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

Proposed addition to Carrier rework

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles

@Radar_X I think CV's should be required to be moving at flank speed to launch and recover aircraft. This will prevent CV's from finding an island to hide behind and be unspotted the entire match. Removing fighters from the game takes away the biggest counter to the CV class. The only way to counter them now is to find them and blow them out of the water. Forcing carriers to me moving constantly will reduce their ability to stay hidden for the entire match and launch strike after strike with impunity.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,947
[PVE]
Members
8,831 posts
7,254 battles

It's an interesting idea, but CVs need to ability to swap between the planes and the CV for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,204
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,168 posts
3,867 battles

Flank speed, no. 1/2 or higher is more reasonable-- because that's generally what they did.

They also turned into the wind, but we don't have wind in this game so that'll have to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles
Just now, KiyoSenkan said:

Flank speed, no. 1/2 or higher is more reasonable-- because that's generally what they did.

They also turned into the wind, but we don't have wind in this game so that'll have to do.

I figure a BB main can ask for realism on CVs as soon as his gunnery is reduced to 'real' as well.  Until then, gameplay > realism, as it is with BB gunnery.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,204
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,168 posts
3,867 battles
Just now, mavfin87 said:

I figure a BB main can ask for realism on CVs as soon as his gunnery is reduced to 'real' as well.  Until then, gameplay > realism, as it is with BB gunnery.

I reload torpedoes, so I guess I don't have any ground to stand on either.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,765 posts
1,320 battles
2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I reload torpedoes, so I guess I don't have any ground to stand on either.

I wasn't really aiming it at you...but you have another point.  

Especially with reload times for 24-inch oxygen-fueled torps.   Those things were damned heavy.

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,026
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,142 posts
8,762 battles

No because of the small size of the maps.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,591
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,741 posts
6,703 battles
21 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

@Radar_X I think CV's should be required to be moving at flank speed to launch and recover aircraft. This will prevent CV's from finding an island to hide behind and be unspotted the entire match. Removing fighters from the game takes away the biggest counter to the CV class. The only way to counter them now is to find them and blow them out of the water. Forcing carriers to me moving constantly will reduce their ability to stay hidden for the entire match and launch strike after strike with impunity.

1) Moving around 1 or 10 line will keep you unspotted anyway. 

2) Sitting still behind an island is actually _worse_ for the carrier than moving. I dont understand why you view that behavior as a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,899 posts
3,276 battles

only if they add subs to the game. Carriers require open water, while submarines restrict waters. 1/4 speed + would be enough, and submarines, become the biggest CV counter in the game. To further emphasize submarines as a danger to CVs, Submarines cannot be spotted by aircraft, regardless if they are on the surface or not. Torpedoes being spotted by aircraft remains unchanged.

Can you see it now? Destroyers instead of pushing forward to get the cap and spot, are now on Sub hunting detail, Cruisers the cap pushers while maintaining anti-Destroyer role. Battleships maintain long range fire, and anti-cruiser detail. CVs are Anti-CV and Anti-BB detail. Submarines are Anti-CV...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
2 minutes ago, vak_ said:

1) Moving around 1 or 10 line will keep you unspotted anyway. 

2) Sitting still behind an island is actually _worse_ for the carrier than moving. I dont understand why you view that behavior as a problem.

Well to clarify I don't play CV's so I may be totally wrong in my suggestion. However the only times I have ever been able to shoot at an enemy CV is when they are moving and it happens to get spotted. I don't ever remember shooting at a CV that is parked behind an island. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
2 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

only if they add subs to the game. Carriers require open water, while submarines restrict waters. 1/4 speed + would be enough, and submarines, become the biggest CV counter in the game. To further emphasize submarines as a danger to CVs, Submarines cannot be spotted by aircraft, regardless if they are on the surface or not. Torpedoes being spotted by aircraft remains unchanged.

Can you see it now? Destroyers instead of pushing forward to get the cap and spot, are now on Sub hunting detail, Cruisers the cap pushers while maintaining anti-Destroyer role. Battleships maintain long range fire, and anti-cruiser detail. CVs are Anti-CV and Anti-BB detail. Submarines are Anti-CV...

The only problem is how are the Subs going to catch the CV? They will have to have the CV literally stumble on them. I am not sure I like the SUb's can't be spotted by aircraft, in the battle of the Atlantic aircraft became the most effective anti submarine weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,591
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,741 posts
6,703 battles
7 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Well to clarify I don't play CV's so I may be totally wrong in my suggestion. However the only times I have ever been able to shoot at an enemy CV is when they are moving and it happens to get spotted. I don't ever remember shooting at a CV that is parked behind an island. 

