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

Planes should have range

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

222
[PSV]
Members
332 posts
8,999 battles

If WG really wants to keep CV in the game.

This gives CV some risk when striking surface ships. Instead of current low risk, some reward design.

This also rewards strategic positioning of CV better.

This would bring CVs one step closer to other classes.

22km at high tier seems to be a good starting point. Of course other parameters have to be balanced as well.

Edit

Let me be more clear: why everything else in the game has range of their main weapon and CV doesn't. Why can they strike anywhere on the map as they CHOOSE?

 

Edited by lipiru
  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,378 posts
14,155 battles

While High tier CV could work with that, low and mid tier would probably be a pain to play. Not only do you face higher tier ship but you're also limited by range and your planes doesn't travel as fast as T8-T10 planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[PSV]
Members
332 posts
8,999 battles
Just now, AlcatrazNC said:

While High tier CV could work with that, low and mid tier would probably be a pain to play. Not only do you face higher tier ship but you're also limited by range and your planes doesn't travel as fast as T8-T10 planes

Low tier is already pain to play for a different reason. This is only talking about high tier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,600
[FML]
Members
3,656 posts
14,584 battles

Provided it was reasonably balanced, each I think would be fairly hard to do, I don’t mind this idea. It would make it more difficult for the CV to linger over a DDs smoke waiting for it to dissipate. Not just opportunity cost, but USN DDs could just wait them out. UK and German DDs can’t though, so a bit more national flavour. 

Edited by UltimateNewbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,869
[WOLFG]
Members
27,162 posts
7,261 battles
1 minute ago, UltimateNewbie said:

Provided it was reasonably balanced, I don’t mind this idea. It would make it more difficult for the CV to linger over a DDs smoke waiting for it to dissipate. 

Not as long as it's within 22km.

I think what you really want is a fuel timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,270
[WO0KY]
Members
4,112 posts
3,195 battles
6 minutes ago, lipiru said:

Low tier is already pain to play for a different reason. This is only talking about high tier

Respectfully, low tier has to have the same mechanics to prepare you for high tier

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,038 posts
7,048 battles

People really need to get over the idea that "CV hull HP not at risk = low risk to CV".

CVs have medium to high risk depending on the level of AA they face. CVs don't risk their hulls' HP like surface ships do, they risk their damage potential. The more AA a CV faces, the higher the risk the CV has of losing most or all of it's damage potential for a length of time.

It would be like having a surface ship that was unsinkable, but the trade-off is that the guns have very little HP and don't regenerate or repair quickly. You could play it safe, and stay further away from targets, keep the guns operational and get consistent(and likely high) damage, or you could charge in to hit the enemy with your sword, risk your guns being knocked out for a length of time and get low damage.

Similar to how CVs work. You can play low/medium risk. Hover around until you find a lone ship or weak spot, then attack that, get consistent(and by the end of the game, usually high) damage. Or you can play high risk, throw the squadron into lots of AA, or at targets with decent/good AA cover, get low damage(as they're likely to only be able to make one pass, then either lose the squad or most of it if recalled) and lose damage potential because the aircraft get shot down.

 

If you want CVs to risk their HP like other ships, then they'll need to have their detection ranges reduced significantly. As it stands, a lot of the high tier CVs can't get really close to the front because they'll be spotted, and their 'guns' are their aircraft, which compared to surface ships are woefully inadequate at dealing with multiple threats to the CV at once. Not to mention that CVs can't use their 'guns' and position their ship accurately at the same time. Aside from the armored carriers at T10, the rest are also pretty soft skinned and easily lose lots of HP from gun salvos.

Edited by GhostSwordsman
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[-TIC-]
Members
393 posts
2,530 battles

I've thought about this too. It's an interesting idea, but it would take a whole lot of rebalancing. There could be different ranges for different plane types and loadouts as well. The question is whether it would actually have a positive impact beyond making the game more complex. Another option is to give planes a finite amount of time in the air (fuel) before they have to head back. It would obviously mean that CV play would be more restricted than it is now, which probably would mean giving planes some better characteristics to make up for the new drawbacks.

