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

Fighter Squadron vs DD balance discussion

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

290
[COUP]
[COUP]
Members
339 posts
21,347 battles

Hey WG, and Community,

 

First off, this is a CV balancing discussion, so I don’t want any flame wars to start since it’s a touchy subject. I want to have a open, positive, discussion about the current state of Fighter Squadrons in the game since the recent change.

 

  • Originally, back in the start of WOWS, fighters could only spot enemy vessels, and attack enemy aircraft. You only had torpedo bombers and Dive bombers to actually strike Destroyers. (this required a high skill set though since you had to be VERY good at manual dropping dive bombers on such a tiny target, or you had to be good at setting up "cross drop" torpedo runs)
  • It then changed during the rework to a new type of fighter squadron that carried Rockets to attack surface ships.
  • The current setup now is that fighters start an attack run, then start a firing run where upon they open up with machine gun fire, and launch rockets after a delayed time period.

At first I was against this change, but after looking at it from a balancing perspective, I do agree with it. It softens the harsh interaction between DDs and Carrier attacks.

Plus, from a historical perspective, fighters never really “attacked” surface ships while patrolling, they just spotted them. In the extreme case, they would use their tracer fire to either help a ship locate a submarine’s general vicinity, or they would spray the super structure and deck to injure crew/damage modules/or simply spot a specific target.

I’m not saying we should “remove all rockets”, but we could possibly balance this further to make for a more interesting dynamic between fighters and Destroyers.

My thought is broken into two potential balancing propositions:

  1.  HVAR rocket damage initial damage is reduced, but fire chance is increased; this would require MORE passes by fighter aircraft to "significantly damage" a destroyer, but also give a higher chance to set a fire to "spot" it. 
  2. HVAR rockets are removed; machine gun fire instead does ticking damage so long as the ship stays within the duration of the “spray zone”, machine guns would have a chance to damage modules. After being “sprayed” by Fighter machineguns, the DD’s concealment radius is increased by X km for X amount of seconds, this time would be shorter than if set on fire. 

While option one would be a more simplistic way to further balance in game assets. I think option two would not only balance things further and bring them back into the more “historical” realm, but also put fighters into a more “scouting” or “spotting” role. 

Just a curious thought…

 

Edited by Mr_Secondaries
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,600 posts
2,011 battles
11 minutes ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

2. HVAR rockets are removed; machine gun fire instead does ticking damage so long as the ship stays within the duration of the “spray zone”, machine guns would have a chance to damage modules. After being “sprayed” by Fighter machineguns, the DD’s concealment radius is increased by X km for X amount of seconds, this time would be shorter than if set on fire.

Wargaming has mentioned that the guns will cause damaging effects in the future, but they're still testing how. Question is, why the HVAR? Since the change would only affect certain American carriers, it seems random and unnecessary.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[COUP]
[COUP]
Members
339 posts
21,347 battles
25 minutes ago, black_hull4 said:

Wargaming has mentioned that the guns will cause damaging effects in the future, but they're still testing how. Question is, why the HVAR? Since the change would only affect certain American carriers, it seems random and unnecessary.

Oh, well good to know!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
981
[-TKS-]
Members
1,161 posts
9,242 battles
40 minutes ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

Hey WG, and Community,

 

First off, this is a CV balancing discussion, so I don’t want any flame wars to start since it’s a touchy subject. I want to have a open, positive, discussion about the current state of Fighter Squadrons in the game since the recent change.

 

  • Originally, back in the start of WOWS, fighters could only spot enemy vessels, and attack enemy aircraft. You only had torpedo bombers and Dive bombers to actually strike Destroyers. (this required a high skill set though since you had to be VERY good at manual dropping dive bombers on such a tiny target, or you had to be good at setting up "cross drop" torpedo runs)
  • It then changed during the rework to a new type of fighter squadron that carried Rockets to attack surface ships.
  • The current setup now is that fighters start an attack run, then start a firing run where upon they open up with machine gun fire, and launch rockets after a delayed time period.

At first I was against this change, but after looking at it from a balancing perspective, I do agree with it. It softens the harsh interaction between DDs and Carrier attacks.

Plus, from a historical perspective, fighters never really “attacked” surface ships while patrolling, they just spotted them. In the extreme case, they would use their tracer fire to either help a ship locate a submarine’s general vicinity, or they would spray the super structure and deck to injure crew/damage modules/or simply spot a specific target.

