Jump to content
Kami

Public Test, Furious Changes and Azuma AA

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,896
[CUTEZ]
-Members-
1,642 posts
1,149 battles

Tier VI: British CV Furious

Stock bombers changed:

  • Number of bombers in one attacking flight increased from 1 to 2.
  • Plane regain time is lowered from 142 to 96 seconds.
  • Size of the aiming ellipse is increased by 22%.

Top re-searchable bombers changed:

  • Count of bombers in one attacking flight increased from 1 to 2.
  • Size of the aiming ellipse is increased by 30%.

Top re-searchable torpedo bombers' torpedoes replaced by that of the stock ones:

  • The damage is lowered from 5930 to 5200
  • The flooding chance is lowered from 51% to 45%

Instead of 4 bomber attack runs you can make only 2, but each of them will be more effective and the squadron will spend less time under the AA fire. The size of the aiming ellipse was increased to take into account the addition of the second plane and the increased number of bombs being dropped.

The torpedoes of the top torpedo-bombers were replaced as they demonstrated higher efficiency in comparison with other CVs. In addition, such a change compensates the increased bombers' damage.

Azuma's AA was updated in 0.8.1, it was tested and we are ready to show you the final state of the ship's AA defense:

  • AA defense short-range: continuous damage per second - 519, hit probability - 83%, action zone 0.1-1.9 km.
  • AA defense long-range: number of explosions in a salvo - 8, damage within an explosion - 1470, continuous damage per second - 260, hit probability - 88%, action zone 1.9-5.8 km.
  • AA sector reinforcement - 25%, sector reinforcement and reinforcement shift time - 10 s.

Azuma's AA has high continuous damage at short range and dangerous explosions from the 1.9 km range.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,056
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles

Poor Furious. The level bombing gimmick quite simply does not make up for torps. although I am pleased common sense has been followed for increasing the size and  reducing the number of bomber attacking flights, squadron hp can never compensate for being so damned slow (which means squadrons spend greater periods within enemy AA sectors, taking punishment). But torpedos will continue to be preferred, simply because they can be dropped outside of short range continuous AA, are far more reliable dmg dealers than level bombers, and have greater potential to influence enemy player actions (turning to avoid torpedos, for example). nerfing torp alpha is petty, because it won't make them less popular, but it will hurt Furious' overall dmg throughput in random battles, undeservedly so.

4 attacking flights was never realistically plausible, with the demands on ever more powerful AA, it really isn't for other cvs at all tiers either (most of the time), perhaps common sense might be applied to all squadron types at all tiers of all cv tech trees? For example, consider doubling torpedo bomber attack flights and torps dropped per attack flight, reduce the total number of attack flights. Tech tree and premium cvs included (which, even though common sense, would throw a spanner in the works of a recent devblog that stated balancing to premium cvs were finished.)

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[-RNG-]
[-RNG-]
Members
324 posts
7,139 battles
31 minutes ago, MartyStouffer said:

When will the Furious changes come through to the live server?  Will it be an immediate update like the Zeppelin torp adjustment?

The Facebook Developer page says:

Public Test, changes to Furious, Azuma AA

British CV Furious, tier VI

So I assume it will take a little bit if they are putting it on the Public Test first.

Edited by digitaljustice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,875
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,300 posts
8,978 battles

This is a sort of out-of-the-blue question, but I’ll ask it anyways:

Is there any chance of seeing some of the more famous carrier aircraft get a bit of love? Currently the F6F, SBD, TBF, A7M, etc,... are all considered stock modules on various ships. This makes them not worthwhile using, as there is simply no purpose in doing so. Furthermore, upgrading your aircraft often leads to an extreme loss in variety visually. As much as I love the Helldiver, did it really need to be both the torpedo bomber, and the dive bomber on Lexington? Or how about the British tier X, which moves from all aircraft of a single type, to all aircraft of a single type. We do nothing but stare at these planes now for minutes on end, and I will admit to it getting boring when it’s the same 1-2 planes.

