Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Napoleon_B01

CV Rework: Fighter Consumable

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9
[USCC2]
Members
46 posts
19,565 battles

It's been fifteen months since the CV rework changed interfaces and I believe that a CV consumable in the CV arena needs some serious changes: the Fighter consumable.

As the Fighter Consumable works now, attack squadrons can call upon a squadron of fighters to arrive at a point designated by the player and patrol an area within a 3km--approximately--radius of the designated point. Their only purpose is to shoot down enemy aircraft that get within their patrol radius, or I have seen some players use them as spotters for some ships. (I do that a lot in the Raptor Rescue scenario.)
However, the consumable is only active for 60 seconds, and any ship that gets within AA range of those fighters shoots them down as if they were nothing. It's really bad when fighters are deployed and they dive in from "thin air" only to come crashing down into the ocean when deployed within the range of any ship's AA range.
On the CV, where a fighter squadron is deployed for 7-8 minutes after being spotted by ships or aircraft, they circle the carrier prepared to shoot down anything that gets within 3km of the carrier.

My proposal for the Fighter consumable is to remove them as a consumable and make them an escort squadron with any attack squadron.

An example of what I'd like to see is when I launch a torpedo-bomber squadron, a fighter squadron takes off immediately after my torpedo-bombers are airborne and then they follow my planes to the target. If they spot any enemy planes within a given distance--let say 6km--the fighters will peel off from my torpedo-bomber squadron and shoot those planes down. They can either rejoin my torpedo-bombers or return to the CV and a another fighter squadron will attempt to rendezvous with my planes.
Now let's say there are no planes for the fighters to shoot down when I pick a target to attack: the fighters can dive in and temporarily suppress the AA fire of the ship that I'm attacking. This takes some of the heat off of my attack squadron and I don't lose as many attack planes without an escort squadron.

Another example: I'm attacking a ship that launches a seaplane fighter. The fighter squadron can go in and shoot those planes down and my attack squadron only takes damage from the ship's AA guns, unless the fighter squadron is completely shot down.
Build off of that example: attacking an enemy CV. My fighters clash with their fighters and my attack squadron only has to worry about the enemy CV's AA defenses, unless my fighters get shot down and there are still enemy fighters to defend the carrier.

Now let's look at aerial defenses for my carrier. Let's say that my CV is spotted by enemy aircraft. The fighter squadron that protects the carrier from aerial attacks deploys, and they go after the aerial plane or planes that spotted my CV. The go after them and shoot them down so that my carrier doesn't get detected again. I'll give a hypothetical scenario: an enemy dive-bomber squadron gets close enough to my carrier and reveals the location of my ship. The fighters are launched and they zero-in on the enemy squadron that spotted my carrier. If they have an escort fighter squadron, my fighters and theirs will clash in a spectacular aerial dogfight. Otherwise, the enemy planes get chewed up and then my fighters return to my ship to refuel and rearm.

I thought about this after watching "Midway"--and I'm talking about the original 1976 production--and noticed American planes strafing the decks of the enemy carriers, acting as distraction to take the heat off of the dive bombers coming in. I also came across another movie clip of a Japanese file production that showed Yamato being attacked by carrier planes, and in between torpedo and dive-bombing runs, fighter planes were strafing the Yamato, taking out the AA gun emplacements, making it easier to bomb and torpedo the Yamato.

Making the fighters an escort squadron from the CV instead of planes that drop out of thin air sounds more realistic and it makes carrier strikes more effective.

If WG adopts an idea like this, obviously it will be up to them to balance it so that it's reasonable fair to CV drivers and other surface ships.

Your thoughts please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,901
[SYN]
Members
15,874 posts
12,803 battles
1 minute ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

and it makes carrier strikes more effective.

What, are they not stupidly effective already?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[USCC2]
Members
46 posts
19,565 battles
2 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

What, are they not stupidly effective already?

On the attack, I'd say they are.

Economically, the CV isn't effective. For every plane lost, that resupply or service bill goes up. It is very frustrating to lose planes, and that's a given with any CV driver.

Anyways, I'm looking at the change from a realism point of view. Planes just magically appearing out of the upper atomosphere upon the press of a button just sounds stupid in my opinion.
However, while this would make carrier strikes "stupidly effective," think of the increase in planes shot down. Instead of sailing closer to a spot where planes are just patrolling an area, all of the planes come to you.

