Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Macsen1961

Seriously?

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
36 posts
2,293 battles

I left the game for a year, and out of boredom, came back, and low and behold, nothing changed.

Not talking about the players, but the freaking tech tree.

Okay, they got the Langley right, CV1 was built on a Collier hull.

The next American Carrier was the Lexington, not the Bogue.  She was originally laid down as a US battle cruiser, but thanks to the Navy Treaty, she was completed as a carrier.  The first true aircraft carrier in the US fleet.

Hell the Bogue and Independence classes were escort and jeep carriers, designed to deal with the UBoat threat in the Atlantic, a way to give convoys air cover in the air gap, and to ferry replacements to the big fleet jobs in the Pacific.

As technology goes, they were technically better than the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown, Hornet and Ranger, just smaller and designed for one purpose, escort.

Lets face it, the only major navy engagement involving these baby flat tops was in the Leyte Gulf.

Even the navy did not consider them fleet anything.

As far as the big tech improvement, it was the Essex class carriers that came off the ways after Midway that was the major jump in technology.

So the baby flattops should have an independent tech line.

As far as the Brits go, ignoring the Battle cruisers, combining the entire British navy cruisers into one tech line, when there was actually three does a disservice to the men who served on them, like the lunatics that fought the Graf Spee off the river Platte.

Then every country has the destroyers and destroyer escorts combined into one tech tree.  Again different ship types for different jobs, and historically about as accurate as Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

Finally, ignoring the Royal Navy air arm is complete nonsense.  The Royal Navy battle wagons may have pounded the Bismark into being scuttled, but it was those wonderful Swordfish torpedo bombers that made it possible, if they had not jammed her steering gear, she would have made France.

Come on guys, if you really want the baby flat tops, then create scenarios where they are actually functional, like escorts in a campaign series.  Christ the developers for world of tanks created a nice huge map to make some of their more crazy tanks useful, do it here.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts

 

Quote

 

I left the game for a year, and out of boredom, came back, and low and behold, nothing changed.

Not talking about the players, but the freaking tech tree.

Okay, they got the Langley right, CV1 was built on a Collier hull.

The next American Carrier was the Lexington, not the Bogue.  She was originally laid down as a US battle cruiser, but thanks to the Navy Treaty, she was completed as a carrier.  The first true aircraft carrier in the US fleet.

Hell the Bogue and Independence classes were escort and jeep carriers, designed to deal with the UBoat threat in the Atlantic, a way to give convoys air cover in the air gap, and to ferry replacements to the big fleet jobs in the Pacific.

As technology goes, they were technically better than the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown, Hornet and Ranger, just smaller and designed for one purpose, escort.

Lets face it, the only major navy engagement involving these baby flat tops was in the Leyte Gulf.

Even the navy did not consider them fleet anything.

As far as the big tech improvement, it was the Essex class carriers that came off the ways after Midway that was the major jump in technology.

So the baby flattops should have an independent tech line.

As far as the Brits go, ignoring the Battle cruisers, combining the entire British navy cruisers into one tech line, when there was actually three does a disservice to the men who served on them, like the lunatics that fought the Graf Spee off the river Platte.

Then every country has the destroyers and destroyer escorts combined into one tech tree.  Again different ship types for different jobs, and historically about as accurate as Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

Finally, ignoring the Royal Navy air arm is complete nonsense.  The Royal Navy battle wagons may have pounded the Bismark into being scuttled, but it was those wonderful Swordfish torpedo bombers that made it possible, if they had not jammed her steering gear, she would have made France.

Come on guys, if you really want the baby flat tops, then create scenarios where they are actually functional, like escorts in a campaign series.  Christ the developers for world of tanks created a nice huge map to make some of their more crazy tanks useful, do it here.


 

 

feel better now?

Edited by Dr_Dirt
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,060
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,892 posts
10,457 battles

So because the developers haven't had enough time to develop extended lines we must complain 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[NZS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
370 posts
9,055 battles

:cap_old:

CV rework is happening, then we'll talk about making escort carriers their own thing apart from mainline carriers.  But I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
694
[5D5]
Members
2,286 posts
14,332 battles

This thread had so much potential based on the title and OP delivered meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,216 battles

The first thing I see is this thread is a guy complaining that the Lexington isn't a tier 5 ship...

