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

CV Rework - My Impressions Part Two

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles

Hi everyone! This is going to be a long post, buckle up!

I"m writing this now having played about a dozen battles total. I've played Shimakaze, Ranger, Ryujo, Worcester, Midway, and Hakuryu. I've continued to refine my thoughts on the current mechanics and how this rework is going. 

I'm going to talk about bugs first, and my experience in each ship since I don't think I should generalize much across each ship class, given my recent experiences. I'm also going to list what I think is good and what is bad about the current rework. 

Bugs for Wargaming:

There is a major bug while playing aircraft carriers. If you are sunk while operating a squadron, you can still use that squadron. A Worcester sank me, and I sank him and got the "It's just a flesh wound award" because of this. After my squadron dropped all of it's bombs, the UI, the camera, and the game space basically glitched out. The only UI element that continued to update was the score at the top. I couldn't control anything, and everything was frozen. This bug appears to have messed with my port UI as well, since I could not exit the game normally. I had to task manager it to close the game. I've attached the replay so you can observe the bug. @Radar_X

What's Good about the Rework:

  1. The visuals are on point and don't need tweaking. I run this game on a regular laptop with no graphics card, and have had no noticeable frame drops.
  2. The AA feels very powerful and tends to knock planes out of the sky at an incredible rate. DFAA in particular completely ruins a strike. Ships 3-5 km apart tend to knock planes out of the sky so fast that only one strike per squadron can be launched.
  3. Individual carriers are not omnipresent.
  4. DOT damage is only achievable if you plan your strikes well and pick vulnerable targets. If you take too long to complete a strike, you might lose so many planes you can't complete more than one attack.
  5. Dropping a ship that's aware it's getting dropped is tricky. Simple rudder turns can delay multiple attack runs and force a squadron to spend over a minute in what is generally murderous AA.
  6. Reaction skill is required in the attacks, which makes attacks fun.
  7. American planes appear to have decent balance, even at T10. Their torpedoes and bombs do damage but since they are normal torpedoes and HE bombs, there's little alpha strike potential, especially compared to current carriers. A good Midway torpedo strike is roughly equivalent to landing a citadel hit while playing a Montana or Yamato. 
  8. Carrier sniping is difficult to impossible because of ridiculous CV AA.
  9. Every time you strike a ship, your whole squadron passes the ship, so you have to circle them and spend at least 10 seconds trying to set up another attack. This exposes your planes a to a lot of AA, and if you fly around their broadside, which is unavoidable, they will take a lot of damage. 
  10. Carriers can't straight shut down another player for more than a couple of minutes, even if they drop fighters directly over the enemy carrier.
  11. If you bum rush your planes straight into a bunch of enemy ships and lose them quickly, your next squadron of that plane type will only have a few planes in the new squadron.
  12. Carriers can't one shot destroyers or really do much damage in a direct and reliable way.

What's Bad about the Rework:

