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

Akagi?

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
14 posts
312 battles

I've been thinking about the Akagi as a T8 Premium Japanese CV. I mean, the USN has Saipan and Enterprise as T7 and T8 CVs, So the IJN side should have it too. (And also it'd be easier to recreate the battle of Midway.)

Edit: And also maybe The Akagi should have AP bombs since all T8 premium CVs so far have AP Bombs.

Edited by TheHamOfAllHams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[HYDRO]
Members
1,859 posts
3,961 battles

I believe until the CV reform that is currently tested by WG, no CVs will be introduced. More so when it comes to premium ones.There is the danger of having to issue too many refunds due to the gameplay changing drastically. So while Akagi would be fine, we wont see her for a while methinks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[YAN]
Members
1,643 posts
7,793 battles

Akagi? Not right now, no.

Not including all the CV Rework and Graf Zeppelin stuff etc. I feel Akagi is more suited for other places.

1. Introduce her later as a triple flight deck carrier, its a unique design and provides its own, historical gimmick for her to play with. We don't have many multi-flight deck ships, so I think capitalizing on those we can is a good idea.
2. Introduce her as a CV split line for the IJN, we have enough carriers to do these and Akagi would certainly fit in.

Honestly, while I would love to see more IJN CVs introduced, looking at you Shinano, I don't feel the game needs nor wants more CVs. Right now CVs are in an incredibly unhealthy state, and I don't think premium carriers are going to help that at all
in that regard I also believe that introducing Akagi now would leave her in a horribly balanced state in either way, waiting until the CV rework and if that's successful in making CVs into a healthy place I think that premium carriers could be made to more healthy and enjoyable for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,439
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,315 posts
9,621 battles

What the others have said plus she was the class ship which WG tries to avoid using as premiums but being a class of one this would be less of an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,776
[OO7]
Members
3,307 posts
9,766 battles
1 hour ago, TheHamOfAllHams said:

I've been thinking about the Akagi as a T8 Premium Japanese CV. I mean, the USN has Saipan and Enterprise as T7 and T8 CVs, So the IJN side should have it too. (And also it'd be easier to recreate the battle of Midway.)

You'd have to leave realism far behind to do that in the first place in this game, so just use the carriers in the game and pretend that they are the carriers you want them to be, just like pretending 36x36km was the battle distance as that is all you will have when playing on ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,115
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,339 posts
11,865 battles
1 hour ago, Ducky_shot said:

You'd have to leave realism far behind to do that in the first place in this game, so just use the carriers in the game and pretend that they are the carriers you want them to be, just like pretending 36x36km was the battle distance as that is all you will have when playing on ocean.

In beta, we did a Midway recreation:  Three rangers vs four Hiryus + various supporting ships.  The organizers stacked the IJN team by subbing in Mogamis for the two Tones as well.  The better players all played IJN too.  It went about how you'd expect.  They should have used 3 Lexingtons instead of Rangers; for the rematch, we subbed in 1 lex and two rangers and the IJN curbstomped again.

It would be interesting to see it done now, 3 Enterprise vs 2 Kaga, 2 Hiryu + supporting ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×