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

CVs.... I Wonder....

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
203 posts
2,898 battles

Hmm...

I wonder if the crews of the Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu were complaining about CVs during the battle of Midway.

What about the crews of the Sims and Neosho? Were they cursing the sky? CVs are OP!

Look, I keep coming back to this. If you are playing a naval warship game based in the 20th century and the CVs aren't OP it can only be for one reason. The developers don't know anything about 20th century naval warfare.

But I have this CV game mechanic idea in my head and I just can't shake it.

What if...

What if it wasn't about replacing aircraft in your squadrons, as much as it was about arming the replacement aircraft?

The idea is that the planes already exist, they just need to be armed and fueled.

So an aircraft carrier that only needs to fuel and arm two aircraft has far less fuel, bombs, torpedoes and rockets on deck than an aircraft carrier that is trying to fuel and arm 20 replacement aircraft.

The more aircraft that need to be armed and fueled the higher the risk of catching fire and detonation will be.

I think it adds a realistic component to it and may also balance the carriers out a bit.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
728 posts
4,671 battles

So, you mean the more planes on deck or in reserve, the higher chance of catching flames? I dunno, considering fires last only 5 secs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,275
[TMS]
Beta Testers
3,731 posts
14,318 battles
19 minutes ago, _Heebie_Jeebies_ said:

Hmm...

I wonder if the crews of the Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu were complaining about CVs during the battle of Midway.

What about the crews of the Sims and Neosho? Were they cursing the sky? CVs are OP!

Look, I keep coming back to this. If you are playing a naval warship game based in the 20th century and the CVs aren't OP it can only be for one reason. The developers don't know anything about 20th century naval warfare.

But I have this CV game mechanic idea in my head and I just can't shake it.

What if...

What if it wasn't about replacing aircraft in your squadrons, as much as it was about arming the replacement aircraft?

The idea is that the planes already exist, they just need to be armed and fueled.

So an aircraft carrier that only needs to fuel and arm two aircraft has far less fuel, bombs, torpedoes and rockets on deck than an aircraft carrier that is trying to fuel and arm 20 replacement aircraft.

The more aircraft that need to be armed and fueled the higher the risk of catching fire and detonation will be.

I think it adds a realistic component to it and may also balance the carriers out a bit.

Thoughts?

How about when a BB gets hit with HE and AP, you have crew deaths, so it takes longer and longer to fix fires and repair flooding, and if you have fires and flooding at the same time you can only fix one at a time.

Or if you hit the coning tower and you suddenly have reduced capt skills, or no capt skills as he could be dead.

Or you cannot use your AA at the same time as firing your main guns on a BB

Or DD with dual purpose guns cannot shoot at planes and another ship at the same time with them, it is one or another not both

When a BB turns hard and lists to one side, the guns should not have instant elevevation change and be more like the rotation speed of its arcs.

When a BB gets citadeled under the gun turret, there would be no way to use that turret anymore due to inability of getting the shells and powder to those guns.

I think this would add some realistic balance to the game

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited by CriMiNaL__
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
3 minutes ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

How about when a BB gets hit with HE and AP, you have crew deaths, so it takes longer and longer to fix fires and repair flooding, and if you have fires and flooding at the same time you can only fix one at a time.

Or if you hit the coning tower and you suddenly have reduced capt skills, or no capt skills as he could be dead.

Or you cannot use your AA at the same time as firing your main guns on a BB

Or DD with dual purpose guns cannot shoot at planes and another ship at the same time with them, it is one or another not both

When a BB turns hard and lists to one side, the guns should not have instant elevevation change and be more like the rotation speed of its arcs.

When a BB gets citadeled under the gun turret, there would be no way to use that turret anymore due to inability of getting the shells and powder to those guns.

I think this would add some realistic balance to the game

Thoughts?

 

 

  • When the crew get's ill from poor cooking and suffers from gastro enteritis, every third salvo they need a 5 minute bathroom break..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-N-]
Alpha Tester
813 posts
24 minutes ago, _Heebie_Jeebies_ said:

Hmm...

I wonder if the crews of the Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu were complaining about CVs during the battle of Midway.

What about the crews of the Sims and Neosho? Were they cursing the sky? CVs are OP!

Look, I keep coming back to this. If you are playing a naval warship game based in the 20th century and the CVs aren't OP it can only be for one reason. The developers don't know anything about 20th century naval warfare.

But I have this CV game mechanic idea in my head and I just can't shake it.

What if...

What if it wasn't about replacing aircraft in your squadrons, as much as it was about arming the replacement aircraft?

The idea is that the planes already exist, they just need to be armed and fueled.

So an aircraft carrier that only needs to fuel and arm two aircraft has far less fuel, bombs, torpedoes and rockets on deck than an aircraft carrier that is trying to fuel and arm 20 replacement aircraft.

The more aircraft that need to be armed and fueled the higher the risk of catching fire and detonation will be.

I think it adds a realistic component to it and may also balance the carriers out a bit.

Thoughts?

