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

Why CV's don't belong

128 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

30
[MOOBS]
Members
38 posts
3,776 battles

real simple post.

1: Carriers replaced battle ships as the primary means of naval combat.

2: Battleship play is the heart and soul of wows in it's current life cycle (I am a DD captain who doesn't even really dig bb gameplay but I know without it the game doesn't really exist)

3: history not learned from is doomed to repeat itself.

I don't mean to offend or alienate CV players my best friend is a CV captain he is disabled with MS and they are what allows him to play. It is hard for me to admit this because this is the one game we can play together where he can be competitive and we have a great time. Personally I really enjoy CV combat, I look forward to trying out the new CV changes. Make a new game call it world of Carriers make it an RTS game and it will do well, remove them from wows before they really do the game in. They are a waste of development time that could be spent else where.

  • Cool 26
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,825 posts
3,977 battles

you contradicted yourself.

1: Carriers replaced battle ships as the primary means of naval combat.

it's world of WARSHIPS, not world of BATTLESHIPS. last time i heard,aircraft carriers are not ocean liners,or tugboats,they are WARSHIPS.

the worst part is people trying to compare the ARTY from world of tanks with CVs.

artillery are not tanks,they are SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY.

 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,209 posts
4,051 battles
39 minutes ago, mrdragonfell said:

real simple post.

1: Carriers replaced battle ships as the primary means of naval combat.

2: Battleship play is the heart and soul of wows in it's current life cycle (I am a DD captain who doesn't even really dig bb gameplay but I know without it the game doesn't really exist)

3: history not learned from is doomed to repeat itself.

I don't mean to offend or alienate CV players my best friend is a CV captain he is disabled with MS and they are what allows him to play. It is hard for me to admit this because this is the one game we can play together where he can be competitive and we have a great time. Personally I really enjoy CV combat, I look forward to trying out the new CV changes. Make a new game call it world of Carriers make it an RTS game and it will do well, remove them from wows before they really do the game in. They are a waste of development time that could be spent else where.

The major issue I take with this is that some nations devoted time and available weight to AA and armor with CVs in mind. Whereas some nations just planned for WW1 mark 2 with regard to their warships.

So why should forward thinking navys be punished because they didn't just upgrade their WW1 ships?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[KRAK]
Members
938 posts
12,979 battles
51 minutes ago, mrdragonfell said:

real simple post.

1: Carriers replaced battle ships as the primary means of naval combat.

2: Battleship play is the heart and soul of wows in it's current life cycle (I am a DD captain who doesn't even really dig bb gameplay but I know without it the game doesn't really exist)

3: history not learned from is doomed to repeat itself.

I don't mean to offend or alienate CV players my best friend is a CV captain he is disabled with MS and they are what allows him to play. It is hard for me to admit this because this is the one game we can play together where he can be competitive and we have a great time. Personally I really enjoy CV combat, I look forward to trying out the new CV changes. Make a new game call it world of Carriers make it an RTS game and it will do well, remove them from wows before they really do the game in. They are a waste of development time that could be spent else where.

How does a certain type of warship not belong in World of Warships?

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
984 posts
5,698 battles

1. Grasp of history: C-

2. Applicability of historical analogy to game: D-

There. This post is "constructive." It offers specific evaluation of the OP's points, with which the OP may improve his opinions and perspective in the future.

1 hour ago, Vaffu said:

How does a certain type of warship not belong in World of Warships?

What did Shakespeare say? Oh, yeah: "Methinks the OP doth protest too much."

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[NOBS]
Members
471 posts
5,470 battles

Never really cared about cv's in random battles, but the cv's in ranked are costing teams games. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
6,373 battles
1 hour ago, Vaffu said:

How does a certain type of warship not belong in World of Warships?

