Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
SkaerKrow

Either give Tier IV Carriers Deployable Fighters...

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6,279
[SIM]
Members
5,906 posts
9,414 battles

...or remove tier IV carriers from the game. There is no justifiable reason that in the only tier bracket where ships can actually have no AA whatsoever, that CVs can't provide air cover. I hate it when I'm playing a tier IV carrier, I hate it when I'm playing against tier IV carriers. "Historical accuracy" is not remote justification for this utter failure of game design.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,295
[NSC]
Members
2,662 posts
1 minute ago, SkaerKrow said:

"Historical accuracy" is not remote justification for this utter failure of game design.

"Historical accuracy" was used to justify T4 CVs not having fighters in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,280 battles

YES! You want to promote better team-play and balance? Then let Langley, Hosho, and Hermes, along with whatever other tier 4s come out in the future, drop fighters to cover their allies. This omission makes no sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,994
[FML]
Members
4,314 posts
16,490 battles
23 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

...or remove tier IV carriers from the game. There is no justifiable reason that in the only tier bracket where ships can actually have no AA whatsoever, that CVs can't provide air cover. I hate it when I'm playing a tier IV carrier, I hate it when I'm playing against tier IV carriers. "Historical accuracy" is not remote justification for this utter failure of game design.

 

5 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

YES! You want to promote better team-play and balance? Then let Langley, Hosho, and Hermes, along with whatever other tier 4s come out in the future, drop fighters to cover their allies. This omission makes no sense whatsoever.

My problem is that it will widen the gap between CV clubbers who know what they are doing at low tiers, and those brand new to the game and/or CV playing who wont know that they can deploy fighter cover over friendly ships, and/or how to do it effectively.  

As such, good CV players will be able to shut down new/bad CV players, and that is against the direction of the entire rework.  It would also be super frustrating when your CV is new and struggles to do any damage, whilst the enemy CV flies around with impunity.  

Removing T4 CVs from the game is also not an option.

 

Instead, low tier CVs should not be able to launch 2 torps per flight, and their plane speeds should be reduced to make covering long distances time consuming - hence more time for DCP/smoke etc to come back up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,280 battles
2 minutes ago, UltimateNewbie said:

My problem is that it will widen the gap between CV clubbers who know what they are doing at low tiers, and those brand new to the game and/or CV playing who wont know that they can deploy fighter cover over friendly ships, and/or how to do it effectively.  

As such, good CV players will be able to shut down new/bad CV players, and that is against the direction of the entire rework.  It would also be super frustrating when your CV is new and struggles to do any damage, whilst the enemy CV flies around with impunity. 

The fighter flights don't have to be proportionately as effective as at higher tiers, just something to bolster AA for ships that have it and act as a deterrent over ships without. Enough to take down a plane or two per pass, if that. These are biplanes after all, they shouldn't be as effective compared to tier 6's Hellcats, Hurricanes, and Zeroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,364
Members
2,686 posts
4,393 battles

Well I don't agree with the removing part,  I definitely agree with the fighter one.  Drives me insane to be flying at an ally,  intent on providing some support only to remember that I've dropped down into a Hermes or a Langley for a relaxed T4 game and can do precisely crap to stop the coming strikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,994
[FML]
Members
4,314 posts
16,490 battles
8 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

The fighter flights don't have to be proportionately as effective as at higher tiers, just something to bolster AA for ships that have it and act as a deterrent over ships without. Enough to take down a plane or two per pass, if that. These are biplanes after all, they shouldn't be as effective compared to tier 6's Hellcats, Hurricanes, and Zeroes.

Well, mostly I've seen fighter sqns do either absolutely nothing or to wipe out an attacking sqn - not something in between.  Not sure if it can be balanced properly enough to result in just losing 1 or 2 planes per strike.  If it does only reslt in losing 1-2 planes per sqn, how does that level of AA actually help - its not like a player could be deplaned or the strikes reduced.  If it has a chance of wiping them out but mostly doesnt, then RNG decides but still  a more experience CV captain will do better than a novice, and this will translate to the team's performance.  So, how is that meant to work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
109 posts
7,451 battles
1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

...or remove tier IV carriers from the game. There is no justifiable reason that in the only tier bracket where ships can actually have no AA whatsoever, that CVs can't provide air cover. I hate it when I'm playing a tier IV carrier, I hate it when I'm playing against tier IV carriers. "Historical accuracy" is not remote justification for this utter failure of game design.

You don't really want to give the community the option of 'remove carriers' because trust me, the vast majority of us would love to see them deleted from the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,092
[46856]
Members
2,256 posts

While we are at it and get fighters back lets return strafing as a tactic too and watch the boards dissolve. There was no reason to remove it in the first place since it was a real air combat tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,012
[SALVO]
Members
26,698 posts
32,031 battles
1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

...or remove tier IV carriers from the game. There is no justifiable reason that in the only tier bracket where ships can actually have no AA whatsoever, that CVs can't provide air cover. I hate it when I'm playing a tier IV carrier, I hate it when I'm playing against tier IV carriers. "Historical accuracy" is not remote justification for this utter failure of game design.

Actually, I wish that ALL carriers lost their "personal" fighters, and relied on the player manually deploying them from one of their Attack, Torpedo, or Dive Bomber squadrons.  Carriers should be a little more vulnerable to enemy carrier strikes, because right now, they're seemingly invulnerable to them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[55UP]
Members
432 posts
4,302 battles
4 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Actually, I wish that ALL carriers lost their "personal" fighters, and relied on the player manually deploying them from one of their Attack, Torpedo, or Dive Bomber squadrons.  Carriers should be a little more vulnerable to enemy carrier strikes, because right now, they're seemingly invulnerable to them.

CVs aren’t invulnerable to air strikes, they’re just painful to carry out. Same reason CVs avoid attacking AA cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
441
[K0]
Members
1,756 posts
9,040 battles

It's really odd that T4 carriers can't drop fighters. Sure, it'd only be like 1 plane, but it's enough to be a teaching experience to new carrier skippers. They're getting a lot of practice in regardless due to the xp gap between carriers in a line, they might as well learn to dodge the map bubbles first before they also have to start thinking about defensive fire and credible AA ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,097
[WORX]
Members
14,297 posts
20,867 battles
1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

..or remove tier IV carriers from the game. There is no justifiable reason that in the only tier bracket where ships can actually have no AA whatsoever,

They're AA ships, I made a list in the forums on AA ships tier 4 CVs should avoid. Currently, the AA def for tier 3 to 5 have been the same since RTS CV days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,012
[SALVO]
Members
26,698 posts
32,031 battles
18 minutes ago, FineousFingers said:

CVs aren’t invulnerable to air strikes, they’re just painful to carry out. Same reason CVs avoid attacking AA cruisers. 

I didn't say that CVs were "invulnerable".  I said that I wished that they were "a little more vulnerable".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[55UP]
Members
432 posts
4,302 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Carriers should be a little more vulnerable to enemy carrier strikes, because right now, they're seemingly invulnerable to them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,597 battles
3 hours ago, SkaerKrow said:

or remove tier IV carriers from the game.

Amen!

3 hours ago, UltimateNewbie said:

My problem is that it will widen the gap between CV clubbers who know what they are doing at low tiers, and those brand new to the game and/or CV playing who wont know that they can deploy fighter cover over friendly ships, and/or how to do it effectively.  

Yet another indication the CV rework is an ongoing and total failure.

2 hours ago, Prothall said:

And again...limit the CVs to one per side per match. Reduce the problem at the source.

This.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×