Kaga at Tier VIII with 1944 Planes?

[SuperCustodiam]

Watched Farazellath play the new Kaga in the CV test server and I have to say that Kaga with 1944 aircraft is just not right.

Say what you want about "muh historical accuracy" but geezus christ: we go from having A6M2s, B5N2s, and D3A1s to N1K3-As, B7A2s, and D4Y2s? I don't remember Kaga lasting until 1944/1945 to equip such planes. Since I own Kaga myself, I'm frankly pissed about this change.

At the very least, It should be tier VI with 1941 aircraft, not this hypothetical 1944/1945 airgroup for a ship that sunk in 1942!

And most of these problems stem from this "make CVs even numbered tiers only". I was skeptic about how that would work, but now it's showing it's issues by forcing ships to have planes they never had since they're at tiers that require planes to be beefier else they just get wiped. I understand that it's built to reduce queue times and allow CVs aircraft to be relevant even when they're the low tier but that means that all CVs have to squished into tiers IV, VI, VIII and X and are forced to have planes that can survive those tiers. Now a simple solution would just have Kaga at tier VI, but then it would be a full-size fleet aircraft carrier competing with the Zuhio, Ryujo, Independence, and Ranger, which were either light carriers or rather small fleet aircraft carriers, and it would most likely break the balance in that regard unless there was something to hold it back.

I'm not sure what else to say about this, but I was at least right that when the even numbered tier standardization was announced when the CV rework was revealed that I knew it would cause problems like this.

[New_Horizontal]

10 minutes ago, SuperCustodiam said:

Watched Farazellath play the new Kaga in the CV test server and I have to say that Kaga with 1944 aircraft is just not right.

Say what you want about "muh historical accuracy" but geezus christ: we go from having A6M2s, B5N2s, and D3A1s to N1K3-As, B7A2s, and D4Y2s? I don't remember Kaga lasting until 1944/1945 to equip such planes. Since I own Kaga myself, I'm frankly pissed about this change.

At the very least, It should be tier VI with 1941 aircraft, not this hypothetical 1944/1945 airgroup for a ship that sunk in 1942!

And most of these problems stem from this "make CVs even numbered tiers only". I was skeptic about how that would work, but now it's showing it's issues by forcing ships to have planes they never had since they're at tiers that require planes to be beefier else they just get wiped. I understand that it's built to reduce queue times and allow CVs aircraft to be relevant even when they're the low tier but that means that all CVs have to squished into tiers IV, VI, VIII and X and are forced to have planes that can survive those tiers. Now a simple solution would just have Kaga at tier VI, but then it would be a full-size fleet aircraft carrier competing with the Zuhio, Ryujo, Independence, and Ranger, which were either light carriers or rather small fleet aircraft carriers, and it would most likely break the balance in that regard unless there was something to hold it back.

I'm not sure what else to say about this, but I was at least right that when the even numbered tier standardization was announced when the CV rework was revealed that I knew it would cause problems like this.

Gameplay >> historical accuracy 

You cannot withstand t8 aa with t6 planes. Your planes gonna fall like firefly

[RyuuohD_NA]

55 minutes ago, New_Horizontal said:

Gameplay >> historical accuracy 

>2019 and people still don't understand this very basic concept

[Rouxi]

1 hour ago, New_Horizontal said:

Gameplay >> historical accuracy 

You cannot withstand t8 aa with t6 planes. Your planes gonna fall like firefly

OP said put the ship at t6 so I'm not seeing the problem. Perhaps if you actually read what you were replying to you would know this.

[landedkiller]

1 hour ago, SuperCustodiam said:

Watched Farazellath play the new Kaga in the CV test server and I have to say that Kaga with 1944 aircraft is just not right.

Say what you want about "muh historical accuracy" but geezus christ: we go from having A6M2s, B5N2s, and D3A1s to N1K3-As, B7A2s, and D4Y2s? I don't remember Kaga lasting until 1944/1945 to equip such planes. Since I own Kaga myself, I'm frankly pissed about this change.

At the very least, It should be tier VI with 1941 aircraft, not this hypothetical 1944/1945 airgroup for a ship that sunk in 1942!

