Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
x_Quinn_x

CV Vs Surface ship - Possible skill based consumable idea to improve the interaction. Also a possible fix for CV squadron spotting capability.

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

217
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
477 posts
4,879 battles

The Consumable Idea:

I would like to suggest something that could help bring a bit more skill to the CV Vs Surface ship interaction system.

Just to clarify this is not about the spotting capability of the CV. That requires a rethink and evaluation from WG which I have heard they might be doing.

This is mostly about the damage mitigation for the surface ship when under direct attack from the CV squadrons.

So, we all know that CVs have some major advantages in the Squadron vs Surface ship interaction and more changes to AA would result in CVs becoming increasingly more frustrating to play and reducing the damage of their ordinance is not something that CV players would like to see happen (if anything I hope this idea could see the damage increased some) as it would simply make them even less appealing to play.

To that end, I would like to propose the creation and addition of a consumable that would effectively reduce the damage taken and fire/flood duration if it is used just before the ordinance hits the ship. The effect would last 2 to 4 seconds (length depending on balancing and possible captain skills) and it would have 2 to 3 charges that reset after a short cool down to deal with more than one attack run of the current squadron. If triggered after the ordinance hits the ship the consumable would have no effect and you would take full damage and suffer the full duration of fires and floods. If you use it to soon and it runs out before the ordinance hits then it is again ineffective. If triggered just right when hit you will receive the full alpha damage calculated but the consumable would trigger a heal that would then restore 70% to 90% of that direct damage taken and also reduce any fire/flood duration's by 60% to 80% (These numbers are a suggestion they could be lower depending on balancing needs).

The point behind restoring your HP instead of simply mitigating it is so that the CV player still gets credit for the damage they inflict and are not simply crippled by an easy to use consumable which is only there to increase quality of life for surface ship players which is what this consumable would do in terms of constant airstrike focus while feeling like you can do nothing.

The whole idea behind the consumable is you would be telling your crew to brace for and prepare to recover from incoming airstrike damage. This puts your crew at the ready and the result is you taking the damage but your crew responds with a restoration of your HP overtime and also controls fires set quicker than normal.

True the biggest issue with CVs is not its own strikes but the proliferation of constant HE spam at targets not able to handle it when the CV spots it but, a lot of complaints are about a CV taking 50% of a destroyers HP with a wave of attacks or even 1 strike no matter how hard they try to avoid it and this consumable would reduce that.

 

The Squadron Spotting issue:

When it comes to the spotting that a CV squadron can do the largest issue is that for most ships it can spot a target at ranges that makes that targets AA basically pointless allowing for permanent spotting of the target without the risk of losing aircraft. This most often hurts destroyers that are on their own, trying to cap, or trying to sneak around on a boarder, or are simply trying to get close to spot. This has been done so that the squadron is not being fired on by an invisible ships AA which is how it should be. However, the target should not become visible to other members of the CVs team unless the squadron has gotten within highly dangerous AA range so that staying in that range is a high risk for the squad. This way the CV is risking the lose of its aircraft which do not reload quick enough to simply be wasted by sticking around in this more dangerous AA zone to keep the target spotted. This would reduce the constant spotting of ships that require stealth to mitigate damage and provide some level of comfort.

 

TLDR:

Consumable:

HP recovery and flood/fire duration reduction from Airstrikes

Works for 2 to 5 seconds has 2 to 3 charges (for multiple strikes from a single squadron) that reset after a 15 to 30 second cool down (So it has to be triggered just before being hit by rockets, bombs or torps)

Triggers a heal that restores 70% to 90% direct damage taken from a strike (numbers could be lower depending on balancing)

Reduces flood/fire duration by 60% to 80% (numbers could be lower depending on balancing)

 

Squadron spotting:

Make it so a CV squadron can spot the ship as normal for the CV but the enemy ship is not visible to your team unless the squadron is close enough to be at risk from AA of the enemy ship. We are talking about being in strike distance where the AA should be the most dangerous to the Aircraft unless they are in an attack run.