Thought, what if the hate isn't balanced with what the other ship types have for advantages that out weigh a cv's?  Why is it always that cv's have to change due to a few folks being disgruntled?  I'm honestly curious, why people always go this direction in the name of "balance" yet are shocked when others state, No Cv's are not broken.

Interesting concept though, my challenge to this though is simple.  Apply it to every other ships ability to do damage.  That their timers for being able to fire, fit this model and the rate of fire being limited to a CV's ability to launch planes.

IF it is fair to hamstring one ship, wouldn't it be honest balance if applied to every ship?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
29 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

So, you mean the more planes on deck or in reserve, the higher chance of catching flames? I dunno, considering fires last only 5 secs

Yeah but the CV loses 5% of their health in those five seconds and there is no immunity period so in theory with a high enough rate of fire and fire chance you can keep a CV burning for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
29 minutes ago, AlmightySpooks said:

Or...

Lets make it so CVs can torp drop within 1 foot of the beach from a mile high up.  'cuz that's realistic.  

 

A mile is unrealistic but by the end of the war the US was dropping torpedoes from 2500 feet at 250 knots. Low and slow was only necessary in shallow harbors and for the RN because they were using slow planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[NWOC]
[NWOC]
Members
1,016 posts
12,325 battles
1 hour ago, _Heebie_Jeebies_ said:

What if...

What if it wasn't about replacing aircraft in your squadrons, as much as it was about arming the replacement aircraft?

The idea is that the planes already exist, they just need to be armed and fueled.

So an aircraft carrier that only needs to fuel and arm two aircraft has far less fuel, bombs, torpedoes and rockets on deck than an aircraft carrier that is trying to fuel and arm 20 replacement aircraft.

The more aircraft that need to be armed and fueled the higher the risk of catching fire and detonation will be.

I think it adds a realistic component to it and may also balance the carriers out a bit.

Thoughts?

Only if CV's are reverted back to their original capabilities of two years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,051
[BONKS]
Members
1,495 posts
50 battles
56 minutes ago, _Heebie_Jeebies_ said:

The more aircraft that need to be armed and fueled the higher the risk of catching fire and detonation will be.

Attempting to balance CVs around them coming under fire doesn't really make sense since they rarely take sustained fire in the first place.
CVs generally have the lowest fire resistance of their tier with the exception of T4, all of them being roughly equivalent to a T6 stock ship.
CVs cannot detonate.

 

23 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Yeah but the CV loses 5% of their health in those five seconds and there is no immunity period so in theory with a high enough rate of fire and fire chance you can keep a CV burning for a long time.

While CVs may take more damage per tick than other classes, overall fire damage is still way lower. CVs also have a 1 minute long DCP which keeps them immune from DoT while it is active.

To put this into perspective, amount of fires needed to kill a class (without damage reduction, DCP and heal):
- BBs and large cruisers: 6
- Graf Spee: 8
- cruisers and DDs: 12
- CVs: 20

Regardless though balancing measures on CVs should be taken on their planes rather than their hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,712
[INTEL]
Members
13,057 posts
36,022 battles
44 minutes ago, MaxMcKay said:

Thought, what if the hate isn't balanced with what the other ship types have for advantages that out weigh a cv's?  Why is it always that cv's have to change due to a few folks being disgruntled?  I'm honestly curious, why people always go this direction in the name of "balance" yet are shocked when others state, No Cv's are not broken.

Interesting concept though, my challenge to this though is simple.  Apply it to every other ships ability to do damage.  That their timers for being able to fire, fit this model and the rate of fire being limited to a CV's ability to launch planes.

IF it is fair to hamstring one ship, wouldn't it be honest balance if applied to every ship?

Why is your every post about HE?

You know, when you post complaints about HE, most of the veterans around here will infer something about your ability to play that is, frankly, not very flattering.

That is why I told you in one of the 1000 other threads you've opened hear that you should be asking about how to handle HE. If you ask for help, you will get it. People are generous and friendly here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Attempting to balance CVs around them coming under fire doesn't really make sense since they rarely take sustained fire in the first place.
CVs generally have the lowest fire resistance of their tier with the exception of T4, all of them being roughly equivalent to a T6 stock ship.
CVs cannot detonate.

 

While CVs may take more damage per tick than other classes, overall fire damage is still way lower. CVs also have a 1 minute long DCP which keeps them immune from DoT while it is active.

To put this into perspective, amount of fires needed to kill a class (without damage reduction, DCP and heal):
- BBs and large cruisers: 6
- Graf Spee: 8
- cruisers and DDs: 12
- CVs: 20

Regardless though balancing measures on CVs should be taken on their planes rather than their hull.

Does DC trigger for fires since they burn for such a short period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
976
[KAPPA]
Members
3,110 posts
8,239 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Yeah but the CV loses 5% of their health in those five seconds and there is no immunity period so in theory with a high enough rate of fire and fire chance you can keep a CV burning for a long time.

