Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Yesman1337

New Class Idea (CVE Escort Carriers)

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

57
[EQV]
Members
98 posts
1,233 battles

The idea for these ships would to be less of a strike carrier and more of a teamplay oriented one. They would a small number of dive bombers or torpedo planes but would make up for it with other supportive aircraft. They could maybe set up smoke screens for allied ships or have an enhanced version of fighters that it could deploy to protect allied ships and other various supportive munitions or utility aircraft (Repairs, spotting, maybe depth charges for ASW). They would be smaller and stealthier than the typical fleet carriers but they would hold fewer aircraft. The U.S.A., Britain, and Japan had plenty of them and they could be an interesting line for people wanting a more supportive role in battle.

  • Cool 10
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,113 posts
32,617 battles

Sign me up. I would relish the opportunity to simply zoom around the map and constantly crap on CV planes as they are mindlessly trying to attack the surface ships on my team. This is the actual counter the game needs but is not provided.

Edited by Wye_So_Serious
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles

There's no reason to add this over current carriers.

Or rather, what is here that could not simply be implemented into the current class.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,268
[SALVO]
Members
5,377 posts
4,587 battles
4 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

There's no reason to add this over current carriers.

Or rather, what is here that could not simply be implemented into the current class.

A conceptual change of focus from dealing damage against the enemy fleet to one of providing support and coverage to your own fleet

Edited by ArIskandir
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[EQV]
Members
98 posts
1,233 battles
3 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

There's no reason to add this over current carriers.

Or rather, what is here that could not simply be implemented into the current class.

I have suggested many ways for them to improve CV's and introduce similar features but WG does not seem interested in changing the way current CV's work leaving allies without air cover from fighters due to the CV player not wanting to fly all the way out of his way to drop them. (My idea was to remove fighters as a consumable and imp lament them as another aircraft type to launch but upon launching it would function as the old RTS style. Top down commanding them to areas to protect ships) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[TFFOX]
Members
816 posts
1,735 battles

controllable fighters! wg please let me use my MFS controller for something else other than MFS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
Just now, ArIskandir said:

A conceptual focus from dealing damage against the enemy fleet to one of providing support and coverage to your own fleet

Why do we need a new class for this?

A current CV line could easily perform the same roles, with it as its flavour. Infact the odd-tiered CVs that were removed were supposed to be exactly these "support lines" that your talking about.

Better to keep escort carriers and fleet carriers in the same class, then try introduce arbitrary limitations on the biggest balance nightmare we currently have ingame.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[CAP]
Members
375 posts
16,087 battles
14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

A conceptual change of focus from dealing damage against the enemy fleet to one of providing support and coverage to your own fleet

We could add in a cooking skill.  Can't fight without well fed sailors.  Maybe we can add beer pickup spots on the map as well?

 

On topic though, I think adding pure "support" role ships would be good for some competitive mode (maybe) but overall I think everyone wants ships that can make "the" difference with damage and ribbon rewards and all that.  How do you give a "Kraken like" reward to a spotting / air defense ship?  Also, CVs have fairly low burst damage in most situations so they already nerfed the game changing delete of a full HP battleship move that RTS CVs had. 

Edited by Jitta77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[EQV]
Members
98 posts
1,233 battles

I have listed off extensive rework ideas for CV's and aircraft before but no one ever seems supportive or even interested all anyone usually does is just complain saying CV = OP then leave (Or the post is just flat out ignored) and from the looks of things WG does not seem to be in any mood of reworking any of the current CV mechanics.

11 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Why do we need a new class for this?

A current CV line could easily perform the same roles, with it as its flavour. Infact the odd-tiered CVs that were removed were supposed to be exactly these "support lines" that your talking about.

Better to keep escort carriers and fleet carriers in the same class, then try introduce arbitrary limitations on the biggest balance nightmare we currently have ingame.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,268
[SALVO]
Members
5,377 posts
4,587 battles
22 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Why do we need a new class for this?

  • A different class/tech tree line means possibilities to including more ships and different mechanics/skill trees.
  • It means liberty to explore new concepts without messing too much with current ones
  • Can have broadly defined roles in an expanded RPS scheme, if CVs are Spock then CVEs could act as Lizard
  • More is usually better, regarding game content.
  • CV/CVE capabilities development doesn't correlate well in time progression. Even the oldest CVs are usually far more capable than the newer CVE/CVL, given the focus on plane evolution, it could turn weird to balance.
  • Given the intended doctrine of simplifying game mechanics for current CVs, giving them expanded functionality might overload the CPU processing power of the avg flying monkey, so it would be better to distribute different functionality into different breeds of flying monkeys.
Edited by ArIskandir
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[EQV]
Members
98 posts
1,233 battles
2 minutes ago, Jitta77 said:

We could add in a cooking skill.  Can't fight without well fed sailors.  Maybe we can add beer pickup spots on the map as well?

