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

CVs run out if planes easily ships should run out of ammo also

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

377
[SVF]
Members
1,334 posts
1,816 battles
1 minute ago, cyclone_z said:

Should work both ways

Most ships carried enough ammo that it is not possible to empty their magazines in one 10-20 minute long battle.

/thread.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[NH]
Members
931 posts

Im okay if CVs run out of planes or AA is strong for the sake of balance. I think though CV strikes should be devastating in return. High risk and high reward. What we have now is garbage chip damage.

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,348
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
9,943 posts
13,846 battles
9 minutes ago, cyclone_z said:

Should work both ways

Why make this thread. 

Troll is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,924
[5BS]
Members
8,505 posts
13 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Most ships carried enough ammo that it is not possible to empty their magazines in one 10-20 minute long battle.

/thread.

Bad argument; most ships couldn't shoot down planes at the rate of even 0.8.0. Getting 2-3 planes shot down per ship was a high water mark in most battles (Kamikazi attacks need not apply as they would get far too close where other planes would not dare to enter).

By this token most ships in the game should struggle to shoot down even 1 or 2 planes per attack.

A better argument is that by the numbers, most shells MISS their targets; a 33% accuracy rate being considered reasonably good, 40% very high. As such planes either need their ordencence tooled to miss an approximate same amount of the time or have the equivalent ordinance 'miss' by being shot down. So for example planes land 60-70% of the ordinance they drop, and 15-20% of them are shot down on the way, resulting in a net hit rate of ~33%.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[OO7]
Members
397 posts
5,188 battles

Ships do have an ammo counter, its called the HP bar.

Find me a ship that can fire at anything without risking its HP being depleted in return.

Edited by mixmkz
  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[ZR]
Beta Testers
251 posts
8,886 battles

And planes should have fuel, planes can’t get repaired during the battle, and ships get the proximity fuse for AA guns.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers
142 posts
5,047 battles
22 minutes ago, Dr_Citadel said:

Im okay if CVs run out of planes or AA is strong for the sake of balance. I think though CV strikes should be devastating in return. High risk and high reward. What we have now is garbage chip damage.

You mean exactly how it was before the rework.... the thing people complained about... you know if one CV was better than the other that the game was imbalanced because of the strike power

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[RTXN]
Beta Testers
1,097 posts
31 minutes ago, cyclone_z said:

Should work both ways

This is not going to go over well with DD drivers and their Torps.

What do you think this is, British light tanks in WOT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[-BRS-]
Members
1,851 posts
9,673 battles
2 minutes ago, mixmkz said:

Ships do have an ammo counter, its called the HP bar.

Find me a ship that can fire at anything without risking its HP being depleted in return.

DDs, certain cruisers with high shell arcs, IJN crusier with torps, Smoke RN  cruisers...

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,924
[5BS]
Members
8,505 posts
6 minutes ago, mixmkz said:

Ships do have an ammo counter, its called the HP bar.

Find me a ship that can fire at anything without risking its HP being depleted in return.

Well this is up there with the dumbest things I've seen written on these forums;

A ship at 1 HP is just ad dangerous as a ship at 100,000 HP as HP does not factor into gunnery; your range is not taxed. Your damage (alpha) is not taxed. Your Fire% is not taxed. Your accuracy is not taxed. There is no disadvantage to a ship with less HP than one with more from a damage output situation (but this is untrue for a Plane Squad as planes are shot down as the HP is depleted).

As far as your second question; any ship firing over a mountain cover (as rounds elevate a steeper angle than they come down, meaning a ship could not hit itself when positioned correctly). Likewise any ship capable of smoke firing, while not immune to being shot at, is EXTREMELY unreliably so.

And finally, a CV is, currently, different, as, as wing loses HP, planes are shot down, reducing their damage output. An equivalent system for Ships would be for every % of health taken, they lose a barrel. So a 10 gun battleship loses 1 barrel for every ten percent of HP lost.