  1. The "O" key binding used to open the AA reinforcement menu. The "O" key is far away from WASD and the mouse. I changed the binding to "G" on my computer, which, as far as I know, is not used for anything else. This made focusing AA much, much easier, especially in destroyers.
  2. After a match full of HE spam, most ships have lost so much of their machine gun, non-artillery AA mounts that they are vulnerable to CVs. In addition to this, they have lost most of their health. This is particularly pronounced in the late game, and it allows carriers to mop up the enemy in a disturbingly quick fashion. 
  3. Carriers can linger fighter squadrons over destroyers and enemy carriers for almost 2 minutes. These fighters cannot be shot down or directed by the carrier after called. However, this can easily get both classes of ship sunk by gunfire from surface ships and needs fixing, because a clever CV player can use this in critical moments to great effect.
  4. The potential for CVs in a match to alpha strike ships if they decide to work together. Having 2-3 CVs in a match is a return to the omnipresent status of current aircraft carriers. 
  5. Focusing your AA. This is annoying in that you feel obliged to make turns to present the stronger broadside, which can you get killed. Focusing your AA doesn't seem to have an effect on how fast planes get shot down. This is mostly because the planes are so fast. The AA focusing idea is cool, but might only serve to get less experienced players killed by ending up in a poor position relative to the enemy surface warships.
  6. The Japanese aircraft carriers, in particular the Hakuryu. Their ability to alpha strike ships with AP bombs in particular is exactly what WG should be attempting to avoid. I understand why WG is testing them in the new meta, but these need to go. Once I figured out how to drop cruisers and battleships regularly with dive bombers, alpha striking them was no problem with Hakuryu AP bombers. The fact that I was chased by a Worcester and Yamato in my Hakuryu and I was able to sink them with AP bombers with ease is a problem. They still sank me, but that's not a good trade for the enemy team. Being able to do tons of damage and sink an AA cruiser is not balanced. I don't believe said Worcester in question had DFAA activated, however. A replay of this match is attached. This is the same replay that has the bug.  The deep-water torpedoes are strong, too strong. Their inability to strike destroyers is a non-factor because striking destroyers with torpedo bombers is very difficult to begin with in this carrier rework. It was a weird gimmick that the Hakuryu can have twin engine torpedo bombers that have to drop from kilometers away for the torpedoes to arm, and that the torpedoes go on for 10 km. I hit unsuspecting players kilometers behind my target as a result. As players learn about these torpedoes, that won't be as much of a problem. These alpha strikes planes, the AP bombers in particular, are simply too powerful and easy to use.
  7. The ludicrous speed at which carriers can get a new squadron off and to a target. I realize that the actual number of squadrons a carrier gets off isn't exactly a lot, but it still felt like too much. Even if I lose an entire squadron quickly and get punished with a depleted squadron, I can simply select a new type of bomber and leave with a full squadron. This means that while carriers don't have omnipresence, they can keep the strikes coming all the time, which makes them quite a nuisance. 
  8. The planes are so fast, numerous, and continuous it is very difficult to keep track of planes and ships while playing a surface warship. My in-game immersion while playing surface ships was generally broken because I found it too much to keep track of. Situational awareness is equally hard to maintain.
  9. The carrier's ability to distract surface ships constantly. This is particularly a problem with destroyers. Surface warships need to focus on the other warships around them, and constantly being under air attack not only gets old, it is very difficult to keep track of both the air and the sea. Regardless of the fact that a carrier can't do much to a destroyer directly, being spotted by aircraft constantly means the destroyers are going to takes tons of damage from surface warships.

The Shimakaze:

I found playing the Shimakaze to be fairly similar to before. You run around, capping what you can and torpedoing what you can. I didn't feel like I couldn't do what I normally would in the current game. However, I was spotted most of the match, usually by planes. This is because the enemy Midway constantly attempted to strike the Montana player on my team. Usually the planes would fly over me twice per squadron. The carrier only did 600 damage to me after 3 rocket strikes but I'm confident that any surface warships worth their salt would have sunk me very early in the match because of the spotting. The distraction caused by the planes all match was partially a result of me focusing on testing, but I still believe that the distraction they cause to destroyers is annoying. I realize that carriers can't loiter over a destroyer very easily anymore, but the shear number of squadrons carriers can launch in a single match means you get spotted a lot as a destroyer while the planes are on their way to another target. I definitely got spotted much more by planes in this remake than in the current meta.

The Worcester:

This ship, without any AA specialization, had no problem knocking planes out of the sky with or without DFAA. This is especially true at the beginning of the match. I played the Worcester exactly how I would in the regular game, camping behind a rock. My game play was not affected unless the Hakuryu decided to AP bomb me with my DFAA down. HE spam also tends to knock out so much machine gun AA that the Worcester can quickly become all bark and no bite. The ability of a carrier to citadel an AA cruiser just because its DFAA is on cool down is not good. In its interactions with surface warships, I found the Worcester to be the same as ever, and planes were generally just a nuisance provided I had DFAA up. Given that DFAA has a 2 minute cool down however, there were definitely moments of weakness in the AA cloud.

