Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Amaterasu112

RTS CVs optional module

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
4 posts
818 battles

So some of you may remember when carriers were strategy ships. Instead of controlling one squad at a time, you could control all of them at once. I propose bring that back as an option to existing carriers but not replacing the current mechanics. What if there was a "CIC" module that determines how the carrier will be controlled. The trade off could be for the RTS setting. You sacrifice personal accuracy for area control. So in a way it could be balanced in the way an AI fighter squadron has less accuracy but because you can have more of them out at once you could in a way deal the same amount approximately to a the current mechanics where the players can fine tune their runs while an RTS can't do that at all.

  • Cool 2
  • Sad 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[SOAR]
Members
317 posts
5,146 battles

So the person playing RTS style could manage multiple squadrons including strafe while the person playing current style could only manage one squadron FPS style without all the other benefits?

Sounds great. Well thought out. Incredibly balanced.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4 posts
818 battles

Well, ok. Back then the RTS runs had set up times and they couldn't be adjusted once they started on those runs or even stopped. And with that there was a much better chance to dodge the attacks. Also controlling the squads were different from now. Back then each squad had a single run before they to RTB. I think if they worked like that still for a come back. 1 run per squad but control 2-5 based on tier, vs manually controlling a larger squad that gets more runs and can be finely tuned during an attack run. Sounds somewhat balanced to me. Also sorry I should have better explained how the original mechanics worked.

 

Edit: also for the current mechanics, carrier placement doesn't really matter, just make sure your safe and you just launch another squad when your done with your first. While RTS, if your parked in a corner. Your gonna spend most of your time waiting for your squads to go hit your target once then fly all they way back. You loose lots of time in transit. So carrier placement is much more important for the RTS player.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,292
[GWG]
Members
7,601 posts
14,475 battles

I did well back in the RTS days.  But the fact the other carrier was RTS, with similar mechanics kept me limited.

Give me an RTS carrier under the current system, and I will mop the floor with anything that gets in my way.

My first step was to send all four squads out in different directions to spot and map out where the enemy ships were setting up.
If there was an opportune target - attack.  If I met fighters - a hasty retreat.
From this intel, my team knew where the enemy was, and could adjust strategy.  They could see where the DDs were coming in, and I could see where the AA was weak.  If an enemy  DD was unprotected by fighters, I'd park my planes on top of it until my team mopped it up.

Do you really want to unleash the 'old experts' onto the current players?  It'd be like seal-clubbing at tier 10.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4 posts
818 battles
6 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

I did well back in the RTS days.  But the fact the other carrier was RTS, with similar mechanics kept me limited.

Give me an RTS carrier under the current system, and I will mop the floor with anything that gets in my way.

My first step was to send all four squads out in different directions to spot and map out where the enemy ships were setting up.
If there was an opportune target - attack.  If I met fighters - a hasty retreat.
From this intel, my team knew where the enemy was, and could adjust strategy.  They could see where the DDs were coming in, and I could see where the AA was weak.  If an enemy  DD was unprotected by fighters, I'd park my planes on top of it until my team mopped it up.

Do you really want to unleash the 'old experts' onto the current players?  It'd be like seal-clubbing at tier 10.

Well, honestly done right i think it could work. Again, the action players can better focus down a target and are much less reliant on RNG to make good hits. It could be less squads. Like say the old T5 CVs, one of each type only. (Or if you remember the old US set ups where they could be all bombers and no fighters or 2 squads of fighters and a torp squad) not suggesting there should be loadouts though. RTS playstyle is ment to be harder. More risk vs reward because if you played safe you did nothing productive. But if you play too aggressive you either run out of planes or loose your carrier. Good times.. anyways with the regenerating planes we currently have, yes RTS would be very op. Unless! There are limits. Example the one shot squads could have less damage potential than the strafing. But the strafing takes more time and skill to do. Which makes sense. Should also reduce the planes in the RTS squads. Say 4 planes?