4 minutes ago, Desertfox51 said:

And planes should have fuel, planes can’t get repaired during the battle, and ships get the proximity fuse for AA guns.

Another bad argument; most WWII era planes were capable of staying aloft for ~10 hours max at cruising altitude (w/ Drop tanks). Certainty even at WEP's (ignoring cooling issues) they were well into 2-3 hours. Additionally proximity fuses would only apply to the USN and RN, and then only on specific calibres.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
481
[CUTE]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
1,898 posts
10,502 battles

USS Laffey724 was firing her AA and main batterys for 90 minutes and didn't run out of ammo they started to dump it overboard so it didn't detonate on her.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[OO7]
Members
397 posts
5,188 battles
6 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Well this is up there with the dumbest things I've seen written on these forums;

A ship at 1 HP is just ad dangerous as a ship at 100,000 HP as HP does not factor into gunnery; your range is not taxed. Your damage (alpha) is not taxed. Your Fire% is not taxed. Your accuracy is not taxed. There is no disadvantage to a ship with less HP than one with more.

As far as your second question; any ship firing over a mountain cover (as rounds elevate a steeper angle than they come down, meaning a ship could not hit itself when positioned correctly). Likewise any ship capable of smoke firing, while not immune to being shot at, is EXTREMELY unreliably so.

And finally, a CV is, currently, different, as, as wing loses HP, planes are shot down, reducing their damage output. An equivalent system for Ships would be for every % of health taken, they lose a barrel. So a 10 gun battleship loses 1 barrel for every ten percent of HP lost.

Let me break this down for you

ships that fires over mountain:  requires spotting from teammates, a poorly positoned ship that is camping behind island without spotting or against enemy that is smart, will be both out of range or have no target to shoot.  In short, you need skill, specially being aware of the flow of the battle enough to position yourself well.

ships that fire from smoke: Also requires spotting from teammates, a poorly chosen smoke location means vulnerable to torps, being radar, or in the middle of being pushed meaning you have to abandon the smoke and therefore wasting your ability to deal damage.  Again, you need skill to use properly.

Ships that suffer from aa:  Just dodge the flak and choose isolated targets.  

---

If I can write the dumbest thing you've ever seen and do well in this game.  I am sure you can do extremely well too.  So there's your encouragement.

Edited by mixmkz
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,348
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
9,943 posts
13,846 battles

Well ok if we are going to take this seriously.

Ships do run out of guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,924
[5BS]
Members
8,505 posts
13 minutes ago, mixmkz said:

ships that fires over mountain:  requires spotting from teammates, a poorly positoned ship that is camping behind island without spotting or against enemy that is smart, will be both out of range or have no target to shoot.  In short, you need skill, specially being aware of the flow of the battle enough to position yourself well.

Not necessarily; a spotter plane can detect enemy ships within range as it orbits over the cover. And radar is a thing that exists. And it is not a coincidence that those same-said ships who are acutly capable of shooting over cover ARE ALSO typically the ones carrying radar. Your Atlantas. Your Minos. Your Clevelands. Your Worcesters. Ect.

13 minutes ago, mixmkz said:

ships that fire from smoke: Also requires spotting from teammates, a poorly chosen smoke location means vulnerable to torps, being radar, or in the middle of being pushed meaning you have to abandon the smoke and therefore wasting your ability to deal damage.  Again, you need skill to use properly.

Same deal, they can have radar while in smoke (Belfast), using a float plane to spot, and likewise the target may be a BB or larger CA that when firing are detectable even 10-12-14 km away through smoke. This is a favorite tactic of mine in fact, to smoke up ~12 km away from a BB, coax him into shooting at me, so as to keep himself lit while I pepper him with rounds from the Mino. Rare is it I even take a single hit by just simply rocking back and forth within my own smoke (one of many reasons SSE is an oft-overlooked life saver on the RN CL's who need not spend points in DE or IFHE).

