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

What "Unlimited Aircraft" Actually Means...

254 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

20
[EFEWE]
Members
93 posts
6,703 battles

Great explanation. As a low to mid tier CV player that constantly runs into far too many AA cruisers, it's nice to see a post about how we get denuded of planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[SYN]
Members
14,867 posts
11,351 battles
1 minute ago, TheTrickpony said:

Great explanation. As a low to mid tier CV player that constantly runs into far too many AA cruisers, it's nice to see a post about how we get denuded of planes.

dump your extra aircraft you don't need by attacking the ocean or an island before running into AA.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,595 posts
20,174 battles

Thank you for your hard work. 

It makes it so much easier to understand the new mechanic for players that are new to CV.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
208
[WOLF6]
Members
640 posts
2,729 battles

Headed to Patreon for this Mouse thankyou. The crap posted on this forum pre patch was shocking in this regard, even with players showing on the pts that a carrier can be deplaned.

Edited by Sumseaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[TGG]
Members
58 posts
4,696 battles
On 12/27/2018 at 9:18 PM, Hatsuzuki_DD said:

The Stalingrad stats are inflated because , to nobodies surprise, skilled players have it. The point is, the ship is not as invincible as it seems.

Nobody makes the claim of invincibility.   But a dive in the stats shows even potatoes who get one do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
Members
465 posts
967 battles

Great information.  Doesn't change the fact that aircraft can't be balanced.  Either you have them all dead and are twiddling your thumbs, or they kill the surface ships and those captains are twiddling their thumbs.  Carrier focus and role has to significantly change before they will be accepted in PVP.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[ODIN]
Members
670 posts
2,914 battles

Thanks for sharing. I suspect a lot of naysayers will continue with their willful ignorance and... naysaying, but it's always good to do what you can to get accurate info out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,187
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,686 posts
8,169 battles
11 minutes ago, ruar said:

Great information.  Doesn't change the fact that aircraft can't be balanced.  Either you have them all dead and are twiddling your thumbs, or they kill the surface ships and those captains are twiddling their thumbs.  Carrier focus and role has to significantly change before they will be accepted in PVP.

Funny you should mention.  In my experience there are four (simplified) outcomes of CV vs ship interaction.

  1. Flak is so intense, the aircraft squadron is wiped out.  They may or may not manage to drop their ordnance.
  2. Aircraft manage to complete their drop but the aircraft attempting to return to base are destroyed.  The remainder of the squadron is badly mauled and would not survive making a second pass.
  3. Aircraft manage to complete their drop.  The remaining squadron is bruised, but capable of a second strike.  This second strike will likely result in a lost plane or two, particularly for the aircraft that drop ordnance.
  4. Flak is so light to be a non-issue.  Casualties are unlikely.

Of these four results, #1 and #2 are not sustainable.  Even for aircraft carriers with deep reserves and fast recovery times, the attrition will deplane them before the battle is finished, effectively neutralizing the aircraft carrier beyond a scouting role. #3 is sustainable, but only with single strikes.  For crucial targets or for aircraft carriers with deeper reserves, making a second (or even a third) pass is possible but ill advised.  #4 is obviously sustainable but rare.

Depending on what ends up on the team list and how ships group up, you have to be able to make these risk assessments to sustain your striking power in CVs. 

  • #4 isn't commonplace and is largely limited to dumb destroyers with their AA still enabled, running full speed ahead of their fleet and begging to be bombed ("Here I am, can't catch me!"). 
  • There are the rare few surface ships that also fall into category #4, particularly when the CV is top tier and facing lowered tier, modest-AA opponents. 
  • Any cruiser running DFAA becomes a #2 immediately if it doesn't become a #1. 
  • A solo Japanese battleship might be a #3 but two of them together can upgrade to a #2.  Three of any ships together are at least a #2.

With people ignorantly clapping their hands over their ears and wishing that CVs would go away, they're ignoring how much effect they can have on current CV play, even in a ship that has only modest to poor anti-aircraft firepower.

  • Cool 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
454
[WOLF8]
[WOLF8]
Members
3,518 posts
4,010 battles
41 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

dump your extra aircraft you don't need by attacking the ocean or an island before running into AA.

Maybe it's just me, but I find this to be a gamble in itself.

The automatic damage aura of AA seems to distribute the damage evenly across the planes before it starts popping them, so having less in a squadron could mean not even getting that first strike, because your squadron has less planes to distribute the early damages.

I donno, maybe it's just me. It's what happened to me when I tried that tactic in my Ryujo against a Tier VIII BB. So I kinda gave it up. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
877 posts
5,070 battles

The whole "unlimited planes" meme is mostly an (understandable) issue of perception. Before the rework CV attacks tended to come in bursts of multiple squadrons. If you devastated or destroyed them would be significant downtime in between the next appearance of planes because a new squadron had to be prepped or the damaged squadrons had to return and be replenished before they could go out again. Now in the new system CVs can generate a steady stream of squadrons against a target because the moment they hit F or lose all their planes a new squadron can be immediately taking off and on its way. Even if they're taking ultimately unsustainable damage to their planes in the process that stream can go on for a long time particularly at high tiers and particularly if you are up against two CVs. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
Members
465 posts
967 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Funny you should mention.  In my experience there are four (simplified) outcomes of CV vs ship interaction.

