Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
kgh52

CV rockets

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,244
[TDRB]
Members
5,387 posts
13,743 battles

The CV rocket nerf is a hot issue. A little history may be in order.

The USN Bat was in service during the later months of WW2. These were carried by PB4Y-2, a modified version of what we know as the B-24 bomber. These are heavy WW2 bombers and never launched or recovered by a CV. The USAAC/USAAF had several glide bombs but they were carried by B-17's & B-25's. Outside of the Doolittle Raid, which used B-25s, these bombers never operated from CVs There was only one unit of the Luftwaffe to deploy the Fritz. This unit flew Do-217s & Henkle 111. Both land-based bombers. And Germany never had a CV in WW2.

The USN employed 2.75, 3.5 & 5 inch rockets in WW2. The 2.75 & 3.5 were anti-sub weapons with no warhead. All that was needed to disable a sub was to pierce its hull, which were rather thin. Someone got the idea to place a 5" AA warhead on the 3.5" rocket & the 5" FFAR was born. The weight of the warhead slowed the rocket down necessitating the 5" HVAR. This rocket came in two versions, general-purpose with a 7.6-pound explosive charge and & 2.2-pound armor-piercing warhead. The Japanese merchant fleet was almost totally erased by the time these rockets reached service. Supporting ground troops was top priority.

Modern weaponry and video has spoiled us to missiles & bombs with high-tech guidance systems sending the weapon through a window or ventilation shaft.  Plane launched rockets of the era this game is set in required a very high level of skill to hit a stationary ground target, much less a maneuvering ship. 

Considering the type of rocket planes would be carrying in this game is the nerf for the betterment of the game? I expect the vast majority of answers to be very subjective. This includes my opinion. I favor the game being more historical than fantasy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,281 posts
12,191 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

Modern weaponry and video has spoiled us to missiles & bombs with high-tech guidance systems sending the weapon through a window or ventilation shaft.  Plane launched rockets of the era this game is set in required a very high level of skill to hit a stationary ground target, much less a maneuvering ship. 

Considering the type of rocket planes would be carrying in this game is the nerf for the betterment of the game? I expect the vast majority of answers to be very subjective. This includes my opinion. I favor the game being more historical than fantasy.

It has for many - just look at how they've been handling Submarines where they are basically modern SSN with how they attack targets.

But the thing is that this is supposed to be a 'historically based arcade game' - keywords being 'historically based'. Now don't get me wrong, if they are going to make us fly the planes - I'd prefer we also have to use rockets PROPERLY and instead of this goofy level fire nonsense dive in at the target as was actually done for easier aiming and all. But we don't need sim level aiming realism cause otherwise - no one is hitting anything in this game and battles are taking hours. Plus we'd be able to adjust up to the last second before we fired - like how it was pre-nerf so if you want more 'historical' then that'd actually mean you'd be pro-nerf reversal for us to have control of the planes and adjust till the last second before we fire as that is the more historically accurate option. They could make that more 'realistic' by adding an ability to use the guns as well to help line our shots up - however that would really only work with HVAR and RP-3 as they are the only ones that really followed the same ballistic drop as rounds fired by aircraft using them beyond knowing how different the drop is from the guns. 

The current change is only good short term, and goes against several elements of what the rework was supposed to accomplish (reducing skill gap, easier for newer players to pick up, etc) because long term, it doesn't cover the real issue which is that much like reality - FFAR, HVAR, and RP-3 were fired in a volume to help ensure a hit, and in this game the damage is way too high on them for the HP a DD has and how many we can land. It's going to take time for us to adjust, but at least some of us are going to learn how to cope with the change to varying degrees - and it'll be buisness as usual chunking health off DD's again, and they'll whine, again, and Wargaming will likely come up with yet another ill-advised, nonsensical nerf that in no way addresses the problem, again. Because people who play CV, like me, have been saying since the rework's beta testing that the damage on HVAR/FFAR's (as UK CV's weren't a thing yet) were too high vs DD's. And they have not addressed it, ever, since then. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
499
[BB35]
[BB35]
Members
630 posts
17,708 battles
35 minutes ago, arch4random said:

no dead eye for me  no rockets for you....cant wait to see the nerf the cls and cas get

Cruisers got nerfed hard in captain skill rework.

No more aft/bft for CLs

No more fire prevention for CAs

BBs are next on nerf list

Edited by Gemlin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[KIA-C]
Members
3,824 posts
16,809 battles

If a more balanced game means giving a middle finger to history, then I'm fine with it.

If historical accuracy with a line or a nation can be implemented without breaking the game, then sure go for it.

But if we have to kill a game balance for the sake of historical accuracy then screw it. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[KIA-C]
Members
3,824 posts
16,809 battles
Just now, Gemlin said:

Cruisers got nerfed hard in captain skill rework.

