Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
HMS_Formidable

Anyone else find RN attack aircraft useless?

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles

Anyone else consider RN attack aircraft a waste of deck space?

I'm talking about the Sea Hurricane, Firefly, Seafire and Wyvern.

They're fighters

They're slower than the bombers they accompany

Their speed boosts last barely a few seconds (so in no way compensate for ultra slow speed)

Rockets highly RNG dependent when you finally get to target

They're very fragile.

?format=500w

I get slow speed and fragility for rocket-carrying Hurricanes (an out-dated, adapted fighter).

I get fragility for Seafires (designed to be an interceptor, and as such was the fastest naval fighter of the war).

I don't get slow speed and fragility for the Firefly (which was actually built to be a rocket strike and recon aircraft. Yes. That is why it was a heavy fleet fighter. The second person was for long range navigation and recon.)

I don't get the slow speed and fragility of the Wyvern (which was actually built to be a strike fighter).

A+27168.jpg?format=750w

People say "use them to spot". I say ... what? At that speed? And use my torp/carpet bombers as at least their speed boost has some sort of duration and means my intel is sort of timely.

People say "use them to contest cap" ... what? By the time they get there, the DD has done their job. And that perfectly aligned rocket drop goes ahead, behind, above and below the target - not on it.

People say "use them to deliver fighter cover" ... what? By the time they get there, the squadron has either been shredded by enemy ships or the ship they are supposed to support has been sunk.

People say "it's about the flavour" ... I say :cap_old:

1434587496469.jpg

Seriously, they're only there to fill the time between waiting for the torp and carpet bomber squadrons to restock.

I'm really, really hesitant to consider buying Indomitable (a shame as I'm such a big RN carrier fan).

She's only going to carry fighters: Sea Hornets.

The Sea Hornets were among the fastest piston engined aircraft ever built. They were also ultra nimble, and ultra-long ranged.

I shudder to think what Wargaming will do to them.

 

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Supertester
797 posts
4,638 battles

Game Balance and gameplay come before historical accuracy. You'll find all fighter aircraft get the same treatment.

The Wyvern we have in-game is also the Piston engine version, not the more well-known turbine variant.

And even then, it's exceptionally tanky. But again. In the end none of this matters, when the game aims to be easy to play, and offer solid gameplay over historical accuracy.

And even then, the RN rockets are exceptionally strong. Not quite as good as the Tiny Tims, but they're easily right up near the top. Very good for starting fires against battleships and excellent for DoTing enemy ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
23 minutes ago, Kaga_Kai_Ni said:

Game Balance and gameplay come before historical accuracy. You'll find all fighter aircraft get the same treatment.

The Wyvern we have in-game is also the Piston engine version, not the more well-known turbine variant.

And even then, it's exceptionally tanky. But again. In the end none of this matters, when the game aims to be easy to play, and offer solid gameplay over historical accuracy.

And even then, the RN rockets are exceptionally strong. Not quite as good as the Tiny Tims, but they're easily right up near the top. Very good for starting fires against battleships and excellent for DoTing enemy ships.

Balanz comrade, yeah.

Such an easy out.

Almost as bad as "god did it".

There's balanz. And then there's boring - as in this case.

 

Sure, the rocket fighters have a high-ish hit point pool. But they are very slow (stay in AA bubbles longer), have a very poor turn rate (harder to dodge flak), and have an insta-depleted boost (minimal use for any kind of evasion).

These "flavours" don't seem to balanz, to me at least.

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,875
[RLGN]
Members
9,764 posts
19,290 battles
16 minutes ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Balanz comrade, yeah.

Such an easy out.

Almost as bad as "god did it".

There's balanz. And then there's boring - as in this case.

Unless someone happens to be one of the few real ‘Experten,’ with the new carriers, able to dance all over anything and anyone  like Fred Astaire tiptoeing through the tulips; carriers have been ‘boring’ since 0.8.0...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Unless someone happens to be one of the few real ‘Experten,’ with the new carriers, able to dance all over anything and anyone  like Fred Astaire tiptoeing through the tulips; carriers have been ‘boring’ since 0.8.0...

Oh, I feel CVs are fun enough.

It's just that I feel one third of my air group is just window dressing, and that makes game-play management harder as I really only have two squadrons to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,875
[RLGN]
Members
9,764 posts
19,290 battles
2 minutes ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Oh, I feel CVs are fun enough.

It's just that I feel one third of my air group is just window dressing, and that makes game-play management harder as I really only have two squadrons to work with.

I guess the fighters on Kaga are like that for me, (I’ve had it since RTS.)

Kaga had deep squads, but the fighters aren’t, so they tend to just get used for the occasional opportunity rocket attack, (played five Kaga games last week; four were T9-10, one T7,) and to keep spotting up while giving the bombers a chance to recover to keep the reserves up for the endgame rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
3 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I guess the fighters on Kaga are like that for me, (I’ve had it since RTS.)

Kaga had deep squads, but the fighters aren’t, so they tend to just get used for the occasional opportunity rocket attack, (played five Kaga games last week; four were T9-10, one T7,) and to keep spotting up while giving the bombers a chance to recover to keep the reserves up for the endgame rush.