 

On topic though, I think adding pure "support" role ships would be good for some competitive mode (maybe) but overall I think everyone wants ships that can make "the" difference with damage and ribbon rewards and all that.  How do you given a "Kraken like" reward to a spotting / air defense ship?  Also, CVs have fairly low burst damage in most situations so they already nerfed the game changing delete of a full HP battleship move that RTS CVs had. 

The CVE's would still have some damage capabilities just a smaller reserve squadron of aircraft for it (Maybe not all aircraft types as well). They would mostly be for finishing strikes or isolated targets and supporting fire not really a main damage dealer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,268
[SALVO]
Members
5,377 posts
4,587 battles
5 minutes ago, Jitta77 said:

We could add in a cooking skill.  Can't fight without well fed sailors.  Maybe we can add beer pickup spots on the map as well?

On topic though, I think adding pure "support" role ships would be good for some competitive mode (maybe) but overall I think everyone wants ships that can make "the" difference with damage and ribbon rewards and all that.  How do you give a "Kraken like" reward to a spotting / air defense ship? 

You create new rewards/achievements. Instead of "Kraken", you get "Flyswatter", "Swedish Chef meatball master" and stuff like that.

Also, given a large enough group, there's no such thing as everyone. There'll be always enough number of oddballs to support any eccentricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:
  • A different class/tech tree line means possibilities to including more ships and different mechanics/skill trees.
  • It means liberty to explore new concepts without messing too much with current ones
  • Can have broadly defined roles in an expanded RPS scheme, if CVs are Spock then CVEs could act as Lizard
  • More is usually better, regarding game content.
  • CV/CVE capabilities development doesn't well in time progression. Even the oldest CVs are usually far more capable than the newer CVE/CVL, given the focus on plane evolution, it could turn weird to balance.
  • Given the intended doctrine of simplifying game mechanics for current CVs, giving them expanded functionality might overload the CPU processing power of the avg flying monkey, so it would be better to distribute different functionality into different breeds of flying monkeys.

A different class/tech tree line means possibilities to including more ships and different mechanics/skill trees. - Separating the two does the opposite, every CV line in the game starts with escort carriers and ends with CVs. The first thing you do by splitting them is remove low tier carriers from their lines by changing their class
It means liberty to explore new concepts without messing too much with current ones - We can do that without a new class, think of Minotaur, Stalingrad and Graf Spee. These are all the same class, cruisers.
Can have broadly defined roles in an expanded RPS scheme, if CVs are Spock then CVEs could act as Lizard - We can do that without a new class, think of Minotaur, Stalingrad and Graf Spee. These are all the same class, cruisers.
More is usually better, regarding game content. - Change "more classes" into "more tech tree lines", wheres the difference?
CV/CVE capabilities development doesn't well in time progression. Even the oldest CVs are usually far more capable than the newer CVE/CVL, given the focus on plane evolution, it could turn weird to balance. - I don't even understand what your saying here, but it sounds like you are arguing that CVLs don't belong at high tiers because carriers are simply more capable.. which is a vote against adding them(?)
Given the intended doctrine of simplifying game mechanics for current CVs, giving them expanded functionality might overload the CPU processing power of the avg flying monkey, so it would be better to distribute different functionality into different breeds of flying monkeys. - We can do that without a new class, think of Minotaur, Stalingrad and Graf Spee. These are all the same class, cruisers.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[CAP]
Members
375 posts
16,087 battles
8 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

You create new rewards/achievements. Instead of "Kraken", you get "Flyswatter", "Swedish Chef meatball master" and stuff like that.

Also, given a large enough group, there's no such thing as everyone. There'll be always enough number of oddballs to support any eccentricity.

As someone who often played the "healer" role in MMORPGs, I get that.  I'm just not sure if WOWS is the kind of game format for helpless support ships that are free food once you kill the tank/dps.  Also, what would an air-support ships do if you kill the CV early?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,268
[SALVO]
Members
5,377 posts
4,587 battles
5 minutes ago, Jitta77 said:

As someone who often played the "healer" role in MMORPGs, I get that.  I'm just not sure if WOWS is the kind of game format for helpless support ships that are free food once you kill the tank/dps.  