The famous aircraft getting pushed aside as stock modules like the SBD, or thrown into a role that they were not well known for like the Swordfish, do a lot to turn me off of really wanting to play Carriers. You also have some ships that are randomly using prototype aircraft which weren’t that well known, or frankly, good (Spearfish, N1K Carrier prototype, Ta-152 instead of Stukas, like come on man). I would very honestly, and with no malcontent, advise that someone from the historical accuracy department with a penchant for naval aircraft, actually come over to the balance building and advise on aircraft selection, because right now it just feels random and a little off putting.

Also, just in general: please gib SBDs for Ranger. Her using Vindicators at that tier is comical.

 

 
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-ARP-]
Members
19 posts
6,639 battles

Azuma is a joke at this point why even bother releasing her might as well put the project away deep in the basement terrible armor worse than ibuki at t9 and all of the large cruisers unable to play aggressive very susceptible to fires and he spam gets citadeled from all angles from basically all battleship ap poor turning radius less maneuverable than the Russian counterpart unimpressive guns now no longer with crusier accuracy back to graph spee accuracy except you cant even get close to use them, if this cruiser is released in this sorry state nobody will want to buy her she is worthless and offers nothing against Alaska and Krondstat or any cruiser really 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,488
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,006 posts
16,890 battles
43 minutes ago, StoptheViolins said:

So we have a larger number of bombers to drop bombs over a larger area to not cause nearly any damage.

200% as many bombs, 169% as much area. Still an increase, at least on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,914 posts
6,832 battles
2 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

This is a sort of out-of-the-blue question, but I’ll ask it anyways:

Is there any chance of seeing some of the more famous carrier aircraft get a bit of love? Currently the F6F, SBD, TBF, A7M, etc,... are all considered stock modules on various ships. This makes them not worthwhile using, as there is simply no purpose in doing so. Furthermore, upgrading your aircraft often leads to an extreme loss in variety visually. As much as I love the Helldiver, did it really need to be both the torpedo bomber, and the dive bomber on Lexington? Or how about the British tier X, which moves from all aircraft of a single type, to all aircraft of a single type. We do nothing but stare at these planes now for minutes on end, and I will admit to it getting boring when it’s the same 1-2 planes.

The famous aircraft getting pushed aside as stock modules like the SBD, or thrown into a role that they were not well known for like the Swordfish, do a lot to turn me off of really wanting to play Carriers. You also have some ships that are randomly using prototype aircraft which weren’t that well known, or frankly, good (Spearfish, N1K Carrier prototype, Ta-152 instead of Stukas, like come on man). I would very honestly, and with no malcontent, advise that someone from the historical accuracy department with a penchant for naval aircraft, actually come over to the balance building and advise on aircraft selection, because right now it just feels random and a little off putting.

Also, just in general: please gib SBDs for Ranger. Her using Vindicators at that tier is comical.

 

 

I would up-vote this more than once if I could.

It's extremely disappointing that some of the most infamous WWII naval aircraft, along with the more well known prop-engine aircraft, are virtually useless in the game either due to their status as a 'stock' module or just not being used at all.

The sameness of the high tier CV's aircraft is also disappointing. I get that as time went on, nations tried to develop a single aircraft for multiple purposes (B7A, Helldiver, BTD, Wyvern, etc.) but you do lose a lot of visual variety when you actually decide to put them in all the roles they were designed for.

Share this post


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

any plans to make the short range RN CV torps to actually have the shortest arming distance at tier VI, VIII and X

 

otherwise the statement:

Quote

doesn't work if ALL the US CV torpedoes have equal or shorter arming distance than the RN CV ones, as it is then not a rule if it doesn't hold true in the main.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,875
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,300 posts
8,978 battles
29 minutes ago, b101uk said:

any plans to make the short range RN CV torps to actually have the shortest arming distance at tier VI, VIII and X

 

otherwise the statement:

doesn't work if ALL the US CV torpedoes have equal or shorter arming distance than the RN CV ones, as it is then not a rule if it doesn't hold true in the main.