  1. Flak is so intense, the aircraft squadron is wiped out.  They may or may not manage to drop their ordnance.
  2. Aircraft manage to complete their drop but the aircraft attempting to return to base are destroyed.  The remainder of the squadron is badly mauled and would not survive making a second pass.
  3. Aircraft manage to complete their drop.  The remaining squadron is bruised, but capable of a second strike.  This second strike will likely result in a lost plane or two, particularly for the aircraft that drop ordnance.
  4. Flak is so light to be a non-issue.  Casualties are unlikely.

Of these four results, #1 and #2 are not sustainable.  Even for aircraft carriers with deep reserves and fast recovery times, the attrition will deplane them before the battle is finished, effectively neutralizing the aircraft carrier beyond a scouting role. #3 is sustainable, but only with single strikes.  For crucial targets or for aircraft carriers with deeper reserves, making a second (or even a third) pass is possible but ill advised.  #4 is obviously sustainable but rare.

Depending on what ends up on the team list and how ships group up, you have to be able to make these risk assessments to sustain your striking power in CVs. 

  • #4 isn't commonplace and is largely limited to dumb destroyers with their AA still enabled, running full speed ahead of their fleet and begging to be bombed ("Here I am, can't catch me!"). 
  • There are the rare few surface ships that also fall into category #4, particularly when the CV is top tier and facing lowered tier, modest-AA opponents. 
  • Any cruiser running DFAA becomes a #2 immediately if it doesn't become a #1. 
  • A solo Japanese battleship might be a #3 but two of them together can upgrade to a #2.  Three of any ships together are at least a #2.

With people ignorantly clapping their hands over their ears and wishing that CVs would go away, they're ignoring how much effect they can have on current CV play, even in a ship that has only modest to poor anti-aircraft firepower.

Even before your very informative post I understood that it was well within the realms of possibility for a carrier to have no planes to launch.  There are a lot of variables as you listed, but it could happen.  Especially to a player who doesn't pay attention and puts themselves into a bad situation. 

What your post ignores is the effect the planes have on the match in general.  You talk about only being able to get one attack off, but that one attack is causing BBs to completely change directions to dodge, it's causing DDs to pull back instead of scout, it's causing cruisers to turn into the attack to offer supporting AA fire instead of engaging enemy cruisers.

In general the planes are having a dramatic impact on the fight even if they aren't actually dishing out a ton of damage.

Because if people didn't react to the few attacks that do get through then the planes would just launch even more attacks and do significant damage.

Which shows just how OP aircraft are when they have the ability, even if it's not always realized, to do significant amounts of damage.  They shape the entire fight through fear of potential damage.  Very similar to how DDs shape the fight through fear of torp salvos.  The main difference is destroyers are limited to the same set of rules as all other ships while planes have their own unique mechanic unlike anything else in the game.  This mechanic is the problem and why balance can never truly happen in the grand war of planes against ships.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
138 posts

It really all hands on deck with community contributors, wargaming staff, testers etc to sell this CV rework that the majority of players do no like, never will like and never wanted in the first place.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
[RLGN]
Members
9,442 posts
18,860 battles
59 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

 

vNd1YGp.png

Mouse out!
 

Nice work.

+1 for the mascot in a Spit!

7 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

With people ignorantly clapping their hands over their ears and wishing that CVs would go away, they're ignoring how much effect they can have on current CV play, even in a ship that has only modest to poor anti-aircraft firepower.

This is basically another form of what I’ve been saying for a long time; ‘If carriers have it easy, it’s because the players they’re attacking make it so.’

As someone who’s played carriers, and played against them a lot, there’s plenty you can do to screw up carriers, it’s just that a lot of players seem to just give up and not even try!

’OH NOES! Carrier planes are coming my way! I iz doomed!’ (doesn’t WASD, doesn’t reinforce AA, ran off and is all alone, forgets to launch cat fighter...)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
Members
465 posts
967 battles
Just now, Estimated_Prophet said:

Nice work.

+1 for the mascot in a Spit!

This is basically another form of what I’ve been saying for a long time; ‘If carriers have it easy, it’s because the players they’re attacking make it so.’

As someone who’s played carriers, and played against them a lot, there’s plenty you can do to screw up carriers, it’s just that a lot of players seem to just give up and not even try!

’OH NOES! Carrier planes are coming my way! I iz doomed!’ (doesn’t WASD, doesn’t reinforce AA, ran off and is all alone, forgets to launch cat fighter...)

What you seem to be missing is that people just don't find it fun to jump through the hoops required to fight off carriers.  It's not really a matter of "what can I do to keep this from happening" but more "I know what to do to keep this from happening but I don't want to play that way because it's not fun".  

  • Cool 8
  • Bad 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
[RLGN]
Members
9,442 posts
18,860 battles
1 minute ago, sendit2me30 said:

It really all hands on deck with community contributors, wargaming staff, testers etc to sell this CV rework that the majority of players do no like, never will like and never wanted in the first place.