Yes, you'd probably take more damage from aerial attacks, but I didn't offer any changes in the HP of the fighter squadrons. So if they are easier to shoot down than the attack planes, then this might not feel any different than what it is now...maybe.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
323 posts
2,954 battles

I got a better idea, remove rocket squadrons for fighters. Why?

1) It allows us to actually counter CVs

2) It nerfs our primary spotters into just spotting

3) Without rockets we can start walking back this absolutely retarded arms race between DDs and CVs. (DDs shouldn't be so rewarding for CVs to hunt, and DDs shouldn't be getting insane levels of AA.)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[USCC2]
Members
46 posts
19,565 battles
Just now, Tyberius_D said:

I got a better idea, remove rocket squadrons for fighters. Why?

1) It allows us to actually counter CVs

2) It nerfs our primary spotters into just spotting

3) Without rockets we can start walking back this absolutely retarded arms race between DDs and CVs. (DDs shouldn't be so rewarding for CVs to hunt, and DDs shouldn't be getting insane levels of AA.)

I'm totally for that!

I don't know if WG would change it, but yes, I would totally love to have the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft upon demand again.
In the old RTS days, I always spec'ed my carriers for aerial superiority. I enjoyed shooting down enemy planes so that my allies could attack enemy ships without worrying about aerial attacks. It didn't earn me much in credits and XP earnings, but I was well-respected and liked for keeping the skies clear.

God do I miss those days. Brings tears to my eyes honestly.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,648
Members
1,827 posts
52 battles
25 minutes ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

An example of what I'd like to see is when I launch a torpedo-bomber squadron, a fighter squadron takes off immediately after my torpedo-bombers are airborne and then they follow my planes to the target. If they spot any enemy planes within a given distance--let say 6km--the fighters will peel off from my torpedo-bomber squadron and shoot those planes down.

You do realize this makes absolutely no sense, right?

If you have a fighter squadron escorting you, that means the enemy squad also has one.
So either the fighters will just shoot each other down, or you both lose a squad the instant you spot the other squadron.

 

27 minutes ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

Now let's say there are no planes for the fighters to shoot down when I pick a target to attack: the fighters can dive in and temporarily suppress the AA fire of the ship that I'm attacking. This takes some of the heat off of my attack squadron and I don't lose as many attack planes without an escort squadron.

AA is far too weak already. Making it even weaker would be disastrous.

 

27 minutes ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

Another example: I'm attacking a ship that launches a seaplane fighter. The fighter squadron can go in and shoot those planes down and my attack squadron only takes damage from the ship's AA guns, unless the fighter squadron is completely shot down.

Making the only truly effective AA consumable worthless is the last thing that we need.

 

11 minutes ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

Economically, the CV isn't effective. For every plane lost, that resupply or service bill goes up. It is very frustrating to lose planes, and that's a given with any CV driver.

Shells and torps also cost money, some just as much if not more than planes. Yet I don't see anyone complaining that their cost is too high.

So why exactly should CVs be given special treatment when it comes to the economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[D33P6]
Members
563 posts

I agree that the fighter consumable needs to be improved.  I wouldn't do it in the way that you suggested. 

I'd prefer to see them actually do that job that they were meant to do, shooting down enemy aircraft.  They are currently to easily manipulated or bugged out.  I've played plenty of matches where I'll use the fighters to cover teammates and only to watch them chase after enemy aircraft, not shoot any down and then de-spawn.  The same can be applied to the fighter consumable to all ships. 

I would keep them easily shot down so that if a CV player does choose to use them to spot, a DD can easily clear them out. 

I want the time it takes for them to be active to be slightly decreased.  It feels like it takes them forever to become active and to actual start patrolling their assigned radius.  Everyone wants more CV counter play and this would help.  CV's could have the option of hunting down the enemy CV's aircraft at the start by dropping fighters on the enemy aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,901
[SYN]
Members
15,874 posts
12,803 battles
53 minutes ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

Economically, the CV isn't effective. For every plane lost, that resupply or service bill goes up. It is very frustrating to lose planes, and that's a given with any CV driver.

So wait, instead of only losing a few bombers, you now want to lose a few bombers and all your fighters?

I don't understand how this makes you lose less aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[CAP]
Members
368 posts
15,979 battles

While the duration of the fighter consumables seems too short (60 seconds!), what really bothers me is how slow they are to spawn, target, and engage the enemy.  At best, you need to launch your seaplane fighters when the attack planes are 8-10kms away if you want them to have a chance to engage the attacking planes.  If the enemy CV is fast, he can change course/target and attack someone else otherwise he can probably get 1 attack in and return losing 2-3 planes to the fighters as they escape.