A change like this would require a pretty massive amount of theorizing before even considering putting it on the drawing board. That doesn't mean it's not worth giving some attention, though.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[A-D]
Beta Testers, Alpha Tester
2,638 posts

Sure let's give CVs less range than BBs... that makes sense...

Would CVs at least get destroyer-equivalent concealment with this update?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,988
[SOV]
Members
4,402 posts
4 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

People really need to get over the idea that "CV hull HP not at risk = low risk to CV".

CVs have medium to high risk depending on the level of AA they face. CVs don't risk their hulls' HP like surface ships do, they risk their damage potential. The more AA a CV faces, the higher the risk the CV has of losing most or all of it's damage potential for a length of time.

It would be like having a surface ship that was unsinkable, but the trade-off is that the guns have very little HP and don't regenerate or repair quickly. You could play it safe, and stay further away from targets, keep the guns operational and get consistent(and likely high) damage, or you could charge in to hit the enemy with your sword, risk your guns being knocked out for a length of time and get low damage.

Similar to how CVs work. You can play low/medium risk. Hover around until you find a lone ship or weak spot, then attack that, get consistent(and by the end of the game, usually high) damage. Or you can play high risk, throw the squadron into lots of AA, or at targets with decent/good AA cover, get low damage(as they're likely to only be able to make one pass, then either lose the squad or most of it if recalled) and lose damage potential because the aircraft get shot down.

 

If you want CVs to risk their HP like other ships, then they'll need to have their detection ranges reduced significantly. As it stands, a lot of the high tier CVs can't get really close to the front because they'll be spotted, and their 'guns' are their aircraft, which compared to surface ships are woefully inadequate at dealing with multiple threats to the CV at once. Not to mention that CVs can't use their 'guns' and position their ship accurately at the same time. Aside from the armored carriers at T10, the rest are also pretty soft skinned and easily lose lots of HP from gun salvos.

Save your breath my friend. For some reason people cannot seem to grasp the idea that the cv is an airfirld. The hull cant fight, it cannot defend its self. The planes are the only thing that matters.

So some reason this rational idea escapes everyone. Its a lost cause Sir!

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,600
[FML]
Members
3,656 posts
14,584 battles
16 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Not as long as it's within 22km.

I think what you really want is a fuel timer.

Well, presumably still circling waiting for a target to pop up would count towards the distance travelled. So it would be the same thing. 

Though with the fuel timer concept, using the planes’ boost could draw down on fuel faster so there is a trade off between speed and persistence. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[PSV]
Members
332 posts
8,999 battles
10 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

People really need to get over the idea that "CV hull HP not at risk = low risk to CV".

CVs have medium to high risk depending on the level of AA they face. CVs don't risk their hulls' HP like surface ships do, they risk their damage potential. The more AA a CV faces, the higher the risk the CV has of losing most or all of it's damage potential for a length of time.

It would be like having a surface ship that was unsinkable, but the trade-off is that the guns have very little HP and don't regenerate or repair quickly. You could play it safe, and stay further away from targets, keep the guns operational and get consistent(and likely high) damage, or you could charge in to hit the enemy with your sword, risk your guns being knocked out for a length of time and get low damage.

Similar to how CVs work. You can play low/medium risk. Hover around until you find a lone ship or weak spot, then attack that, get consistent(and by the end of the game, usually high) damage. Or you can play high risk, throw the squadron into lots of AA, or at targets with decent/good AA cover, get low damage(as they're likely to only be able to make one pass, then either lose the squad or most of it if recalled) and lose damage potential because the aircraft get shot down.

 

If you want CVs to risk their HP like other ships, then they'll need to have their detection ranges reduced significantly. As it stands, a lot of the high tier CVs can't get really close to the front because they'll be spotted, and their 'guns' are their aircraft, which compared to surface ships are woefully inadequate at dealing with multiple threats to the CV at once. Not to mention that CVs can't use their 'guns' and position their ship accurately at the same time. Aside from the armored carriers at T10, the rest are also pretty soft skinned and easily lose lots of HP from gun salvos.