13 minutes ago, mixmkz said:

Ships that suffer from aa:  Just dodge the flak and choose isolated targets.  

You clearly do not pay much attention but the *constant* DPS aka damage that is guaranteed and cannot be 'dodged (has 100% accuracy) has been changed as of the last patch to where losing several planes both in and out of a run is common, and as mentioned, dissimilar to gunnery/torp ships as a squad that has say, 10 planes at full health, that loses 40% of it's HP, also loses *4* planes. That's 4 less torps, 4/8 less bombs, and dozens of rockets lost per squad. Again, the equivalent system to what planes have NOW is that when your Missouri takes 33% health, it loses an entire turrets worth of guns.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,282
[WOLFG]
Members
24,727 posts
6,108 battles

I like CVs, but I think ships running out of ammo is ridiculous and would serve no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
508
[KNCOL]
Members
616 posts
1,604 battles

I dont think giving ships limited ammo would be the best choice.

I think it would be best to tone down aa a little bit and maybe make AA will attack your whole last squad of planes instead of just one so TB heal could be more useful.

How about AA dps is lowered a bit more and change flak where the longer a aircraft spends in its range the more accurate it gets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,179
[GWG]
Supertester
22,805 posts
12,776 battles

The problem with 8.5 is we have RTS levels of plane losses without RTS levels of alpha strike power.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,121
[WOLFG]
Members
6,937 posts
4,987 battles
49 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

Have we done this thread yet this week? :cap_haloween:

Well, it is Monday.

So we probably already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
291
[OO7]
Members
397 posts
5,188 battles
13 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Not necessarily; a spotter plane can detect enemy ships within range as it orbits over the cover. And radar is a thing that exists. And it is not a coincidence that those same-said ships who are acutly capable of shooting over cover ARE ALSO typically the ones carrying radar. Your Atlantas. Your Minos. Your Clevelands. Your Worcesters. Ect.

Same deal, they can have radar while in smoke (Belfast), using a float plane to spot, and likewise the target may be a BB or larger CA that when firing are detectable even 10-12-14 km away through smoke. This is a favorite tactic of mine in fact, to smoke up ~12 km away from a BB, coax him into shooting at me, so as to keep himself lit while I pepper him with rounds from the Mino. Rare is it I even take a single hit by just simply rocking back and forth within my own smoke (one of many reasons SSE is an oft-overlooked life saver on the RN CL's who need not spend points in DE or IFHE).

You clearly do not pay much attention but the *constant* DPS aka damage that is guaranteed and cannot be 'dodged (has 100% accuracy) has been changed as of the last patch to where losing several planes both in and out of a run is common, and as mentioned, dissimilar to gunnery/torp ships as a squad that has say, 10 planes at full health, that loses 40% of it's HP, also loses *4* planes. That's 4 less torps, 4/8 less bombs, and dozens of rockets lost per squad. Again, the equivalent system to what planes have NOW is that when your Missouri takes 33% health, it loses an entire turrets worth of guns.

So let me get this straight:

These USN radar ships have radar ranges of 8.5km and 9km.  Very little islands that are low enough for you to arc over within 10km is high enough to conceal your boat when shooting.  DM that take spotter plane loses radar.  Radar last from ~50 sec to 30 secs in lower tiers.  So you play these ships in 30 sec bursts, and stops shooting when you can't pick up anything with your radar???

Mino that takes radar has no smoke. Only belfast has smoke, hydro, and radar and is an outlier.  Still not op enough for the amount of belfast dummies I see in ranked sprint who sit there blind.

And I have a haku, and I play t10 cv, so I know full well how aa works.

Edited by mixmkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
508
[KNCOL]
Members
616 posts
1,604 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The problem with 8.5 is we have RTS levels of plane losses without RTS levels of alpha strike power.

A high risk and high reward system would be really fun with the current CV system but I dont know if WG would do this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×