They don't belong  because World of Warships is a game about fleet battles and carriers removed fleet battles from naval warfare. Carriers didn't just make BBs obsolete, they changed naval warfare completely, no longer did fleets engage each other, the carrier did the attacking and all other ship types became all about protecting the carrier from aircraft and subs. This is the reason its so hard to balance CVs in game, because they are opposite fighting styles. Same for subs which is why i don't want them in the game because of opposite fighting styles they are going to be very hard or impossible to balance for fleet battles. 

  • Cool 12
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,825 posts
3,977 battles
12 minutes ago, bohica_2017 said:

They don't belong  because World of Warships is a game about fleet battles and carriers removed fleet battles from naval warfare. Carriers didn't just make BBs obsolete, they changed naval warfare completely, no longer did fleets engage each other, the carrier did the attacking and all other ship types became all about protecting the carrier from aircraft and subs. This is the reason its so hard to balance CVs in game, because they are opposite fighting styles. Same for subs which is why i don't want them in the game because of opposite fighting styles they are going to be very hard or impossible to balance for fleet battles. 

fleet battles still exist,you need to defeat the fleet so you can get to the king(aircraft carrier). destroyers  have mutiple roles too,they are not only made to bodyguard the aircraft carrier.

JESUS,what did i just read?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
282 posts
5,030 battles
27 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

fleet battles still exist,you need to defeat the fleet so you can get to the king(aircraft carrier). destroyers  have mutiple roles too,they are not only made to bodyguard the aircraft carrier.

JESUS,what did i just read?

BB main upset about something that countered them?

DD player who doesnt rely on teammates or mix up tactics when a CV is present?

Cruiser player who doesnt take DFAA or spec AA?

Below average or new player who has yet to learn about CVs and the things that counter them?

I dunno, pick one. Most of the anti cv arguments come from people who have very little experience with them, be it playing as or against.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
6,373 battles
2 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

fleet battles still exist,you need to defeat the fleet so you can get to the king(aircraft carrier). destroyers  have mutiple roles too,they are not only made to bodyguard the aircraft carrier.

JESUS,what did i just read?

Destroyers are multi-role now due to how much it costs to deploy a CV task force and not requiring that amount of force. A fleet battle before CVs involved capital ships engaging each other with guns insight of each other, now the term applies to CVs attacking or missile launches out of sight of enemy ships. DDs, frigates, missile boats fighting each other not fleet battles by definition. There are very few navies that have capitol ships any and can force project outside their own waters. The vast majority of only have DDs or smaller. I served in the military for a long time and have seen combat, I'm not somebody who just dabbles in military history. Also it's been a long time since there has been a fleet battle and now that i'm thinking about not since WW2 , the koreans didn't have a navy, veitnam didn't have a navy, falklands was mainly land based aircraft vs british fleet, as most battles involving CVs now days are attacking land based targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,825 posts
3,977 battles
2 minutes ago, The_Painted_Target said:

BB main upset about something that countered them?

DD player who doesnt rely on teammates or mix up tactics when a CV is present?

Cruiser player who doesnt take DFAA or spec AA?

Below average or new player who has yet to learn about CVs and the things that counter them?

I dunno, pick one. Most of the anti cv arguments come from people who have very little experience with them, be it playing as or against.

i sometimes think the anti CV faction is made of people that WANT the battleships to come back as warships in a age where missiles are king.

"b-but,what about the railguns?" the moment we find a way to power them without a big [edited]powerplant,the navy will find a way to put railguns on smaller ships.

same way i see the future of CVs will be smaller CVs instead of the current behemoths.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,059
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,670 posts
9,998 battles

People don't really like things they perceive as unfair or too difficult to fight back against.

  • The French would cut off the trigger fingers of English Archers they captured in the days of Agincourt
  • Snipers in WWII were pretty frequently executed if captured
  • Downed bomber crews might be in deep trouble
  • Carriers in WOWS are complained about

It's somewhat inevitable.

3 hours ago, StoneRhino said:

The major issue I take with this is that some nations devoted time and available weight to AA and armor with CVs in mind. Whereas some nations just planned for WW1 mark 2 with regard to their warships.