But does that justify the unlimited range? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,648
[IRNBN]
Members
3,146 posts
8,338 battles
14 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

People really need to get over the idea that "CV hull HP not at risk = low risk to CV".

No, they don't.

A hull is a hull is a hull.

You need to get over the idea that losing your airplanes is any different than losing gun turrets, engines, rudders, AA mounts, and torpedo tubes.

  • Cool 6
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,038 posts
7,048 battles
1 minute ago, lipiru said:

But does that justify the unlimited range? 

It takes time for the aircraft to traverse the distance. If my CV is parked in A1 and all the enemy ships are in F7, then I can't just make an attack and instantaneously have another fresh group there in a few seconds. It takes time for the planes to fly over there, and even then you should assess the positions of the red ships (which is more time) before attacking anything.

There are only 20 minutes maximum in a match. On average, less than that. For every ship it's a race against the clock to accrue damage and help to win the game. While CVs can deliver accurate damage strikes by being able to drop their ordinance super close to their targets, their 'shell flight time' is extremely long, comparatively.

 

For a different and more direct point, planes are extremely fragile compared to main battery guns.

What CVs trade is fragility of their 'main armament' for range. I'll give your BB or cruiser or destroyer unlimited range, so long as the HP of your main guns/torpedo tubes is close to the old Atlanta main battery HP low, so they can be easily knocked out if you're too careless with positioning, thus leading to you losing damage potential. Same as how CVs lose damage potential if they're careless with their planes' positioning.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[PSV]
Members
332 posts
8,999 battles
4 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

It takes time for the aircraft to traverse the distance. If my CV is parked in A1 and all the enemy ships are in F7, then I can't just make an attack and instantaneously have another fresh group there in a few seconds. It takes time for the planes to fly over there, and even then you should assess the positions of the red ships (which is more time) before attacking anything.

There are only 20 minutes maximum in a match. On average, less than that. For every ship it's a race against the clock to accrue damage and help to win the game. While CVs can deliver accurate damage strikes by being able to drop their ordinance super close to their targets, their 'shell flight time' is extremely long, comparatively.

 

For a different and more direct point, planes are extremely fragile compared to main battery guns.

What CVs trade is fragility of their 'main armament' for range. I'll give your BB or cruiser or destroyer unlimited range, so long as the HP of your main guns/torpedo tubes is close to the old Atlanta main battery HP low, so they can be easily knocked out if you're too careless with positioning, thus leading to you losing damage potential. Same as how CVs lose damage potential if they're careless with their planes' positioning.

Top tier planes go 260 knots. I can zoom to the other side of the map in 20-30 sec. That is the reload time of a BB. How does that justify unlimited range?

Also planes don't care about angeling, tha this a draw back of many main guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
214
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
474 posts
4,807 battles
14 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

No, they don't.

A hull is a hull is a hull.

You need to get over the idea that losing your airplanes is any different than losing gun turrets, engines, rudders, AA mounts, and torpedo tubes.

Nonsense. Try not being able to fight for 2 to 4 minutes and being constantly focused the moment you are spotted in any other ship and we will see how you feel then.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
74 posts
4,443 battles
52 minutes ago, lipiru said:

If WG really wants to keep CV in the game.

This gives CV some risk when striking surface ships. Instead of current low risk, some reward design.

This also rewards strategic positioning of CV better.

This would bring CVs one step closer to other classes.

22km at high tier seems to be a good starting point. Of course other parameters have to be balanced as well.

Edit

Let me be more clear: why everything else in the game has range of their main weapon and CV doesn't. Why can they strike anywhere on the map as they CHOOSE?

 

look CV's are not in a good place right now and you want to add another thing that will nerf them after 3 paches of nerfs. Also a fuel timer will not change anything as most of the time your planes are dead before you can get the second attack off anyway  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
585
[WOLF2]
Members
1,590 posts
10,267 battles

Well, I'm not sure there are many CVs left.    Complaining about CVs being OP is so three weeks ago.    You don't even see them these days.