 

 

Both changes together should make playing most ships a much better experience and even allow CVs to be given back a stronger strike potential while being more at risk of losing striking capability just to spot a target. They could also bring changes to make playing a CV more forgiving without making a team suffer because their CV player is not as good at the spotting game.

Thank you for reading :fish_book:

 

                               :CV:

:cap_rambo::cap_rambo::cap_rambo::cap_rambo:

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,123
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,681 posts

You play CV? 

2 hours ago, x_Quinn_x said:

When it comes to the spotting that a CV squadron can do the largest issue is that for most ships it can spot a target at ranges that makes that targets AA basically pointless allowing for permanent spotting of the target without the risk of losing aircraft.

^^^ ? 

Complete and utter poodoo. You obviously do not play CV. Wanna talk DD AA? Nah, didn't think so. 

Hey wait - I think I saw a new consumable for your commanders.. two in fact.

1) Cloak of Invisibility - when activated you get 19:50 minutes of practical, useful Invisibility from carrier planes. Works on all ships tier IX and lower. WG/WoWS will be evaluating the spreadsheet data to see if it needs bumped to tier X.

2) Superdude Camo - with this pricey new camo, all targeting by aircraft in-game will be off by 199 percent.  Yes, it's pricey. No, we don't anticipate any reduction of price or sales coming for the next year. Note: When traveling in close convoy, you may actually get blapped by the carrier completely out of the match. Ordnance displacement is a minimum of 199 percent. The impact of said ordnance is also boosted. Minimal damage is 199 percent of the original minimal amount. In essence, when the carrier attacks, their ordnance is shifted from the intended target by a distance of 199 percent from the original, intended attack point, at any compass point. While it effectively neuters the primary attack, RNG may result in the occasional hit by the ordnance upon an unintended target. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31,480
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
23,603 posts
17,940 battles

I can't help but notice that all of OP's ideas are nerfs to CV's.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,999
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,929 posts
11,403 battles

As someone that plays CV's - My HVAR, FFAR and RP-3 rockets do need a damage nerf. Some ships do need an AA buff, mostly lower tiers, several ships need AA nerfs like Minotaur which is cloaked till it opens fire and I own a Minotaur that does just that, extra troll because I built it to AA. Making it I lose 2-3 planes against a ship that can only shoot down 1/9 if it's lucky and hits me with a flak burst of which it only has 2 is not going to impede my ability to play or frustration. In fact - by buffing the ships that need AA buffs, and lowering damage of the rockets I listed that are fired in such high volume they are an issue - they can reverse the changes to fighter aiming and mobility and DB accuracy - making both far easier to use for players of all skill levels, and no longer impede our abilities vs cruisers, BB's, and CV's that actually have flak we need to dodge in a pointless change meant to protect DD's that utterly failed. Any smart DD player knows that AA off reduces spotting to almost 2 km, it's at best difficult unless everything is just right to attack a DD you just spotted. AA or smoke, if not both, can then be used to deal with the planes. 

Also - there is damage mitigation - It's called dodge, use AA sectors, work with teammates, and fighter consumable. And don't give me that 'it doesn't work' nonsense - Last night in a Yamato, which is one of the few high tier BB's I'd buff AA on, I used all 4 of those things, managing to completely dodge a Midway's TB attack on me. Only low tiers and DD's overall have any real issue, most of which comes from too high alpha on one type of rocket and abysmal AA. 

It's not a complex problem with a complex solution - AA balance needs work, both ways, one specific set of a type of ordnance needs a nerf, DD's need a buff or two in ability to take hits (namely module HP on steering/rudder), and that is about 75-90% of the issues with CV's - both rework and former RTS, solved.

 

The Consumable is beyond unreasonable and might as well be 'reduce CV ordnance damage to 0' for what you propose. You drastically overestimate the capability of most carriers, let alone most CV players, with the only real damage issues coming from CV vs DD - and most of that is, again, high volume rockets landing multiple hits. Beyond that - it's more an issue with fires that dates back to testing, and has never been fully addressed and only made worse by IFHE, and even more so post the botched IFHE 'fix' - all of whichh is a seperate issue from CV's. 

