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

Why is the Seafire so slow?

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

794
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts

So the Supermarine Seafire, the upgraded attack aircraft for the Implacable, can get with the Improved Engines skill a cruising speed of 139 knots in-game.

According to Wikipedia, however, the actual Seafires cruising speed was 218 MPH or 189 knots. That is the speed you can reach when in a boost with the Seafire in-game.

Its actual top speed was 359 MPH or just shy of 312 knots.

So the TL;DR of it is why is the Seafire so slow compared to the actual thing?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[WOLF9]
Beta Testers
1,633 posts
22 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

So the Supermarine Seafire, the upgraded attack aircraft for the Implacable, can get with the Improved Engines skill a cruising speed of 139 knots in-game.

According to Wikipedia, however, the actual Seafires cruising speed was 218 MPH or 189 knots. That is the speed you can reach when in a boost with the Seafire in-game.

Its actual top speed was 359 MPH or just shy of 312 knots.

So the TL;DR of it is why is the Seafire so slow compared to the actual thing?

If the wiki is wrong, I am not sure why.

Nothing in this game reflects reality.  War is unbalanced as possible, on purpose.  Games are the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,241
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,003 posts
5,775 battles

because only SUPERIOR german planes can go faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,504
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,200 posts
10,893 battles

The reason is for game balance but it has the benefit of making rocket use easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
794
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
Just now, BrushWolf said:

The reason is for game balance but it has the benefit of making rocket use easier.

I dunno, considering how long the arming time is for the Seafire before you can actually fire your rockets I don't think it helps much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,571 posts
8,217 battles
46 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

So the Supermarine Seafire, the upgraded attack aircraft for the Implacable, can get with the Improved Engines skill a cruising speed of 139 knots in-game.

According to Wikipedia, however, the actual Seafires cruising speed was 218 MPH or 189 knots. That is the speed you can reach when in a boost with the Seafire in-game.

Its actual top speed was 359 MPH or just shy of 312 knots.

So the TL;DR of it is why is the Seafire so slow compared to the actual thing?

I agree with your sentiments, but I hate to break it to you. Matters are set to worsen. Next update, WG intends to reduce plane cruise speed even further, AND reduce boost speed (changed to a fixed rather than percentage speed increase).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
794
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
Just now, LoveBote said:

I agree with your sentiments, but I hate to break it to you. Matters are set to worsen. Next update, WG intends to reduce plane cruise speed even further, AND reduce boost speed (changed to a fixed rather than percentage speed increase).

Yeah, I'm aware that DD mains crying like infants got one of their counters nerfed again.

Won't be surprised for them to demand they be able to shoot bombs and rockets out of the sky next before turning their attention to radar and cruisers with fast firing guns.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,571 posts
8,217 battles
23 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The reason is for game balance but it has the benefit of making rocket use easier.

not really, if you press your down (s on my keyboard) button during an attack, you can slow down to loiter/attack speed (which is well below your cruise speed). Try it sometime/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,571 posts
8,217 battles
Just now, Zaydin said:

Won't be surprised for them to demand they be able to shoot bombs and rockets out of the sky next before turning their attention to radar and cruisers with fast firing guns.

WG has also announced a major AA rework of the rework (for 0.8.5+). I think this is the plan, dds will come with solid state lazers to shoot down incoming bombs and rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
910
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,067 posts
4,926 battles
1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

balans comrade

Not exactly... British aircraft are supposed to be "slower, but tougher" as their gimmick. With regards to individual planes, the Seafire is. When taking the whole squadron into account (i.e.: What REALLY matters for survivability)? They're decidedly not tough, not in the least.

Every squadron has four main stats to determine its "toughness" and ability to strike versus its peers: Total squadron HP, planes on deck, regen rate, and cruising speed. This is how every elite and premium rocket squadron currently implemented compares to each other. Green means a squadron is above average in that category, red means below average:

RAChart.png.a494a2dac6e57151d6bedc06b0fb

Notice anything odd? Go ahead, take a good hard look, I'll wait.