At least they can actually aim in quickly enough to matter. Trying to actually land American torpedoes is a hassle due to how sensitive the spread is to any course corrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[CUTEZ]
-Members-
1,642 posts
1,149 battles
4 hours ago, MartyStouffer said:

When will the Furious changes come through to the live server?  Will it be an immediate update like the Zeppelin torp adjustment?

The Furious changes are for the current round of Public Test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,595
[NDA]
Supertester
5,313 posts
16,276 battles

Hey @iKami, Can we get Shards reverted back to the old map? I keep getting spawned on the southern side and than watching my team get its teeth kicked in. In fact I've yet to see the southern spawn on Shards win a game. 

At this point Shards is competing for worst map in the game with Mountain Range. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,747 posts
11,049 battles
12 hours ago, iKami said:

Tier VI: British CV Furious

Stock bombers changed:

  • Number of bombers in one attacking flight increased from 1 to 2.
  • Plane regain time is lowered from 142 to 96 seconds.
  • Size of the aiming ellipse is increased by 22%.

Top re-searchable bombers changed:

  • Count of bombers in one attacking flight increased from 1 to 2.
  • Size of the aiming ellipse is increased by 30%.

Top re-searchable torpedo bombers' torpedoes replaced by that of the stock ones:

  • The damage is lowered from 5930 to 5200
  • The flooding chance is lowered from 51% to 45%

Instead of 4 bomber attack runs you can make only 2, but each of them will be more effective and the squadron will spend less time under the AA fire. The size of the aiming ellipse was increased to take into account the addition of the second plane and the increased number of bombs being dropped.

The torpedoes of the top torpedo-bombers were replaced as they demonstrated higher efficiency in comparison with other CVs. In addition, such a change compensates the increased bombers' damage.

Glad to see the change on the level bombers, I know I was on of the ones calling for it, but I think 22 and 30% may be a bit too much given some of the "WTH" misses I've had even in the last 48 hours, let alone few days. What exactly is "Regain time" in this case? And while the change to torpedo bombers is minimal, I think you overestimate the compensation the LB's will provide. Also, it will not change that much how long the squadron is under fire - nor the fact that these things are slow bricks.

To which I will still say that UK should be one of the faster plane groups tier for tier, with decent agility, less than IJN, more than USN, and again - the middle on HP maybe closer to IJN. USN should be the brick wall of a tank that's not quite as fast. Also - the rockets still need help. They need at least that 1 mm of pen, to a full 27, and should be 8 per plane. The slower velocity of the rockets should more mean that they hang in the air a bit longer than something like the HVAR. even if it's only say half a second longer that changes the lead and means just a bit more time for a DD paying attention to try and dodge while the fighters can no longer correct for it. Maybe adjust the aim point a tad as well. Maybe a bit longer (from pilots perspective) horizontally and narrow on the vertical (almost like what we have now turned sideways and maybe stretched a bit both ways). 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[MASSD]
Members
485 posts
28,344 battles

I hate this stupid sector AA bring back the old AA . The planes just fly over you and hammer you from the other side .  It doesn't matter what tier CV's are they are OP and screwing the game up . Add in all the AA nerfs  ( range and focus fire ) and it wrecks the game .  You want MM fix suggestions here they are .

1 There should never be more than 1 CV per team . 

2 . If there is a CV present their can be no radar present . Let us deal with one or the other but not both .

 

The sector AA is crap . The KGV lost 30 AA mounts . The Lion has Zero short range AA . 

What's with this huge emphasis on CV's all of a sudden . All they do is wreck the game . The planes are still getting across the map too fast .In truth I would love it if CV's were completely eliminated or give us a NO CV option in game play . 