 

From the CV side, AA does feel "too strong" in many situations.  I think that is probably the biggest skill (target/approach) that separates CVs now. It is very frustrating to have 2 big AA bubbles on the map, be hunting for a DD for 4 mins, and be doing no damage then a new fancy euro DD appears and blows you out of the air.  Least you found one of the DDs. :-/

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,262
[RLGN]
Members
14,901 posts
26,428 battles
1 hour ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

I'm totally for that!

I don't know if WG would change it, but yes, I would totally love to have the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft upon demand again.
In the old RTS days, I always spec'ed my carriers for aerial superiority. I enjoyed shooting down enemy planes so that my allies could attack enemy ships without worrying about aerial attacks. It didn't earn me much in credits and XP earnings, but I was well-respected and liked for keeping the skies clear.

God do I miss those days. Brings tears to my eyes honestly.

Depends on your point of view.

Mine is that Air Superiority carriers were meat on a table because they could never produce enough DPM to defend themselves.

I’ve also seen Strike drivers split their bombers up, scout and strike all over a map, while an AS driver is trying desperately to chase down single attack squads.

I learned carriers with the old Strike Bogue. 0-1-2. My first Cear Sky was in that carrier; a Clear Sky using no fighters.

Hooray for AA and tailgunners!

When Bogue went to 1-1-1, that was a happy time. Good strike, and a 6 plane fighter squad that pretty much murdered anything it caught. (7 planes actually, because I skilled Air Supremacy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[USCC2]
Members
46 posts
19,565 battles
53 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

You do realize this makes absolutely no sense, right?

If you have a fighter squadron escorting you, that means the enemy squad also has one.
So either the fighters will just shoot each other down, or you both lose a squad the instant you spot the other squadron.

 

AA is far too weak already. Making it even weaker would be disastrous.

 

Making the only truly effective AA consumable worthless is the last thing that we need.

 

Shells and torps also cost money, some just as much if not more than planes. Yet I don't see anyone complaining that their cost is too high.

So why exactly should CVs be given special treatment when it comes to the economy?

There is this wonderful--or not so wonderful--thing from WarGaming called RNG.
Yes, if I had a fighter escort, then chances are pretty much certain that the enemy will have one too. Both fighter squadrons will engage, and one will triumph over the other. If it's mine, great. If not, then the remainder of the enemy's fighter squadron will come after my attack squadron.

I disagree with AA being weak. I've watched 10 planes get blown out of the sky by a flak cloud from a DD of all ships. Not fun and not realistic. It is frustrating when a cruiser or battleship does it, but that's to be expected because they are bigger AA platforms. I say AA is fine where it is.

Seaplanes were practically worthless in the RTS. You might have been fortunate to get one kill before it got shot down, but under this new system, multiple seaplanes are launched from a cruiser or a battleship? I did not agree with that change at all. I could settle for launching two seaplanes and buff the attack capability of them, but not a squadron of 3 or 4 seaplanes. I think WG put the wrong emphasis on the seaplanes as a "truly effective AA consumable." Select cruisers and battleships could only carry two seaplanes at a time.

Call it special treatment if you want, but playing carriers is an entirely different beast when it comes to other surface ships: aircraft instead of shells; quarterback instead of lineman. Call it what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,151
[BONKS]
Members
957 posts
3,663 battles
2 minutes ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

I disagree with AA being weak. I've watched 10 planes get blown out of the sky by a flak cloud from a DD of all ships. Not fun and not realistic. It is frustrating when a cruiser or battleship does it, but that's to be expected because they are bigger AA platforms. I say AA is fine where it is.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

The list of evidence is endless btw. AA only works when a CV player is bad. You are reliant on luck of the draw on player skill level. Not in game mechanics. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[USCC2]
Members
46 posts
19,565 battles
3 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Depends on your point of view.

Mine is that Air Superiority carriers were meat on a table because they could never produce enough DPM to defend themselves.

I’ve also seen Strike drivers split their bombers up, scout and strike all over a map, while an AS driver is trying desperately to chase down single attack squads.

I learned carriers with the old Strike Bogue. 0-1-2. My first Cear Sky was in that carrier; a Clear Sky using no fighters.

Hooray for AA and tailgunners!