So why should forward thinking navys be punished because they didn't just upgrade their WW1 ships?

AA or being balanced for AA doesn't matter much. Des Moines was still a popular choice in every season of CB (where there are no carriers) despite wasting tonnage on AA. Montana was the most played ship, again despite the lack of carriers.

Carriers are so infrequent the game is basically balanced without them.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[WOLF9]
Members
1,031 posts
3 hours ago, Cruxdei said:

you contradicted yourself.

1: Carriers replaced battle ships as the primary means of naval combat.

it's world of WARSHIPS, not world of BATTLESHIPS. last time i heard,aircraft carriers are not ocean liners,or tugboats,they are WARSHIPS.

the worst part is people trying to compare the ARTY from world of tanks with CVs.

artillery are not tanks,they are SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY.

 

And the carrier is a floating service station, not a warship. It's purpose is to carry(hence the name) aircraft that do the fighting.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,825 posts
3,977 battles
12 minutes ago, bohica_2017 said:

Destroyers are multi-role now due to how much it costs to deploy a CV task force and not requiring that amount of force. A fleet battle before CVs involved capital ships engaging each other with guns insight of each other, now the term applies to CVs attacking or missile launches out of sight of enemy ships. DDs, frigates, missile boats fighting each other not fleet battles by definition. There are very few navies that have capitol ships any and can force project outside their own waters. The vast majority of only have DDs or smaller. I served in the military for a long time and have seen combat, I'm not somebody who just dabbles in military history. Also it's been a long time since there has been a fleet battle and now that i'm thinking about not since WW2 , the koreans didn't have a navy, veitnam didn't have a navy, falklands was mainly land based aircraft vs british fleet, as most battles involving CVs now days are attacking land based targets.

you might be seeing it with the us navy mindset,a lot of navies have destroyers(some european countries call them frigates instead) and they don't have CVs to deploy. they are multi-role because it's cheaper to make a multi-role small ship ,just like MBT,no need for "light" tank,"medium" tank or "heavy" tank. to tell the truth,class designations are not so reliable nowadays.

6 minutes ago, Doombeagle said:

And the carrier is a floating service station, not a warship. It's purpose is to carry(hence the name) aircraft that do the fighting.

very funny,i'm literally dying laughing here right now.

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,635 posts
13,459 battles
19 minutes ago, mofton said:

Carriers are so infrequent the game is basically balanced without them.

I play mid-tiers 6-7 and all this weekend I've yet to be  in a match that didn't have 1 CV per team. And at least once, 2 CVs per team.

CV play is not "infrequent".

Edited by ReddNekk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
6,373 battles
3 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

you might be seeing it with the us navy mindset,a lot of navies have destroyers(some european countries call them frigates instead) and they don't have CVs to deploy. they are multi-role because it's cheaper to make a multi-role small ship ,just like MBT,no need for "light" tank,"medium" tank or "heavy" tank. to tell the truth,class designations are not so reliable nowadays.

very funny,i'm literally dying laughing here right now.

I agree. the games concept tho is fleet battles with capital ships engaging each other, which was what i meant about CVs not fitting in World of Warships. Also just FYI not usn mind set for me but navies who force project into other regions of the world mindset, tho there are a lot of usn mindset out there.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,403 posts
5,421 battles

Did WG ever have a survey of HAVING or NOT HAVING CVs IN Game?   I know the CV player population is small but I wonder if WG ever had a questionaire in game after a battle as to  Yeah or No on CV existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,059
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,670 posts
9,998 battles
Just now, ReddNekk said:

I play mid-tiers (6-7) and all this weekend I've yet to be  in a match that didn't have 1 CV per team. And at least once, 2 cvs per team.

CV play is not "infrequent".

Well, your experience is very different to mine. I've been logging my T9 games as I grind - 1 carrier in the last 10 games. Overall 5 carriers in the last 25 games.