 

Gee whiz. Maybe the game is developed  around the idea that sometimes historical accuracy makes for shite games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
774
[SF-A]
Members
2,893 posts
5,694 battles

I'd bet the CV rework comes with exactly that type of scenario, purpose-built for carriers. I would not be surprised in the least if there were a slew of them for T5 through T10 all focused around CVs.

This way, new CV players would learn without dragging their teams down, people can move up the lines to new ships semi-quickly, and devs could introduce a tutorial for manual attacks as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,458 posts
12,318 battles

World of Warship = Video Game (that makes money)

please temper your expectations with this in mind....

If you want a true tech tree - Wikipedia is available for you

Edited by Panzer1113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[POP]
Members
855 posts
9,759 battles

He's been gone for a year, give him room, let him breathe..!!!!

b8OZa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,563 posts
6,867 battles

You know, they really go far and beyond the call of duty to pack in as much historical detail as they can--either direct models based on stats or at least historically-derived elements--but at the end of the day they have a game to manage and evolve. Last time I looked they are still a game company not a Naval Academy developing naval combat sims. They get full marks from myself for balancing the endless gameplay vs historicity conundrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[HINON]
Members
9,019 posts

Hmm it's almost like navies didn't make ships into a nice tech tree from oldest to most recent with them all marked as T1-T10 just so WG could put them into a game.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
912
[NDA]
Supertester, Alpha Tester
5,479 posts
4,069 battles

What is your ideal view of the tech tree? What ship is at each tier in each branch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,174 posts

Not following the OPs line of thought here.  To put the Lexington at T5 would require major nerfs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[2347]
Members
180 posts
5,034 battles

Why does any specific line require a carrier, or any ship type for that matter, in consecutive tiers? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
75 posts
1,474 battles
3 hours ago, Macsen1961 said:

I left the game for a year, and out of boredom, came back, and low and behold, nothing changed.

Not talking about the players, but the freaking tech tree.

Okay, they got the Langley right, CV1 was built on a Collier hull.

The next American Carrier was the Lexington, not the Bogue.  She was originally laid down as a US battle cruiser, but thanks to the Navy Treaty, she was completed as a carrier.  The first true aircraft carrier in the US fleet.

Hell the Bogue and Independence classes were escort and jeep carriers, designed to deal with the UBoat threat in the Atlantic, a way to give convoys air cover in the air gap, and to ferry replacements to the big fleet jobs in the Pacific.

As technology goes, they were technically better than the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown, Hornet and Ranger, just smaller and designed for one purpose, escort.

Lets face it, the only major navy engagement involving these baby flat tops was in the Leyte Gulf.

Even the navy did not consider them fleet anything.

As far as the big tech improvement, it was the Essex class carriers that came off the ways after Midway that was the major jump in technology.

So the baby flattops should have an independent tech line.

As far as the Brits go, ignoring the Battle cruisers, combining the entire British navy cruisers into one tech line, when there was actually three does a disservice to the men who served on them, like the lunatics that fought the Graf Spee off the river Platte.

Then every country has the destroyers and destroyer escorts combined into one tech tree.  Again different ship types for different jobs, and historically about as accurate as Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

Finally, ignoring the Royal Navy air arm is complete nonsense.  The Royal Navy battle wagons may have pounded the Bismark into being scuttled, but it was those wonderful Swordfish torpedo bombers that made it possible, if they had not jammed her steering gear, she would have made France.

Come on guys, if you really want the baby flat tops, then create scenarios where they are actually functional, like escorts in a campaign series.  Christ the developers for world of tanks created a nice huge map to make some of their more crazy tanks useful, do it here.

My friend, I think you need to join the community discord and learn more about the game and boat history from people who have been doing it longer than you, and that know more than you. https://discord.gg/YAMGBsU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,907
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,842 posts
13,059 battles
6 hours ago, Macsen1961 said:

Hell the Bogue and Independence classes were escort and jeep carriers, designed to deal with the UBoat threat

I have never been torped by a UBoat while a Bogue or Independence was on my team.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
36 posts
2,293 battles
5 hours ago, Captain_Dorja said:

The first thing I see is this thread is a guy complaining that the Lexington isn't a tier 5 ship...

 

Gee whiz. Maybe the game is developed  around the idea that sometimes historical accuracy makes for shite games.

Actually, I feel historic accuracy would make for a damn good game.

As far as the Lex being a tier 5, I would say possibly, at the time she was sunk at Coral Sea, however, when she came off the ways, she was hardly the grandest lady afloat.  And only due to the size of her air wing.