And most of these problems stem from this "make CVs even numbered tiers only". I was skeptic about how that would work, but now it's showing it's issues by forcing ships to have planes they never had since they're at tiers that require planes to be beefier else they just get wiped. I understand that it's built to reduce queue times and allow CVs aircraft to be relevant even when they're the low tier but that means that all CVs have to squished into tiers IV, VI, VIII and X and are forced to have planes that can survive those tiers. Now a simple solution would just have Kaga at tier VI, but then it would be a full-size fleet aircraft carrier competing with the Zuhio, Ryujo, Independence, and Ranger, which were either light carriers or rather small fleet aircraft carriers, and it would most likely break the balance in that regard unless there was something to hold it back.

I'm not sure what else to say about this, but I was at least right that when the even numbered tier standardization was announced when the CV rework was revealed that I knew it would cause problems like this.

I am all for historical accuracy, but Wargaming made Kaga tier 8 now to fit in with the new Cv vision and Kaga had a sister CV that could fit this new role at tier 6 that your proposing here. I just can’t remember the name of the sister Cv ship atm. Just let the changes take effect and be patient. I was a little too jumpy on the aresenal and look at how useful it is now in the present.

[RyuuohD_NA]

6 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

I am all for historical accuracy, but Wargaming made Kaga tier 8 now to fit in with the new Cv vision and Kaga had a sister CV that could fit this new role at tier 6 that your proposing here. I just can’t remember the name of the sister Cv ship atm. Just let the changes take effect and be patient. I was a little too jumpy on the aresenal and look at how useful it is now in the present.

Kaga has no sister CVs.

[TheOneAndOnlyHellequin]

23 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

>2019 and people still don't understand this very basic concept

I know, right? I mean, it isn't like we have any other ships in the game that either had refits they never got, or never existed at all, amirite?

 

The reality of the CV rework is that pretty much 0% of the playerbase is happy with the whole thing, and even if they somehow make it perfect, there will always be someone screaming about something. It's just how it is, sadly. Heck, the screaming person could very well be me, ya know?

[Seraphil]

1 hour ago, New_Horizontal said:

Gameplay >> historical accuracy 

You cannot withstand t8 aa with t6 planes. Your planes gonna fall like firefly

New Kaga has the same planes new Shokaku has, but their stats are all modified to be worse than the same planes Shokaku has.

So if they're just modifying the stats of the planes anyway, then why not simply keep Kaga's historical airgroups?

[AlcatrazNC]

1 hour ago, New_Horizontal said:

 

You cannot withstand t8 aa with t6 planes. Your planes gonna fall like firefly

 

Let's not talk about T9-T10 AA with T6 planes

[Umikami]

1 hour ago, New_Horizontal said:

Gameplay >> historical accuracy   You cannot withstand t8 aa with t6 planes. Your planes gonna fall like firefly

 

29 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

>2019 and people still don't understand this very basic concept

 

Here's a concept I do understand; that players at tier 6, facing a tier 8 Saipan, will now be facing tier 10 planes, yet no one is whining about that. Your example is nonsense!

 

So … yeah … let's not talk about tier 6 planes against tier 10 AA, but having tier 10 planes against tier 6 AA, that's just freakin' fine … QUACK!!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

 

The reality of the CV rework is that pretty much 0% of the playerbase is happy with the whole thing, and even if they somehow make it perfect, there will always be someone screaming about something. It's just how it is, sadly. Heck, the screaming person could very well be me, ya know?

The rework, from the outset, has tried to resolve old problems, by creating new problems. I have bought premium earplugs in readiness for 8.0 and the coming months.

[Wolcott]

WG has long moved on from the basic rule that premium ships represent the historical version while tech tree ships are mash-ups of historical and paper/fake refits. Shame about Kaga, but at least they're offering to refund her when 8.0 hits.

[TheOneAndOnlyHellequin]

22 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

The rework, from the outset, has tried to resolve old problems, by creating new problems. I have bought premium earplugs in readiness for 8.0 and the coming months.

Hola, Senor Darth Biscuit Bote! Howeth art thou, this day?

[SkaerKrow]

1 hour ago, Rouxi said:

OP said put the ship at t6 so I'm not seeing the problem. Perhaps if you actually read what you were replying to you would know this.