The Ryujo:

The Ryujo feels like a miniature Hakuryu now that I know what I'm doing. Obviously it's scaled down in every way- raw damage, speed and health of the planes, etc. But it is still vastly superior to the Ranger simply because it can alpha strike cruisers and battleships. This doesn't change the current meta at all, which is a problem. The only class of ship the Ryujo can't one shot are the destroyers and other aircraft carriers, short of detonation. Otherwise, the ship itself is much as it was before: a sneaky, quick, easy to sink ship (with gunfire). In some ways the Ryujo outclasses the Hakuryu tier for tier because it can more easily stack DOT damage because it has more standard torpedo bombers, while still alpha striking capital ships with its AP bombers.

The Hakuryu:

The Hakuryu feels a bit ridiculous right now. It's ability to double citadel battleships with it's AP bombers is completely OP. I've already talked about this in the "What's Bad about the Rework" section quite a bit, so I won't continue to keep blabbing about it. Ultimately this needs fixed, hopefully by replacing the AP bombs with HE bombs.

The Ranger:

The Ranger feels fairly balanced. All of it's planes are on the slow side, which allows the enemy more time to react and shoot down the aircraft. Stacking DOT damage isn't too difficult, but isn't a cakewalk either. I've found that American planes are more vulnerable to AA simply for their inability to get in and out quick at this tier. This should be no surprise given that the planes are F4F Wildcats, TBD Devastators, and SB2U Vindicators. They get the job done, and you don't feel too dirty as you fly away. 

The Midway:

The Midway feels like a proper T-10 aircraft carrier, without being outright overpowered. It's torpedo bombers can do a good bit of damage to an out of position, lone battleship. You drop two torpedoes per plane, but since you have to get much closer to the enemy ship, you generally cannot get more than two attacks off before the rest of the planes get shot down. The dive bombers can stack fires pretty nicely, but like the torpedo bombers, the whole squadron gets shot at continuously while you're striking. My only particular gripe with this ship is that the torpedo bombers give off a bit of an alpha strike feel if you land 3-5 torpedos. I think placing only 1 torpedo on the torpedo bombers would be a simple, effective fix to this.

 

Conclusion/TL;DR:

The move towards making carriers into a support class of ship, who can distract the enemy and intervene at key moments, rather than being omnipresent ships capable of sinking any ship instantly is a great change. The USN carriers feel much more balanced than the IJN carriers because the USN carriers can't alpha strike ships. The AP bombers on the IJN carriers are hilariously overpowered. AA is well balanced, and might need increased in a few cases. The inability for carriers to shut down another carrier is good. Carriers can no longer directly sink destroyers in a direct, reliable fashion, but their ability to spot destroyers and get them killed doesn't seem to have diminished. Carriers can get enemy carriers killed by dropping fighters over them, which is a problem. The constant plane spam from even one aircraft carrier is highly distracting, breaks in-game immersion, and makes situational awareness difficult as there is too much to keep track of. Having 2-3 carriers per match allows carriers to work together for alpha strikes. Even if the 2-3 carrier players don't work together, the fact they have planes all over the map is a return to the omnipresence of current aircraft carriers, albeit in a less centralized fashion. Overall, I think the rework is going in the right direction and is fairly fun to play.

 

For all those interested, I have attached screenshots of my one absolutely ridiculous Hakuryu match, along with its replay. The replay only works for the TST instance of the game.

Hope you all have found this to be informative,

- bacononboat

 

 

image.png

image.png

image.png

20181019_152248_PJSA110-Hakuryu_40_Okinawa.wowsreplay

Edited by bacononaboat
  • Cool 8
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[REVY]
Members
938 posts
7,309 battles

@bacononaboat FYI: I figured out how to reset your AA focus.

For example, you you have 125% on the left, and 75% on the right, click on the 125% and after another countdown, the AA resets to an even 100% left and right.

 

 

 

An issue I have seen/encountered is CV control. If you have a flight out, you are only in control of the planes, you cannot jump between the planes and your CV. So if your CV comes under attack, you basically need to abandon your aircraft (F) and you are back in control of your CV.

 

 

Right now the struggle (at least for me) is getting used to the new method of putting ordnance on target.

For TBs, you really need to judge the lead time and speed of your torps for hitting the target.

DBs of course you have a 'limited' dive time on target before you auto pull out=, so you have to judge where you need to start the dive.  Also rng seems to affect the bomb drops. It reminded me the the Mikasa shells sailing off towards the target.

