Jump to content
TheURLGuy

British Aircraft Carriers: Unique Characteristics

77 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5,057
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles

in game (real world) gameplay experience of these british carriers, is that they are underpowered. For those who don't play the rework CVs, this may be a  confusing statement given what has been said, officially. But, in the Cv rework, many elements decide the effecive damage output of CVs, but the most important, and the least promoted by Wargaming, is speed. Speed matters more than any other CV stat, because it = the damage throughput a skilled CV commander can obtain, speed to targets, speed back to CV, time spent in enemy AA auras and so damage taken, time to help team mates, time to scout enemy dds, and so much more. Speed is capital, speed wins battles.

The British Cvs have the slowest planes in the game.

feedback to WOWSWG, please speed up British squadrons.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[JEDI-]
Beta Testers
24 posts
2,428 battles

No risk? My DD wiped an entire squadron of planes from a tier 8 CV that's just sad, also CV's are pretty weak at the moment. And comments like that are useless as there is plenty of players that spend money.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,057
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles
55 minutes ago, TheURLGuy said:

Time to dive into the details of the new Royal Navy aircraft carriers, which are ready for battle!

but are they ready? The CV rework, according to the official devblog, will not be finished before 0.8.4 (late May)/ Hotfixes and patches with changes (some major) to cvs, globally and indivudually, are ongoing.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2 posts
4,640 battles
48 minutes ago, Kephess said:

No risk? My DD wiped an entire squadron of planes from a tier 8 CV that's just sad, also CV's are pretty weak at the moment. And comments like that are useless as there is plenty of players that spend money.

Spend away, I made my statement to WG. I don't give a crap what you or anyone thinks of my comment. Have a nice day !!!!!!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
468
[USCC2]
Beta Testers
1,386 posts
12,508 battles

This is a joke right?  More WG propaganda to get players to spend time and money on a section of the game that the developers had destroyed so badly that the ships should be removed from game. 

In the hands of an average CVs are a black hole within a team.  Players struggle to conduct attacks only to have ships AAA open up on them be for the planes can even spot the target, doing massive damage to the squadron.  Those lucky enough to get the planes in to conduct an attack are rewarded with little to no damage from the weapons delivered.  And God help the CV that is bottom tier.

Let’s take the HMS Furious, 6 planes are lunched to conduct an attack, you approach your target and hit the attack button, 2 (yes 2, and only 2 planes) peel off and conduct the attack.  So now the AAA goes from shooting at 6 planes down to 2.  You release the weapon and POW you get a hit, may be two and then you watch the HP bar of the target barely move.  DDs and CA can fire a full spread of fish and wipe a BB of the map in a single salvo.

I don’t understand why all 6 planes can’t attack as one.

Why did WG nerf the weapons to the point you might as well attack with tennis balls.

CVs have little to no chance to defend themselves once an enemy ship gets near.

Carriers were a small pain to start with.  Then the rework came and they got a bit better.  Then the crying came, so the nerf bat came out while they were still doing the rework and smack the carriers so hard that they are nothing more than weak transport ships.

As for spotting, well WG saw fit the ships can spot tiny squadrons in the air at range before the squadrons can spot a massive ship at sea.

This has been worst handled update/rework in the game’s history.  They need to fix it fast or pull the plug, either way they need to stop blowing smoke up our backsides and trying to sell on how great playing carriers are, because it’s on big fat lie.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-O]
Members
824 posts
8,876 battles

I am not a CV player so I have no horse in this race.

But I have a question as many seem to complain about the low damage output of CVs.

Is anyone aware of a real world case where a squadron of 6 WWII area planes sunk a BB by themselves?

Kamikaze attacks do not count please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

I have not once seen Furious or Implacable's torps drop in a converging cone shape, even though the aim marker closes to a point, they always remain parallel, at lest as far as coop is concerned, or your trying to use "cone" in the context of something 50km long while forgetting the torps have a 2.4km range, so the convergence is so negligible it is NOT worth mentioning. 

 

the statement "but their arming distance as a rule is shorter than that of other nations" is also wrong, as all the US torps have an equal or shorter arming distance.

e.g.

Langley and Hermes = 282m

 

Furious = 376m

vs.

Ranger = 344m (393m with torp acceleration)

 

Implacable = 407m

vs.