Okay. Well, I used to play CVs quite a bit. Sitting still is an awful idea, makes you very vulnerable to carrier snipe or an unexpected DD sneaking in, and makes repositioning when a flank crumbles much slower. Good CV players spend most of their time going at half or even full speed. And it's quite easy to no get spotted by the enemy team as you do that, unless you make a very bad mistake.

But I still like your idea, even if I disagree with your motivation for it. I just wouldnt make it completely impossible to launch as you sit still, I'd make the launch speed slower (e.g. 10 seconds to launch a squadron if you're still, and 5 second to launch if you're moving full speed, or something like that) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
14 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Flank speed, no. 1/2 or higher is more reasonable-- because that's generally what they did.

They also turned into the wind, but we don't have wind in this game so that'll have to do.

Half speed I can agree on...I just don't want CV's to be able to hide behind an island and act with impunity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
446
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
1,501 posts
7,359 battles

It's definitely a compelling suggestion, but, having just gone through a weekend of the CV test server, they would need to give us better control of the ship while flying..

I would also think that simply moving should be sufficient, rather than a certain speed.

As for CV camping, it's fairly easy, when looking at the tactical map to guesstimate where the CV is based on plane movement... So, the friendly CV should be able to figure it out and communicate it to the team.

 

This reminds me of a CV consumable suggestion I had a year or so ago....   

"Codebreaker"   When activated, the Enemy CV is spotted for 10 seconds, regardless of their position on the map.

It would have a ridiculously long cooldown, like 3-4mins. And you would only get 2.

It's historically based on the US action at Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,899 posts
3,276 battles
1 minute ago, Belthorian said:

The only problem is how are the Subs going to catch the CV? They will have to have the CV literally stumble on them. I am not sure I like the SUb's can't be spotted by aircraft, in the battle of the Atlantic aircraft became the most effective anti submarine weapon.

Subs not being spotted by aircraft would be a balance feature, and the only reason aircraft became so vital, is because they flew low and at slow speeds, to try and spot the periscope of a submerged submarine. At normal cruising speed, trying to spot the periscope was next to impossible. And heck, Aircraft are incapable of spotting torpedoes, yet they do in this game. So I'm letting them keep their ability to spot torpedoes, in exchange for being unable to detect the submarine that likely launched it.

Then there's also the fact that I am an advocate for submarines having its own gamemode, and not be part of random battles anyway. So I wasn't really making a serious suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
15 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

I figure a BB main can ask for realism on CVs as soon as his gunnery is reduced to 'real' as well.  Until then, gameplay > realism, as it is with BB gunnery.

I didn't ask for simulation levels but if that is the rout you want to go than fine. I will accept battleship gunnery being nerfed to historical levels in exchange for Line of sight radar that is on for the entire match with a range of 40-50k. Battleship secondaries should be buffed to historical ranges and rates of fire. Battleship guns should be buffed to historical ranges. US Battleships would get the MK8 Rangekeeper accurately modeled in game, meaning once a target solution is achieved the guns maintain a perfect lock on the target, changes to course and speed are accurately predicted for both target and your ship so all you have to to is push the button and your shells will only depend on a RNG roll of they hit or not...the aim is automatically taken care of. The West Virginia his her target at the battle of the Surigao Strait on 5 out of the first 6 salvos......the MK-8 allowed for far greater accuracy than was possible with optical range finders.

You can play the realism game all you want...Battleships are ridiculously weak in this game...if you made them "Historical" they would sweep aside all these pathetic little destroyers and cruisers with little or no effort. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
Members
17,755 posts
5,084 battles
41 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Well to clarify I don't play CV's so I may be totally wrong in my suggestion. However the only times I have ever been able to shoot at an enemy CV is when they are moving and it happens to get spotted. I don't ever remember shooting at a CV that is parked behind an island. 

That's because you aren't close enough before you start shooting, and if they get spotted by something unseen, they spook and run.

Nothing like bringing a Bismarck around an island where you know a stationary CV is hiding, using your mains to duel a completely different target, and killing the CV with only secondaries. :cap_rambo:

Really though, it's uncommon. It requires a CV player that doesn't notice he got spotted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
280 posts
5,022 battles
1 hour ago, Belthorian said:

Half speed I can agree on...I just don't want CV's to be able to hide behind an island and act with impunity. 