The attack planes......it's a matter of judging where your target will be when your rockets hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,721
[ARGSY]
Members
5,797 posts
3,966 battles
41 minutes ago, bacononaboat said:

Hi everyone! This is going to be a long post, buckle up!

Thank you for a very well written post. I wish everyone on these boards wrote with the same coherence as you do. Please keep up the good work.

I am not playing the CV beta through lack of time, so any objections I might have are theoretical only. But you have written your conclusions and your thoughts on what needs to happen going forward in such a way that it is possible to have a rational debate around the points of disagreement.

I have a couple of questions out of curiousity.

1) What are the aircraft controls? Particularly, do you have separate control over both speed and altitude when you are not formally on the attack run?

2) Does the control system permit you to crash your aircraft, or do you have automatic terrain avoidance for simplicity's sake? And as a corollary...

3) Does the system allow Kamikaze attacks, or are you restricted to an altitude band just above mast height for any ship that prevents this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,317
[TF16B]
Members
8,063 posts
17,012 battles

@bacononaboat

What you’ve just described confirms two things (for me,) that I’ve been saying;

There’s just as much potential for a skill gap as before; and (again, for me,) the new gameplay sounds boring as hell.

Such fun; a return to the days of carrier snipes because players are too lazy to do anything else.

Still; good write up.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
3 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Thank you for a very well written post. I wish everyone on these boards wrote with the same coherence as you do. Please keep up the good work.

I am not playing the CV beta through lack of time, so any objections I might have are theoretical only. But you have written your conclusions and your thoughts on what needs to happen going forward in such a way that it is possible to have a rational debate around the points of disagreement.

I have a couple of questions out of curiousity.

1) What are the aircraft controls? Particularly, do you have separate control over both speed and altitude when you are not formally on the attack run?

2) Does the control system permit you to crash your aircraft, or do you have automatic terrain avoidance for simplicity's sake? And as a corollary...

3) Does the system allow Kamikaze attacks, or are you restricted to an altitude band just above mast height for any ship that prevents this?

Thank you :) I try to write as well as I can. I'll never be a writer or author, but engineers have to write decent technical papers, so it works out. 

To answer your questions:

1) W increased throttle. This is like redlining the engine, and you can only do this for 5-10 seconds before you have to go cruising speed again for the engines to cool off. S slows down your aircraft while you hold - they speed up to cruising speed almost the instant you let go of it. A is a hard turn left, and D a hard turn right. Your mouse seems to steady the aircraft, and allows for finer aiming, while the A and D keys make large turns. It's kind of weird to get used to. You can't control altitude directly.

2) You cannot crash your aircraft. They simply fly over the terrain.

3) No you can't kamikaze. The planes fly at a level height maybe 2 kilometers above the ships while cruising. The torpedo bombers drop to masthead height during their attack runs. Dive bombers do a steep 70 degree dive that ends at masthead height, and rocket bombers have a gentler 30 degree dive that ends at mast head height. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
7 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

@bacononaboat

What you’ve just described confirms two things (for me,) that I’ve been saying;

There’s just as much potential for a skill gap as before; and (again, for me,) the new gameplay sounds boring as hell.

Such fun; a return to the days of carrier snipes because players are too lazy to do anything else.

Still; good write up.

It can get dull after a while. I wouldn't lose faith yet, because any one of the changes I suggested would dramatically spice it up. This is more like an alpha than a beta right now. The skill gap is nowhere near as severe as it is currently in my opinion. It's much more on par with surface warships. Carrier sniping is extremely hard to pull off, actually, because the AA is so fierce. You can read about the differences between surface ship and carrier AA in my previous forum topic post. Players can also simply return to the carrier, launch a new strike, activate the fighter consumable, and instantly shoot down the entire enemy squadron before it drops. Wargaming went to long lengths to make CVs mostly immune to enemy CVs, in a direct sense. 

Edited by bacononaboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
25 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

@bacononaboat FYI: I figured out how to reset your AA focus.

For example, you you have 125% on the left, and 75% on the right, click on the 125% and after another countdown, the AA resets to an even 100% left and right.