No more aft/bft for CLs

No more fire prevention for CAs

 

Only small cruiser like Atlanta Colbert or Smolensk and Super cruiser like Stalingrad, Alaska or Yoshino got slightly nerfed by the commander rework.

Cruiser overall did not change at all. Hell they most likely received some small buff through some new skills. 

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,012
[WOLFG]
Members
13,270 posts
12,537 battles
3 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

 

Only small cruiser like Atlanta Colbert or Smolensk and Super cruiser like Stalingrad, Alaska or Yoshino got slightly nerfed by the commander rework.

Cruiser overall did not change at all. Hell they most likely received some small buff through some new skills. 

If we exclude the IFHE rework sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,244
[TDRB]
Members
5,387 posts
13,743 battles
4 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

If a more balanced game means giving a middle finger to history, then I'm fine with it. 

If historical accuracy with a line or a nation can be implemented without breaking the game, then sure go for it.

But if we have to kill a game balance for the sake of historical accuracy then screw it. 

 

The question is "did the nerf to rockets improve or create a greater imbalance?"

German battleships were very accurate. WG did give history both middle fingers with the game's version of German accuracy.

Some argue having CVs makes the game more historically accurate. The argument whether or not CVs should be in the game has raged on for over 2 years now. This is not a positive sign for the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[D4DDY]
Members
115 posts
6,235 battles

If you want to nerf a ship

just give me refund.

or don't nerf it.

 

this is not a matter of balance.

If you take my money, I bought CV for that rockets, not 5 sec later shooting [edited]

 

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
780
[XG]
Members
440 posts
36 minutes ago, I_Know_Putin said:

If you want to nerf a ship

just give me refund.

or don't nerf it.

 

this is not a matter of balance.

If you take my money, I bought CV for that rockets, not 5 sec later shooting [edited]

 

:Smile_teethhappy::Smile_veryhappy::Smile_trollface::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_veryhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,634
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,703 posts
6,746 battles
36 minutes ago, I_Know_Putin said:

If you want to nerf a ship

just give me refund.

or don't nerf it.

 

this is not a matter of balance.

If you take my money, I bought CV for that rockets, not 5 sec later shooting [edited]

 

It doesn't shoot 5 seconds later.  It shoots instantly, then the munition animation plays and the rockets hit the place selected.  Same as when a ship fires, the shell flight animation plays and then they hit the area selected.  Just like with shells you need to lead your target.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,329 posts
6 hours ago, kgh52 said:

Considering the type of rocket planes would be carrying in this game is the nerf for the betterment of the game? I expect the vast majority of answers to be very subjective. This includes my opinion. I favor the game being more historical than fantasy.

Again, you're pulling out the realism card for the CVs, while ignoring all the realism that is ignored for the other ship types, and especially just how much realism is ignored to make DDs even playable in a game like this.

Also, you're specifically trying to pull out the realism card on accuracy/skill to fire rockets, when the accuracy of main battery guns in game is WAY above what was done in real life.

So, you should probably put your realism card away, or apply it to everything, instead of selectively applying it to only the ships you want to nerf.

Oh, and you forgot the Tiny Tims.  Those were on carrier aircraft in 1944...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[WOLF1]
Members
1,151 posts
2,228 battles
2 hours ago, I_Know_Putin said:

If you want to nerf a ship

just give me refund.

or don't nerf it.

 

this is not a matter of balance.

If you take my money, I bought CV for that rockets, not 5 sec later shooting [edited]

 

I believe in the EULA it says that the ships, including premiums, are software pixels owned by the company, and you pay to access them, so they, owning this chunk of pixels, can change it whenever they want, whatever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,564
[SGSS]
Members
6,269 posts
9 hours ago, kgh52 said:

The CV rocket nerf is a hot issue. A little history may be in order.

The USN Bat was in service during the later months of WW2. These were carried by PB4Y-2, a modified version of what we know as the B-24 bomber. These are heavy WW2 bombers and never launched or recovered by a CV. The USAAC/USAAF had several glide bombs but they were carried by B-17's & B-25's. Outside of the Doolittle Raid, which used B-25s, these bombers never operated from CVs There was only one unit of the Luftwaffe to deploy the Fritz. This unit flew Do-217s & Henkle 111. Both land-based bombers. And Germany never had a CV in WW2.