 

Yeah, it would be nice to be able to spot effectively 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
[HELLS]
Members
1,981 posts
19,132 battles

At least in RTS you could assign fighters over your ships as CAP or over a decent location that enemy strike aircraft had to go over or around as a BARCAP and have some kind of fighter defence that you could actually move around and vector fighters to cover your team if necessary. I find the way fighters are enacted as an on-call 60-second consumable to be pure [edited], as well as the automatic CV CAP when enemy strike groups approach your CV.. When you hit a Yamato with 12 torpedoes with RN TBs and she is still afloat, you know that something is rotten. And never mind the bombs. In real life the RN had one of the strongest aerial torpedoes of any nation, even though their torpedo bombers were slow moving museum pieces for most of the war. You could not even hang an RN torpedo on an Avenger because it was too long to fit in the torpedo bay of American-built TBs, so the RN used Avengers as level or glide bombers. I play the RN CVs and so far am in the 50% win range after 50 Random games, but I am not a CV fan by any means. RN CVs are painful to play to a high level, and hard to score decently in even at T10. I won't be grinding any other CV line either after this is done....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,272
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
10,251 posts

I sort of keep the RN rocket planes in reserve... they're great come mid-game, when your aircraft are being rebuilt and pushed into the elevator to the flight deck. They're handy this way because none of their fighter aircraft drops will have been used. Take em out, blap some DD, drop fighters, spot around... just don't hold the boost down... keep a bit of boost in reserve for those 'mergency sitcheeeayeshuns... 

The Audacious are, as you would expect, the best of the RN rocket fighters... you can actually get a few thousand damage from the stock ones! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
797
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,740 posts
4,825 battles

Honestly so far every Royal Navy carrier has at least decent rocket planes to me, except Implacable. I know I keep harping on Implacable's Seafires, but that's because I can't make sense of them no matter how I look at it and they NEED TO BE FIXED! Royal Navy rocket planes have the gimmick of being slower than their same-tier peers in exchange for having more health, I get that, and on a per plane basis this does apply to Implacable's Seafires and Fireflies. But AA damage is not DEALT on a "per plane" basis, it is dealt across the entire SQUADRON, so in order for the slow speed to be balanced out you need the squadrons to be the same size as everyone else's, at least roughly.

Hermes does this, everyone at tier 4 gets 6 rocket planes in the air at a time and 3 planes per attack run.
Furious does this, Ranger also gets 6 rocket planes in the air and everyone gets 2 planes per attack run; Ryujo gets more per squadron because they're armored with rice paper.
Audacious does this, every tier 10 has 9 rocket planes per flight and 3 per attack run.

Implacable does NOT do this! Implacable puts 6 rocket planes in the air and uses 2 per run. Shokaku and stock Lexington, meanwhile, put 8 in the air and use 2 per run; and elite Lexington is 9/3 like the tier 10s while Shokaku gets extra reserves proportionate to her peers. So given that the standard at this tier is 8 or 9 planes per flight, Implacable's 6 plane flights are missing 1/3 of the planes in the air or 1/2 the reserves they would need to make up for their slow speed AND HP buff. Right now every RN rocket squadron has about 40% more health than its peers, except Implacable's. In fact Implacable's Seafires have the LOWEST squadron HP of all the tier 8 tech tree carriers (3rd lowest at tier 8 overall) despite having the HIGHEST individual rocket plane HP at tier 8. That health is supposed to make up for the speed loss but it can't do that if it's not there.

Every guide or stat analysis or preview or what have you of the CV rework has looked at aircraft HP on a per plane basis. That does not work! We need to stop doing that and start looking at squadron HP or we'll keep getting coprolites like this!

Edit: In fact, here's a spreadsheet I made for my own CV-proposal needs with the stats of all the elite/premium rocket planes currently in-game. I've color-coded it to high-light the disparity:

RAChart.thumb.png.6a62bdc4b392c053556e3ceb10155a59.png

Notice the ONLY plane that is below average in all four survivability categories of maximum squadron HP (HP per Flight), maximum aircraft on deck (PoD), speed, AND regen rate: The Supermarine Seafire. Every other squadron at least has one aspect that is above average. @iKami is there any explanation for this oversight? There's no way this was intentional, was it?

Also note that I removed the "WIP" Sea Hornet stats for this pic, though they didn't change anything's position otherwise. The two green cells should show you where the last stats I saw for it stand, though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[CO_OP]
Beta Testers
305 posts
3,946 battles

I was hoping the tier 10 carrier would carry hawker sea fury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
 
 
 
 
3
18 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Honestly so far every Royal Navy carrier has at least decent rocket planes to me, except Implacable. I know I keep harping on Implacable's Seafires, but that's because I can't make sense of them no matter how I look at it and they NEED TO BE FIXED! Royal Navy rocket planes have the gimmick of being slower than their same-tier peers in exchange for having more health, I get that, and on a per plane basis this does apply to Implacable's Seafires and Fireflies. But AA damage is not DEALT on a "per plane" basis, it is dealt across the entire SQUADRON, so in order for the slow speed to be balanced out you need the squadrons to be the same size as everyone else's, at least roughly...

