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

AA should not be automatic.

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

319
[-REK-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
646 posts

AA should not start until the ship targets the squadron.     

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,857
[WPORT]
Members
5,415 posts
10,457 battles

Expectations like that are prone to encounter disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[WOLF4]
Members
382 posts
17,045 battles

AA should be automatic and wish WG would even the aa out over the ship instead of the priority sector. Pressing the button o is not really very interactive. The ship is either going to shoot some planes down, all the planes down or not shoot any down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,290
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
2,587 posts
2,423 battles
31 minutes ago, HooplaJones said:

AA should not start until the ship targets the squadron.     

Aircraft reserves shouldn't magically replenish.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KSC]
Members
634 posts
9,511 battles
33 minutes ago, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

Aircraft reserves shouldn't magically replenish.

The replenishment on a CV is a limiter, not an enabler.  Rather than start with 100 planes, you start with 40 and the rest are released slowly over time.  See pre-rework CVs that used the planes to solo-delete 2 battleships within the first 8 minutes of a game.

See iChase 100% killing a BB, reloading, killing the next, reloading, killing the next, etc...

Edited by Ahskance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOOK3]
Members
4,213 posts
3,235 battles
1 hour ago, HooplaJones said:

AA should not start until the ship targets the squadron.     

By that logic secondaries shouldn't be automatic either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,462
[GOB]
Members
2,048 posts

OK... So now the launching of planes should be as slow as it was IRL.. One at at time and the Launchers reset between each plane.  Not 5 planes + in 5 seconds!    OH and the time it takes to get the planes up from the Hangardeck should be added as well.  .... See how that works??  You ask for realism but don't really want it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,388
Members
3,097 posts
12,258 battles
2 hours ago, HooplaJones said:

AA should not start until the ship targets the squadron.     

I would actually be okay with that suggestion, if they tripled the damage AA does when you do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,307 posts
4,577 battles

When switching planes, you gotta now play a lego mini game to get the next squad up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
694 posts
3,697 battles

"hey crewchief bob planes are coming should we get shooting"

"nah they are heading to make life hell for that DD of ours over there not us we will wait"

Much later ~ damm it would be useful to have a DD around to do X 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[DAS]
Members
971 posts
8,130 battles
1 hour ago, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

Aircraft reserves shouldn't magically replenish.

It is Voodoo, not magic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,688
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
5,878 posts
17,915 battles

Well, for AA ships there is a bit of "targeting" involved.  You have the sector pump and the high alert trigger.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[BONKS]
Members
1,481 posts
50 battles
16 hours ago, Ahskance said:

See iChase 100% killing a BB, reloading, killing the next, reloading, killing the next, etc...

I fail to see how a video from 2015 holds any relevance given that it does not even represent the final state of RTS.

Besides, it's entirely possible to kill 2 BBs within 8 minutes with Midway even now.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
769
[REVY]
Members
2,280 posts
12,236 battles
16 hours ago, Col_Nasty said:

OK... So now the launching of planes should be as slow as it was IRL.. One at at time and the Launchers reset between each plane.  Not 5 planes + in 5 seconds!    OH and the time it takes to get the planes up from the Hangardeck should be added as well.  .... See how that works??  You ask for realism but don't really want it right?

Technically most CVs had a rolling takeoff, which is what the planes in game are doing.

Catapults, while available on the big deck CVs, were more often used on the CVEs during WW2. It wasn't until Jets came along and the need to get airspeed up faster that they became the primary method of getting a plane off the deck.

 

Otherwise, I agree. This is an arcade game not a simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KSC]
Members
634 posts
9,511 battles
5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

I fail to see how a video from 2015 holds any relevance given that it does not even represent the final state of RTS.

Besides, it's entirely possible to kill 2 BBs within 8 minutes with Midway even now.

I played briefly during the beta, got to Tier 4, and stopped.  I didn't return until after my friend showed me the CV rework which seemed interesting, and have become a daily player since.  As such, I'm not able to debate the merit and failing of the RTS system other than to say I am not capable of RTS multitasking, so it wouldn't be a thing I could manage.

As to damage delivery, yes... at a basic and core level, both pre-rework and post-rework CVs deal damage.  That being said, games are designed with many and different ways of dealing damage, even if one ship/character/class's dps is the same as another, there can be a much different play experience in HOW that damage is delivered.

Pre-rework CVs may have had a very long 2-4 minute windup time to allow the 80k+ finishing move.  In terms of raw DPS 80k damage per 4 minutes... 20k per minute doesn't sound outlandish, but the ability to threaten "Dodge this or I win" is a very specific situation for a player to deal with. 

Contrast this with the more current day concept of 20k per minute (just easy numbers, 20k/minute is high for early battle).  To reach the goal of 80k, you likely send 4 sorties of planes at a same target to deal said 20k damage per engagement.  Rather than having 1 chance to live or die, there are 4 chances to mitigate damage and/or respond.  In those 4 minutes, you can attempt to reach help of friendly AA, or call for a CV to single you out for fighter cover to force the enemy CV to deviate plans while said ship runs to cover.  There are options over a series of minutes instead of 3 minutes of quiet, then 1 minute of death.