Edited by Capt_Q_Sparrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[DENY]
Beta Testers
253 posts
11,913 battles
On 3/15/2019 at 10:00 AM, iKami said:

Tier VI: British CV Furious

 

  • The damage is lowered from 5930 to 5200
  • The flooding chance is lowered from 51% to 45%

@iKami

Oh wait!! So is it being nerfed for damage and flooding to tier 5 and 6's or the massive damage to tier 8? I bet it is for the tier 5&6's, but wait wargaming is still going to put it in tier 8 battle's where for most of the time you can't even get off one attack run! So I can see how a tier 6 CV is doing to much damage to the tier 8's should be nerfed right? I see myself as about average in tier 6 CV's so I guess about 40k damage is to high for the average player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KAPPA]
Members
1,309 posts
7,089 battles

Ok, I'm not one to get salty on the forums over proposed changes (most of the time, there have been a couple worth making a fuss about), but seriously, what is it with the devs and constantly nerfing CV torps? It would be one thing if squadrons could drop all of their torps at once, but seeing as we can't and repeated attacks lead to greater losses for not much gain, why? If we're supposed to be a DOT class then let us actually do DOT. The global flooding nerf hit CVs very hard right after we had already been hit by a CV only flood chance nerf. Sure RN and USN CVs have their bombers that can set fires for reasonable DOT, but the IJN is stuck with the rockets only and they are very unreliable fire starters. Flooding was fine for DOT for the IJN until the double nerf left them with almost nothing.

I do agree that flooding was too powerful (globally, not for any specific tree or class), but it was a typical WG sledgehammer nerf when the change did happen. I don't care what the numbers that the devs are looking at say, player comfort has to count for something. It is not fun to work your way through an AA storm to an enemy BB or CL/CA to drop nerf darts that rarely cause floods and get the tiniest amount of damage as a reward for your trouble. Based on the fact that in co-op a team with a CV is matched to an enemy with an extra BB, doesn't that indicate that the devs seem to think a Cv should be able to match/kill a BB? The trouble is, it takes half a match worth of constant attacking to sink an enemy BB unless you get blessed by RNG and get a boatload of fires, a couple of good AP bomb cits, or a detonation from torps. It's like trying to whittle down a BB with a cruiser, except it's even slower.

You've got to give us something to work with, either we go with the DOT thing (which I'd be fine with and arguably prefer) and have low alpha strikes but good to great chances to start either fires or floods, or we go to an alpha strike model where strikes are devastating up front but have low chance to cause fires and floods for DOT. Right now it feels like a low alpha, low DOT experience that is frustrating and RNG heavy and is pushing less dedicated players away, which as I understand is exactly what this CV rework was about, bringing more players to the class. With me being one of the rare exceptions, it seems that most new CV prospects are being driven away by how unrewarding and difficult it is right now and many of the old CV players are ditching the class as well, being alienated by the changes and the seeming lack of the company listening to feedback from them. As I said I'm one of the rare exceptions, I only really started on CVs because of the rework (having been bad at the RTS system) and I'm sticking with it for now, hopeful that things will get sorted out eventually, but there are times I'm tempted to give up on the whole thing because it does feel like the game is trying to make things hard for a CV player by not rewarding your efforts very well when you do manage to get good attacks in. I realize this is probably a bit off of the main topic here, but this is one of the places I look to see what's happening with the whole CV situation.

All of that rant out of the way, the change to the level bombers on Furious does sound like exactly what she needs based on my experience with her. The pattern density of the bomb drops was quite low, it felt like the bomb runs were meant for targets the size of the GK, but at T6, targets the size of GK are few and far between and are usually covered in so much AA, it's suicide to attack them.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,387
[SOV]
Members
3,276 posts

The bombers on t6 are quite useless. I only took them waiting for the torps to regen. Maybe it get better at t8 but wow are bombs stink. They don't pen, they don't start fire, and they don't hit eiher then that there great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,155 posts
6,031 battles
On 3/15/2019 at 11:10 AM, Big_Spud said:

This is a sort of out-of-the-blue question, but I’ll ask it anyways:

Is there any chance of seeing some of the more famous carrier aircraft get a bit of love? Currently the F6F, SBD, TBF, A7M, etc,... are all considered stock modules on various ships. This makes them not worthwhile using, as there is simply no purpose in doing so. Furthermore, upgrading your aircraft often leads to an extreme loss in variety visually. As much as I love the Helldiver, did it really need to be both the torpedo bomber, and the dive bomber on Lexington? Or how about the British tier X, which moves from all aircraft of a single type, to all aircraft of a single type. We do nothing but stare at these planes now for minutes on end, and I will admit to it getting boring when it’s the same 1-2 planes.