There isn't a bandwagon to jump on anymore.   The anti-CVs won.   CVs are back to their pre-8.0 populations.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,038 posts
7,048 battles
10 minutes ago, lipiru said:

Top tier planes go 260 knots. I can zoom to the other side of the map in 20-30 sec. That is the reload time of a BB. How does that justify unlimited range?

Also planes don't care about angeling, tha this a draw back of many main guns.

Only with boost active, which is limited to less than 30 seconds(less than 10 seconds for rocket armed fighters). Yes there's a consumable to refill it when it is emptied, but mismanaging that consumable can lead to squadrons being shot down, like how mismanaging surface ship consumables can lead to the ship being sunk.

 

If you fire at the hull of an enemy battleship, and you're in a battleship, you risk taking return fire from that enemy BBs hull. If you fire on the hull of an enemy CV, you don't risk return fire from the hull of the CV. You risk return fire from the CVs aircraft(assuming they're close enough to you to even attempt to attack once the CV hull is spotted), and those aircraft can be stopped before the do any damage, or significant damage. You can't semi-consistently stop an enemy BB from doing damage or significant damage(outside of angling and positioning) by knocking out their main guns, because those guns are armored and have a lot of HP(plus dispersion, distance, accuracy, and RNG and everything else that affects fighting when in a surface ship engagement).

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,361
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
25,371 posts
13,892 battles
22 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

People really need to get over the idea that "CV hull HP not at risk = low risk to CV".

CVs have medium to high risk depending on the level of AA they face. CVs don't risk their hulls' HP like surface ships do, they risk their damage potential. The more AA a CV faces, the higher the risk the CV has of losing most or all of it's damage potential for a length of time.

It would be like having a surface ship that was unsinkable, but the trade-off is that the guns have very little HP and don't regenerate or repair quickly. You could play it safe, and stay further away from targets, keep the guns operational and get consistent(and likely high) damage, or you could charge in to hit the enemy with your sword, risk your guns being knocked out for a length of time and get low damage.

Similar to how CVs work. You can play low/medium risk. Hover around until you find a lone ship or weak spot, then attack that, get consistent(and by the end of the game, usually high) damage. Or you can play high risk, throw the squadron into lots of AA, or at targets with decent/good AA cover, get low damage(as they're likely to only be able to make one pass, then either lose the squad or most of it if recalled) and lose damage potential because the aircraft get shot down.

 

If you want CVs to risk their HP like other ships, then they'll need to have their detection ranges reduced significantly. As it stands, a lot of the high tier CVs can't get really close to the front because they'll be spotted, and their 'guns' are their aircraft, which compared to surface ships are woefully inadequate at dealing with multiple threats to the CV at once. Not to mention that CVs can't use their 'guns' and position their ship accurately at the same time. Aside from the armored carriers at T10, the rest are also pretty soft skinned and easily lose lots of HP from gun salvos.

 

11 minutes ago, lipiru said:

But does that justify the unlimited range? 

It does because no plane will stay up long enough to even approach the endurance of the shortest ranged planes.

9 minutes ago, lipiru said:

Top tier planes go 260 knots. I can zoom to the other side of the map in 20-30 sec. That is the reload time of a BB. How does that justify unlimited range?

Also planes don't care about angeling, tha this a draw back of many main guns.

Where are you getting 260 knots? The highest maximum speed I can find is 238 and that is on boost which only lasts a short time, cruise speed is going to be quite a bit less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,869
[WOLFG]
Members
27,162 posts
7,261 battles
24 minutes ago, UltimateNewbie said:

Well, presumably still circling waiting for a target to pop up would count towards the distance travelled. So it would be the same thing. 

Though with the fuel timer concept, using the planes’ boost could draw down on fuel faster so there is a trade off between speed and persistence. 

Oh ok, I was thinking range like gun range, not total distance travelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,265
Members
1,386 posts
7,116 battles
6 minutes ago, DiddleDum said:

Well, I'm not sure there are many CVs left.    Complaining about CVs being OP is so three weeks ago.    You don't even see them these days.

There isn't a bandwagon to jump on anymore.   The anti-CVs won.   CVs are back to their pre-8.0 populations.

Big time. CV population is declining fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×