She was slower than the Enterprise, Yorktown and Hornet, but bigger than the Ranger.  She maneuvered like the gun platform her hull was meant for, and she was slower than the other three.

And she had the same weakness that the Enterprise and her sisters had, a lightly armored flight deck that were little better than the wood that covered them.

She had been originally built to handle biplanes, light compared to her final compliment.  Her decks would not have handled the F4F wildcat, Dauntless Diver bombers in her younger days, and I am referring to both her flight and hanger decks.

Hell, steel flight decks didn't come around in the US navy until the Essex class carriers, they were wood planking over a relatively thin plate.  The Brits were building better carriers in the late 20's and early thirties, and the Japanese had them all beat by '35.

All of these facts contributed to her demise at Coral Sea.  Her much larger turning radius hampered her ability to avoid torpedo attacks, and her hanger deck ventilation problems (noted before her last refit and ignored due to expediency) allowed for fuel vapors to build from ruptured fuel tanks and explode.

Of course, with the exception of the torpedo hits, the Yorktown suffered just as severe damage and her commander got her back to Pearl Harbor and she met her demise at Midway.

My main point is that prior to the introduction of the Essex, or so called 'Midway' carriers, the US navy carriers left a lot to be desired.  The navy was taking what they learned by looking at other fleet's carrier forces and upgrading theirs as they saw the advantages to this idea or that idea.  The enclosed hurricane deck, a staple on the Royal Navy flat tops because of their operations in the North Atlantic were a part of the Lex and Saratoga but abandoned when the Navy began constructing carriers on dedicated hulls.

CV4, the USS Ranger was the first American carrier built from the keel up as an actual carrier, not converting a discarded hull to use as a carrier.  She was smaller by comparison to the Lex and Saratoga, slightly larger than the Langley, but as far as tech goes, she was miles ahead.

So, if you are looking at the tier system, bigger is not always better, and in fact, is usually worse.  Lex in her prime, was at best a tier four.

And to push this train of thought further, take the Bogue and Independence out of the equation and the tech tree is closer to historic fact, except they have left out the the Yorktown class entirely (Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet) which would have filled in the Tier 7 spot.

Which brings the question, why the put two baby flat tops in a line and leave out the ships that should be there?

3 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

I have never been torped by a UBoat while a Bogue or Independence was on my team.

Again, you missed the point.

Besides, there are no subs in the game, thank god.

Both classes were never meant to be much more than ASW platforms or to ferry replacements to the main fleet in the Pacific, their air wing was incapable of major strikes, and as far as aircraft handling, they really could not launch and recover aircraft at the same time as some of the bigger classes could.

The carriers that came after the battle of Midway were built with the lessons Coral Sea and Midway in mind.  Steel flight decks that were armored, increased anti air protection, larger air wings, and a hell of a lot faster.

5 hours ago, _Starbuck said:

Why does any specific line require a carrier, or any ship type for that matter, in consecutive tiers? Just wondering.

Simple, each ship design was for a specific purpose.

For example, in the US navy, you had light, medium and heavy cruisers, with the light cruisers being primarily scouts and command ships for destroyer groups.  Medium cruisers were designed for aa defense, and the heavy cruisers were designed with the idea that they could help close in support for the big battleships, later during the war, these too were converted to a more air defense roll.

The Royal navy design philosophy was geared toward different escort and patrol duties.  In fact, some of the royal navy heavy cruisers were almost battle cruisers in their own right, mounting 9 inch guns, instead of the standard six inch guns of many cruisers of the era.

Of course, WW2 saw the end of the battleship and the rise of the carrier as the mainstay of the world's navies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
140 posts
12,970 battles

Up-voted for the subject matter, which is near and dear to my heart, obviously!

Down-voted for the ambiguous thread title.

The single most prolific aircraft carrier class in history is not represented in this game, and to me that's an annoyingly confusing oversight.

Of course I'm talking about the Casablanca-class escort carriers. Fifty (50) were built, more than any other aircraft carrier type in the world, ever. But sadly they are not in this game.

And no, a Bogue is not a Cassie! They are not the same ships at all.

I sure would like to see WG offering the Casablanca as a T5 Premium carrier.

Or, as the OP suggests, the US escort carriers could be developed as a separate tech tree line. And I agree that the Royal Navy carrier arm should not be overlooked. The USN Bogue is after all the RN Attacker.