The famous aircraft getting pushed aside as stock modules like the SBD, or thrown into a role that they were not well known for like the Swordfish, do a lot to turn me off of really wanting to play Carriers. You also have some ships that are randomly using prototype aircraft which weren’t that well known, or frankly, good (Spearfish, N1K Carrier prototype, Ta-152 instead of Stukas, like come on man). I would very honestly, and with no malcontent, advise that someone from the historical accuracy department with a penchant for naval aircraft, actually come over to the balance building and advise on aircraft selection, because right now it just feels random and a little off putting.

Also, just in general: please gib SBDs for Ranger. Her using Vindicators at that tier is comical.

I can understand some of their decisions. Stukas at tier 8? I don't see how that lines up. Spearfish... Eh, okay I guess, it fits the time-period. Vindicator? Serviceable enough for tier 6. SB2C Helldiver? A fine fit for tier 8, though I do also question why she's used for both bomber roles.

The rest? Oh man, you only got about HALF of the decisions that are cheesing me off and influencing my choices in my own CV proposals. Every time I see these three things I facepalm, so yes, I AM bringing them up yet again in a topic that I know the devs look at. From least to most "WHAT?!" inducing:

  1. Why are Hakuryu's bombers J5N Tenrais? You guys DO know that those were designed specifically as land-based high altitude heavy interceptors, right? As in not flown from carriers? Ever? As in not designed to carry heavy bomb loads?
  2. Why is the AD-1 Skyraider the stock module bomber for Midway? I could understand if it upgraded to, say, the AD-2, or the the AD-3; but no. It doesn't. Instead the AD-1 Skyraider, originally called the BT2D Destroyer 2, leads to the "superior" BTD Destroyer. Which it was developed from. And which it was superior to in every way. Um, wat? Why is the US tech tree going backwards? Did those two planes accidentally get swapped during development and nobody ever caught it? Did you think that nobody would notice that a plane which served through the VIETNAM WAR is being replaced by one that was never flown in battle?
  3. Why, why, WHYYYYYY is the FAIREY SWORDFISH relegated to being a LEVEL BOMBER?! This makes no sense! At all! The Swordfish was always, ALWAYS, a torpedo bomber first and foremost! And not just any torpedo bomber, but the one that kneecapped the FREAKING BISMARCK and left her open for the entire Royal Navy to dogpile on and blast into a floating pile of slag! This is nothing short of a TRAVESTY! Even Wikipedia knows what the Swordfish is best at, their first image is one CARRYING A TORPEDO! You are being outdone in historical accuracy by WIKI-FRIGGIN-PEDIA!

And while I'm at it:

  • I'm glad the A7M Reppu has been included at tier 10, I don't get why the devs are so allergic to making it top-tier at ANYTHING instead of stock though.
  • The Seafire is just PAAAAAAINFULLY slow at tier 8. I don't care that it gets 50% more HP per plane, it also has 1/3 LESS planes to work with so the whole equation cancels itself out!
  • F6F Hellcat BETTER be coming as a slightly slower, slightly beefier Corsair replacement on the Yorktown or heads will roll. The Corsair had enough issues with carrier operations that the Navy often threw up their hands and used them from island bases when they had the option, WHY does it keep popping up IN LIEU OF the Hellcat?!
  • In the same vein, Avengers and Dauntlesses need to be top planes on at least one carrier. Preferably a few, across the US and British tech trees, because that's how common they were.
  • The removal of Stukas and Bf 109Ts from GZ BETTER indicate than a German line is on the way and they'll return in Avengers Endgame there at tier 6 like I think it does.
  • Are you saying you couldn't find anything besides the Westland Wyvern for tier 10? Seriously? Did the Blackburn Firecrest and magical derpy Fairey Gannet never come up? Those would work great in bomber roles!
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[CUTEZ]
-Members-
1,642 posts
1,149 battles