Not to mention, don't CVs only get fire chance reduction on par with a T5 or 6 ship or something? By T10, they are the easiest ships to set on fire, they just also happen to have a minute long dam con for... reasons. That said, T4 CVs get it as well, so it's a buff not really necessary down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[CUTER]
Members
224 posts
1,675 battles
3 hours ago, MaxMcKay said:

I agree.  Ever incapacitate/destroy turrets with bombs and torps? So, we should be able to disable your flight deck for 20 seconds or so when there is a massive hit?  Say every time you take more than 10k damage RNG rolls and if it hits the mark, your flight deck is incapacitated.

Edited by Gin_Blossoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[CLRN]
Members
598 posts
122 battles
6 hours ago, _Heebie_Jeebies_ said:

Hmm...

I wonder if the crews of the Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu were complaining about CVs during the battle of Midway.

What about the crews of the Sims and Neosho? Were they cursing the sky? CVs are OP!

Look, I keep coming back to this. If you are playing a naval warship game based in the 20th century and the CVs aren't OP it can only be for one reason. The developers don't know anything about 20th century naval warfare.

But I have this CV game mechanic idea in my head and I just can't shake it.

What if...

What if it wasn't about replacing aircraft in your squadrons, as much as it was about arming the replacement aircraft?

The idea is that the planes already exist, they just need to be armed and fueled.

So an aircraft carrier that only needs to fuel and arm two aircraft has far less fuel, bombs, torpedoes and rockets on deck than an aircraft carrier that is trying to fuel and arm 20 replacement aircraft.

The more aircraft that need to be armed and fueled the higher the risk of catching fire and detonation will be.

I think it adds a realistic component to it and may also balance the carriers out a bit.

Thoughts?

its not a simulator... :Smile_facepalm: its an ARCADE game. so something being realistic or not doesnt matter at all. all it matters is that something being balanced. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[TDRB]
Members
5,138 posts
13,741 battles
10 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

A mile is unrealistic but by the end of the war the US was dropping torpedoes from 2500 feet at 250 knots. Low and slow was only necessary in shallow harbors and for the RN because they were using slow planes.

The post you responded to stated " within 1 foot of the beach ".  That close to the shore is unrealistic.

The torpedoes used at Taranto & Pearl Harbor were modified to have a shallow dive due to the shallow harbor depths. The Japanese were able to fly faster and make more of a skip bombing run rather than a normal torpedo run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,228 battles

I have an idea for a special game. A special game, for special folks.

It is called "Put the CV in a box, put the box in the sea!"

The way it works is that the player starts with a CV of their choice. Then they put it in a box. Then they put the box in the sea, where it sinks to the bottom.

Then they win.

We could have mad gifs of cat's dancing, with Jingle's, manic laughter made into a sick bass loop, when the critical win metric is achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,446
[WOLFG]
Members
29,024 posts
8,268 battles
12 hours ago, LoveBote said:
  • When the crew get's ill from poor cooking and suffers from gastro enteritis, every third salvo they need a 5 minute bathroom break..

Unless their guns are smaller, than empty shell casings can be used.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Unless their guns are smaller, than empty shell casings can be used.....

that would help explain why CLs in WOWS often have a greater gun range than CAs of the same tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,051
[BONKS]
Members
1,495 posts
50 battles
11 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Does DC trigger for fires since they burn for such a short period?

It triggers for anything that can be "fixed" with DCP. Broken engine, broken rudder, fires and flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
896
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
2,242 posts
12,670 battles

CV should not be able to launch or recover planes when...

  1. Sailing below some minimal forward speed
  2. Facing a steep cliff
  3. On fire
  4. At the first second of a match

Also. Launching and recovering planes should increase CV's detection range.

I think these are the most bang of the buck for realism.

Thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[TDRB]
Members
5,138 posts
13,741 battles
7 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

its not a simulator... :Smile_facepalm: its an ARCADE game. so something being realistic or not doesnt matter at all. all it matters is that something being balanced. 

 

As an arcade game Warships can be somewhat realistic as well as a fantasy but balance is the 1st priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
4 hours ago, kgh52 said:

The post you responded to stated " within 1 foot of the beach ".  That close to the shore is unrealistic.

The torpedoes used at Taranto & Pearl Harbor were modified to have a shallow dive due to the shallow harbor depths. The Japanese were able to fly faster and make more of a skip bombing run rather than a normal torpedo run.

I answered the part of the post I wanted to respond to and the way the game engine works if there is water there is enough, this is not a sim.

 

2 hours ago, chewonit said:

CV should not be able to launch or recover planes when...

  1. Sailing below some minimal forward speed
  2. Facing a steep cliff
  3. On fire
  4. At the first second of a match

Also. Launching and recovering planes should increase CV's detection range.

I think these are the most bang of the buck for realism.

Thought?

Ok, no problem but then sitting in or behind smoke or behind an island firing should be by the map only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

It triggers for anything that can be "fixed" with DCP. Broken engine, broken rudder, fires and flooding.

Fires go out so quickly that using DC for them seems a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[TDRB]
Members
5,138 posts
13,741 battles
Quote

I answered the part of the post I wanted to respond to and the way the game engine works if there is water there is enough, this is not a sim.

This arcade game does use some, not a lot IMO, realism to attract players even though it is very, very far from a simulator.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative.

Edited by kgh52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×