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

CV Change Ideas

4 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,878 posts
9,937 battles

I know I'm going to regret this, but since a lot of threads seem to be getting a little hot between the CV beta live-testing and the current proposal for Giulio Cesare.

Anyways, I honestly confess that I liked CVs in their original form. I ground out both lines and bought the three premiums (only reason I didn't get the GZ is because I saw Mouse's post on it). But at the same time, I could see some of the problems with it and I do enjoy the new mode more. It's much more immersive and allows you to play with more similarity to the other ships. That said, you'd have to be blind and deaf not to know of just how crazy things have gotten. I personally think on some level that it's partially due to a flood of players trying out the new mode, but it does highlight the problems that CVs have that may not have been recognizable if we saw them in numbers comparable to before the rework. Based on my observations, I think the issues can be narrowed down to a few broad categories: Detection, AA, F-key spaming, and CV Positioning.


For Detection, this is obviously a problem, especially for DD players since the speed of aircraft means DDs have little opportunity to avoid aircraft that come right at them and even the stealthiest DD can still be kept easily spotted if a CV player so choose. More to the point, it causes the DDs to lose a large advantage right out of the gate, which is leaving the enemy guessing where they are. Perma-spotting is a problem for destroyers especially because few, if any, have real AA ability. This is partially due to wargaming arbitrarily deciding that the number and type of guns is an automatic indicator of your AA strength. Forgetting that a destroyer in this game is more representative of a squadron of destroyers (with torp reloads and all).

Cruisers also have a similar problem since when a BB is blasting you in a cruiser your best bet is usually just to cease fire and run. Of course while a DD is probably only going to be spotted by a CV briefly (unless said CV intelligently decides to go for him), most cruisers have aerial detection that means they can be spotted much more easily. To me, the best thing for both these classes would probably be to decrease their aerial detection by large amounts. While this is hardly historically accurate, I say that should be sacrificed in favor of making a game that is enjoyable for both sides of the equation.

For a destroyer, their aerial detect should be minimal, to the point that (discounting unique cases like Khab and other very large DDs) a carrier would require another ship to be spotting the destroyer in order to attack it. A CV could still spot a destroyer, but keeping it spotted would require one to focus on it over dealing damage. This would of course be negated if the DD was using it's AA, but if it's turned off, then a destroyer should more easily be able to evade aircraft unless they are literally on top of him.

A cruiser should probably be detected from a mile or two outside their maximum AA range. This means that they aren't seen from miles away, but it also gives the CV player a chance to turn away from these (supposed) AA hotpoints.


Balancing AA is always going to be a difficult task for a variety of reasons. Given that World of Warships tries to prevent one of the problems of WoT (that being tanks which can be virtually immune to other tanks), AA can swiftly become a problem. On the one hand, you have to give some tier 6 ship the ability to at least mount some kind of defense against a tier VIII CV. Likewise, a tier VI CV should still have some capacity to damage a tier VIII battleship. I understand what wargaming was trying to do with sectors and by "shortening" the CV lines, but I think some things could use a little more work. Even the flak bursts are a neat idea (even if the damn bots seem to have an uncanny ability to wipe out my squads before I even see the clouds). I personally have a couple ideas in mind for making AA more interactive (which is something a lot of players want supposedly).

First is my idea for sectors, given a bit of flak pizazz. First off, instead of two, I would propose three of equal size. One at the bow (or stern) and the other two covering the remainder. This would be tied into flak bursts wherein all burst values would be multiples of three. Selecting a sector would then direct the majority of flak bursts into that sector (with each sector would still retain one flak burst of each "layer" of AA unless you only have a value of one, which would be directed into the selected sector). Instead of flak automatically tracking the planes and the CV player trying to dodge it, instead the bursts would be fired into an area at random with a certain dispersion. However, this "circle" would shrink the longer a squadron was within AA range, meaning the longer they stay the more likely flak is to hit and damage it. This could even offer some flavor to vary between lines. Maybe cruisers "zero in" faster than BBs making them useful as AA platforms again. Maybe the US has a smaller base dispersion circle than other nations. Etc.

The current "attritional" AA wouldn't be affected by the sector designation so no matter whether you choose to leave AA up to chance or double down, you'll always have that base damage.

Some other ideas I have are that you could increase your AA range via sector designations, but this would decrease its potency. Another idea is choosing to have your DP secondaries focus on the AA role, but this would disable their ability to be used as secondaries. Obviously, this would all need to be keyboard-shortcutted, but there are plenty of unused keys.

F-key spamming

I'm honestly not sure how this could be solved since it is somewhat required if you make a mistake or decide to use a different type of plane. Maybe keep flak bursts from damaging returning planes, but have them still be vulnerable to the attritional stuff. This is obviously a problem given how much ranting there has been. Maybe you can only hit the F key within a certain range of your CV.

CV Positioning

You'd think this would be less of an issue these days, but it apparently still is. Personally I think some of the changes have only made it worse since a CV player is much more vulnerable to changes on the battlefield then they used to be so that have to postion themselves more conservatively. Maybe you could add a key that would enable you to take control of your CV and put your planes in a holding pattern (make them immune to flak, but still vulnerable to catapult fighters and the attritional AA, just a thought). Maybe tweak CV secondary guns so that they aren't a big fat sitting duck. Keep in mind, with the exception of the ones with armored flight decks, aircraft carriers are very vulnerable. For god's sake I've citadeled CVs in destroyers. With HE! I know a lot of people complain about not being able to shoot at CVs, but considering we have all the flaws of battleships without the massive chunks of armor to defend ourselves... And don't forget in the early days of the rework they were talking about CVs being off of the map entirely.

You want a CV to be closer to the action and therefore more vulnerable to your guns, okay. But give them a way to defend themselves besides running. Yes a carrier has it's planes, but those aren't always enough, particularly if your in command of a squadron half the map away and your ship just got ambushed. Most ships can at least mitigate damage when targeted via dodging or angling. You ever seen a CV dodge, they turn as bad as BBs, even worse in a lot of tier-to-tier cases? Not to mention, they tend to be fairly slow.


Whelp, that's all I've got insofar as trying to fix what I've got the impression are the major issues with the rework. I personally have a few other tweaking ideas, particularly for the premium CVs, but I want to here what you guys think of this current batch. Am I on the right track or do you think I've skipped my meds again. Feel free to lambast certain issues, but try to keep it civil thank you. As always; Thoughts? Questions? Downvotes?

Edit: Removed an off-topic rant.

Edited by JediMasterDraco

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326 posts
95 battles
17 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

first it sets a bad precedent of modifying premiums which seem at least mildly dishonest to me

Removing invisi-firing thus nerfing Blyska and Gremy; changing smoke detection and thus nerfing Kutuzov and Belfast, probably some other can be named as well.

This is the first time where WG is purposefully modifying a single premium ship that was OP, but it's definitely not the first nerf.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2,958 posts
11,410 battles
3 minutes ago, geser98 said:

Removing invisi-firing thus nerfing Blyska and Gremy; changing smoke detection and thus nerfing Kutuzov and Belfast, probably some other can be named as well.

Let’s not forget moving Kaga and Saipan one tier up.  Let me elaborate on the issue at hand: Kaga is balanced by having higher number of weaker planes.  Saipan is balanced by having lower number of stronger planes.  Both will substantially suffer as the only T8 in T10 match populated by number of best AA ships in game, unlike T10 CV these premiums have their squadrons absolutely shredded when having to deal with this situation.  I am speaking from personal experience.  Both of these premiums felt much more comfortable at tier 7.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.