OP also (rightfully) said that Kaga wouldn't work as well at tier VI because it would be a fleet carrier up against scout/light carriers. Perhaps if you actually read the original post you would know this.

[kgh52]

2 hours ago, SuperCustodiam said:

Watched Farazellath play the new Kaga in the CV test server and I have to say that Kaga with 1944 aircraft is just not right.

Say what you want about "muh historical accuracy" but geezus christ: we go from having A6M2s, B5N2s, and D3A1s to N1K3-As, B7A2s, and D4Y2s? I don't remember Kaga lasting until 1944/1945 to equip such planes. Since I own Kaga myself, I'm frankly pissed about this change.

At the very least, It should be tier VI with 1941 aircraft, not this hypothetical 1944/1945 airgroup for a ship that sunk in 1942!

And most of these problems stem from this "make CVs even numbered tiers only". I was skeptic about how that would work, but now it's showing it's issues by forcing ships to have planes they never had since they're at tiers that require planes to be beefier else they just get wiped. I understand that it's built to reduce queue times and allow CVs aircraft to be relevant even when they're the low tier but that means that all CVs have to squished into tiers IV, VI, VIII and X and are forced to have planes that can survive those tiers. Now a simple solution would just have Kaga at tier VI, but then it would be a full-size fleet aircraft carrier competing with the Zuhio, Ryujo, Independence, and Ranger, which were either light carriers or rather small fleet aircraft carriers, and it would most likely break the balance in that regard unless there was something to hold it back.

I'm not sure what else to say about this, but I was at least right that when the even numbered tier standardization was announced when the CV rework was revealed that I knew it would cause problems like this.

Historical accuracy takes a back seat to game balance what WG views as beneficial for the game. Most can cite a long list of historical inaccuracies and some rather fantasy type abilities some ships have. Remember this is a game, not a simulator.

[Rouxi]

26 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

OP also (rightfully) said that Kaga wouldn't work as well at tier VI because it would be a fleet carrier up against scout/light carriers. Perhaps if you actually read the original post you would know this.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, I never would have seen it without your help.

[RyuuohD_NA]

1 hour ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

The reality of the CV rework is that pretty much 0% of the playerbase is happy with the whole thing

Are you even confident with that number you just mentioned?

Just because you see the forums screaming their heads off the CV rework doesn't mean that everybody hates the rework.

[TheOneAndOnlyHellequin]

4 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Are you even confident with that number you just mentioned?

Just because you see the forums screaming their heads off the CV rework doesn't mean that everybody hates the rework.

Did you actually read what I said? I said pretty much no-one was happy with the whole thing.

 

So yes, I am extremely confident in that number.

[WanderingGhost]

47 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

OP also (rightfully) said that Kaga wouldn't work as well at tier VI because it would be a fleet carrier up against scout/light carriers. Perhaps if you actually read the original post you would know this.

Actually, because of Ranger being moved to tier 6 - that's actually not entirely true. As is Ranger, which is basically the USN's first purpose built Fleet Carrier, that would lead to Yorktown, is basically a fleet CV that could carry 72-86 planes - matched evenly with Kaga's 72-90, and more than Ryujo's, it's current opponent, 30-40 something. So really, size and type are irrelevant in Wargaming's mind. Especially when you consider Saipan which is decidedly not a Fleet CV. Kaga can easily work at tier 6, with tier 6 aircraft, rightfully tier 7 shouldn't be removed in the first place. 

 

The ONLY reason Wargaming is doing this nonsense is because if they drop the ships tier, on a permanent basis, they have to give us dubloons equal to the difference in value from tier 7 to 6 change, which is a headache for them because they've gone with this dumb every other tier thing, and otherwise - they get in legal trouble because of the change, albeit a full refund of the tier 7 price for those that bought it prior to it being reduced to tier 6 and having an issue with it should suffice. 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Who cares where they put it. For reasons there's no need to mention any more, as often as they've been cited, carriers will be a bloody joke after the rework anyway.

As stupidly bland as they're becoming, I may actually be drifting to the the 'just remove them already' crowd.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

Hola, Senor Darth Biscuit Bote! Howeth art thou, this day?

hibernating.

hope all is well with you!