See it yet? Yeah, right there on the third row from the bottom is the Seafire. It's all red. NOTHING about this plane is better than average, not even it's damage. This is objectively the WORST tier 8 elite rocket squadron in the GAME. And the stupid thing? The other Royal Navy carriers do NOT have this problem! I took out Indomitable's stats because they're not finalized, but every iteration of the Sea Hornet has been faster than average and right about average in terms of health. Meanwhile Hermes, Furious, and Audacious don't have this problem because they all use the same or similar squadron layouts to their peers. By tier:

Hermes launches six planes at a time, attacks with three per run, and has nine maximum "on deck". This is identical to Langley and Hosho, so the lower speed is cancelled out by the extra health.

Furious launches six at a time as well, but attacks with two, and still has nine on-deck. This is identical to Ranger, but less than Ryujo which launches 8. Ryujo gets away with this because its early war A6M2 Zeroes are armored with rice paper and not quite as fast as the US's Wildcats, but can still outrun the RN's beefier Sea Hurricanes. So we're balanced here too.

Audacious launches nine planes, attacks with three, and has fourteen on-deck. Midway is the same with faster but more fragile Bearcats, Hakuryu's A8Ms also use the same 9/3, 14 layout and are slower and slightly more fragile than the Bearcat (-100 HP per plane at most), but aren't supposed to be quite as good so it all works out.

Meanwhile, the chart I posted pretty clearly shows how things stack up at tier 8 for every ship. If Wargaming wants to keep the Seafires in the "tough, but slow" niche then they need a buff to HP, regen rate, or squadron size. Even two more planes for an extra attack run would help bring them in line.

Other than this one sticking point Implacable's planes are not bad in any way. The Seafire's striking power isn't in question, its 60lbs. SAP RP-3 rockets are less powerful than a 5" HE HVAR, but not by much, their salvos still have more bite to them than Shokaku's Kyofus and Kaga's A6M5s. Their Mk. XV torpedoes are less powerful than Japan's Mark 91s, but still better than the US's Mark 13-2s. And level bombing? You may not be able to get precision strikes like the US or citadel battleships like Japan, but in terms of raw power and fire chance a well-aimed strike from Implacable will certainly hurt.

This ONE thing is all that's holding the ship back, and I don't see why it was done. @Kami, @Femennenly, @Sub_Octavian, is there something I'm missing?

46 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

I agree with your sentiments, but I hate to break it to you. Matters are set to worsen. Next update, WG intends to reduce plane cruise speed even further, AND reduce boost speed (changed to a fixed rather than percentage speed increase).

Honestly I'm fine with the change, it makes planes that were already ridiculous less so while being less of a nerf to slower planes like the Seafire. Seafires and the Me 155A, currently the slowest of the tier 8 attack planes, will only lose 8 knots of top speed. Meanwhile the notoriously fast Ta 152C, fastest plane in the game, will be brought down by 37. This change will actually benefit several planes, pretty much all of the tier 4s in particular, because their speed boost was less than the planned 35 or 40 knot threshold.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,504
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,200 posts
10,893 battles
1 minute ago, LoveBote said:

not really, if you press your down (s on my keyboard) button during an attack, you can slow down to loiter/attack speed (which is well below your cruise speed). Try it sometime/

True but by starting at a lower speed the Seafire can drop to a much lower speed than other fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
794
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
22 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

WG has also announced a major AA rework of the rework (for 0.8.5+). I think this is the plan, dds will come with solid state lazers to shoot down incoming bombs and rockets.

I doubt anyone would argue the current state of AA is particularly good. Though I suspect it will take WG a while to find the sweet spot where AA feels potent enough that surface ships don't feel helpless against carriers without being so strong carriers can't do anything, assuming they find it at all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,968
[RLGN]
Members
10,033 posts
19,426 battles
1 hour ago, Zaydin said:

I dunno, considering how long the arming time is for the Seafire before you can actually fire your rockets I don't think it helps much.

I have less of a problem with long arming times, then I do with what I consider to be stupidly short attack windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
330
[RG-1]
Beta Testers
664 posts
2,439 battles
38 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

N

You do know that Implacable's attackers are good because they're slow, right?

 

When you launch attacker planes, what you want to do is give precise strikes to targets in need, and Implacable does that perfectly, even though it has less planes per attack and flight, it manages to deal more damage than Haku and is more precise than USN HVARs (Tiny Tim are still "the boss" when it comes to maximum damage and precision).