Lexington = 376m

 

so as a rule their arming distance is equal or longer than the US torpedoes, and as a rule they are by far the shortest range torpedoes of any tech-tree nation.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[FLNVY]
Members
112 posts
28 minutes ago, freggo said:

Is anyone aware of a real world case where a squadron of 6 WWII area planes sunk a BB by themselves?

boi this is a game

And yes Italian battleship Littorio was sunk at the bow by only 3 torpedoes.

 

Edited by IDAMAN_04
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[KOOKS]
[KOOKS]
Modder
704 posts
3,700 battles

I had forgotten all about the UK CVs, actually not joking, but was reminded when I saw this article today that they are supposedly already available to people in game for a light grind and yet you never see them. I've seen one tier 4 and one tier 6 since the event started, and if I am lucky I see one game with CVs in them per evening I play but that ain't always the case either. I actually read through the article, and was left with the feeling of "all UK CVs s*cks until you get to tier 10, and torpedo bombers is what is going to save you on the way there" which makes me wonder if Wargaming has mainly focused getting tier 10 CVs to "work" and leaving the others hanging because tier 10 is where the end-game is right... We all should get to tier 10 as fast as possible... If I had gotten in to a store somewhere and a salesman wanted to sell me a series of objects that lead up to some kind of greater object in the end and he'd started off and finished like this I'd sadly have left before the he had come 3/4 through the presentation. 14 days until D-day for selling premium CVs for doubloons, I wonder how many or how few are left in player's hands by end of March. I've totally given up on the whole CV-thing myself, but I was really really exited to begin with when Wargaming launched the first video about it as it looked to be cool, it looked to be that a bog standard average player would be able to be relevant in a match with a CV, but alas here we are back where only the "best of the best" will rule the CVs and average players will just be fillers for the other team. "War, war never changes..." and the end result of player availability through ease of access never changed either. Well, at least the models are well made I will give them that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKK]
Members
7 posts
1,398 battles
1 hour ago, freggo said:

I am not a CV player so I have no horse in this race.

But I have a question as many seem to complain about the low damage output of CVs.

Is anyone aware of a real world case where a squadron of 6 WWII area planes sunk a BB by themselves?

Kamikaze attacks do not count please!

Wasn't just 6 planes...but here you go.

On the night of November 11–12, 1940, Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers of the British Fleet Air Arm sank three Italian battleships at the Battle of Taranto using a combination of torpedoes and bombs.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
609
[UFFA]
Members
1,946 posts
73 battles
1 hour ago, IDAMAN_04 said:

boi this is a game

And yes Italian battleship Littorio was sunk at the bow by only 3 torpedoes.

 

Secured in mud bank. The ship obviously wasn’t set for battle. :Smile-_tongue:

The first torpedo killed PoW. The rest just finished it faster. 

Edited by Sparviero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-O]
Members
824 posts
8,876 battles
9 minutes ago, Original_Digital_Terror said:

Wasn't just 6 planes...but here you go.

On the night of November 11–12, 1940, Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers of the British Fleet Air Arm sank three Italian battleships at the Battle of Taranto using a combination of torpedoes and bombs.

21 planes attack battleships at anchor...

Fish in a barrel anyone ?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKK]
Members
7 posts
1,398 battles
Just now, freggo said:

21 planes attack battleships at anchor...

Fish in a barrel anyone ?

The question posed was NOT whether the ships were at anchor or not, which other than they would likely have had reduced levels of crew on board is totally irrelevant.  What is relevant is that an average of 6.33 planes sank 3 bb using torps and bombs.  Planes that were closer to WW1 era than WW2 were able to sink the 3 bb using aerial torps and bombs.  They would likely have done so even if those bb were at sea, though the Brits would have suffered more losses.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-O]
Members
824 posts
8,876 battles
1 hour ago, IDAMAN_04 said:

boi this is a game

And yes Italian battleship Littorio was sunk at the bow by only 3 torpedoes.

 

I wish I was still a boy... :-)

Littoria was heavily damaged but recovered and made it past the end of WW II to eventually get scrapped.

I am talking about a squad of 6 or so planes attacking an actively fighting BB, nt some pot shot at anchor or a lucky hit as in the Bismarck rudder case.

Yes, I realize this is a game, but even a game dealing with real historic backgrounds should have at least a whiff of reality based facts in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-O]
Members
824 posts
8,876 battles
13 minutes ago, Original_Digital_Terror said:

The question posed was NOT whether the ships were at anchor or not, which other than they would likely have had reduced levels of crew on board is totally irrelevant.  What is relevant is that an average of 6.33 planes sank 3 bb using torps and bombs.  Planes that were closer to WW1 era than WW2 were able to sink the 3 bb using aerial torps and bombs.  They would likely have done so even if those bb were at sea, though the Brits would have suffered more losses.