-----

As an aside, before you begin to remind the world that AA is terrible and you are unaffected by it, the current system is designed around having overlapping fire from 2 ships in proximity.  Not two ships that are 6km apart that can plink some long-range nothing over to help their friend.  Two ships that are sailing in 1-2km of each other and using the overlapping zones to a useful degree. 

Planes WILL penetrate the AA, but often the second pass is mitigated or stopped short of consumable use or overlarge sorties that can absorb larger than normal losses (Midway 12 bomber sorties).

When you just blanket say that AA is terrible because it isn't a patch 8.5 Minotaur dealing 1600 continuous dps and 16+ flak clouds by itself, you are just telling folks that don't live and breathe this stuff that "That super-unicum guy says it trash so it's definitely totally worthless"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[BONKS]
Members
1,481 posts
50 battles
7 hours ago, Ahskance said:

There are options over a series of minutes instead of 3 minutes of quiet, then 1 minute of death.

Except there really aren't as the game doesn't give you any options to begin with.

 

7 hours ago, Ahskance said:

As an aside, before you begin to remind the world that AA is terrible and you are unaffected by it, the current system is designed around having overlapping fire from 2 ships in proximity.  Not two ships that are 6km apart that can plink some long-range nothing over to help their friend.  Two ships that are sailing in 1-2km of each other and using the overlapping zones to a useful degree. 

Planes WILL penetrate the AA, but often the second pass is mitigated or stopped short of consumable use or overlarge sorties that can absorb larger than normal losses (Midway 12 bomber sorties).

When you just blanket say that AA is terrible because it isn't a patch 8.5 Minotaur dealing 1600 continuous dps and 16+ flak clouds by itself, you are just telling folks that don't live and breathe this stuff that "That super-unicum guy says it trash so it's definitely totally worthless"

Even 2 AA ships isn't remotely enough to hurt or deny the damage output of the enemy CV to a viable degree, much less ships with less AA. Generally 4-5 are needed which also means you're going to have no map control, not to mention certain classes are literally unable to fulfill any of their roles or be remotely useful when tethered this close to allies. If this is the design of the current system then it simply is proof of what a gigantic pile of garbage the rework is.

I have no idea why you keep blabbering about "overlarge sorties". E.g. 12x Midway DBs is a full squad, not "overlarge" (like how a Shokaku 9x rocket squad isn't "overlarge" unlike what you labeled them as but a standard squadron size). I'm gonna guess you fell into the noob trap of "always shorten your squad at least once". Whoever came up with that clearly has no clue about CV play.

Why such players are relevant to a balancing discussion is beyond me. You're essentially complaining about how terrible players wouldn't be able to succeed in a more balanced system which is exactly how it should be. Effort and skill should be rewarded and terrible play should be punished. Currently unless you literally count the worst of the worst even mediocre players find success beyond what they should be able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KSC]
Members
634 posts
9,511 battles
5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Except there really aren't as the game doesn't give you any options to begin with.

You are being disingenuous to say that as soon as a match starts, the life and limb of all ships now belong to a CV's whim.  It's not the case.  Fighter support from a friendly CV, AA support from friendly ships, and personal maneuvering are all ways that can mitigate incoming CV damage.

 

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Even 2 AA ships isn't remotely enough to hurt or deny the damage output of the enemy CV to a viable degree, much less ships with less AA. Generally 4-5 are needed which also means you're going to have no map control, not to mention certain classes are literally unable to fulfill any of their roles or be remotely useful when tethered this close to allies. If this is the design of the current system then it simply is proof of what a gigantic pile of garbage the rework is.

If you are trying to say, "Fighting against groups of 2 all game doesn't limit a CV", then you are correct in a way.  The current version of AA relies on two ships in proximity to do the standard amount of AA and incur a basic rate of loss that a CV can deal with.  There will be slow attrition in plane reserves over time.  Isolated targets are absolutely underpowered in terms of AA and are both a chance for a CV to incur more than normal damage per sortie (act of sending planes) and recover losses from attrition.

A CV forcing DDs closer to allies, or people out of some fixed positions is what a CV player does.  While good play may be obvious to some, there is a reason it's good play.  Good players take advantage of cruisers that cut off their AA against islands.  Good players hunt isolated DDs and drive them back to their pack.  If the CV player doesn't do it... it doesn't happen.  The CV itself may threaten those possibilities, but it's on the driver of the ship to punish what it can.

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

I have no idea why you keep blabbering about "overlarge sorties". E.g. 12x Midway DBs is a full squad, not "overlarge" (like how a Shokaku 9x rocket squad isn't "overlarge" unlike what you labeled them as but a standard squadron size).

