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

CVs vs Tier 3 ships

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,893 posts
8,225 battles

Took the ol Charleston out in a random last night just to see what low tier PvP is like now. 

An exercise in frustration is all I can say. Two CVs per team and NO AA on tier 3 ships. I'm nothing but target practice for the tier 4 CVs. 

And what's with tier 4 CVs having rocket planes? Rockets weren't in use during the time period represented by tiers 3 & 4. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,459
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
10,528 posts

Yea... I feel very bad (honestly I do) if I play a Tier IV carrier and see T3 ships with little to no AA(A) on them. 

The rocket planes are there so players can "learn" how to use them before they play at Tier VI... but then using the same logic, those Tier IV carriers should be carrying fighters as well. 

The details of how and why sometimes get lost in WoWS. :cat_cool:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[V-MF]
Members
18 posts
85 battles
14 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

Took the ol Charleston out in a random last night just to see what low tier PvP is like now. 

An exercise in frustration is all I can say. Two CVs per team and NO AA on tier 3 ships. I'm nothing but target practice for the tier 4 CVs. 

And what's with tier 4 CVs having rocket planes? Rockets weren't in use during the time period represented by tiers 3 & 4. 

When I play my Oleg or Varyag and a CV shows up I just go sail in circles behind it. CV's have wicked AA and make excellent meat shields too. :Smile_smile:

Edited by Witchsire
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
Beta Testers
181 posts
10,761 battles

I don't know what game you are playing, but a tier 4 carrier does do so little damage that I completely ignore their existence. Hell, DD gunfire does more damage than those low level CVs.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
396
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,473 posts
9,557 battles
10 minutes ago, Nergy said:

I don't know what game you are playing, but a tier 4 carrier does do so little damage that I completely ignore their existence. Hell, DD gunfire does more damage than those low level CVs.

This is so true its not even funny. When playing Langley the most of damage i do comes from fires and flooding. And the torpedoes are so slow a full speed BB can put run them. And when those pitiful aerial torpedo finally connect, the damage amd floodingn chance is so poor i wonder why i bothered with them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,006
[ARGSY]
Members
10,317 posts
6,746 battles
9 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

This is so true its not even funny. When playing Langley the most of damage i do comes from fires and flooding. And the torpedoes are so slow a full speed BB can put run them. And when those pitiful aerial torpedo finally connect, the damage amd floodingn chance is so poor i wonder why i bothered with them.

Agree. T4 CV was better when you had three torps going at once. Also, I understand the desire not to have flooding with every damn torpedo, but the flood chance with only one at a time is IMO too low. Especially with the current flooding mechanism.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
396
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,473 posts
9,557 battles
16 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Agree. T4 CV was better when you had three torps going at once. Also, I understand the desire not to have flooding with every damn torpedo, but the flood chance with only one at a time is IMO too low. Especially with the current flooding mechanism.

It is, this is why most t4 CVs only uae rockets and bombs. CVs at this tier struggle to deal t2 damage in a t4 setting; and almost all of that comes from Dots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,124
[SIM]
Members
3,453 posts
5,314 battles

Please don’t bring your “historical purity” nonsense into an online video game, lest you want to open a can of worms that involves infinite torpedo reloads, battleships sailing through shallows, IFHE, etc. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,610
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,370 posts
10,928 battles
47 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

This is so true its not even funny. When playing Langley the most of damage i do comes from fires and flooding. And the torpedoes are so slow a full speed BB can put run them. And when those pitiful aerial torpedo finally connect, the damage amd floodingn chance is so poor i wonder why i bothered with them.

The real reason you use TB's with a tier 4 CV is for practice. If you can get to where you land a tier 4 CV torp 33% of the time you will be in great shape for using them in tier 6 and up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
396
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,473 posts
9,557 battles
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The real reason you use TB's with a tier 4 CV is for practice. If you can get to where you land a tier 4 CV torp 33% of the time you will be in great shape for using them in tier 6 and up.

T4 random battles arw still random battles, CVs need to deal damage as your team is down a surface combatant.

Also, the speed of t4 torpedoes (Langley) are so slow they almost have no relation to their t6 counterparts. Its like going from a Worcester to a Moskva in the same line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,610
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,370 posts
10,928 battles
1 minute ago, Crokodone said:

T4 random battles arw still random battles, CVs need to deal damage as your team is down a surface combatant.

Also, the speed of t4 torpedoes (Langley) are so slow they almost have no relation to their t6 counterparts. Its like going from a Worcester to a Moskva in the same line.

You end up having to use the TB's because of the losses the other squadrons take so you want to be as good as possible with them. TB's are not going to be my first choice in a tier 4 CV but I will not ignore them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,322 posts
3,206 battles

Oh yes. That big bad (weak) single torpedo is gonna get you!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,611
[WOLF7]
Members
11,405 posts
59 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

Oh yes. That big bad (weak) single torpedo is gonna get you!

Somehow I doubt that's the issue people are having with it.....It's more likely they are tired of the constant non-stop repeat attacks due to their inability to shoot anything down.....:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
930
[SOV]
Members
2,636 posts
3 hours ago, Gen_Saris said:

Took the ol Charleston out in a random last night just to see what low tier PvP is like now. 

An exercise in frustration is all I can say. Two CVs per team and NO AA on tier 3 ships. I'm nothing but target practice for the tier 4 CVs. 