By proxy it was. My original question was in reference to CV and Plane strength in this game; i.e. with BBs 'under steam'.

Imagine the outcry if WG would let CVs send out a squadron before battle starts and hit the BBs 'at anchor' at the spawn point.

As for WW1 planes, attacking a WW2 BBs, again, Bismarck comes to mind. The WWI plane has certain advantages. It s surprisingly difficult to shoot down a fabric covered biplane with a big gun. As a pilot myself I can tell you there are quite a few places on an aircraft that do not give a dang if you put a bullet thru them. Fabric is basically like paper on steroids and lets a bullet right thru without causing structural problems. One of the reasons Bismarck could not shoot down the torp attackers; and several where riddled with bullet/shrapnel holes afterwards!

 

 

Edited by freggo
content correction
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,870
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,750 posts
11,049 battles

Wow your guys seriously failed on the spin in attack aircraft. "Best in the game" by highlighting the fact that the tier 10 has an insane amount of rockets - really only meant to target cruisers and DD's - and they are on par at tier 8 and worse at tier 4 and 6? Things like this are why I now have the avatar/icon/whatever you wanna call it I have instead of blank grey portrait. It's become an all too common and accurate representation of me seeing Wargaming say something about CV's. Not to mention I can already tell you when the Audacious is unleashed if it's anywhere near the numbers I see on Implacable, DD's are gonna freak the hell out when I need only 6 hits to strip near 5k health off them out of 20, let alone out of 42. 

As is, you should be bringing odd tiers back, this even's only is doing no one any favours on any fronts. When it comes to rockets Tier 4 of any nation should not have them, period. Tier 5 should be Swordfish carrying 8 rockets, 6 should be the Sea Hurricanes with 8 rockets not 6, 7 the Seafire L Mk III, 8 the Seafire F Mk 45-47, take your pick, with 8 rockets per plane, 2 rails per wing, with tandem rockets (the most spitfires ever carried were 1 per wing, but this is a comparatively minor bend, followed by the Sea Fury at 12 per wing (should be 3 rails per wing tandem mounted) and the Wyvern at 16 per wing. Damage on rockets as is, save maybe TT and because I haven't tested it GZ, needs to be a bit lower across the board anyway and if you wanna talk about them having great rockets - then make it all tiers for starters. They carried more than USN, usually, so let them have the couple extra at low tiers, with equal pen. Then up the pen with the SAP's to be at least as good as the HVAR, maybe a tad better, possibly as an optional thing trading fire chance and all for pen and therefore more direct damage, maybe no fire chance and more like a UK CL AP round.Maybe give the standard RP-3 in that case better pen naturally, treat it more like a 6 inch HE round. Give them the same number of planes as USN through tier 7 or 8, maybe 1 more at 7 or 8 unless we want a period they equal out a bit or a tad less, and then 9 and 10 exploit the increased payloads to have just as many but needing fewer planes to risk.

The Bombers - While the 40 lb bombs so far have decent accuracy, I might as well be using fire crackers. Ditch them, upgrade the Swordfish to 6x 250 lb bombs because yes, it could carry that many of them, adjust the damage to be on par with a 152 mm armed cruiser, and then make the flights consist of 2 planes that drop 12 bombs. even if that means only 2 runs with 4 planes. At tier 6, increase it to 3 runs of 2 a piece. 7 or 8 - increase to 3 planes per run. And then have tier 10 go to 18 planes with 500 lb bombs or have the 500 lb ones be an option, or 250 an option, whatever. There are things to play with here. And the 500 lb bombs should in terms of damage be on par with an 8-10 inch gun, 11 inch at the absolute highest end.

TB's - At tier 4 they have the exact same arm time as USN, and USN has the same speed with .6 km more range. At tier 6, again USN has same speed, similar damage, . 6 km more range, but this time torps arm 30m before UK's. Tier 8, USN has more damage, more than a km more range, arms 15 meters sooner, and the same torp speed, and oh right USN regens the torp bombers 26 seconds faster, obviously, don't know tier 10 stats - yet. So - yeah, you need to be putting them at least on USN's level, or make some other tweaks.