Captains,

Thank you for you specific and detailed feedback. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,056
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles
7 hours ago, Landsraad said:

I can understand some of their decisions. Stukas at tier 8? I don't see how that lines up. Spearfish... Eh, okay I guess, it fits the time-period. Vindicator? Serviceable enough for tier 6. SB2C Helldiver? A fine fit for tier 8, though I do also question why she's used for both bomber roles.

The rest? Oh man, you only got about HALF of the decisions that are cheesing me off and influencing my choices in my own CV proposals. Every time I see these three things I facepalm, so yes, I AM bringing them up yet again in a topic that I know the devs look at. From least to most "WHAT?!" inducing:

  1. Why are Hakuryu's bombers J5N Tenrais? You guys DO know that those were designed specifically as land-based high altitude heavy interceptors, right? As in not flown from carriers? Ever? As in not designed to carry heavy bomb loads?
  2. Why is the AD-1 Skyraider the stock module bomber for Midway? I could understand if it upgraded to, say, the AD-2, or the the AD-3; but no. It doesn't. Instead the AD-1 Skyraider, originally called the BT2D Destroyer 2, leads to the "superior" BTD Destroyer. Which it was developed from. And which it was superior to in every way. Um, wat? Why is the US tech tree going backwards? Did those two planes accidentally get swapped during development and nobody ever caught it? Did you think that nobody would notice that a plane which served through the VIETNAM WAR is being replaced by one that was never flown in battle?
  3. Why, why, WHYYYYYY is the FAIREY SWORDFISH relegated to being a LEVEL BOMBER?! This makes no sense! At all! The Swordfish was always, ALWAYS, a torpedo bomber first and foremost! And not just any torpedo bomber, but the one that kneecapped the FREAKING BISMARCK and left her open for the entire Royal Navy to dogpile on and blast into a floating pile of slag! This is nothing short of a TRAVESTY! Even Wikipedia knows what the Swordfish is best at, their first image is one CARRYING A TORPEDO! You are being outdone in historical accuracy by WIKI-FRIGGIN-PEDIA!

And while I'm at it:

  • I'm glad the A7M Reppu has been included at tier 10, I don't get why the devs are so allergic to making it top-tier at ANYTHING instead of stock though.
  • The Seafire is just PAAAAAAINFULLY slow at tier 8. I don't care that it gets 50% more HP per plane, it also has 1/3 LESS planes to work with so the whole equation cancels itself out!
  • F6F Hellcat BETTER be coming as a slightly slower, slightly beefier Corsair replacement on the Yorktown or heads will roll. The Corsair had enough issues with carrier operations that the Navy often threw up their hands and used them from island bases when they had the option, WHY does it keep popping up IN LIEU OF the Hellcat?!
  • In the same vein, Avengers and Dauntlesses need to be top planes on at least one carrier. Preferably a few, across the US and British tech trees, because that's how common they were.
  • The removal of Stukas and Bf 109Ts from GZ BETTER indicate than a German line is on the way and they'll return in Avengers Endgame there at tier 6 like I think it does.
  • Are you saying you couldn't find anything besides the Westland Wyvern for tier 10? Seriously? Did the Blackburn Firecrest and magical derpy Fairey Gannet never come up? Those would work great in bomber roles!

All excellent points, I agree wholeheartedly on the bold and italic, without reserve. 