The spotting changes? Guess what - DD's can only be spotted if they have their AA on already, or basically proximity spotting them if off. Several cruisers have AA ranges same as their spotting ranges - meaning the only way to spot them is to be in their AA, and they usually happen to also usually be the hyper lethal ones as opposed to the ones that need a buff to AA anyway. Which leaves BB's, who yeah, are spotted further out than AA typically, but have armour, have heals, have range and as is they have been reducing how far out CV planes actually bloody see/get credit on spotting. Which is why you find many CV players resistant to being told to spot something because it awards little, is harder than some think, and may simply cost planes the CV can't afford to lose against high AA ships that can only be spotted in their AA range, because despite what the ignorant masses think CV planes are only TECHNICALLY unlimited not PRACTICALLY unlimited which is a very big difference. Because especially as you get to high tiers, it starts taking 1 minute or more to regen ONE plane - so when you lose 9/9 of 15 overall you have to wait 3+ minutes to even launch a full strength attack and if you lose another 6/9 that's 6 more minutes till full strength and that's at best half the damn match gone if not more accounting that on average it takes a group of planes on a tier appropriate map ~10 seconds/grid square to get anywhere.

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
477 posts
4,879 battles
12 hours ago, Lert said:

I can't help but notice that all of OP's ideas are nerfs to CV's.

what nerfs?

I am talking about giving ALL ships the ability to actually counter play an attacking squadron with the use of actual skill.... and if they stuff it up they get hit and hit hard.... as it should be.... AA doesn't do this and leaves the 1v1 at the end of the game to heavily in the CVs favor.... You are crazy if you think it doesn't...

This can also lead to the CVs being given back their Alpha strike potential.....

These are not nerfs they are suggestions to bring the game back to skill Vs skill where the squadron can choose its attack angle (as it already can) and the target can mitigate damage from it if it is paying attention (which is not easy when your attacker is above you and you are focused on other enemy ships).....

Surface ships need to feel like they have some kind of defense against CV squadrons which is not a total defense but still works well enough and faster than angling your ship because a CV can choose to attack from any angle quickly.... Something which is not present in this current version of the interaction.....

Other changes will only lead to nerfing the ability of CVs which makes them frustrating instead of fun to play.... Instead the system I am suggesting would mean making CVs much easier and more flexible as only the attack distance from the ship needs to be standardized for each ship type while everything else like agility and control of the squadron in the attack run to adjust where your ordinance lands can be increased or decreased as needed to feel comfortable to the CV player.

The AA suggestion is to bring the risk Vs reward for playing the CV the right way and to open the game up some... Currently CV spotting for the team is so easy you can do it while your asleep and so is rewarded as such.... it also means the enemy has to bunch up into most often static bubbles of scarred little children that refuses to push....which also means you don't often get that lone enemy ship that is brave enough to try to sneak through the lines because if it gets spotted it is open field day on it for the enemy instead of just being the CVs plaything....... Reducing the distance the CV spots for their team means the enemy doesn't have to be as worried about being spotted by the CV squadron and allows the game to spread out more and also allows some strategy for both teams without having the enemy constantly know about it.......... It also produces more lone ship situations which, because the CV can spot for itself at current ranges, means the CV has the choice of spotting the target for the team at the cost of aircraft (a balanced rate that hurts enough to not spot them any longer than a radar could before needing to launch more aircraft) or striking the target at the cost of no aircraft because the attack run makes them immune to AA but which the target can recover from with the suggested consumable...

All this means is AA strength and ranges can be more standardized VS type of ship instead of the odd blanket AA ranges and strange AA strength levels resulting in ships with 12 AA guns being capable of killing more aircraft than one with 160 AA guns. It also means that getting to close to a ship without entering an attack run (which should make the squadron immune for all attack types for the duration of the run including the exit maneuver) will cost the CV what it should cost them to be able to spot for the team. You will still have to enter the AA zone to start an attack but if you wait to long to start it costs more.