When Bogue went to 1-1-1, that was a happy time. Good strike, and a 6 plane fighter squad that pretty much murdered anything it caught. (7 planes actually, because I skilled Air Supremacy.)

Ah yes. Hooray for tail-gunners. Those were some interesting times.

Never was a fan of the Bogue, but I think my best layout with any tech tree US Carrier was the Midway's 2-2-2. Best balance ever.
I think the Ryujo had a 3-0-2, I think--it's now been so long I can't remember all of them or I might be getting my carrier's mixed up--I could send one fighter squadron out to scout and then the other 2 were held close to my CV to strike any enemy squadron when my first fighter squadron spotted something. Bombers were always troublesome for me, but shooting down planes was my thing.

Then came the USS Enterprise. The perfectly balanced CV ever. It's 2-2-2 spoiled me to death.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,648
Members
1,827 posts
52 battles
22 hours ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

There is this wonderful--or not so wonderful--thing from WarGaming called RNG.

Yes, but you'll not just stand there and watch what happens? You'll have all the time in the world to go away just like fighters nowadays. By the time the fighters are finished killing each other you'll be long gone.

 

22 hours ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

I disagree with AA being weak. I've watched 10 planes get blown out of the sky by a flak cloud from a DD of all ships.

Then you're wrong.

Yes, if the CV is dumb enough to hit flak the squad will die. As soon as you become adept at dodging flak however AA becomes pitiful to say the least. It's the equivalent of a BB rushing straight into a crossfire and dying instantly, yet no one will say that BBs are not the most tanky class (I hope).

 

22 hours ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

Seaplanes were practically worthless in the RTS. You might have been fortunate to get one kill before it got shot down, but under this new system, multiple seaplanes are launched from a cruiser or a battleship?

Catapult fighters caused the attack to spread out which was quite useful.

And regardless it is the only effective AA consumable left. If you eliminate that there is nothing that can effectively cause losses to a CV and prevent consecutive attacks.

 

22 hours ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

Call it special treatment if you want, but playing carriers is an entirely different beast when it comes to other surface ships: aircraft instead of shells; quarterback instead of lineman. Call it what you want.

And? Do ships not pay for shells fired?

And you haven't answered my question.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[USCC2]
Members
46 posts
19,565 battles
36 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Yes, but you'll not just stand there and watch what happens? You'll have all the time in the world to go away just like fighters nowadays. By the time the fighters are finished killing each other you'll be long gone.

Then you're wrong.

Yes, if the CV is dumb enough to hit flak the squad will die. As soon as you become adept at dodging flak however AA becomes pitiful to say the least. It's the equivalent of a BB rushing straight into a crossfire and dying instantly, yet no one will say that BBs are not the most tanky class (I hope).

Catapult fighters caused the attack to spread out which was quite useful.

And regardless it is the only effective AA consumable left. If you eliminate that there is nothing that can effectively cause losses to a CV and prevent consecutive attacks.

And? Do ships not pay for shells fired?

And you haven't answered my question.

And I am not going to answer your question. Your replies have held more complaints and challenges instead of constructive criticisms.

It's also clear that you don't like my ideas. Fine; I get it. I can also tell that you don't like CVs for the reasons you mentioned. I get that too; I feel that same way when I'm facing an enemy team with a CV.

If you have nothing else to offer other than complaints about CVs, then please move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
958
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,292 posts
12,976 battles
On 5/23/2020 at 4:09 PM, Tyberius_D said:

3) Without rockets we can start walking back this absolutely retarded arms race between DDs and CVs. (DDs shouldn't be so rewarding for CVs to hunt, and DDs shouldn't be getting insane levels of AA.)

The only way to do that is either to completely change how scoring XP/credits is done, completely change the role of the DD, and completely change how CV's do damage.

DD's are low hit point ships, and at it's simplest XP is awarded for percentage of a targets hit points done in damage. The full health of a tier 10 DD is worth the same amount of XP as the full health of a tier 10 battleship. CV's are damage challenged ships, doing very little damage per attack, and not actually getting that many attacks in a given period of time. So, doing 3k or 5k of damage to a DD is more profitable, than doing even somewhat more to a battleship. The only reason a CV can reach an acceptable amount of total damage (quite similar to a battleship) is by using almost all of a 20 minute match to do it. Normal surface ships only spend a small fraction of a match engaging targets.