 

 

 

An issue I have seen/encountered is CV control. If you have a flight out, you are only in control of the planes, you cannot jump between the planes and your CV. So if your CV comes under attack, you basically need to abandon your aircraft (F) and you are back in control of your CV.

 

 

Right now the struggle (at least for me) is getting used to the new method of putting ordnance on target.

For TBs, you really need to judge the lead time and speed of your torps for hitting the target.

DBs of course you have a 'limited' dive time on target before you auto pull out=, so you have to judge where you need to start the dive.  Also rng seems to affect the bomb drops. It reminded me the the Mikasa shells sailing off towards the target.

The attack planes......it's a matter of judging where your target will be when your rockets hit.

Thanks for the information, I didn't know that. That will help a great deal. It is kind of strange how you have to give up your strike to pay attention to your carrier, but I think it's fairly balanced in that it stuns or suppresses the carrier, in a bit of a minor way. You can immediately launch more planes and activate the fighter consumable to almost instantly shoot down the entire attacking carrier squadron. It has saved my carrier many times. 

Edited by bacononaboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,721
[ARGSY]
Members
5,797 posts
3,966 battles
12 hours ago, bacononaboat said:

I'll never be a writer or author, but engineers have to write decent technical papers, so it works out. 

Okay, that accounts for the objective (and subjective where it has to be admitted) tone. Not an engineer myself (though I do have an interest), actually a pathologist, so we have the need to write technical/scientific papers in common.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[REVY]
Members
938 posts
7,309 battles

@bacononaboat

I should also add that You can access the map (M button) while in the aircraft. This will allow you to use auto pilot on your CV.
So if while in your aircraft, you notice a ship coming too close, you can jump to the map and change your ships course. Once the course correction is done, you can hit 'M' and go back to the planes with no loss of control or strike package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
271
[SDIWO]
Members
1,031 posts
5,231 battles

Without reading any of the other posts here other than the "after a dozen battles" comment I'm just going to say this: how I felt after 12 battles is entirely different than how I felt after 50. And with how I wasted so many posts on this forum hating on British DDs at first compared to how I feel now....I'd argue in favor of restraint and time.

My #1 issue with the new carriers was the aiming system. I felt like as a carrier I was wasting my time and a spot on the team in terms of damage dealing. But the more I played the more I got used to the aiming and instead of firing off 2 torpedoes and being lucky to land one I'd be consistently landing 2. Instead of my dive bombers hitting nothing I'd get a hit or 3. And you know what it reminded me of? How when I first started playing I'd stay focused on a single target and use the first two or three salvos to figure out the lead and finally be able to hit the target.

There is obviously a lot more work to be done, but this play style is far more interesting than the RTS style and deserves a chance to develop.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[T-R-F]
Members
289 posts
12,248 battles

My opinion on the rework has not changed at all. Even Ichase started gettign bored with the current version of the rework. again this feels the wrogn direction to fix the issue. maybe if they didn't waste manpower on subs they could have come up with somethign better. THough I think the old system jsut needs tweaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,721
[ARGSY]
Members
5,797 posts
3,966 battles
13 hours ago, AdmiralQ said:

My opinion on the rework has not changed at all. Even Ichase started gettign bored with the current version of the rework. again this feels the wrogn direction to fix the issue. maybe if they didn't waste manpower on subs they could have come up with somethign better. THough I think the old system jsut needs tweaks.

iChase got bored quickly; Vulgarr didn't want to put the game down. This is going to be a very YMMV thing.

Just tweaking the old system didn't fix the inherent imbalance between those who can multitask all their squadrons at higher tiers and those whose neural wiring simply can't handle that. IMO there is such a thing as being a born carrier player, vs. someone who tries just as hard but will never be as good, all else being equal. By devoting everything to one squadron of planes, carriers are rebalanced to remove this inborn advantage. I thought as you did once, but now I see what they have done, I can understand why and I agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,910 posts
3,297 battles
On 10/19/2018 at 4:24 PM, bacononaboat said:

The planes are so fast, numerous, and continuous it is very difficult to keep track of planes and ships while playing a surface warship. My in-game immersion while playing surface ships was generally broken because I found it too much to keep track of. Situational awareness is equally hard to maintain.