If ever there were submarines introduced to this game then we should really see some attention to the escort carrier types, as they were the primary sub-hunters after all.

(Escort carriers, subs, destroyer escorts, corvettes, tankers and cargo ships -- those are all components of an entirely different game than WoWs as it is right now, but I'd sure like to play it though). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ziggy_Sprague

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,715
Members
18,235 posts
5,205 battles
3 hours ago, Ziggy_Sprague said:

 

Or, as the OP suggests, the US escort carriers could be developed as a separate tech tree line.

How would you do that? What would make the most powerful escort CV any more than a speed bump for a Midway/Hakuryu? 

How would you give ships' AA a fighting chance against a fleet carrier, without an escort carrier being out of planes after a couple of strikes?

12 hours ago, Macsen1961 said:

And only due to the size of her air wing.

So, if you are looking at the tier system, bigger is not always better, and in fact, is usually worse.  Lex in her prime, was at best a tier four.

For the purpose of this game, size of airwing is pretty much all that matters. And Lex at T4? Where ships' AA is largely ineffective? I don't think putting players new to air threats up against a carrier that would have an effectively inexhaustible hangar is very sporting.

12 hours ago, Macsen1961 said:

Which brings the question, why the put two baby flat tops in a line and leave out the ships that should be there?

Because in terms of what matters most in-game, (hangar capacity) they're comparable to Hosho and Zuiho. Or would you have Hosho squaring off against Lexington?

12 hours ago, Macsen1961 said:

 

Both classes were never meant to be much more than ASW platforms or to ferry replacements to the main fleet in the Pacific...

It doesn't matter. In the world this game inhabits, CVs are pressed into service to provide fighter cover, antishipping strikes, and reconnaissance. ALL carriers, regardless of design intent, have these jobs and none other.

Tiering isn't necessarily about timelines. We start T4 with the question, "what is the weakest carrier available to the USN, and to the IJN, in terms of the tasks they need to carry out?" Then the next weakest is T5, then T6, and so on.

Sure, maybe Lex couldn't handle heavier aircraft well. That's ok, if WG can raise WW1 German BBs from the North Sea, and refit them to a ~1939 standard, making the Lex accommodate heavier planes is possible too. Bogue is a CVE? Well, whatever is needed to make it capable of carrying out the desired mission of antiair, antishipping, and recon, (within the limits of the number and type of planes it can potentially carry) it'll be done.

 

 

Share this post


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

15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

Since I work for Allstate am obligated to boo that post lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
71 posts
4,215 battles
21 hours ago, Macsen1961 said:

I left the game for a year, and out of boredom, came back, and low and behold, nothing changed.

Not talking about the players, but the freaking tech tree.

Okay, they got the Langley right, CV1 was built on a Collier hull.

The next American Carrier was the Lexington, not the Bogue.  She was originally laid down as a US battle cruiser, but thanks to the Navy Treaty, she was completed as a carrier.  The first true aircraft carrier in the US fleet.

Hell the Bogue and Independence classes were escort and jeep carriers, designed to deal with the UBoat threat in the Atlantic, a way to give convoys air cover in the air gap, and to ferry replacements to the big fleet jobs in the Pacific.

As technology goes, they were technically better than the Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown, Hornet and Ranger, just smaller and designed for one purpose, escort.

Lets face it, the only major navy engagement involving these baby flat tops was in the Leyte Gulf.

Even the navy did not consider them fleet anything.

As far as the big tech improvement, it was the Essex class carriers that came off the ways after Midway that was the major jump in technology.

So the baby flattops should have an independent tech line.

As far as the Brits go, ignoring the Battle cruisers, combining the entire British navy cruisers into one tech line, when there was actually three does a disservice to the men who served on them, like the lunatics that fought the Graf Spee off the river Platte.

Then every country has the destroyers and destroyer escorts combined into one tech tree.  Again different ship types for different jobs, and historically about as accurate as Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

Finally, ignoring the Royal Navy air arm is complete nonsense.  The Royal Navy battle wagons may have pounded the Bismark into being scuttled, but it was those wonderful Swordfish torpedo bombers that made it possible, if they had not jammed her steering gear, she would have made France.

Come on guys, if you really want the baby flat tops, then create scenarios where they are actually functional, like escorts in a campaign series.  Christ the developers for world of tanks created a nice huge map to make some of their more crazy tanks useful, do it here.

