Nerf CV AA

[MEANN]

Gearing 127 mm/38 Mk38 mod. 03 х 2 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second45.3

. . . Firing Range5.01 km.

20 mm Oerlikon Mk412 х 1 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second43.2

. . . Firing Range2.01 km.

40 mm Bofors Mk22 х 4 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second31.8

. . . Firing Range3.51 km.

40 mm Bofors Mk12 х 2 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second22.6

. . . Firing Range3.51 km

  Same caliber 25% of the output. Either buff DD's to have the same as CV or make CV have the same output of the DD. This would fix the CV not  targeting other CVS. let's not talk about fires on a cv, not that you ever really get close to a CV.

Middway

20 mm Oerlikon Mk2028 х 2 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second170.8

. . . Firing Range2.01 km.

40 mm Bofors Mk210 х 4 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second159

. . . Firing Range3.51 km.

40 mm Bofors Mk111 х 2 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second124.3

. . . Firing Range3.51 km.

127 mm/54 Mk3918 х 1 pcs.

. . . Average Damage per Second199.8

. . . Firing Range5.19 km.

 

[iRA6E]

WG Intentionally buffed CV AA and in many other ways to defend against air attack.   I presume they were sensitive about one CV taking out the enemy CV quickly and then having total air dominance and controlling the match results unfairly?   i personally belive they took it too far and it makes CV play somewhat less interesting...However in the old RTS CVs it was common for a good CV player to cross drop enemy CV back to port in 1st 2 mins and then have total control of a match.     

[MEANN]

3 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

WG Intentionally buffed CV AA and in many other ways to defend against air attack.   I presume they were sensitive about one CV taking out the enemy CV quickly and then having total air dominance and controlling the match results unfairly?   i personally belive they took it too far and it makes CV play somewhat less interesting...However in the old RTS CVs it was common for a good CV player to cross drop enemy CV back to port in 1st 2 mins and then have total control of a match.     

interesting point, that would mean that the cv uncontested or a team without a cv would be an automatic loss. I can't think of any other ship in the game that if 1 dies early the the other team will basically win. A dd will be if there is only 1 dd per side would have a similar outcome. As then the opposing dd would have torp freedom. But that is not really true. Cause the dd cant just move from one side of the map to the other at 400 kph. the dd at best moves on average 35 kts. The simple fact that a cv can traverse the entire map in little to no time and in the process uncover all the positions of the enemy if just broken

[BrushWolf]

6 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

WG Intentionally buffed CV AA and in many other ways to defend against air attack.   I presume they were sensitive about one CV taking out the enemy CV quickly and then having total air dominance and controlling the match results unfairly?   i personally belive they took it too far and it makes CV play somewhat less interesting...However in the old RTS CVs it was common for a good CV player to cross drop enemy CV back to port in 1st 2 mins and then have total control of a match.     

This and it isn't the AA that makes CV's extremely hard to attack from the air, it is the Combat Air Patrol.

[BrushWolf]

1 minute ago, MEANN said:

interesting point, that would mean that the cv uncontested or a team without a cv would be an automatic loss. I can't think of any other ship in the game that if 1 dies early the the other team will basically win. A dd will be if there is only 1 dd per side would have a similar outcome. As then the opposing dd would have torp freedom. But that is not really true. Cause the dd cant just move from one side of the map to the other at 400 kph. the dd at best moves on average 35 kts. The simple fact that a cv can traverse the entire map in little to no time and in the process uncover all the positions of the enemy if just broken

It wasn't an automatic loss but that team only won about 30% of the time. I feel that their not wanting any single player to have that kind of influence on a match was a bigger driver of the rework than to bring up their numbers.

[SkaerKrow]

No.

[iRA6E]

Just now, MEANN said:

interesting point, that would mean that the cv uncontested or a team without a cv would be an automatic loss. I can't think of any other ship in the game that if 1 dies early the the other team will basically win. A dd will be if there is only 1 dd per side would have a similar outcome. As then the opposing dd would have torp freedom. But that is not really true. Cause the dd cant just move from one side of the map to the other at 400 kph. the dd at best moves on average 35 kts. The simple fact that a cv can traverse the entire map in little to no time and in the process uncover all the positions of the enemy if just broken

With the RTS carriers it was a pretty big certainty that it would create a very lopsided match..  I personally do not believe that is the case anymore...  

[1SneakyDevil]

Negative and stop whining, your coming across like a BBaby

[Merc85]

2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

It wasn't an automatic loss but that team only won about 30% of the time. I feel that their not wanting any single player to have that kind of influence on a match was a bigger driver of the rework than to bring up their numbers.

Doesn't this make it obvious that WG knows that CVs are just too powerful in their game if they went to that extent to ensure that one CV couldn't take out the other one?

[MEANN]

2 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Negative and stop whining, your coming across like a BBaby

lol, not a whine as much as an observation. The gearing has more guns and does 25% of the dpm

[iRA6E]

1 minute ago, Merc85 said:

Doesn't this make it obvious that WG knows that CVs are just to powerful in their game if they went to that extent to ensure that one CV couldn't take out the other one?

Couldn't this be said about any other ship as WG mirrors the ship types in the matchmaker as well?    The CV thing was a huge gripe about RTS CVs... I'm sure that is why WG proceeded in this manner with the rework.. as I said before I'm really not a fan. I think it kills a lot of depth for the class.   