At mid-tiers they are more common, but I still don't expect to see them, in part perhaps because of when I'm online. At T7 the average plane shoot downs/game is <1 for cruisers, with even the powerhouse Atlanta claiming just 2.36. Given aircraft carriers at T7 have >40 aircraft and shooting down at least a couple per attack is normal I'd conclude that carriers are pretty infrequent, if carriers were frequent, Atlanta would get far more than 2.36 per battle.

There are 5 T7 cruisers, 4 T7 battleships and 3 T7 destroyers with more games played than the most popular T7 carrier, which has been out for the whole life of the game. Fiji has already had more games than Ranger, despite being out for far shorter.

Low player uptake was specifically mentioned by developers as a key issue with the type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,209 posts
4,051 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

People don't really like things they perceive as unfair or too difficult to fight back against.

  • The French would cut off the trigger fingers of English Archers they captured in the days of Agincourt
  • Snipers in WWII were pretty frequently executed if captured
  • Downed bomber crews might be in deep trouble
  • Carriers in WOWS are complained about

It's somewhat inevitable.

AA or being balanced for AA doesn't matter much. Des Moines was still a popular choice in every season of CB (where there are no carriers) despite wasting tonnage on AA. Montana was the most played ship, again despite the lack of carriers.

Carriers are so infrequent the game is basically balanced without them.

USN BBs and cruisers have had a few buffs to help bring them up to speed despite being purposely nerfed in other areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
1 hour ago, Cruxdei said:

same way i see the future of CVs will be smaller CVs instead of the current behemoths.

Smaller carriers aren't as cost effective as large CVs per tonnage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
134
[VIP-2]
Members
804 posts
2,827 battles
41 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Smaller carriers aren't as cost effective as large CVs per tonnage.

Truth.

Ford's are about 13B, a few years ago they did a research proposal for a mini cv, it cost like 7, and had 1/4 the capability.

Interesting side note... the cost to dismantle the Independence ballooned to roughly 1.5B. At that cost, there are plans being dreamt to rehab it somehow. I dont know for sure but i think it cost about the same to build the ship originally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
3 minutes ago, c3shooter said:

Truth.

Ford's are about 13B, a few years ago they did a research proposal for a mini cv, it cost like 7, and had 1/4 the capability.

Interesting side note... the cost to dismantle the Independence ballooned to roughly 1.5B. At that cost, there are plans being dreamt to rehab it somehow. I dont know for sure but i think it cost about the same to build the ship originally.

I dislike the Ford. Why couldn't you say Nimitz lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[KRAK]
Members
938 posts
12,979 battles
3 hours ago, bohica_2017 said:

They don't belong  because World of Warships is a game about fleet battles and carriers removed fleet battles from naval warfare. Carriers didn't just make BBs obsolete, they changed naval warfare completely, no longer did fleets engage each other, the carrier did the attacking and all other ship types became all about protecting the carrier from aircraft and subs. This is the reason its so hard to balance CVs in game, because they are opposite fighting styles. Same for subs which is why i don't want them in the game because of opposite fighting styles they are going to be very hard or impossible to balance for fleet battles. 

Both teams have a CV so it is plenty fair, it is not like only one team has one. CVs are a Warship by definition. Makes perfect sense they are in game.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,635 posts
13,459 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

At mid-tiers they are more common, but I still don't expect to see them, in part perhaps because of when I'm online. At T7 the average plane shoot downs/game is <1 for cruisers, with even the powerhouse Atlanta claiming just 2.36. Given aircraft carriers at T7 have >40 aircraft and shooting down at least a couple per attack is normal I'd conclude that carriers are pretty infrequent, if carriers were frequent, Atlanta would get far more than 2.36 per battle.

That's assuming that there's Atlantas in every battle, which there aren't. In matches where there's CVs and Atlantas, the Atlantas are carefully avoided by CV drivers for good reason. Plus, in most battles that I've been in where Atlanta was present, there were no CVs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×