And what's with tier 4 CVs having rocket planes? Rockets weren't in use during the time period represented by tiers 3 & 4. 

Rockets have been used on planes starting mid ww1. Balloon busting was done with rockets. 4 rockets per wing were set at about a 30 degree angle.

It worked sort of.

 

As to the game I did not know t3 could be in t4 game. T4 cv are so bad that I dont know if it would be that big of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
930
[SOV]
Members
2,636 posts
2 hours ago, SkaerKrow said:

Please don’t bring your “historical purity” nonsense into an online video game, lest you want to open a can of worms that involves infinite torpedo reloads, battleships sailing through shallows, IFHE, etc. 

I really love the sailing full speed into an island and no damage to the ship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

You end up having to use the TB's because of the losses the other squadrons take so you want to be as good as possible with them. TB's are not going to be my first choice in a tier 4 CV but I will not ignore them either.

I generally use TBs against old slow BBs with a T4 carrier, if the DBs are regenerating.   Even when I do hit them, it's 2500 damage, and almost never a flood.

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[LRSSG]
Members
36 posts
2,778 battles

As someone who has suffered through the Hosho grind I'd like to be honest with you. Low tier CVs are a joke, they don't do much damage at all per attack run. I would sigh in relief when I got matched up with ships in tier 3 and not tier 5 as my planes would get eaten up. That said, I have had my fair share of troubles in tier 3 matches with CVs as well. My advice would be to stick close to ships you know have AA defense, especially if they are a tier 4. I often found myself avoiding large groups or fleets of ships. If I attacked them I would either lose all my planes or barely get a single attack in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
2 minutes ago, Kirishi_Kaze said:

As someone who has suffered through the Hosho grind I'd like to be honest with you. Low tier CVs are a joke, they don't do much damage at all per attack run. I would sigh in relief when I got matched up with ships in tier 3 and not tier 5 as my planes would get eaten up. That said, I have had my fair share of troubles in tier 3 matches with CVs as well. My advice would be to stick close to ships you know have AA defense, especially if they are a tier 4. I often found myself avoiding large groups or fleets of ships. If I attacked them I would either lose all my planes or barely get a single attack in. 

I've found that Kaiser (or is it Konig?), well, whichever, the T5 German is a big pain for a T4 carrier.  Texas is a big no-go for a T4 carrier as well, unless you want a suicide run.  In T3/T4 DDs vs T4 carriers, learn to make them miss.  If you don't try to dodge at all, you *are* easy pickings.  Not one-shots, but good damage vs your health pool.

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[LRSSG]
Members
36 posts
2,778 battles
1 minute ago, mavfin87 said:

I've found that Kaiser (or is it Konig?), well, whichever, the T5 German is a big pain for a T4 carrier.  Texas is a big no-go for a T4 carrier as well, unless you want a suicide run.

I'm gonna say it's both, and yeah Texas is a big nope! I've also found people using Nicholas with a full AA spec and defense consumable to be a huge pain as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
53 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Somehow I doubt that's the issue people are having with it.....It's more likely they are tired of the constant non-stop repeat attacks due to their inability to shoot anything down.....:Smile_teethhappy:

The problem a group of people are having is not balance-related.  It's just the presence of carriers at all that they don't like.  

It's an insoluble problem, really.  Adapt, or quit, or WG nukes carriers further, which I don't expect to be the solution.  

I think WG is deciding between two courses: 

1) to keep the old concealment meta, which means they'll nerf CVs into uselessness again, and write those people off,

2) or they'll go back to the original vision they had that RTS CVs failed at because of numbers, and change the meta permanently as they may have envisioned originally, and write off the people who can't stand having carriers in-game.

Only they know which they'll do, and only they for sure know which group is bigger, and/or which group fits their future projections better.  It's all about numbers that we can only guess at.

Whatever they do, if it's fun, I'll play it, and if it isn't, I won't play it.  Their game to change.

 

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,576
[KNMSU]
Members
5,327 posts
5,553 battles

The low tiers are exceedingly brutal. I have no idea why the 3x CV per team thing was allowed to go live (carriers at this tier are either completely inept or they are stat-padders. Either way, I don't want more than one wrench tossed into the works), but it's been a plague since 8.0 dropped:

V6e6i6d.jpg

Edited by Battleship_Elisabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[LRSSG]
Members
36 posts
2,778 battles
2 minutes ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

The low tiers are exceedingly brutal. I have no idea why the 3x CV per team thing was allowed to go live (carriers at this tier are either completely inept or they are stat-padders. Either way, I don't want more than one wrench tossed into the works), but it's been a plague since 8.0 dropped:

V6e6i6d.jpg

I have never seen 3 carriers in a game before. This must be rare, I've only ever seen 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,576
[KNMSU]
Members
5,327 posts
5,553 battles
9 minutes ago, Kirishi_Kaze said:

I have never seen 3 carriers in a game before. This must be rare, I've only ever seen 2.

It's only possible in the low tiers. And there, it seems common enough. It's not, like, every game or anything, but I've played a fair number of 3x carrier games since 8.0 dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,610
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,370 posts
10,928 battles
35 minutes ago, Kirishi_Kaze said:

I often found myself avoiding large groups or fleets of ships. If I attacked them I would either lose all my planes or barely get a single attack in. 

Even if that group only has mediocre AA those ships that are grouped are not going to be my first choice for attacking if there are other good to great targets that are less dangerous to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×