Like I said the numbers for the consumable would need to be balanced out and AA strength and ranges better balanced Vs ship type so that the CV either spots the target at the cost of aircraft or can attack the target without the cost of aircraft but with the ability for the surface ship to potential recover if they play well enough.... CV gets HP and percentage damage rewards because it can do way more damage but it doesn't hurt the target to the point that makes the game not fun for them..... is that not a good thing?....

The numbers need balancing for sure but, In the end, the CV has more power, more opportunity, and more potential to not lose aircraft than it has currently and most of all can be made the most comfortable class to play and can rack up the damage without being the over effective decider for a match.... how are these nerfs?

All I am trying to do is make the game fun for both sides of the coin and the values are only suggestions they could be much lower depending on what they need to be to balance it out.

Currently neither side of the coin is fun to play because both are instead being balanced by frustration to the player instead of potential counter play that means if you screw up you pay for it. The consumable can be countered by the CV player buy not launching in the run they are on so the target would have to make sure of a launch to activate the consumable or be hit with full alpha if they run out of charges.

But hey if you like being outplayed by intentional frustration instead of simply a cunning player be my guest.... its not like this community is receptive to suggestions anyway...

 

14 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

You play CV? 

^^^ ? 

Complete and utter poodoo. You obviously do not play CV. Wanna talk DD AA? Nah, didn't think so. 

Hey wait - I think I saw a new consumable for your commanders.. two in fact.

1) Cloak of Invisibility - when activated you get 19:50 minutes of practical, useful Invisibility from carrier planes. Works on all ships tier IX and lower. WG/WoWS will be evaluating the spreadsheet data to see if it needs bumped to tier X.

2) Superdude Camo - with this pricey new camo, all targeting by aircraft in-game will be off by 199 percent.  Yes, it's pricey. No, we don't anticipate any reduction of price or sales coming for the next year. Note: When traveling in close convoy, you may actually get blapped by the carrier completely out of the match. Ordnance displacement is a minimum of 199 percent. The impact of said ordnance is also boosted. Minimal damage is 199 percent of the original minimal amount. In essence, when the carrier attacks, their ordnance is shifted from the intended target by a distance of 199 percent from the original, intended attack point, at any compass point. While it effectively neuters the primary attack, RNG may result in the occasional hit by the ordnance upon an unintended target.  

 

Great intelligence in this response right here........ Oh and as far as AA goes you will find I am the one asking why DDs with only 12 AA guns can kill more aircraft than a battleship with 160 AA guns... so don't give me this DD AA crap.....

The only complete and utter Poodoo is that you fail to understand the basics of what I am suggesting and instead think CVs and AA should not be a game of risk Vs reward.....

 

11 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

As someone that plays CV's - My HVAR, FFAR and RP-3 rockets do need a damage nerf. Some ships do need an AA buff, mostly lower tiers, several ships need AA nerfs like Minotaur which is cloaked till it opens fire and I own a Minotaur that does just that, extra troll because I built it to AA. Making it I lose 2-3 planes against a ship that can only shoot down 1/9 if it's lucky and hits me with a flak burst of which it only has 2 is not going to impede my ability to play or frustration. In fact - by buffing the ships that need AA buffs, and lowering damage of the rockets I listed that are fired in such high volume they are an issue - they can reverse the changes to fighter aiming and mobility and DB accuracy - making both far easier to use for players of all skill levels, and no longer impede our abilities vs cruisers, BB's, and CV's that actually have flak we need to dodge in a pointless change meant to protect DD's that utterly failed. Any smart DD player knows that AA off reduces spotting to almost 2 km, it's at best difficult unless everything is just right to attack a DD you just spotted. AA or smoke, if not both, can then be used to deal with the planes. 