It's almost as if World of Warships is an arcade video game that isn't supposed to be 100% historically accurate. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
36 posts
2,293 battles
On 5/15/2018 at 1:44 PM, Skpstr said:

How would you do that? What would make the most powerful escort CV any more than a speed bump for a Midway/Hakuryu? 

How would you give ships' AA a fighting chance against a fleet carrier, without an escort carrier being out of planes after a couple of strikes?

For the purpose of this game, size of airwing is pretty much all that matters. And Lex at T4? Where ships' AA is largely ineffective? I don't think putting players new to air threats up against a carrier that would have an effectively inexhaustible hangar is very sporting.

Because in terms of what matters most in-game, (hangar capacity) they're comparable to Hosho and Zuiho. Or would you have Hosho squaring off against Lexington?

It doesn't matter. In the world this game inhabits, CVs are pressed into service to provide fighter cover, antishipping strikes, and reconnaissance. ALL carriers, regardless of design intent, have these jobs and none other.

Tiering isn't necessarily about timelines. We start T4 with the question, "what is the weakest carrier available to the USN, and to the IJN, in terms of the tasks they need to carry out?" Then the next weakest is T5, then T6, and so on.

Sure, maybe Lex couldn't handle heavier aircraft well. That's ok, if WG can raise WW1 German BBs from the North Sea, and refit them to a ~1939 standard, making the Lex accommodate heavier planes is possible too. Bogue is a CVE? Well, whatever is needed to make it capable of carrying out the desired mission of antiair, antishipping, and recon, (within the limits of the number and type of planes it can potentially carry) it'll be done.

 

 

Uh, I guess you forgot that in the years prior to 1940, Japan was building some fairly large carriers, or did you think that that six used at Pearl Harbor were launched in January, 1941?

While the first ship in the world to be laid down as a carrier, and for the Imperial fleet became littler more than a test bed before the war, an escort during the war, and one of the few Japanese carriers to survive the war.  In point of fact, she was essentially obsolete by the time Lex hit the water, and the Japanese responded with their big flat top design projects.

What I am saying is that instead of the baby flat tops, put the classes that should have been in the tree in the first place, in the US and Japanese Carrier lines, and I am still trying to figure out the logic of completely neglecting the Royal Navy Carriers, battle cruisers (except the premium HMS Hood) which is a disservice to the Royal Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[H-W-C]
Members
1,262 posts
3,355 battles
14 minutes ago, Macsen1961 said:

Uh, I guess you forgot that in the years prior to 1940, Japan was building some fairly large carriers, or did you think that that six used at Pearl Harbor were launched in January, 1941?

While the first ship in the world to be laid down as a carrier, and for the Imperial fleet became littler more than a test bed before the war, an escort during the war, and one of the few Japanese carriers to survive the war.  In point of fact, she was essentially obsolete by the time Lex hit the water, and the Japanese responded with their big flat top design projects.

What I am saying is that instead of the baby flat tops, put the classes that should have been in the tree in the first place, in the US and Japanese Carrier lines, and I am still trying to figure out the logic of completely neglecting the Royal Navy Carriers, battle cruisers (except the premium HMS Hood) which is a disservice to the Royal Navy.

And now, all you have to do is balance the carriers with 70+ aircraft capacity carrying powerful WW2-era aircraft with the WW1 era armoured cruisers that were lucky to get some guy in the crow's nest with a revolver! Yaaaaayyyy!

But if you really want tiers arranged by the year said ship entered service, then great. I'm sure this would just fit perfectly at the same tier as this.

Every ship type in this game (destroyer, cruiser, battleship, carrier) in this game have the same purpose, to sink enemy surface ships through guns, bombs, and torpedoes. Specialized roles like escort carriers, antisubmarine destroyers, and the like all have to do this, as the roles they were designed to fulfill to not exist in game, so therefore ships are tiered by their strength in surface combat, or their aircraft capacity, not the year they entered service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,225
[WOLF3]
Members
6,438 posts
2,396 battles
1 hour ago, Macsen1961 said:

and I am still trying to figure out the logic of completely neglecting the Royal Navy Carriers, battle cruisers (except the premium HMS Hood) which is a disservice to the Royal Navy.

Likely that WG is holding off add any new carriers until the rework is complete.  Besides, as warpath mentioned, they don't really fit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×