The USN employed 2.75, 3.5 & 5 inch rockets in WW2. The 2.75 & 3.5 were anti-sub weapons with no warhead. All that was needed to disable a sub was to pierce its hull, which were rather thin. Someone got the idea to place a 5" AA warhead on the 3.5" rocket & the 5" FFAR was born. The weight of the warhead slowed the rocket down necessitating the 5" HVAR. This rocket came in two versions, general-purpose with a 7.6-pound explosive charge and & 2.2-pound armor-piercing warhead. The Japanese merchant fleet was almost totally erased by the time these rockets reached service. Supporting ground troops was top priority.

Modern weaponry and video has spoiled us to missiles & bombs with high-tech guidance systems sending the weapon through a window or ventilation shaft.  Plane launched rockets of the era this game is set in required a very high level of skill to hit a stationary ground target, much less a maneuvering ship. 

Considering the type of rocket planes would be carrying in this game is the nerf for the betterment of the game? I expect the vast majority of answers to be very subjective. This includes my opinion. I favor the game being more historical than fantasy.

 

 

Rockets suck.  That is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,950
[NONE]
Members
4,027 posts
12,426 battles
1 hour ago, jags_domain said:

Rockets suck.  That is it.

And the masses rejoice! :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,532
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,316 posts
15,200 battles

Wonder what the huge nerfbat DDs are going to get clobbered with to reign them in now that they've gotten what they wanted and are running rampant now. BB populations are down significantly at higher tiers given how whiny DD mains have successfully gotten so many counters to DDs nerfed.

  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
867
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,369 posts
5,519 battles
2 hours ago, Zaydin said:

Wonder what the huge nerfbat DDs are going to get clobbered with to reign them in now that they've gotten what they wanted and are running rampant now. BB populations are down significantly at higher tiers given how whiny DD mains have successfully gotten so many counters to DDs nerfed.

div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 9586 231030 24.10 50.48 0.02 49.50 1484 65567 0.72 3.26 3.25 5.07 36.54 1.13 1228944 16365 28.28
1 CA Higher Tier 7350 176283 23.98 50.45 0.03 49.53 1506 53122 0.67 3.23 5.70 8.11 33.51 1.01 851723 16067 31.79
1 CV Higher Tier 836 18205 21.78 50.64 0.01 49.35 1557 64638 0.85 4.48 0.50 10.83 71.70 3.00 246371 54810 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 7308 184501 25.25 50.41 0.02 49.58 1517 38712 0.71 2.07 27.53 7.65 30.90 1.03 478158 29293 41.62

This is data from the NA server for the week of 6/19/21, and includes T7-10.

If I could direct your attention to the total battles for destroyers, and more importantly, battleships, you'll see you are dead wrong. NA isn't an outlier either, EU and RU show the same.

div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 12577 312978 24.88 50.31 0.03 49.66 1535 66256 0.73 3.10 3.23 5.23 35.37 1.13 1233571 16531 28.66
1 CA Higher Tier 9528 232570 24.41 50.51 0.03 49.46 1564 53986 0.67 3.09 5.81 8.44 32.46 0.99 859330 16329 32.05
1 CV Higher Tier 1078 23823 22.10 50.77 0.04 49.19 1642 65942 0.87 4.48 0.49 11.92 71.16 3.02 251377 55498 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 8860 232951 26.29 50.38 0.03 49.59 1557 38582 0.70 1.99 27.71 7.47 30.05 1.00 477284 29908 41.18

This is data from the NA server for the week of 6/5/21, AKA the week before the rocket change.

As you can see, there is no major difference in population ratios between the weeks. Yes, there are less battles played in the week of 6/19, but that's across the board.

Ergo, your fears are completely unfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,549
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
3,078 posts
27,844 battles
1 minute ago, PotatoMD said:

As you can see, there is no major difference in population ratios between the weeks. Yes, there are less battles played in the week of 6/19, but that's across the board.

I actually find this very surprising simply from the perspective of the queue count and the team line ups in games I've played. 

The most interesting part to me is the number of battleships being played. Nearly 5,000 to 8,000 more than other classes. Though I will say I'm not surprised.

Can you bring up the numbers at mid or lower tiers? Also, is "high tier" refering to tier 8 and above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
867
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,369 posts
5,519 battles
Just now, Skuggsja said:

I actually find this very surprising simply from the perspective of the queue count and the team line ups in games I've played. 

I believe this is randoms, so it could be because of Grand Battles.

Just now, Skuggsja said:

The most interesting part to me is the number of battleships being played. Nearly 5,000 to 8,000 more than other classes. Though I will say I'm not surprised.

Yes, battleships have always been the popular class.