Also - there is damage mitigation - It's called dodge, use AA sectors, work with teammates, and fighter consumable. And don't give me that 'it doesn't work' nonsense - Last night in a Yamato, which is one of the few high tier BB's I'd buff AA on, I used all 4 of those things, managing to completely dodge a Midway's TB attack on me. Only low tiers and DD's overall have any real issue, most of which comes from too high alpha on one type of rocket and abysmal AA. 

It's not a complex problem with a complex solution - AA balance needs work, both ways, one specific set of a type of ordnance needs a nerf, DD's need a buff or two in ability to take hits (namely module HP on steering/rudder), and that is about 75-90% of the issues with CV's - both rework and former RTS, solved.

 

The Consumable is beyond unreasonable and might as well be 'reduce CV ordnance damage to 0' for what you propose. You drastically overestimate the capability of most carriers, let alone most CV players, with the only real damage issues coming from CV vs DD - and most of that is, again, high volume rockets landing multiple hits. Beyond that - it's more an issue with fires that dates back to testing, and has never been fully addressed and only made worse by IFHE, and even more so post the botched IFHE 'fix' - all of whichh is a seperate issue from CV's. 

The spotting changes? Guess what - DD's can only be spotted if they have their AA on already, or basically proximity spotting them if off. Several cruisers have AA ranges same as their spotting ranges - meaning the only way to spot them is to be in their AA, and they usually happen to also usually be the hyper lethal ones as opposed to the ones that need a buff to AA anyway. Which leaves BB's, who yeah, are spotted further out than AA typically, but have armour, have heals, have range and as is they have been reducing how far out CV planes actually bloody see/get credit on spotting. Which is why you find many CV players resistant to being told to spot something because it awards little, is harder than some think, and may simply cost planes the CV can't afford to lose against high AA ships that can only be spotted in their AA range, because despite what the ignorant masses think CV planes are only TECHNICALLY unlimited not PRACTICALLY unlimited which is a very big difference. Because especially as you get to high tiers, it starts taking 1 minute or more to regen ONE plane - so when you lose 9/9 of 15 overall you have to wait 3+ minutes to even launch a full strength attack and if you lose another 6/9 that's 6 more minutes till full strength and that's at best half the damn match gone if not more accounting that on average it takes a group of planes on a tier appropriate map ~10 seconds/grid square to get anywhere.

GG on reading the TLDR part... thanks for playing the game :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[MR-1]
[MR-1]
Members
32 posts
9,551 battles
11 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

As someone that plays CV's - My HVAR, FFAR and RP-3 rockets do need a damage nerf. Some ships do need an AA buff, mostly lower tiers, several ships need AA nerfs like Minotaur which is cloaked till it opens fire and I own a Minotaur that does just that, extra troll because I built it to AA. Making it I lose 2-3 planes against a ship that can only shoot down 1/9 if it's lucky and hits me with a flak burst of which it only has 2 is not going to impede my ability to play or frustration. In fact - by buffing the ships that need AA buffs, and lowering damage of the rockets I listed that are fired in such high volume they are an issue - they can reverse the changes to fighter aiming and mobility and DB accuracy - making both far easier to use for players of all skill levels, and no longer impede our abilities vs cruisers, BB's, and CV's that actually have flak we need to dodge in a pointless change meant to protect DD's that utterly failed. Any smart DD player knows that AA off reduces spotting to almost 2 km, it's at best difficult unless everything is just right to attack a DD you just spotted. AA or smoke, if not both, can then be used to deal with the planes. 

Also - there is damage mitigation - It's called dodge, use AA sectors, work with teammates, and fighter consumable. And don't give me that 'it doesn't work' nonsense - Last night in a Yamato, which is one of the few high tier BB's I'd buff AA on, I used all 4 of those things, managing to completely dodge a Midway's TB attack on me. Only low tiers and DD's overall have any real issue, most of which comes from too high alpha on one type of rocket and abysmal AA. 