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,632
[PVE]
Members
8,505 posts
24,628 battles
2 hours ago, Amaterasu112 said:

So some of you may remember when carriers were strategy ships. Instead of controlling one squad at a time, you could control all of them at once. I propose bring that back as an option to existing carriers but not replacing the current mechanics. What if there was a "CIC" module that determines how the carrier will be controlled. The trade off could be for the RTS setting. You sacrifice personal accuracy for area control. So in a way it could be balanced in the way an AI fighter squadron has less accuracy but because you can have more of them out at once you could in a way deal the same amount approximately to a the current mechanics where the players can fine tune their runs while an RTS can't do that at all.

Unfortunately not an option due to the inevitable sub release.

Subs were declared "never to be in game" because w/more than 1 squadron of planes in the air at a time per CV subs are impractical to run...the whole CV rebork (1 main squadron w/1 fighter at most at the same time) was done to allow subs to be feasible (it had the whole "easier to play" thing as a side effect but multiple squad CVs are now a thing of the past.

I prefer them myself just for the multitasking challenge they provided although I didn't run them much back then.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,684
[SALVO]
Members
26,320 posts
30,329 battles
2 hours ago, Amaterasu112 said:

Well, ok. Back then the RTS runs had set up times and they couldn't be adjusted once they started on those runs or even stopped. And with that there was a much better chance to dodge the attacks. Also controlling the squads were different from now. Back then each squad had a single run before they to RTB. I think if they worked like that still for a come back. 1 run per squad but control 2-5 based on tier, vs manually controlling a larger squad that gets more runs and can be finely tuned during an attack run. Sounds somewhat balanced to me. Also sorry I should have better explained how the original mechanics worked.

 

Edit: also for the current mechanics, carrier placement doesn't really matter, just make sure your safe and you just launch another squad when your done with your first. While RTS, if your parked in a corner. Your gonna spend most of your time waiting for your squads to go hit your target once then fly all they way back. You loose lots of time in transit. So carrier placement is much more important for the RTS player.

No, the chances of dodging attacks were NOT better, let alone "much better".  A good RTS CV player could cross drop any enemy ship all to heII and you had no chance of avoiding the torps at all.  The only way one could  avoid cross drops was if you were in a maneuverable DD and the CV player really wasn't that good at cross drops.

Regarding your edit, yes, you do spend more time in transit in FPS vs RTS, simply because in RTS CVs, the squadrons were flying out in parallel (i.e. at the same time) rather than sequentially like they do with FPS CVs.  But this is quite likely a balancing factor.  If FPS CV planes were faster (to reduce transit times), I suspect that this would make CVs more powerful overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,684
[SALVO]
Members
26,320 posts
30,329 battles
22 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Unfortunately not an option due to the inevitable sub release.

Subs were declared "never to be in game" because w/more than 1 squadron of planes in the air at a time per CV subs are impractical to run...the whole CV rebork (1 main squadron w/1 fighter at most at the same time) was done to allow subs to be feasible (it had the whole "easier to play" thing as a side effect but multiple squad CVs are now a thing of the past.

I prefer them myself just for the multitasking challenge they provided although I didn't run them much back then.

The multitasking capability is what made RTS CVs ridiculously OP in the hands of those unicum CV mains.  And a big reason for the rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,632
[PVE]
Members
8,505 posts
24,628 battles
22 hours ago, Crucis said:

The multitasking capability is what made RTS CVs ridiculously OP in the hands of those unicum CV mains.  And a big reason for the rework.

I never got to the unicum level of RTS CVs...although I could manaul drop w/them I never got strafing down...but I was aware of it & could avoid it by running away...although I fortunately never ran into any unicums in the few battles in random I ever played (just enough to finish the CV tasks in the 1st campaign...all my other CV battles were in co-op for missions).

Not saying they weren't attempting to make CVs more balanced...just that (even though unbeknownst to most) sub compatibility was there main focus. Fortunately for them a more balanced system was also the result...at least between CV vs CV game play...not trying to derail this thread into another "CVs aren't balanced in general" rant so just wanted to clarify that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×