1 minute ago, Skuggsja said:

Can you bring up the numbers at mid or lower tiers? Also, is "high tier" refering to tier 8 and above?

div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 9586 231030 24.10 50.48 0.02 49.50 1484 65567 0.72 3.26 3.25 5.07 36.54 1.13 1228944 16365 28.28
1 CA Higher Tier 7350 176283 23.98 50.45 0.03 49.53 1506 53122 0.67 3.23 5.70 8.11 33.51 1.01 851723 16067 31.79
1 CV Higher Tier 836 18205 21.78 50.64 0.01 49.35 1557 64638 0.85 4.48 0.50 10.83 71.70 3.00 246371 54810 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 7308 184501 25.25 50.41 0.02 49.58 1517 38712 0.71 2.07 27.53 7.65 30.90 1.03 478158 29293 41.62
2 BB Lower Tier 4136 95325 23.05 50.24 0.05 49.71 997 40086 0.90 2.23 4.40 8.89 39.84 1.50 677836 8185 26.83
2 CA Lower Tier 4170 98632 23.65 50.82 0.08 49.11 901 25900 0.96 1.30 5.14 10.91 27.92 1.33 384776 5890 35.91
2 CV Lower Tier 898 19759 22.00 51.67 0.07 48.26 926 32445 0.69 3.72 1.33 15.36 63.99 1.92 154119 18852 0.00
2 DD Lower Tier 3346 77265 23.09 50.51 0.12 49.36 867 24117 0.95 0.54 14.27 5.51 23.76 1.25 271472 9329 44.32

You can see it here for yourself: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20210619/na_week/average_class.html

I don't know what high tier means for sure, but someone told me it includes T7+, so I will take their word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,132
[FOXY]
Members
2,572 posts
7,766 battles
7 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:
div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 9586 231030 24.10 50.48 0.02 49.50 1484 65567 0.72 3.26 3.25 5.07 36.54 1.13 1228944 16365 28.28
1 CA Higher Tier 7350 176283 23.98 50.45 0.03 49.53 1506 53122 0.67 3.23 5.70 8.11 33.51 1.01 851723 16067 31.79
1 CV Higher Tier 836 18205 21.78 50.64 0.01 49.35 1557 64638 0.85 4.48 0.50 10.83 71.70 3.00 246371 54810 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 7308 184501 25.25 50.41 0.02 49.58 1517 38712 0.71 2.07 27.53 7.65 30.90 1.03 478158 29293 41.62

This is data from the NA server for the week of 6/19/21, and includes T7-10.

If I could direct your attention to the total battles for destroyers, and more importantly, battleships, you'll see you are dead wrong. NA isn't an outlier either, EU and RU show the same.

div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 12577 312978 24.88 50.31 0.03 49.66 1535 66256 0.73 3.10 3.23 5.23 35.37 1.13 1233571 16531 28.66
1 CA Higher Tier 9528 232570 24.41 50.51 0.03 49.46 1564 53986 0.67 3.09 5.81 8.44 32.46 0.99 859330 16329 32.05
1 CV Higher Tier 1078 23823 22.10 50.77 0.04 49.19 1642 65942 0.87 4.48 0.49 11.92 71.16 3.02 251377 55498 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 8860 232951 26.29 50.38 0.03 49.59 1557 38582 0.70 1.99 27.71 7.47 30.05 1.00 477284 29908 41.18

This is data from the NA server for the week of 6/5/21, AKA the week before the rocket change.

As you can see, there is no major difference in population ratios between the weeks. Yes, there are less battles played in the week of 6/19, but that's across the board.

Ergo, your fears are completely unfounded.

Doesnt look like the Damage, Kills W/L ratios have gone down much for CVs either. Imagine that, the sky isnt falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,549
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
3,078 posts
27,844 battles
14 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

Thanks. When I've tried to use this site in the past it was a huge mess and I couldn't figure it out but the link you shared has it all organized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KID0]
Members
212 posts
4 hours ago, Zaydin said:

Wonder what the huge nerfbat DDs are going to get clobbered with to reign them in now that they've gotten what they wanted and are running rampant now. BB populations are down significantly at higher tiers given how whiny DD mains have successfully gotten so many counters to DDs nerfed.

Dream on, cvboi. :Smile_teethhappy:

DD's are being groomed for their new anti-submarine role. When subs show up, there will be more DD's. Deal with it. :Smile-_tongue:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,021
[WOLFG]
Members
34,370 posts
10,591 battles
16 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

No only idiots that when there thing gets Nerf the crybabies will start up.

Well of course.

I have never seen a ship type nerfed, without the crybabies coming out of the woodwork.

It's happened before, it's happening now, and it'll happen in the future.

Nobody has moral high ground here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
462 posts
7 hours ago, jags_domain said:

No only idiots that when there thing gets Nerf the crybabies will start up

Like when US CL split and radar and the crying DD players all claimed they were quiting but to lazy to do it.

You are childish and short sighted and i cannot wait for your nerf and the whining that will follow.

Who's doing all the crying now? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×