It's not a complex problem with a complex solution - AA balance needs work, both ways, one specific set of a type of ordnance needs a nerf, DD's need a buff or two in ability to take hits (namely module HP on steering/rudder), and that is about 75-90% of the issues with CV's - both rework and former RTS, solved.

 

The Consumable is beyond unreasonable and might as well be 'reduce CV ordnance damage to 0' for what you propose. You drastically overestimate the capability of most carriers, let alone most CV players, with the only real damage issues coming from CV vs DD - and most of that is, again, high volume rockets landing multiple hits. Beyond that - it's more an issue with fires that dates back to testing, and has never been fully addressed and only made worse by IFHE, and even more so post the botched IFHE 'fix' - all of whichh is a seperate issue from CV's. 

The spotting changes? Guess what - DD's can only be spotted if they have their AA on already, or basically proximity spotting them if off. Several cruisers have AA ranges same as their spotting ranges - meaning the only way to spot them is to be in their AA, and they usually happen to also usually be the hyper lethal ones as opposed to the ones that need a buff to AA anyway. Which leaves BB's, who yeah, are spotted further out than AA typically, but have armour, have heals, have range and as is they have been reducing how far out CV planes actually bloody see/get credit on spotting. Which is why you find many CV players resistant to being told to spot something because it awards little, is harder than some think, and may simply cost planes the CV can't afford to lose against high AA ships that can only be spotted in their AA range, because despite what the ignorant masses think CV planes are only TECHNICALLY unlimited not PRACTICALLY unlimited which is a very big difference. Because especially as you get to high tiers, it starts taking 1 minute or more to regen ONE plane - so when you lose 9/9 of 15 overall you have to wait 3+ minutes to even launch a full strength attack and if you lose another 6/9 that's 6 more minutes till full strength and that's at best half the damn match gone if not more accounting that on average it takes a group of planes on a tier appropriate map ~10 seconds/grid square to get anywhere.

Finally some telling the truth of the matter. THANK YOU!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,123
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,681 posts
8 hours ago, x_Quinn_x said:

Great intelligence in this response right here........ Oh and as far as AA goes you will find I am the one asking why DDs with only 12 AA guns can kill more aircraft than a battleship with 160 AA guns... so don't give me this DD AA crap.....

The only complete and utter Poodoo is that you fail to understand the basics of what I am suggesting and instead think CVs and AA should not be a game of risk Vs reward.....

You aren't the only one asking that question. Problem is, for you, it is a very old question dismissed by the owners a long time ago. It's nothing new, it's just the way they want it. I'd be surprised if they ever provide another response to it.  

You are not taking into consideration the reduction of spotting distances soon to be applied in what, the next patch? And yes, since the average CV player does not make playing this game a career, you think they want to send a flight of planes out to get totally snuffed by a DD with AA off and by my swag, visibility of nearly zero until they are right on top of it - yet - they can have a range of what, 4, 5km or greater.

And now you want to reflect damage back for this "skill" the DD player utilized to thwart the attack by the flight? 

On 7/28/2020 at 4:41 AM, x_Quinn_x said:

This is mostly about the damage mitigation for the surface ship when under direct attack from the CV squadrons.

This of course is your whole point: Reduce CV caused damage to those poor little, helpless surface ships. Your continued explanation goes down the rabbit hole further, 

 

On 7/28/2020 at 4:41 AM, x_Quinn_x said:

True the biggest issue with CVs is not its own strikes but the proliferation of constant HE spam at targets not able to handle it when the CV spots it but, a lot of complaints are about a CV taking 50% of a destroyers HP with a wave of attacks or even 1 strike no matter how hard they try to avoid it and this consumable would reduce that.

First you state the biggest issue with a CV is, and I quote, 
the proliferation of constant HE spam at targets not able to handle it when the CV spots it. 

So the biggest issue for you (or whomever you are writing on behalf of) is damage by the carrier's team mates due to "proliferation of constant HE spam". Firing at a spotted target is spamming it with HE? Oh that's precious. It isn't the CV causing the damage directly, either. 