The carrier's ability to distract surface ships constantly. This is particularly a problem with destroyers. Surface warships need to focus on the other warships around them, and constantly being under air attack not only gets old, it is very difficult to keep track of both the air and the sea. Regardless of the fact that a carrier can't do much to a destroyer directly, being spotted by aircraft constantly means the destroyers are going to takes tons of damage from surface warships.

Welcome to the real world, where if you're under attack by both surface vessels and aircraft, your entire crew is going through heck trying to keep up with what is going on. Carriers of Taffy 3 used their aircraft to harass the Japanese Center Force, to distract them, and to kill IJN Crew members. So the fact that you can linger, I think is a good thing. Harass the ships that have poor AA defenses, that's the way to do it.

ALSO, don't expect the IJN to maintain their AP Bombs. It would be stupid for IJN to have them, since the IJN rarely used them during WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[WOLF8]
[WOLF8]
Members
2,195 posts
3,100 battles

This has been a very informative and fascinating read, even for someone like me who is not participating in the rework test. I started my carrier grind very late, and the rework was announced soon after I did, so I pretty much put it on hiatus until the rework officially happens. I unlocked Ryujo and stopped there, and that's where I currently left it, lol.

My question is this: is there a reason why WG is testing AP bombs with IJN? I thought the whole AP bomb was the USN thing. I would have expected to see AP bombs on USN CV's instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
Members
17,786 posts
5,084 battles

Couple questions:

1. You talk about it taking about 10 seconds to get your planes around for another strike, and having to do it within the target's AA. Would running out straight beyond AA range, and then coming back in, be worth it in terms of time spent vs. planes lost?

2. You mention being able to have your fighters stay over DDs to spot. Do the fighters follow the DD? Or do the fighters follow you? Or do they just come to your location and remain there? Also, do they chase enemy planes?

3.What happens if you have fighters with you, and you run into enemy fighters? Do they "cancel each other out", or ignore each other, or do they attack both you and your fighters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
1 hour ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Welcome to the real world, where if you're under attack by both surface vessels and aircraft, your entire crew is going through heck trying to keep up with what is going on. Carriers of Taffy 3 used their aircraft to harass the Japanese Center Force, to distract them, and to kill IJN Crew members. So the fact that you can linger, I think is a good thing. Harass the ships that have poor AA defenses, that's the way to do it.

ALSO, don't expect the IJN to maintain their AP Bombs. It would be stupid for IJN to have them, since the IJN rarely used them during WWII.

This isn't the real world, this is a game. Battles like Taffy's 3 experience were absolute nightmares, not very common, and were generally avoided by both sides. In terms of gameplay, it's not fun whatsoever - there's a lot to keep track of between the UI, the enemy ships, radar, and ordnance. Currently in the beta, planes take nearly 20-30 seconds to finish all of their attack runs unless a Worcester is there to wipe them out quickly. And there will be another strike on you in about 30 seconds. Carriers tend to tunnel vision on a certain section of the map right now in beta. I don't know if this is because of the fact the planes can constantly be launched or because the players are new and aren't thinking strategically. Either way, it's absurdly distracting, because the planes are overhead all the time. In the current version of the game there's generally two minutes between strikes and the strikes are over in 10-15 seconds. 

The AP bombs definitely need to go. 

Edited by bacononaboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
1 hour ago, Blorgh2017 said:

This has been a very informative and fascinating read, even for someone like me who is not participating in the rework test. I started my carrier grind very late, and the rework was announced soon after I did, so I pretty much put it on hiatus until the rework officially happens. I unlocked Ryujo and stopped there, and that's where I currently left it, lol.

My question is this: is there a reason why WG is testing AP bombs with IJN? I thought the whole AP bomb was the USN thing. I would have expected to see AP bombs on USN CV's instead.

I'm not sure that the current layout of the Japanese and American CVs are supposed to be the national flavor. I think they just wanted to try out some new ideas, and see what happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
1 hour ago, Skpstr said:

Couple questions:

1. You talk about it taking about 10 seconds to get your planes around for another strike, and having to do it within the target's AA. Would running out straight beyond AA range, and then coming back in, be worth it in terms of time spent vs. planes lost?