 

I've really thought that RN CV line was all about that level bombing, but I was wrong, it's all about the precision of it's strikes, their torpedoes are slow but you can drop them closer than USN and their spread is perfect, the attackers are slow but they can turn incredibly fast and they also carry A LOT of payload with a very small reticle, this means that when you need a DD gone, it'll be gone, from all T8 CVs Implacable has been the one that punished DDs and Cruisers the most, I'm often hitting 6~8k damage depending on target whereas I can only achieve similar results with Tiny Tims...but then I need to make a big turn with Tiny Tims to go for the second strike, with Implacable this big turn becomes 1~2 seconds.

 

And yes, they do have more HP per plane, this means that they're harder to shot down during the early attack runs and better at achieving 2 drops, whereas other nations suffer to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
910
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,067 posts
4,926 battles
26 minutes ago, ALROCHA said:

You do know that Implacable's attackers are good because they're slow, right?

 

When you launch attacker planes, what you want to do is give precise strikes to targets in need, and Implacable does that perfectly, even though it has less planes per attack and flight, it manages to deal more damage than Haku and is more precise than USN HVARs (Tiny Tim are still "the boss" when it comes to maximum damage and precision).

 

I've really thought that RN CV line was all about that level bombing, but I was wrong, it's all about the precision of it's strikes, their torpedoes are slow but you can drop them closer than USN and their spread is perfect, the attackers are slow but they can turn incredibly fast and they also carry A LOT of payload with a very small reticle, this means that when you need a DD gone, it'll be gone, from all T8 CVs Implacable has been the one that punished DDs and Cruisers the most, I'm often hitting 6~8k damage depending on target whereas I can only achieve similar results with Tiny Tims...but then I need to make a big turn with Tiny Tims to go for the second strike, with Implacable this big turn becomes 1~2 seconds.

 

And yes, they do have more HP per plane, this means that they're harder to shot down during the early attack runs and better at achieving 2 drops, whereas other nations suffer to do the same.

Yes, they do let you hit more precisely. That is the SINGLE plus that the Seafire currently has compared to her peers. It is outweighed by the following:

  • 10320 HP per squadron, the worst of all the tech tree carriers and the only one that's below average. Since AA damage is dealt to the whole squadron before planes start falling, NOT individual planes, this is the number that matters more.
  • 9 planes on deck, so her reserves are smaller than any other carrier at that tier except Saipan. Implacable has little to replace that low HP squadron with if it gets shot down.
  • 136 knots cruising speed, tied with Graf Zeppelin's Me 155As for slowest at tier 8, that means more time spent getting to target and more time in AA. So now your squadron with less HP than average is taking more damage while within AA than its peers, yet another survivability nerf.
  • 99 second regen rate, WORSE THAN ALL TIER 10 ROCKET PLANES! Implacable's regen is tied with the "I don't need regen because I have stupid-huge reserves that never run out" Kaga, but without the reserves. This means that it has trouble REPLACING those lost planes. A Lexington can theoretically regen 19 Corsairs per battle. Implacable? 12 Seafires.

Speed versus squadron size is the main issue here. If you compare the other rocket squadrons that the Royal Navy gets they are all TOUGHER in total HP than their peers because they get the same number of aircraft as the US and sometimes Japan too. This offsets the damage penalty from their lower speed forcing them to spend more time in AA. Without those two or three extra planes to pad out their HP, the Seafire squadron becomes the most vulnerable to AA fire at tier 8.

But sure, you can line up strikes on destroyers better with your semi-armor-piercing rockets.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,894 posts
78 battles

I would have said that it's probably due to the game compressing distances, but considering ship speed is mostly equivalent to their historical counterparts, I don't really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[WOLF6]
Members
872 posts
3,378 battles
28 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

Yes, they do let you hit more precisely. That is the SINGLE plus that the Seafire currently has compared to her peers. It is outweighed by the following:

  • 10320 HP per squadron, the worst of all the tech tree carriers and the only one that's below average. Since AA damage is dealt to the whole squadron before planes start falling, NOT individual planes, this is the number that matters more.
  • 9 planes on deck, so her reserves are smaller than any other carrier at that tier except Saipan. Implacable has little to replace that low HP squadron with if it gets shot down.
  • 136 knots cruising speed, tied with Graf Zeppelin's Me 155As for slowest at tier 8, that means more time spent getting to target and more time in AA. So now your squadron with less HP than average is taking more damage while within AA than its peers, yet another survivability nerf.
  • 99 second regen rate, WORSE THAN ALL TIER 10 ROCKET PLANES! Implacable's regen is tied with the "I don't need regen because I have stupid-huge reserves that never run out" Kaga, but without the reserves. This means that it has trouble REPLACING those lost planes. A Lexington can theoretically regen 19 Corsairs per battle. Implacable? 12 Seafires.