You then go on to insert a butt: a lot of complaints are about a CV taking 50% of a destroyers HP with a wave of attacks or even 1 strike no matter how hard they try to avoid it and this consumable would reduce that.

You do not see any problem with this statement? Why shouldn't a CV take 50% or more from a destroyer, even one-strike it? The killer part is "no matter how hard they try to avoid it". 

LOL.  Destroyer says, "Boo hoo, I tried hard not getting blapped when I went solo out to a cap to cap it... the bad old red team had ships and a carrier there... and they...they spotted me, then HE spammed me... then the carrier devstruck me..." 

This is why I said it was poodoo. 

By the way - most often when a new concept is introduced, you can expect it to get the life hammered out of it. Just the way of the world. If it survives, it might be viable.

I'll give you credit for realizing there is likely a problem between these two ship types and their interactions but... 

What next? What happens to the cruisers who get one-shot, devstruck? What do we do for them? Should we somehow hamstring the ship type that inflicted the harm? Well then you might actually be fixing cruisers to prevent them from one-shotting cruisers. 

Since you injected this in the first post, let's talk HE spam from cruisers with armor that stands up to artillery rounds the size of a VW with so much mass to them they could punch a hole completely through a destroyer and yet that destroyer gets only 10% damage? It goes on and on. 

So I call it poodoo - sorry you don't see it that way - but for right now, in this environment, its poodoo. 

Edited by Herr_Reitz
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,999
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,929 posts
11,403 battles
10 hours ago, x_Quinn_x said:

GG on reading the TLDR part... thanks for playing the game :D

And GG on thinking I didn't read the whole thing and having no actual response to anything I said and not actually understanding the issues. Allow me to make it clearer and simpler.

The Consumable - It does not matter that the CV does the damage, unless either A: it triggers a detonation or B: the target is so low on HP that the attack kills it - Any window large enough to make the consumable usable will easily negate CV damage because because the time between launch and impact of Rockets and bombs is relatively fixed and Torpedoes you literally see coming at you to use it. And what you propose erases almost all of what is done. Making it harder, if not impossible, to sink a half decent DD player that has gotten through with almost full HP that because your options are either A: attack it or B: control the ship to dodge fire/torpedoes, unlike the DD who can do both at the same time, and now they can negate the majority of the damage your doing to them. To say nothing of cruisers and battleships. 

Spotting - frankly I'm not sure how to make this any simpler. The outer flak band is the most lethal band on the majority of ships, which actually rely on stealth, due to the DPS and number of flak bursts. Any DD player that hasn't gone full moron and forgotten to disable the AA guns isn't spotted till roughly 2 km away - most flak weapons have a 4.5 km range or more, no autocannon in he game has a sub 2 km max range, maybe some .50 cal's and .30's are less than that. The point where a DD is spotted at all, unless they have their AA on full tilt at all times like a noob, is spotted by planes at the point AA is at it's highest. CL's are some of the most lethal AA ships, and rely more on stealth than CA's, they have some of the more insane flak batteries, that are highly lethal, and open up at or right around their spotted by planes range, where a CV player has to either A: stay at that range and lose their planes, B: commit to an attack to try to inflict damage to justify losses or C: pull out of range, not spotting the target. 

 

Instead of a consumable like that - taking that kind of HP chunk out is limited mainly to DD vs CV, and it's specifically one type of rocket set, specifically 5-6 inch rockets which are fired in high volumes, which can achieve with it high hit counts over the length of a ship. The damage on them needs to be nerfed, which eliminates that issue. IJN and Germany use 21 cm or there about rockets in lower numbers that are more like CA's in accuracy and damage. Tiny Tim' are basically an 12 inch shell with a 14 inch blasting charge, and accuracy that matches, but still unless multiple actually land, usually less damaging vs DD than 8-12 FFAR, HVAR, or RP-3 hits.