 

Also, planes on the other two lines are already painfully slow and need a speed boost, but the fact that you have UK as the slowest, and highest HP - da :etc_swear:? Taking out random exceptions like the Spearfish, these planes particularly at lower altitudes are as fast or faster than USN or IJN counterparts, using inline liquid cooled engines and turbo props that are far easier to damage than a radial and in areas less general protection than USN. They should have less HP than USN, more than IJN, more mobility than USN, less than IJN, and some of if not the fastest planes. Seafire L Mk III achieved it's highest speed at at around 5-6000 feet, the Wyvern's top speed is basically on the deck as well, they were setup to fight at the lower altitudes we see in game.

Seriously, I know you guys can do better than this, come on.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-O]
Members
824 posts
8,876 battles
2 minutes ago, CrusaderQueen said:

When will we be able to sell these british cv's as there is no sell button when you have one in our port?

Wondering that too... so much for me being not a CV player :-)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts
5 minutes ago, freggo said:

By proxy it was. My original question was in reference to CV and Plane strength in this game; i.e. with BBs 'under steam'.

Imagine the outcry if WG would let CVs send out a squadron before battle starts and hit the BBs 'at anchor' at the spawn point.

As for WWI planes, attacking a WWI BB, again, Bismarck comes to mind. The WWI plane has certain advantages. It s surprisingly difficult to shoot down a fabric covered biplane with a big gun. As a pilot myself I can tell you there are quite a few places on an aircraft that do not give a dang if you put a bullet thru them. Fabric is basically like paper on steroids and lets a bullet right thru without causing structural problems. One of the reasons Bismarck could not shoot down the torp attackers; and several where riddled with bullet/shrapnel holes afterwards!

 

 

what about the accuracy of guns on all other ships, in the main this was far lower IRL than we have in game, ergo plucking the figure of 6 aircraft to sink a BB is a bit disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-O]
Members
824 posts
8,876 battles
1 minute ago, b101uk said:

what about the accuracy of guns on all other ships, in the main this was far lower IRL than we have in game, ergo plucking the figure of 6 aircraft to sink a BB is a bit disingenuous.

Sure, there are many liberties and stretches to reality in the game like 40x40km battlefields on island ridden maps.

End of WW2 basically showed that the time of BBs and bg guns was coming to an end and CVs, Subs and Rockets are the future.

Same 70 years later where one has to question the cost effectiveness of modern CVs in times of long range bombers, in flight refueling, Cruise missiles and ICBMs.

Personally i would NOT want a game that is perfectly balanced and then never changes. Where is the challenge?

Military history is full of ground breaking changes which forced everyone to adopt. The first time this happened was in the stone age when a cave man was hit by another throwing a pebble. One of the victims eventually discovered that bigger pebbles hurt more, and so the first "arm"s race (get it?) started  :-)

The problem in the game is not so much that a new ship is OP; but that adjusting to it by changing your ship, modules, captain skills etc costs you hard $$/doublons. Example, you bring out ships that cause more fires, i want to respec for fire etc. But when it costs you $2 or more to change a 19pt commander then changes become a problem.

 

I remember when i started out and faced CVs the first time. I was totally overwhelmed and thought that's it. The fun is over; until i learned how to deal with AA. same with torps, my first experience what a dang, that's it. Now i have more torp kills than gun kills with my Graf Spee. The point however is that these where all changes that where skill based. You had to learn how to deal with it.

But if you have to spent $$ to address a change, things get tricky and people will get upset.

As for me, I have no problem paying for premium time or premium ships, but paying to respec a ship or captain with $$ instead of in game currency (XP, Free XP or Silver) to deal with a new challenge you throw my way; that kinda ticks me off a bit.

Sorry, this ended up far longer then planned :-)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[FTH]
Members
1,001 posts
15,063 battles

I think we're supposed to get another week of free respecs when the update drops, aren't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[USCGC]
[USCGC]
Beta Testers
30 posts

Wow just another usless update to yet another broke CV class well guess  yall still dont care about your player base since it falling every day wowo usless devs just might as well fold since you dont care.  This mode is just pure junk.  Well guess the major drop in your gold store will finaly smack you in the face  Good luck with your EPIC FAIL 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
870
[A-D]
Beta Testers, Alpha Tester
2,638 posts

My biggest issue is I still have no idea if it's possible to get implacable before 8.2 (without buying loot boxes, anyways)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×