Speed versus squadron size is the main issue here. If you compare the other rocket squadrons that the Royal Navy gets they are all TOUGHER in total HP than their peers because they get the same number of aircraft as the US and sometimes Japan too. This offsets the damage penalty from their lower speed forcing them to spend more time in AA. Without those two or three extra planes to pad out their HP, the Seafire squadron becomes the most vulnerable to AA fire at tier 8.

But sure, you can line up strikes on destroyers better with your semi-armor-piercing rockets.

Yes excellent points.

I think the mainstay of the UK carriers though aren't their attack aircraft but rather their close dropping torp bombers and, when other DBs get nerfed, their level bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
794
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
7 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Yes excellent points.

I think the mainstay of the UK carriers though aren't their attack aircraft but rather their close dropping torp bombers and, when other DBs get nerfed, their level bombers.

I really feel like the only redeeming RN CVs are their torpedo bombers, myself. The level bombers do too little damage and take way too long to hit the surface to count on them for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[WOLF6]
Members
872 posts
3,378 battles
3 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

I really feel like the only redeeming RN CVs are their torpedo bombers, myself. The level bombers do too little damage and take way too long to hit the surface to count on them for anything.

Yes they do take a while to hit. Thing is if you get a preoccupied low armour BB or cruiser and give enough lead they can light up 3 fires easily. I actually have better luck with the Implac than the Audacious in this regard.

Perhaps we'll see a buff in the future though. Buffing isn't the trend with CVs though! :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by Sumseaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[WOLF9]
Beta Testers
1,633 posts
6 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

I really feel like the only redeeming RN CVs are their torpedo bombers, myself. The level bombers do too little damage and take way too long to hit the surface to count on them for anything.

 

They can't pen much of anything.  They are decent for starting fires though.

That's going to be the name of the game with the uncoming UK premium CV.  No torp planes at all, just rockets and carpet bombs.  All fire all the time :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[WOLF6]
Members
872 posts
3,378 battles
1 minute ago, Burnsy said:

 

They can't pen much of anything.  They are decent for starting fires though.

That's going to be the name of the game with the uncoming UK premium CV.  No torp planes at all, just rockets and carpet bombs.  All fire all the time :Smile_trollface:

Yes you are right Burnsy! 

Problem is many of the bombs hit the top of heavily armoured turrets with only a handful hitting the superstructure or deck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
910
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,067 posts
4,926 battles
3 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

That's going to be the name of the game with the uncoming UK premium CV.  No torp planes at all, just rockets and carpet bombs.  All fire all the time :Smile_trollface:

Hmm, I wonder why people are calling Indomitable "the flying Conqueror"? :Smile_teethhappy:

I'm honestly hoping some future carrier line does something with AP rockets. They were indeed a thing, and they were very effective against subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[WOLF9]
Beta Testers
1,633 posts
1 minute ago, Landsraad said:

I'm honestly hoping some future carrier line does something with AP rockets. They were indeed a thing, and they were very effective against subs.

Huh.  Learn something every day. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
910
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,067 posts
4,926 battles
31 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

Huh.  Learn something every day. Thanks!

Yeah, the FFARs that Langley, Ranger and Enterprise use started out as that. Rather than a 5" HE round their "warhead" was a 20 lbs. steel ball at the end of a 3.5" rocket motor. The whole system could go over 1000mph and punch a hole through a pressure hull after traveling through over 100 feet of water. The entire impetus for developing the HVAR 5" rocket was that the FFAR was slowed down by about 250mph when equipped with the HE warhead, so they needed a faster rocket to deliver it.

Also the Tiny Tim was made by strapping 500 lbs. bombs to spare oil drilling pipe filled with solid rocket propellant. I am not even kidding, that was a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×