The very fact that you can shoot down the CV attack squad means they do not act with impunity.

Unless you also think that BB firing from 20km is acting with impunity, or DD doing torpedo runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
2 minutes ago, The_Painted_Target said:

The very fact that you can shoot down the CV attack squad means they do not act with impunity.

Unless you also think that BB firing from 20km is acting with impunity, or DD doing torpedo runs.

Before the Carrier rework I think we can agree the main counter to the enemy CV was your CV using fighters and strafing the enemy CV's planes out of existence. AA was the second counter......not there will be no fighters and unlimited planes for CV's with no hanger limit. So the counter to CV's have been dramatically reduced.

Firing from 20km doesn't make you invulnerable, you can always be blapped by another battleship at 20km. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,204
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,168 posts
3,867 battles
1 hour ago, Belthorian said:

I didn't ask for simulation levels but if that is the rout you want to go than fine. I will accept battleship gunnery being nerfed to historical levels in exchange for Line of sight radar that is on for the entire match with a range of 40-50k. Battleship secondaries should be buffed to historical ranges and rates of fire. Battleship guns should be buffed to historical ranges. US Battleships would get the MK8 Rangekeeper accurately modeled in game, meaning once a target solution is achieved the guns maintain a perfect lock on the target, changes to course and speed are accurately predicted for both target and your ship so all you have to to is push the button and your shells will only depend on a RNG roll of they hit or not...the aim is automatically taken care of. The West Virginia his her target at the battle of the Surigao Strait on 5 out of the first 6 salvos......the MK-8 allowed for far greater accuracy than was possible with optical range finders.

You can play the realism game all you want...Battleships are ridiculously weak in this game...if you made them "Historical" they would sweep aside all these pathetic little destroyers and cruisers with little or no effort. 

You realize all of that, the great difference in hit ratio was from 4% to 5%, right? The Mk8 rangekeeper was not a superweapon. It was literally a 1% improvement.

 

You're usually pretty reasonable, but then you pull this "Historical BBs would be unstoppable monsters" while forgetting that...they kinda weren't. That's why we don't use them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

You realize all of that, the great difference in hit ratio was from 4% to 5%, right? The Mk8 rangekeeper was not a superweapon. It was literally a 1% improvement.

 

You're usually pretty reasonable, but then you pull this "Historical BBs would be unstoppable monsters" while forgetting that...they kinda weren't. That's why we don't use them anymore.

I don't think we know what the hit percentage was in actual combat. The West Virginia was hitting at around a 10% hit ratio. I wonder what the Washington's hit ratio was. CV's led to the end of the Battleship era but in a pure surface encounter the ONLY thing that would stop a battleship was another battleship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,204
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,168 posts
3,867 battles
Just now, Belthorian said:

I don't think we know what the hit percentage was in actual combat. The West Virginia was hitting at around a 10% hit ratio. I wonder what the Washington's hit ratio was. CV's led to the end of the Battleship era but in a pure surface encounter the ONLY thing that would stop a battleship was another battleship. 

Washington hit something like 17 main battery shells out of 119 fired, at a range of 8km with radar guided fire control so the night conditions don't matter.

 

That's "fistfight in a phone booth" range and still a sub-10% hit rate. WV got lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
3 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Washington hit something like 17 main battery shells out of 119 fired, at a range of 8km with radar guided fire control so the night conditions don't matter.

 

That's "fistfight in a phone booth" range and still a sub-10% hit rate. WV got lucky.

Here is a AAR Video for the battle off Empress Bay...where US CL's using radar directed fire control decimated a superior Japanese force.

 

 

It was a game changing technology giving US ships a decisive advantage over the Japanese. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,429
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,203 posts
5,662 battles
8 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Washington hit something like 17 main battery shells out of 119 fired, at a range of 8km with radar guided fire control so the night conditions don't matter.

 

That's "fistfight in a phone booth" range and still a sub-10% hit rate. WV got lucky.

If they hit on the opening salvo at 23 thousand yards and than had a 4% hit ratio I would agree with you. Hitting the target on 5 of the first six salvos is too consistent to be dismissed as pure luck. When I was on the Iowa we were doing extended range experiments and firing the guns with a special 7th powder bag. We set a record for the longest 16 inch shell shot in history. Granted the target was a stationary land target, we still hit it on the first shot. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×