I don't know enough about the other complaints to comment, but they sound very credible. Too much back of a beer mat development has been going on, to my casual eyes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,875
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,300 posts
8,978 battles
11 hours ago, Landsraad said:

I can understand some of their decisions. Stukas at tier 8? I don't see how that lines up. Spearfish... Eh, okay I guess, it fits the time-period. Vindicator? Serviceable enough for tier 6. SB2C Helldiver? A fine fit for tier 8, though I do also question why she's used for both bomber roles.

The rest? Oh man, you only got about HALF of the decisions that are cheesing me off and influencing my choices in my own CV proposals. Every time I see these three things I facepalm, so yes, I AM bringing them up yet again in a topic that I know the devs look at. From least to most "WHAT?!" inducing:

  1. Why are Hakuryu's bombers J5N Tenrais? You guys DO know that those were designed specifically as land-based high altitude heavy interceptors, right? As in not flown from carriers? Ever? As in not designed to carry heavy bomb loads?
  2. Why is the AD-1 Skyraider the stock module bomber for Midway? I could understand if it upgraded to, say, the AD-2, or the the AD-3; but no. It doesn't. Instead the AD-1 Skyraider, originally called the BT2D Destroyer 2, leads to the "superior" BTD Destroyer. Which it was developed from. And which it was superior to in every way. Um, wat? Why is the US tech tree going backwards? Did those two planes accidentally get swapped during development and nobody ever caught it? Did you think that nobody would notice that a plane which served through the VIETNAM WAR is being replaced by one that was never flown in battle?
  3. Why, why, WHYYYYYY is the FAIREY SWORDFISH relegated to being a LEVEL BOMBER?! This makes no sense! At all! The Swordfish was always, ALWAYS, a torpedo bomber first and foremost! And not just any torpedo bomber, but the one that kneecapped the FREAKING BISMARCK and left her open for the entire Royal Navy to dogpile on and blast into a floating pile of slag! This is nothing short of a TRAVESTY! Even Wikipedia knows what the Swordfish is best at, their first image is one CARRYING A TORPEDO! You are being outdone in historical accuracy by WIKI-FRIGGIN-PEDIA!

And while I'm at it:

  • I'm glad the A7M Reppu has been included at tier 10, I don't get why the devs are so allergic to making it top-tier at ANYTHING instead of stock though.
  • The Seafire is just PAAAAAAINFULLY slow at tier 8. I don't care that it gets 50% more HP per plane, it also has 1/3 LESS planes to work with so the whole equation cancels itself out!
  • F6F Hellcat BETTER be coming as a slightly slower, slightly beefier Corsair replacement on the Yorktown or heads will roll. The Corsair had enough issues with carrier operations that the Navy often threw up their hands and used them from island bases when they had the option, WHY does it keep popping up IN LIEU OF the Hellcat?!
  • In the same vein, Avengers and Dauntlesses need to be top planes on at least one carrier. Preferably a few, across the US and British tech trees, because that's how common they were.
  • The removal of Stukas and Bf 109Ts from GZ BETTER indicate than a German line is on the way and they'll return in Avengers Endgame there at tier 6 like I think it does.
  • Are you saying you couldn't find anything besides the Westland Wyvern for tier 10? Seriously? Did the Blackburn Firecrest and magical derpy Fairey Gannet never come up? Those would work great in bomber roles!

Stukas were already functioning (extremely well I might add) with their hilariously over-buffed performance ingame. There was no actual reason to replace them with carrier Ta-152's. The Spearfish is just a giant pile of ugly, and absorbs the slot which could have been taken by literally anything else. I would rather have seen an FAA TBF instead of the god damn Spearfish, which was a cancelled prototype. The Vindicators make even less sense when you consider the fact that Ranger was the first American carrier to receive SBD's, and it is at a tier where the Japanese are using D4Y2's (a later variant of an already newer plane), and the British are using Barracudas (ditto). Vindicators are fine as a stock module (instead of a literal biplane SBC Helldiver), but the upgraded module should be an SBD. If WG is worried about SBD's being upgraded modules on Ranger and stock on Lexington, just make them a different modification. Maybe Ranger has SBD-3/4's while Lexington uses the later and improved SBD-5/6's.