2. You mention being able to have your fighters stay over DDs to spot. Do the fighters follow the DD? Or do the fighters follow you? Or do they just come to your location and remain there? Also, do they chase enemy planes?

3.What happens if you have fighters with you, and you run into enemy fighters? Do they "cancel each other out", or ignore each other, or do they attack both you and your fighters?

1. It might be if you're looking to harass them. The ability to distract ships in this beta is pretty strong. Ultimately I would say leaving the AA and coming back into it exposes you to it longer, and you'll take more damage. 

2. The fighters seem to stay over a certain area if they don't have planes to shoot. They just hover, basically. A DD can run away from them. They do chase enemy planes if they are in a certain range.

3. I think they cancel each other out. I've dropped fighters in reaction to enemy fighters and boosted my planes away, and only lost a couple planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,910 posts
3,297 battles
1 hour ago, bacononaboat said:

This isn't the real world, this is a game. Battles like Taffy's 3 experience were absolute nightmares, not very common, and were generally avoided by both sides. In terms of gameplay, it's not fun whatsoever - there's a lot to keep track of between the UI, the enemy ships, radar, and ordnance. Currently in the beta, planes take nearly 20-30 seconds to finish all of their attack runs unless a Worcester is there to wipe them out quickly. And there will be another strike on you in about 30 seconds. Carriers tend to tunnel vision on a certain section of the map right now in beta. I don't know if this is because of the fact the planes can constantly be launched or because the players are new and aren't thinking strategically. Either way, it's absurdly distracting, because the planes are overhead all the time. In the current version of the game there's generally two minutes between strikes and the strikes are over in 10-15 seconds. 

The AP bombs definitely need to go. 

For one thing: balance is not the focus of this testing phase. So everything will be balanced properly at a later time.

Second: Having aircraft harass enemy ships with poor AA, that aren't using other ships for an AA umbrella, is a very viable strategy, that should remain in this game. It's the player's fault for trying to be a solo-act in a team game, them being constantly spotted by enemy CV is their punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[SANK]
Members
119 posts
4,576 battles
On 10/19/2018 at 2:24 PM, bacononaboat said:

Carriers can linger fighter squadrons over destroyers and enemy carriers for almost 2 minutes. These fighters cannot be shot down or directed by the carrier after called. However, this can easily get both classes of ship sunk by gunfire from surface ships and needs fixing, because a clever CV player can use this in critical moments to great effect.

This was my experience when I played DDs today. I was almost perma spotted by planes and the other ships focused on me and took me down. The bot DDs that hid behind islands, or played out of range instead of trying to spot for the fleet or push caps lasted longer than I did. I think that current DD play will be similar with the new CVs.

On 10/19/2018 at 3:17 PM, Estimated_Prophet said:

@bacononaboat

What you’ve just described confirms two things (for me,) that I’ve been saying;

There’s just as much potential for a skill gap as before; and (again, for me,) the new gameplay sounds boring as hell.

Such fun; a return to the days of carrier snipes because players are too lazy to do anything else.

Still; good write up.

There can be a skill gap, and I feel like it will be much more of a twitch gap than a multitasking gap. After about 5 games with the carriers, I still could not line up a good DB drop. A lot of times I tried to line it up, the ships would turn and mess up my drop. Other times I would underestimate my drop point, mostly because I was worried the ship would turn out of my drop before I could loose the bombs.

TB drops got to be pretty easy when I figured out leads and drop timing.

Rockets were actually kind of fun and much easier than DB.

I think with practice on aiming things might work out, but I feel like DBs will be the hardest to master.

 

2 hours ago, Skpstr said:

Couple questions:

1. You talk about it taking about 10 seconds to get your planes around for another strike, and having to do it within the target's AA. Would running out straight beyond AA range, and then coming back in, be worth it in terms of time spent vs. planes lost?

2. You mention being able to have your fighters stay over DDs to spot. Do the fighters follow the DD? Or do the fighters follow you? Or do they just come to your location and remain there? Also, do they chase enemy planes?