DD's win matches, CV's do not. The first side that runs out of DD"s usually loses. Remove a DD's ability to spot, it's ability to cap, and burst damage from the torps, and you'd remove all of the DD's importance to the outcome of a match. Nobody is going to go for that, it would remove most of the reasons to drive DD's. It's also the biggest reason for everything, not just CV's, to focus down the DD's as quickly as possible. You want to win a match, first thing to do is kill the opposing DD's.

You would also have to change how CV's do damage, much bigger hits, spread out over more time, more like the RTS CV's, or it's never going to be worth going after ships other than that DD"s anyway. A much heavier, harder to aim attack, that is capable of doing serious damage to a BB or cruiser if aimed well would be required, with a drastically increased time between attacks. The CV will be forced to prioritize targets that it's more likely to hit, with an attack that will actually do something. As it stands right now, getting a squadron shredded for a couple of bomb hits on a battleship isn't worth it, when I can hit a destroyer for a meaningful percentage of it's health.  The goes against WG making CV's more action based (once every 4 minutes obliterating someone isn't keeping a CV player busy) and isn't going to go over well with the cruisers and battleships that are now getting hammered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
323 posts
2,954 battles
13 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

The only way to do that is either to completely change how scoring XP/credits is done, completely change the role of the DD, and completely change how CV's do damage.

DD's are low hit point ships, and at it's simplest XP is awarded for percentage of a targets hit points done in damage. The full health of a tier 10 DD is worth the same amount of XP as the full health of a tier 10 battleship. CV's are damage challenged ships, doing very little damage per attack, and not actually getting that many attacks in a given period of time. So, doing 3k or 5k of damage to a DD is more profitable, than doing even somewhat more to a battleship. The only reason a CV can reach an acceptable amount of total damage (quite similar to a battleship) is by using almost all of a 20 minute match to do it. Normal surface ships only spend a small fraction of a match engaging targets.

DD's win matches, CV's do not. The first side that runs out of DD"s usually loses. Remove a DD's ability to spot, it's ability to cap, and burst damage from the torps, and you'd remove all of the DD's importance to the outcome of a match. Nobody is going to go for that, it would remove most of the reasons to drive DD's. It's also the biggest reason for everything, not just CV's, to focus down the DD's as quickly as possible. You want to win a match, first thing to do is kill the opposing DD's.

You would also have to change how CV's do damage, much bigger hits, spread out over more time, more like the RTS CV's, or it's never going to be worth going after ships other than that DD"s anyway. A much heavier, harder to aim attack, that is capable of doing serious damage to a BB or cruiser if aimed well would be required, with a drastically increased time between attacks. The CV will be forced to prioritize targets that it's more likely to hit, with an attack that will actually do something. As it stands right now, getting a squadron shredded for a couple of bomb hits on a battleship isn't worth it, when I can hit a destroyer for a meaningful percentage of it's health.  The goes against WG making CV's more action based (once every 4 minutes obliterating someone isn't keeping a CV player busy) and isn't going to go over well with the cruisers and battleships that are now getting hammered.

Wow... I'm not even gonna

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
958
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,292 posts
12,976 battles
10 minutes ago, Tyberius_D said:

Wow... I'm not even gonna

You don't have an answer as to why CV's (and everything else with a brain) targets DD's? The whole "nerf a ship so it can't hurt me" has gotten old and stale.

If you don't understand a problem, you can't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
323 posts
2,954 battles
57 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

You don't have an answer as to why CV's (and everything else with a brain) targets DD's? The whole "nerf a ship so it can't hurt me" has gotten old and stale.

I do (you outlined them in your word salad decently enough):
1) They are the easiest to attack on average (althought their AA buffs are changing that.)

2) They are the most rewarding to hit.

3) They are the most impactful ships in the game.

The problem I have is your interpration of carriers, I disagree with every point you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,648
Members
1,827 posts
52 battles
2 hours ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

And I am not going to answer your question. Your replies have held more complaints and challenges instead of constructive criticisms.

I haven't complained anywhere. I'm merely pointing out scenarios in which your proposed mechanics utterly fail. If you can rectify those, your proposal becomes acceptable. If you can't, that just means it is flawed and should be disregarded.

 

2 hours ago, Napoleon_B01 said:

I can also tell that you don't like CVs for the reasons you mentioned.

CVs are literally the only class I play nowadays.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
716
[CLUMP]
Members
1,086 posts
1,345 battles
On 5/23/2020 at 4:22 PM, El2aZeR said:

You do realize this makes absolutely no sense, right?