13 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

The ONLY reason Wargaming is doing this nonsense is because if they drop the ships tier, on a permanent basis, they have to give us dubloons equal to the difference in value from tier 7 to 6 change, which is a headache for them because they've gone with this dumb every other tier thing, and otherwise - they get in legal trouble because of the change, albeit a full refund of the tier 7 price for those that bought it prior to it being reduced to tier 6 and having an issue with it should suffice. 

I partially disagree with this. Doublons cost WG nothing to produce, they can print as many as they like, they appear on no accounting ledger. People are rather silly, confusing doublon giveaways with "refunds" which would involved real world money./ But I do agree, that they preferred to uptier, to make the pill easier to swallow for existing owners of these premium ships however.

[TheOneAndOnlyHellequin]

Just now, LoveBote said:

hibernating.

hope all is well with you!

It's been a difficult day/night, but that happens when Mother Nature decides to cycle the weather nonstop for days on end. Aside from that, things are pretty good. :D

[WanderingGhost]

5 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

I partially disagree with this. Doublons cost WG nothing to produce, they can print as many as they like, they appear on no accounting ledger. People are rather silly, confusing doublon giveaways with "refunds" which would involved real world money./ But I do agree, that they preferred to uptier, to make the pill easier to swallow for existing owners of these premium ships however.

I mean more in that aside from straight cash refund for the full thing, for those that trade it in, which is more likely as a tier 6 ship, Wargaming in the past with similar issues across the 3 games has given compensation in gold/dubloons as opposed to "here's 10 of your 60 dollars back), as it is simpler, however it means 10 dollars that your not spending on port slots, conversion, etc now as opposed to keeping the money just for the ship, if that explains what I mean any better. I know what I'm trying to say, likely just not how to.

Also, as a Kaga owner - I'd swallow the pill easier if it was dropped to tier 6 and didn't have to face Iowa's and all and kept the right planes, because while it's loosing a tier, your basically buffing my ship by taking it away from higher AA ships with the lower tier planes that are still historically accurate. But that's me.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Also, as a Kaga owner - I'd swallow the pill easier if it was dropped to tier 6 and didn't have to face Iowa's and all and kept the right planes, because while it's loosing a tier, your basically buffing my ship by taking it away from higher AA ships with the lower tier planes that are still historically accurate. But that's me.

If they dropped Kaga a tier, they'd probably lower its planes a tier too, and then you'd have tier 5 planes in a tier 6 cv facing off vs t8 AA. Part of the charm and fun with Kaga has always been humiliating sinking tier 9 warships with tier 6 planes, they would strive to retain that characteristic (which they have done, in the rework, now t7 planes on a t8 CV, vs t10 AA in random battles).

I just realized, a thing.

Spoiler

If Kaga is going to have tier 7 planes in the rework, then it should be priced, as a tier 7, not a t8/

 

[WanderingGhost]

2 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

If they dropped Kaga a tier, they'd probably lower its planes a tier too, and then you'd have tier 5 planes in a tier 6 cv facing off vs t8 AA. Part of the charm and fun with Kaga has always been humiliating sinking tier 9 warships with tier 6 planes, they would strive to retain that characteristic (which they have done, in the rework, now t7 planes on a t8 CV, vs t10 AA in random battles).

Last I checked, unless they are screwing with things again the A6M5c, there is no tier 7, just the B5N2 from tier 6, and the D3A2. Which, I would still take SOME issue with, but far, far less than what they've currently done. At least for the 2 that'd change, it's just better versions of the right planes. Then again I'm still of the opinion tier 7 should still exist as well. 

And that was never part of the charm for me - the charm was it was Kaga as she was between 7 December 41 and 4 June 42. That she basically had Midway levels of striking power was a loathed and loved bonus (because I'd rather she been more balanced, less devastating to the tier 5-7 ships she saw). I don't care what tier she wrecks ships of, a ship blowing up a ship is a ship blowing up a ship. She was only put at 6 because of her large hanger, just the same as E was put at 8 for the same reason, while both also had tons of lower level planes, but now that Hanger doesn't matter, at tier 6 she pretty much faces every ship or a representative of one at Pearl Harbor. And said ships get a shot at firing back at her possibly.