3.What happens if you have fighters with you, and you run into enemy fighters? Do they "cancel each other out", or ignore each other, or do they attack both you and your fighters?

1. I got to where I would engage multiple targets. Sometimes it became more efficient for me to go after a different target than to circle back and lose planes to AA. Sometimes it was even more efficient to just launch a new flight of a different type of plane. Late in the game, it actually became more practical to circle back for a run.

2. Fighters for the most part, stay where you drop them. They are kind of like an AE dot for aircraft. They will pursue enemy aircraft.

3 From what I have seen, they will engage each other. I am not sure how the AI handles attacking other fighters or attack planes.

Another observation on my part:

One of the biggest problems I had with playing surface ships was when I got dropped by torps. I would turn into the flight of planes shown on the minimap and the torps would hit me from the opposite direction. Another problem I had was that I would hear the torp alert, but could not see where they were coming from before they hit me. In these two situations I had zero chance to dodge the torps.

Problems I see with TB planes:

1. You can juke the warning system so that a player does not know where torps are coming from.

2. It was more efficient for player to zoom out and not engage the enemy ships to have to look where the attack aircraft were and guess where the torps were coming from. Currently with CV/TB I can at least guess where the attack vector is.

3. TBs have no minimum arming distance (That I have seen), so they can drop right on top of you.

Edited by Billy2Hawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,214
[-TAB-]
Alpha Tester
4,072 posts
7,519 battles

Two things I'd like to point out.

First point, we should hold off on pitchfork-raising about the damage, as all damage numbers involving aircraft and AA is seriously inflated on the test server.  For example, Fuso's 127mm dual-purpose guns have 1080 rounds per minute right now.

Second point, the bomber setup on the carriers is for testing: IJN CVs have both AP bombs and DW torpedoes, while USN CVs have HE bombs and regular torpedoes.  They are testing all ordnance types this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
1 hour ago, Counter_Gambit said:

For one thing: balance is not the focus of this testing phase. So everything will be balanced properly at a later time.

Second: Having aircraft harass enemy ships with poor AA, that aren't using other ships for an AA umbrella, is a very viable strategy, that should remain in this game. It's the player's fault for trying to be a solo-act in a team game, them being constantly spotted by enemy CV is their punishment.

It's not a matter of balance when it's a core concept.  And it's also not a matter of playing solo - I was always near other ships. The planes are constantly launched as per WGs thoughts on how it should work so they're constantly spotting and distracting ships. When I played carrier, it was fun. When I played surface ships, it was annoying. 

Edited by bacononaboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[TF57]
Members
496 posts
6,467 battles
1 hour ago, Seraphil said:

Two things I'd like to point out.

First point, we should hold off on pitchfork-raising about the damage, as all damage numbers involving aircraft and AA is seriously inflated on the test server.  For example, Fuso's 127mm dual-purpose guns have 1080 rounds per minute right now.

Second point, the bomber setup on the carriers is for testing: IJN CVs have both AP bombs and DW torpedoes, while USN CVs have HE bombs and regular torpedoes.  They are testing all ordnance types this way.

I think it's amazing how powerful the AA - but objectively, WG stated they wanted to get rid of alpha strikes and focus on DOT damage. AP bombs do alpha strikes, and not DOT damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,214
[-TAB-]
Alpha Tester
4,072 posts
7,519 battles
2 minutes ago, bacononaboat said:

I think it's amazing how powerful the AA - but objectively, WG stated they wanted to get rid of alpha strikes and focus on DOT damage. AP bombs do alpha strikes, and not DOT damage. 

That's exactly why to have both in the test server together, so they can directly compare the results to see how powerful AP bombs still are with the new mechanics.  If they're still doing so much massive damage compared to HE bombs, then I'm sure Wargaming will either remove them or change them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[XBRTC]
Members
1,199 posts
7,172 battles
4 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

ALSO, don't expect the IJN to maintain their AP Bombs. It would be stupid for IJN to have them, since the IJN rarely used them during WWII.

 

ARIZONA and a few of her friends would like to talk to you about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×