The spotting as is practically follows what you suggest - for the two types hat actively rely on stealth they don't spot them unless they are in their most lethal AA, with the only exceptions being ships who have bad AA (pick an IJN DD) or who need it rebalanced after some of the stupidity within the rework (such as Atlanta). Only battleships don't, and the spam of HE, or more accurately IFHE - is a separate issue that plagues them regardless of the presence of a CV. 

11 hours ago, x_Quinn_x said:

Oh and as far as AA goes you will find I am the one asking why DDs with only 12 AA guns can kill more aircraft than a battleship with 160 AA guns... so don't give me this DD AA crap

Time, exposure, volume, accuracy.

Friesland, despite having only 10 total barrels, throws out 120 mm flak rounds every .7 seconds basically, filling the air with shrapnel even if the rounds don't directly hit (most planes downed by flak was accumulation of damage from shrapnel hitting things/people) at 6 km. In game the standard DPS without flak is 154 DPS. The 40 mm bofors open up at 3.5 km, they are a post war variant with high rate of fire, in game damage, 254 DPS. Place it against Yamato. 3x2 127 mm with a slower RoF and less advanced aiming tech (only 75% hit chance) makes it 195 DPS at 5.8 km only 146 with things like BFT. The rest is trapped at 2.5 km, again lower RoF historical standpoint and less advanced in accuracy, hey get 85%, meaning actual with BFT and stuff is 439. At 180 knots, vs friesland, planes spend 5 seconds being shot at by flak, 12.4 seconds under long range DPS and 7.2 seconds under 40 mm fire. Flak is variable, but the DPS comes out a 1909 and 1828 for long and mid range respectively. Yamato it's 4.7 seconds in flak, 11.9 under long range DPS, and 5.1 seconds under 25 mm fire. Translates to 1737 and 2239. And if your scratching your head because Yamato has a higher number - that's because Frieslands is with no AA upgrades at all. Factor in Defensive AA consumable (+50% to DPS) and ability to shift sectors faster/more often - that's why.

Or to over simplify it - it's 12 guys with modern miniguns who at most have to run 30 feet and have assisted aiming from radar and the like vs 160 guys with muskets and a few bolt action rifles that have to manually aim and run 60 feet. 

Also - the number of DD's that have that capability are limited mainly to the newer DD lines, namely Pan EU and top 3 IJN gun line, with some select premiums as well, while USN still has some ability it has greatly dropped off and could use some buffing, though compared to other USN ships of the same tier because they use the same tech - they do not shoot down more planes. 

So yeah - DD AA is still the issue because only some of the newest lines/ship - designed specifically to be anti-CV with high AA, have capability vs CV. Much in the same way USN was supposed to have 'the best AA' - and has been eclipsed by UK and other newer lines whose ships are more up to date as to the current state of the game - while USN BB AA is till based around a time when tier 7 CV's used Biplanes and the first war time planes weren't till the tier 8 CV's. Which is why ships like Kongo and Colorado have setups approximating how they were in the 20's, maybe early 30' - despite now seeing planes from roughly the early-mid 40's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[KNFA]
Beta Testers
477 posts
4,879 battles

Yeah that's right guys........ RNGesus forbid we play a game where skill actually counts for anything..... thankfully the game isn't built by listening to NA players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[KOBK]
Members
191 posts
3,664 battles

The more i read this, the more i understand why my cv usually lost all planes at minute 5..because they never play with cv and think to be inmortal, only to lost all of their planes to drop one rocket into 5 cruisers

AA is a defense for the ships, if you want to be alone its fine but you are easy target for the cv unless you play those european aa monster dd

You and a lot of dd players expect every dd to have halland aa fire. Thats not going to happen. If you think the base aa is not enough, buy the advanced hull wich usually come with better AA or invest in the AA captain skills. And if that isnt enough for you, i suggest to stay with your team with the aa off to difficult detection by the enemy cv

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
257 posts
520 battles

Darn it, I thought this thread was about CV's vs surface ships, not aircraft vs surface ships.

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.

×