japanese one - and that was without any fighters....

....because, at the end of the match, only sunken ships and cap points count towards the score.  Not plane kills.  

I do not play CV's so I am only parroting what I hear all the time, US carriers are inferior to their Japanese counterparts. However, the F4F Wildcat enjoyed a 6-1 kill ratio. The F6F Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio. Japanese Naval Aviation got seal clubbed from one end of the Pacific to the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
11 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

While all I ever seemed to draw driving Saipan were Tier 9 games...

Yay. T9 planes on aT7 carrrier...

...too bad all the targets have AA to match them.

lol I keep getting clubbed by them in the Texas, Normandy and my other T5 and T6 ships where even good AA doesn't do diddly squat against it's planes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,208
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,621 posts
9,014 battles
2 minutes ago, BruceC1 said:

I don't even play carriers, but I am really depressed when people say the Japs somehow get the best carriers.

Game wise they currently do.

35 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

well the Japs had better pilots and planes early on in the pacific theather. It was not until after key battles such as Midway when Japanese pilots all died and Americans ruled the sky.

 

Just now, Belthorian said:

I would disagree about the pilot part, the F4F Wildcat was terribly inferior to the Zero and yet our pilots managed to hold their own.

For fighter tactics and training we did have the advantage from the beginning. One thing that initially helped the Japanese but in the end hurt them because of the losses was they were willing to push in closer during their attacks to ensure hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,222
[WOLF3]
Members
6,430 posts
2,396 battles
32 minutes ago, _V12 said:

-Japanese naval aviation was relevant, and on par with American, right up until the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.  The war didn't end in 6 months.  See the battles of Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz especially.  Going into 1943, the Enterprise was the only Allied carrier left in the entire Pacific.

This is generally true, but we were talking quality rather than quantity.  IMO, by the Battle of Santa Cruz (Oct 42), USN carrier aviation had achieved parity with its IJN counterpart (though there were still obvious problems with interception and direction.)  Thereafter it was downhill for the IJN as USN was able to restock not just its carriers and planes, but pilots.  The unsung hero of the carrier war was the static trainer, or Link trainer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Trainer that produced far more capable new pilots.  I believe this was at least as important as the improvements in aircraft at the time.

 

27 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

However, the F4F Wildcat enjoyed a 6-1 kill ratio.

When, and against what?  vs. early war fighters, I seriously doubt that.  (not gonna go looking for stats)

 

27 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

The F6F Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio.

Again, context.  By the time the Hellcat entered widespread service, the cream of the IJN pilots was long dead.

 

27 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Japanese Naval Aviation got seal clubbed from one end of the Pacific to the other. 

Nonsense.  Go read a good book about the carrier war, then come back.

 

Edited by iDuckman
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
776
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,624 posts
5,949 battles
8 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I do not play CV's so I am only parroting what I hear all the time, US carriers are inferior to their Japanese counterparts. However, the F4F Wildcat enjoyed a 6-1 kill ratio. The F6F Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio. Japanese Naval Aviation got seal clubbed from one end of the Pacific to the other. 

Any fighter that goes primarily against bombers should have a wildly positive kill ratio....we only seem to understand kill ratios from a modern fighter-bomber perspective, where everything kills everything (relatively).  In a WW2 context that figure plastered everywhere is silly.

Let's look at it another way: fleet carrier losses up to PS.  

IJN: Four (Kaga, Akagi, Souryuu, Hiryuu), all at Midway.

US: Four (Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp) at separate engagements.

Given "superior" planes, who was clubbing who?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
21 minutes ago, _V12 said:

Any fighter that goes primarily against bombers should have a wildly positive kill ratio....we only seem to understand kill ratios from a modern fighter-bomber perspective, where everything kills everything (relatively).  In a WW2 context that figure plastered everywhere is silly.

Let's look at it another way: fleet carrier losses up to PS.  

IJN: Four (Kaga, Akagi, Souryuu, Hiryuu), all at Midway.

US: Four (Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp) at separate engagements.

Given "superior" planes, who was clubbing who?

Actually, Yorktown and Wasp were sunk by Japanese submarines. Yourtown was heavily damaged by IJN aircraft but damage control efforts were still underway 24 hours after being damaged by the air attack. The Japanese sub I-168 hit the Hornet with two torpedoes, sinking her. The Wasp was sunk by the Japanese sub I-19 after being hit by three torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
776
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,624 posts
5,949 battles
Just now, Belthorian said:

Actually, Yorktown and Wasp were sunk by Japanese submarines. Yourtown was heavily damaged by IJN aircraft but damage control efforts were still underway 24 hours after being damaged by the air attack. The Japanese sub I-168 hit the Hornet with two torpedoes, sinking her. The Wasp was sunk by the Japanese sub I-19 after being hit by three torpedoes.

Note I did say "fleet carrier losses" rather than "fleet carrier kills".  Wording aside, the Yorktown was crippled and more-or-less abandoned due to the air attacks before I-168 came in.  Wasp was entirely submarine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,176 posts
11,693 battles
1 hour ago, Belthorian said:

I would disagree about the pilot part, the F4F Wildcat was terribly inferior to the Zero and yet our pilots managed to hold their own.

The F4F wildcat ended 1942 with a 1:1 kill ratio with the Zero.  I wouldnt consider that terribly inferior.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
2 minutes ago, _V12 said:

Note I did say "fleet carrier losses" rather than "fleet carrier kills".  Wording aside, the Yorktown was crippled and more-or-less abandoned due to the air attacks before I-168 came in.  Wasp was entirely submarine.

Lol true, I think the Yorktown would have been saved, they were making excellent progress until she was torpedoed by the submarine. She still didn't sink for almost another day after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
2 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

The F4F wildcat ended 1942 with a 1:1 kill ratio with the Zero.  I wouldnt consider that terribly inferior.

I am talking about performance, the Zero was faster, it could out climb the Wildcat, it could out turn it. The ONLY advantage the Wildcat had was armor around the cockpit and self-sealing fuel tanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
1 hour ago, BruceC1 said:

I don't even play carriers, but I am really depressed when people say the Japs somehow get the best carriers.

What is even more hilarious is that Wargaming had to put Russian ships that served in the 50's and 60's into the game just so they could have something to compete with the rest of the Worlds World War Two ships lol.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,176 posts
11,693 battles

And that appears to have been enough, according to Dr Friedman's research that the Wildcat and Zero traded at 1:1 with each other.  The Zero was a superior dog fighter.  Period.  When you don't try to dog fight it, its weaknesses show through.  The F4F-3 was just as fast as the A6M2 Zero and better protected.  The USN accepted inferior performance to the -3 for folding wings and 6 MGs.

While the Zero was an excellent aircraft, it built it's reputation at a time when people thought dogfighting was the only answer in air-to-air combat.  Once people stopped playing the Zero's game, it's effectiveness went down drastically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×