If you have a fighter squadron escorting you, that means the enemy squad also has one.
So either the fighters will just shoot each other down, or you both lose a squad the instant you spot the other squadron.

 

AA is far too weak already. Making it even weaker would be disastrous.

 

Making the only truly effective AA consumable worthless is the last thing that we need.

 

Shells and torps also cost money, some just as much if not more than planes. Yet I don't see anyone complaining that their cost is too high.

So why exactly should CVs be given special treatment when it comes to the economy?

AA is too weak already you mad :Smile_sceptic: It's fine the way it just because a unicum thinks it's weak doesn't mean everyone else does :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
958
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,292 posts
12,976 battles
1 hour ago, Tyberius_D said:

I do (you outlined them in your word salad decently enough):
1) They are the easiest to attack on average (althought their AA buffs are changing that.)

2) They are the most rewarding to hit.

3) They are the most impactful ships in the game.

The problem I have is your interpration of carriers, I disagree with every point you made.

Of course you disagree, you want to keep the DD's as the most impacful ships in the game, and prevent CV's from doing anything to them. 

The idea of nerfing rockets into the ground, or getting rid of them entirely so that CV's can't hurt DD"s isn't valid, I kill more DD's with air dropped torps than I do rockets, and it's usual the spotting that does them in anyway. So, do you make CV's completely blind? Make them unable to damage anything? Because I will certainly use any aircraft to spot, and any weapon I have to attack DD's. Make it so that only a CV can see what it's planes see, I will ping the map to let friendlies know where the DD"s are. Pinging the map so that cruisers can be ready to get an easy DD kill would still be enough for DD players to come running to the forums and scream bloody murder that everything is unfair, and CV's need to be removed.

My interpretation is that good CV's provide a service to it's team, so that the battleships, cruisers and destroyers don't get a "Surprise, you're Dead!!!!" moment. Teams do better when they know what's in front of them, without finding out by getting their face ripped off. I'm also the help so that my team's DD"s don't have to 1v1 a red DD when possible, only fools go for a fair fight. I've got a 65% win rate in the Graf Zeppelin for a reason, and it's not for the number of kills I get or how much damage I do.

A CV that just farms damage on battleships is failing it's team, just like the cruisers that sit behind an island and spam HE at battleships when there's more important thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
323 posts
2,954 battles
21 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Of course you disagree, you want to keep the DD's as the most impacful ships in the game, and prevent CV's from doing anything to them. 

The idea of nerfing rockets into the ground, or getting rid of them entirely so that CV's can't hurt DD"s isn't valid, I kill more DD's with air dropped torps than I do rockets, and it's usual the spotting that does them in anyway. So, do you make CV's completely blind? Make them unable to damage anything? Because I will certainly use any aircraft to spot, and any weapon I have to attack DD's. Make it so that only a CV can see what it's planes see, I will ping the map to let friendlies know where the DD"s are. Pinging the map so that cruisers can be ready to get an easy DD kill would still be enough for DD players to come running to the forums and scream bloody murder that everything is unfair, and CV's need to be removed.

My interpretation is that good CV's provide a service to it's team, so that the battleships, cruisers and destroyers don't get a "Surprise, you're Dead!!!!" moment. Teams do better when they know what's in front of them, without finding out by getting their face ripped off. I'm also the help so that my team's DD"s don't have to 1v1 a red DD when possible, only fools go for a fair fight. I've got a 65% win rate in the Graf Zeppelin for a reason, and it's not for the number of kills I get or how much damage I do.

A CV that just farms damage on battleships is failing it's team, just like the cruisers that sit behind an island and spam HE at battleships when there's more important thing to do.

OK stop!
1) You make way too many assumptions. I'm best in CVs, and I will do just fine without rockets.

2) You rant way too much, espically from as little that is posted.

3) Your logic is crap, not only do you make half my points for me but you contradict yourself constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
958
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,292 posts
12,976 battles
1 hour ago, Tyberius_D said:

OK stop!
1) You make way too many assumptions. I'm best in CVs, and I will do just fine without rockets.

2) You rant way too much, espically from as little that is posted.

3) Your logic is crap, not only do you make half my points for me but you contradict yourself constantly.

Your's is worse, take rockets away so that CV's can't hurt DD's.

You don't address the problem, which is DD's are very high value targets. Higher value than anything else in the game. When subs end up in randoms, it will just get worse for the DD's. Their value will go up further.

You make the same flawed argument that has been made thousands of times. It still has the same flaws and it doesn't fix anything.

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.

×