Don’t necessarily disagree; for my own selfish reasons I hate this dumpster fire of a rework; but @LittleWhiteMouse I at least trust, unlike whoever is deciding things at WG.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,187
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,686 posts
8,169 battles
3 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

"OH NOES! Carrier planes are coming my way! I iz doomed!’ (doesn’t WASD, doesn’t reinforce AA, ran off and is all alone, forgets to launch cat fighter...)

Things that make me go "Nope" and look somewhere else for a target:

  • Someone that has their catapult aircraft up before I get there, already patrolling.  Catapult fighters take time to setup.  They launch, they begin their patrol pattern and only THEN do they begin to look for aircraft to engage.  Unless you can outrun them, catapult fighters will make any drop that much more costly.  If I'm already watching my casualties, I'll want nothing to do with you until that consumable wears off.
  • Destroyers that turn their AA off.  You are a pain in the butt to find (I don't use RDF) and annoying to set up attack runs on.  If it weren't for the fact that I need you dead in order to win, I wouldn't bother in the first place.  If it's a choice between you and a destroyer that thinks they're a Cleveland, I'm leaving you to last.
  • Defensive AA Fire.  It don't care if it's coming off a stock Myoko.  I am not going near those red explosions.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
755 posts
4,615 battles
13 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

With people ignorantly clapping their hands over their ears and wishing that CVs would go away, they're ignoring how much effect they can have on current CV play, even in a ship that has only modest to poor anti-aircraft firepower.

The vast majority of the game for me is managing my concealment and min/maxing when I expose myself.  Degrading the red CV's DPS through plane attrition is a poor trade off for losing the ability to manage my concealment.  I would also submit that shooting down planes is not a hard counter to the CV.  I get that it eventually could lead to that.  But the fact that the AA player doesn't have any feedback regarding plane availability combined with the mostly hands off nature of AA itself makes CV counter play unrewarding at best and tedious and annoying at worst.

It may be fun to play a CV.  I'm sure they are not as easy to play as they are often presented.  But, from my perspective, there's no fun whatsoever in playing against them.  And they take away most of the strategic positioning, spotting, and visibility aspects of the game.  A poor trade in my opinion. 

That said, I appreciate you bringing the knowledge on the subject.  That's the best we can hope for in these type situations.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
[RLGN]
Members
9,442 posts
18,860 battles
11 minutes ago, ruar said:

What you seem to be missing is that people just don't find it fun to jump through the hoops required to fight off carriers.  It's not really a matter of "what can I do to keep this from happening" but more "I know what to do to keep this from happening but I don't want to play that way because it's not fun".  

Even if I understand what you’re saying, my sympathy is somewhat lacking due to personal experience.

Besides warning that ‘death by a thousand cuts’ was exactly what was going to happen ever since the beta tests; I can’t recall having issues caused by the presence of, or direct interaction with, carriers, (old or new,) to the extent such things seem to have bothered others.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,135 posts
5,958 battles

Hmmm... This may be nitpicking, but I thought the bar above each aircraft type was the flight deck capacity, not the actual hangar size(this would be further reinforced by the very T8 module you mention, which specifically states it increases the number of deck planes available. And it does increase the total number in that bar. Hovering over the squadron type in port also shows that the number of aircraft on deck is the same number on that green bar, in the tooltip, as it matches the total number in the green bar). If it's the latter, then the new CVs have extremely small hangar spaces. :Smile-_tongue:

Anyway, the way I look at it is, the bar represents the number of planes you have on your deck that can take off. This never seems to be more than one full squadron + at least a half squadron, even with the T8 module. The regeneration time is the time it takes for the crew to bring up another plane from the hangar decks via the elevators. So technically, hangar space is unlimited as there's no reserve number that can be depleted to zero, preventing any more planes from being brought up to the flight deck. But as you've illustrated, CVs can effectively, and almost literally, be deplaned in any given match.

I realize you may have labeled it as such for simplicity's sake, so the point is more clear, but it still kinda bugs me. :Smile_hiding: This is still an excellent write-up, and I hope it begins to put to rest all the commotion over "infinite planes" as it's simply not true in the sense that most seem to believe it is.

 

Edit: My personal experience thus far also shows that planes are not "unlimited" as I've yet to see any of my CVs lose more than 100% of their pre-0.8.0 hangar capacity. Depending on the AA I'm facing, it's usually somewhere between 40-70% of the pre-0.8.0 hangar capacity.

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
Members
465 posts
967 battles
Just now, Estimated_Prophet said:

Even if I understand what you’re saying, my sympathy is somewhat lacking due to personal experience.

Besides warning that ‘death by a thousand cuts’ was exactly what was going to happen ever since the beta tests; I can’t recall having issues caused by the presence of, or direct interaction with, carriers, (old or new,) to the extent such things seem to have bothered others.

So basically "I don't care, stick it to them because I had to suffer for so long".

And as you see the player base is like "nah, we'll just not log in or we'll go play PVE instead"

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[CCPLZ]
Members
3 posts
2,774 battles
19 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

+1 for the mascot in a Spit!

I'm sure you meant Seafire, not Spitfire. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×