The TBF should not be relegated to a stock module, at least not without the ability to simply use a later modification of the aircraft. The same is true for the F6F. There are multiple variants of the aircraft which could be used, rather than entirely replacing the F6F or TBF with SB2C's and F4U's.

None of the choices make sense from a historical accuracy, or even a balance argument. The statistics for aircraft are entirely made up, and WG could have made the Swordfish a tier X plane that cruises at 200 knots and has 5,000 HP per plane. They can literally adjust any stat at will, but they wont. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[5D]
Members
165 posts
22,148 battles
13 hours ago, Landsraad said:

I can understand some of their decisions. Stukas at tier 8? I don't see how that lines up. Spearfish... Eh, okay I guess, it fits the time-period. Vindicator? Serviceable enough for tier 6. SB2C Helldiver? A fine fit for tier 8, though I do also question why she's used for both bomber roles.

The rest? Oh man, you only got about HALF of the decisions that are cheesing me off and influencing my choices in my own CV proposals. Every time I see these three things I facepalm, so yes, I AM bringing them up yet again in a topic that I know the devs look at. From least to most "WHAT?!" inducing:

  1. Why are Hakuryu's bombers J5N Tenrais? You guys DO know that those were designed specifically as land-based high altitude heavy interceptors, right? As in not flown from carriers? Ever? As in not designed to carry heavy bomb loads?
  2. Why is the AD-1 Skyraider the stock module bomber for Midway? I could understand if it upgraded to, say, the AD-2, or the the AD-3; but no. It doesn't. Instead the AD-1 Skyraider, originally called the BT2D Destroyer 2, leads to the "superior" BTD Destroyer. Which it was developed from. And which it was superior to in every way. Um, wat? Why is the US tech tree going backwards? Did those two planes accidentally get swapped during development and nobody ever caught it? Did you think that nobody would notice that a plane which served through the VIETNAM WAR is being replaced by one that was never flown in battle?
  3. Why, why, WHYYYYYY is the FAIREY SWORDFISH relegated to being a LEVEL BOMBER?! This makes no sense! At all! The Swordfish was always, ALWAYS, a torpedo bomber first and foremost! And not just any torpedo bomber, but the one that kneecapped the FREAKING BISMARCK and left her open for the entire Royal Navy to dogpile on and blast into a floating pile of slag! This is nothing short of a TRAVESTY! Even Wikipedia knows what the Swordfish is best at, their first image is one CARRYING A TORPEDO! You are being outdone in historical accuracy by WIKI-FRIGGIN-PEDIA!

And while I'm at it:

  • I'm glad the A7M Reppu has been included at tier 10, I don't get why the devs are so allergic to making it top-tier at ANYTHING instead of stock though.
  • The Seafire is just PAAAAAAINFULLY slow at tier 8. I don't care that it gets 50% more HP per plane, it also has 1/3 LESS planes to work with so the whole equation cancels itself out!
  • F6F Hellcat BETTER be coming as a slightly slower, slightly beefier Corsair replacement on the Yorktown or heads will roll. The Corsair had enough issues with carrier operations that the Navy often threw up their hands and used them from island bases when they had the option, WHY does it keep popping up IN LIEU OF the Hellcat?!
  • In the same vein, Avengers and Dauntlesses need to be top planes on at least one carrier. Preferably a few, across the US and British tech trees, because that's how common they were.
  • The removal of Stukas and Bf 109Ts from GZ BETTER indicate than a German line is on the way and they'll return in Avengers Endgame there at tier 6 like I think it does.
  • Are you saying you couldn't find anything besides the Westland Wyvern for tier 10? Seriously? Did the Blackburn Firecrest and magical derpy Fairey Gannet never come up? Those would work great in bomber roles!

damn, that was just too Good.  Made WG look like a bunch of amateur half-wits.   Guess it's time to fire your research staff --  they suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×