Thanks for the analysis. And yes, I also 'feel' that problem with the Seafire.

I have not played any of the other lines, so I cannot compare.

But for me it is the general lack of speed and speed boost, combined with pathetic turn rates, that make RN attack aircraft all-round useless. Hitpoints are only part of the issue (though your Seafire analysis does raise eyebrows ... will go back and check how many Fireflies are in a strike. Perhaps they will be better)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
7 hours ago, Mheetu said:

I was hoping the tier 10 carrier would carry hawker sea fury.

After their 'navy wings' youtube videos looked at Sea Fury and Fulmar, I was also expecting these two peak RN aircraft to feature somewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,324
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,446 posts
8,217 battles

nope, I disagree. They are excellent versus dds (at least Audacious' attack fighters are), one of the best anti-dd attack fighters in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

nope, I disagree. They are excellent versus dds (at least Audacious' attack fighters are), one of the best anti-dd attack fighters in the game.

Audacious is the least worst.

They are still slower than the bombers. They still have minute boost times. They still steer like cows.

Their rockets, unlike Implacable and Furious, are useful against DD.

But I consistently find Implacable and Furious' rockets pointless against DDs as even well-aligned shots (top of the reticle is where they group) give you incredibly poor results (often straddle misses) for the significant amount of time invested simply getting there... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,324
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,446 posts
8,217 battles
1 minute ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Audacious is the least worst.

They are still slower than the bombers. They still have minute boost times. They still steer like cows.

Their rockets, unlike Implacable and Furious, are useful against DD.

But I consistently find Implacable and Furious' rockets pointless against DDs as even well-aligned shots (top of the reticle is where they group) give you incredibly poor results (often straddle misses) for the significant amount of time invested simply getting there... 

 

beware of cows, when they get angry and attack RUN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
797
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,740 posts
4,825 battles
6 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

But for me it is the general lack of speed and speed boost, combined with pathetic turn rates, that make RN attack aircraft all-round useless.

Rate of turn I cannot comment on, I don't have Mouse's skill or patience for digging up hidden stats. Speed boost however I can't be too mad about because it works the same for every rocket squadron: +42.5% speed for X seconds (have not timed it). The Engine Cooling consumable is also identical to my knowledge.

6 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Hitpoints are only part of the issue (though your Seafire analysis does raise eyebrows ... will go back and check how many Fireflies are in a strike. Perhaps they will be better)

They are not. They fare slightly better because everyone else is worse off than elite, but not significantly. Rule of thumb: No currently implemented CV loses planes, speed, or HP in its squadrons on upgrade from stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[SOV]
Members
2,157 posts

 

US cv I am in the top 3 xp on most games.  

British CV in the middle. So ya not to happy with but I would add that there t8 planes last longer than my t10 Sipan planes

 

 

 

Edited by jags_domain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[SYJ]
Members
148 posts
8,237 battles

It would have been nice to have some other options for rockets other then various "flavors" of RP 3 inch.

It would have been relay nice to see some options like 4.5 inch M8 / M16 rockets. Yes I know they were primary used by US Army Air Core, but that hasn't stop War Gaming from taking "creative liberties"...
Like Devastators and Skyraiders  armed with Mk.7 torpedoes, etc.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
68 posts
11,162 battles

I dont share the opinion of them being useless. 

I actually like the fighters and their rockets. 

 

Theyre a mix of accuracy from the IJN and quantity of the USF. 

 

Do they hit hard? No. 

Are they so accurate, all will hit? No.

They blanket the reticle and are intended to be fast hitting fire starters, and theyre good for that! 

I dont always open up a match with them, but when using them, I try to go for closer targets due to their speed. 

They fair well against anything you shoot at, but then again im looking to start fires. 

 

If you want alpha damage with your fighters, go into the USF tree. 

Or buy the graf zeppelin, since the rockets on those things are equally insane. 

 

Remember, the RN tree is all about fires and floods damage... or damage over time. Which is where folks get frustrated coming from the IJN or USF trees. Everything in the RN tree is geared to do low direct damage, but make it easy to start fires and floods. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,324
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,446 posts
8,217 battles
On 5/8/2019 at 7:31 AM, HMS_Formidable said:

And now these fragile, slow fighters are going to get even slower ...

next up, a Naval Legends video describing the future WOWS Soviet CV tech tree, which will prove beyond reasonable doubt that a full tech tree of CVs with supersonic biplanes was "developed" between the 1920s and 1940s, referencing a Japanese manga cartoon as evidence.

Spoiler

(obviously satire - in case of doubt)

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
670
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
5,150 battles
4 hours ago, LoveBote said:

next up, a Naval Legends video describing the future WOWS Soviet CV tech tree, which will prove beyond reasonable doubt that a full tech tree of CVs with supersonic biplanes was "developed" between the 1920s and 1940s, referencing a Japanese manga cartoon as evidence.

  Hide contents

(obviously satire - in case of doubt)

 

2658-08-7099621.thumb.jpg.34df1a3b12d8d1ae00731b74290314b2.jpg

Photographic evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×