Most sorties in the game are 3x3.  Three sets of a three plane attack runs.  Overlarge sorties break that rule.  A Midway DB sorties 4x3, four sets of three plane attack runs.  An IJN CV sending 5x2 Torpedo Bombers up also qualifies.

When teaching CV to newer folks, I give them a base metric of "Use three, lose three" to grasp what plane losses they should expect.  If you are striking a target that is necessary, you should aim to lose as many or less planes as you fire with.  If you have to strike something that is well defended (3 ships or more), then you should expect that number to go up sharply ["use three, lose five" for example]

The reason the "overlarge sortie" is useful is because of the additional losses it can sustain while performing a second/third pass.  The Midway's 12 planes allows you to use 3 and lose 3, then lose 3 more on your attack turn and second drop animation to deliver the second full attack of three plane's worth of ammo. 

In standard 3x3 configurations, you aim to lose 1.5 planes per attack to allow 2 full strength attacks (initial and followup).  Having the AA of 2 ships in proximity can often incur enough additional plane loss (2-2.5 planes per attack) to reduce the damage of the second attack, or drive it off altogether because of the dwindling strike still left.  Having the AA of 3 ships in proximity can cause either flak saturation (flak strongly exceeding 10 puffs/2 seconds allowing off-angle flak to begin to wall off maneuvering room) or enough continuous damage/instantaneous damage to kill 3-4 planes on the way in (and more on the way out) which completely negates a followup attack and may actually stop the initial strike if flak spawn causes AoE damage and incurs faster than normal plane loss.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[SWARB]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
44 posts
On 2/18/2020 at 7:06 PM, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

Aircraft reserves shouldn't magically replenish.

then every ship in the game should have limited ammo. no ship in the world has unlimited AP shells unlimited HE shells and unlimited AA ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[BONKS]
Members
1,481 posts
50 battles
1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

You are being disingenuous to say that as soon as a match starts, the life and limb of all ships now belong to a CV's whim.  It's not the case.  Fighter support from a friendly CV, AA support from friendly ships, and personal maneuvering are all ways that can mitigate incoming CV damage.

I'm not.
Fighter support in itself implies that your CV would rather lose than win and it is thoroughly ineffective to begin with. The CV wins in this regard.
AA support from friendly ships is only effective if you trade map control in return. The CV wins here too.
Maneuvering is ineffective against most CV weapon types and the CV still deals damage regardless, aka they win and you lose the engagement no matter what you do. You at best only determine how hard you lose.

 

1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

If you are trying to say, "Fighting against groups of 2 all game doesn't limit a CV", then you are correct in a way.  The current version of AA relies on two ships in proximity to do the standard amount of AA and incur a basic rate of loss that a CV can deal with.  There will be slow attrition in plane reserves over time.

Not fast enough that it matters to the two ships getting killed, if at all.

 

1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

In standard 3x3 configurations, you aim to lose 1.5 planes per attack to allow 2 full strength attacks (initial and followup).  Having the AA of 2 ships in proximity can often incur enough additional plane loss (2-2.5 planes per attack) to reduce the damage of the second attack, or drive it off altogether because of the dwindling strike still left.

It doesn't as already proven. You need more ships to deny a full 2nd attack even from "standard size" squads of the more fragile kind.

 

1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

Having the AA of 3 ships in proximity can cause either flak saturation (flak strongly exceeding 10 puffs/2 seconds allowing off-angle flak to begin to wall off maneuvering room) or enough continuous damage/instantaneous damage to kill 3-4 planes on the way in (and more on the way out) which completely negates a followup attack and may actually stop the initial strike if flak spawn causes AoE damage and incurs faster than normal plane loss.

3 ships just to deny a 2nd attack, not even the first one, is a hilarious investment for little return that can easily cause default losses via no map control.
Flak wall maximum width is well within the limits of plane maneuverability. How much flak is in it is therefore irrelevant.

Edited by El2aZeR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,962
[ARGSY]
Members
20,033 posts
14,288 battles
On 2/18/2020 at 9:05 PM, HooplaJones said:

AA should not start until the ship targets the squadron.     

The old way was good, but I don't think we're going back to that. 

I actually wouldn't mind a system that went "Hold down tilde key, swing your crosshair onto the enemy planes and multiply your AA effectiveness by (some figure) as long as the crosshair covers the group and the tilde key is held down."

It would require the Manual Fire Control for AA skill, it would give full AA interaction, and it would be balanced by you having to take your attention off EVERYTHING ELSE that was happening to your ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[-REK-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
646 posts
On 2/18/2020 at 7:06 PM, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

Aircraft reserves shouldn't magically replenish.

I agree and the same for Torpedoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[-REK-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
646 posts
On 2/18/2020 at 7:53 PM, Wombatmetal said:

By that logic secondaries shouldn't be automatic either

I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[SIMP]
Members
1,297 posts
10,753 battles
On 2/18/2020 at 4:35 PM, HooplaJones said:

AA should not start until the ship targets the squadron.     

Why? Are your crews mentally deficient?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×