I'm also not sure but you can bet I would gladly try it out.

7 minutes ago, Jitta77 said:

Also, what would an air-support ships do if you kill the CV early?

I guess the same as an Asashio when all the BBs  get sunk early

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,268
[SALVO]
Members
5,377 posts
4,587 battles
17 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Separating the two does the opposite, every CV line in the game starts with escort carriers and ends with CVs. The first thing you do by splitting them is remove low tier carriers from their lines by changing their class - Not true, the CV lines follow a chronological (or fantasy deutsche chronology) time line from precursor Carriers (Langley, Hosho, etc) to full fledged fleet carriers. CVE/CVL are later developments to fulfill specific needs of expanded cheap air support. You don't remove anything from the current lines by splitting the line.


We can do that without a new class, think of Minotaur, Stalingrad and Graf Spee. These are all the same class, cruisers. - New Class, Tech Tree line split, whatever gets the job done is OK.

Change "more classes" into "more tech tree lines", wheres the difference? - New Class, Tech Tree line split, whatever gets the job done is OK


I don't even understand what your saying here, but it sounds like you are arguing that CVLs don't belong at high tiers because carriers are simply more capable.. which is a vote against adding them(?)  - I missed a couple key words, sorry. It means CVE/CVL  are newer than many current CVs and use newer planes but they differ vastly in capabilities given the carry fewer planes. As example, a Bogue  class CVE would use newer and more powerful planes than a Ranger CV, but would have overall less power given it carries fewer planes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
873 posts
1,266 battles
1 hour ago, Yesman1337 said:

The idea for these ships would to be less of a strike carrier and more of a teamplay oriented one. They would a small number of dive bombers or torpedo planes but would make up for it with other supportive aircraft. They could maybe set up smoke screens for allied ships or have an enhanced version of fighters that it could deploy to protect allied ships and other various supportive munitions or utility aircraft (Repairs, spotting, maybe depth charges for ASW). They would be smaller and stealthier than the typical fleet carriers but they would hold fewer aircraft. The U.S.A., Britain, and Japan had plenty of them and they could be an interesting line for people wanting a more supportive role in battle.

This used to exist, then the USS Bogue was made unplayable & fighters were reworked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
4 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

New Class, Tech Tree line split, whatever gets the job done is OK.
etcetcblahblahimagineicopypastedtheresthere

Now we're basically on the same page, because I'd be happy to see a CVL tech tree split and would be interested in this. 

I think it'd be entirely balanceable, trading the large squadrons of 3 attack craft for much smaller squadrons of say, torpedo planes, smoke planes and scout/fighter planes.
However, I would be concerned about the speed and durability of CVLs at higher tiers, where there is a strong possibility of an early spot and one of the various Yamatos dunking through the deck and leading to an early sink.
That is one part I have little idea how to balance, smoke comes to mind I guess, it'd be funny to see.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,409
[IRNBN]
Members
3,699 posts
10,764 battles
57 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:
  • Given the intended doctrine of simplifying game mechanics for current CVs, giving them expanded functionality might overload the CPU processing power of the avg flying monkey, so it would be better to distribute different functionality into different breeds of flying monkeys.

Hell, WG thinks just driving the bote and flying the monkeys at the same time is *too hard*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
[APEZ]
Members
2,516 posts
8,824 battles
1 hour ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

Sign me up. I would relish the opportunity to simply zoom around the map and constantly crap on CV planes as they are mindlessly trying to attack the surface ships on my team. This is the actual counter the game needs but is not provided.

Bogue Class has entered the chat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
[WOLF7]
Members
495 posts
10 minutes ago, black_hull4 said:

This used to exist, then the USS Bogue was made unplayable & fighters were reworked.

You can still see the Bogue in Raptor Rescue as "Aviator".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[KNCOL]
Members
812 posts
1,889 battles

Would love to have a CVE/CVL line that more about support and less about attacking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
716
[CLUMP]
Members
1,086 posts
1,345 battles
2 hours ago, Akeno017 said:

Why do we need a new class for this?

A current CV line could easily perform the same roles, with it as its flavour. Infact the odd-tiered CVs that were removed were supposed to be exactly these "support lines" that your talking about.

Better to keep escort carriers and fleet carriers in the same class, then try introduce arbitrary limitations on the biggest balance nightmare we currently have ingame.

Agreed wargaming can add an extra slot or squadron spot for fighters only :Smile_honoring: They could add anti-sub-planes too :fish_cute_2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×