[Admiral_Thrawn_1]

14 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

WG Intentionally buffed CV AA and in many other ways to defend against air attack.   I presume they were sensitive about one CV taking out the enemy CV quickly and then having total air dominance and controlling the match results unfairly?   i personally belive they took it too far and it makes CV play somewhat less interesting...However in the old RTS CVs it was common for a good CV player to cross drop enemy CV back to port in 1st 2 mins and then have total control of a match.     

Lol that’s exactly why I typically carried at least BFT if not AFT as well on my old RTS CVs, enemy CVs would sometimes send their planes to take me out and I wanted good defense against it. Also created a better safety zone for returning aircraft being pursued by enemy fightersI would also program the auto pilot with good courses to prevent enemy from easily finding my CV. And finally the BFT and AFT was also useful when a DD decided to get cute and come in far too close. Although best use of secondaries were the times in IJN CVs I Secondary Gun brawled Enemy CVs And would win, lol now those were some of the best fights I ever had in a CV.

RTS CVs were certainly a different age though, main skill you needed was Concealment Expert, so pretty much any other skills could be organized however one wished. Current CVs on other hand are far more restrictive in what they need.

[Cpt_Cupcake]

Only if we give CVs back the ability to use DCP when we want to, and get rid of the 5 second fires doin 10k+ damage per burn.

[MEANN]

3 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Only if we give CVs back the ability to use DCP when we want to, and get rid of the 5 second fires doin 10k+ damage per burn.

i am ok with that, as it would allow for the cv and the opposing player to manage the type of rounds and when to simply spot cv vs attack in the hopes of killing it.

[Cpt_Cupcake]

Just now, MEANN said:

i am ok with that, as it would allow for the cv and the opposing player to manage the type of rounds and when to simply spot cv vs attack in the hopes of killing it.

Also, if CV AA damage is reduced, the CV should get DF, just like the gearing.

BTW, with DF active, gearing has how much higher DPS?

[RyuuohD_NA]

>looks at thread

>looks at OP

 

Oh look another mean whine thread. 

 

Move on guys nothing substantial to see here.

[RyuuohD_NA]

14 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Negative and stop whining, your coming across like a BBaby

Considering his example is a DD, I'd say he's one of the whiny DD mains.

[Col_Nasty]

Have had more that 6  Randoms where it was just CV against CV at the end.    

In Actual combat the Cvs did battle first as they were the first to make contact ( Spotted by planes ) at great distance when they were deployed. They did battle in order to get air superiority.

Now insert the lazy/convenient argument  used here when the reality issue is brought up and the "IT'S Not a SIM" crowd get's all triggered.

In this game they focus on killing DDs.  I would argue that killing a single DD in a Single DD game is FAR more powerful that killing a CV.  A bunch of BBs and CAs running around blind is a DDs wet ( forgive the pun ) DREAM!

CVs do not need ANY special help.  Maybe if they had to concentrate on each other in the first 5 minutes the games wouldn't fold so fast.

Karma?  Letting CVs see what it is like to get blapped by a CV in the first 5 mins?

 

Save your " Mains " Argument.  I play ALL classes.

Col Out

[MEANN]

7 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Considering his example is a DD, I'd say he's one of the whiny DD mains.

Battleships (63)	5,101
	Aircraft carriers (3)	14
	Cruisers (57)	2,679
	Destroyers (44)	1,891

 

So i have 5100 games in a BB 2679 in CA  and 1891 in a DD but I'm really a dd main at heart. My example was based on the 2 boats having the same type of guns and the dd with more of them doing 75% less damage

 

[Warped_1]

38 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

WG Intentionally buffed CV AA and in many other ways to defend against air attack.   I presume they were sensitive about one CV taking out the enemy CV quickly and then having total air dominance and controlling the match results unfairly?   i personally belive they took it too far and it makes CV play somewhat less interesting...However in the old RTS CVs it was common for a good CV player to cross drop enemy CV back to port in 1st 2 mins and then have total control of a match.     

Ahh, the good old days where a Kaga could take out a strike Lex ASAP.   

[BrushWolf]

28 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

With the RTS carriers it was a pretty big certainty that it would create a very lopsided match..  I personally do not believe that is the case anymore...  

You only get that at all with unicum CV players but unicum players always have an out sized impact on matches.

[Koogus]

I'd say CV AA is ok but automatic fighters thst spawn when aircraft get near need to be changed 

[MEANN]

2 minutes ago, Koogus said:

I'd say CV AA is ok but automatic fighters thst spawn when aircraft get near need to be changed 

did you even look at the difference between the same guns on a dd with more of them vs a cv ?

[BrushWolf]

30 minutes ago, Merc85 said:

Doesn't this make it obvious that WG knows that CVs are just too powerful in their game if they went to that extent to ensure that one CV couldn't take out the other one?

The old RTS ones were but with the current implementation the impact is very close to any other single ship.

 

1 minute ago, Koogus said:

I'd say CV AA is ok but automatic fighters thst spawn when aircraft get near need to be changed 

The built in CAP is to make attacking the CV from the air hard.

[Umikami]

39 minutes ago, Merc85 said:

Doesn't this make it obvious that WG knows that CVs are just too powerful in their game if they went to that extent to ensure that one CV couldn't take out the other one?

You have no idea how many times that has been said in this very Forum, and everyone but the CV drivers believe it, but only because it's true.