I’m not saying we should “remove all rockets”, but we could possibly balance this further to make for a more interesting dynamic between fighters and Destroyers.

My thought is broken into two potential balancing propositions:

  1.  HVAR rocket damage initial damage is reduced, but fire chance is increased; this would require MORE passes by fighter aircraft to "significantly damage" a destroyer, but also give a higher chance to set a fire to "spot" it. 
  2. HVAR rockets are removed; machine gun fire instead does ticking damage so long as the ship stays within the duration of the “spray zone”, machine guns would have a chance to damage modules. After being “sprayed” by Fighter machineguns, the DD’s concealment radius is increased by X km for X amount of seconds, this time would be shorter than if set on fire. 

While option one would be a more simplistic way to further balance in game assets. I think option two would not only balance things further and bring them back into the more “historical” realm, but also put fighters into a more “scouting” or “spotting” role. 

Just a curious thought…

 

Ok, you need to address the plane type you're referencing as rocket planes, not fighters. Fighters are the planes called in by the attack plane types from CVs. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,000
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,435 posts
14,965 battles

With the current set up unless you meet a unicum CV player which increases in chance as you go up the tiers DD's are mostly safe from rocket attack as the MG fire warns you to change course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,244
[TDRB]
Members
5,387 posts
13,743 battles
50 minutes ago, black_hull4 said:

Wargaming has mentioned that the guns will cause damaging effects in the future, but they're still testing how. Question is, why the HVAR? Since the change would only affect certain American carriers, it seems random and unnecessary.

Historically HVAR & machine guns & 20mm cannons damage would be to exposed gun crews, 40mm & down even to DDs. HVAR's had a 7.6lb GP warhead & a 2,2lb AP warhead. Not a lot of power against DDs & above. Capital ships, not DDs, DEs and coastal PT-type boats were the priority targets. Of course, they were exceptions but in general, BBs, CVs & cruisers were the high-priority targets.  In random battles, there are no transports or other "paper-thin" ships these weapons would be highly effective against.

Before you cite the Tuskegee pilot sinking a German DD, that was an oversize Italian torpedo boat that started life as a pre-WW1 DD. The ship was not sunk, only put out of action for the remainder of the war. Surface ships in the Kriegsmarine were at the bottom of the priority list. Remember the newspaper editor in The Man who shot Liberty Valance "when legend becomes facts, print the legend." This is more true with war stories as there are more war stories than stories about the American West.It hasn't been that long ago when we learned the Japanese CVs at Midway did not have an armed strike force sitting on the flight decks. That was learned over 50 years after the battle. The Japanese knew the truth in 1970.

IMO WG really screwed up with CVs. For obvious reasons, they can't remove CVs from the game now. They can't add the infrastructure to give players the option to battle with or without CVs. Due to the format of the game, it is impossible to balance CVs vs surface gunnery ships. I believe subs will follow this same path.

Edited by kgh52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[LOVE]
[LOVE]
Members
118 posts
16,550 battles
14 minutes ago, Merc_R_Us said:

Ok, you need to address the plane type you're referencing as rocket planes, not fighters. Fighters are the planes called in by the attack plane types from CVs. 

 

Ah yes, rocket planes...

bell-x-1-in-flight-nasascience-photo-library.thumb.jpg.d5b95f2b71e016464aff0c724f0d7a1a.jpg

Not to be confused with the fictional "Rocket Bomber Squadron" that Wargaming created to fill a role that wasn't entirely needed but hard to get rid of, kind of like when god gave us mosquitos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,714
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,990 posts
18,476 battles
1 hour ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

At first I was against this change, but after looking at it from a balancing perspective, I do agree with it. It softens the harsh interaction between DDs and Carrier attacks.

Yep ^^^ same for me.

I never really liked the early game CV DD interaction. I do not mind the spotting but the nearly guaranteed damage that early was a bit harsh for the DD's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,100
[WPORT]
Members
10,985 posts
15,481 battles
1 hour ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

Hey WG, and Community,

 

First off, this is a CV balancing discussion, so I don’t want any flame wars to start since it’s a touchy subject. I want to have a open, positive, discussion about the current state of Fighter Squadrons in the game since the recent change.

 

  • Originally, back in the start of WOWS, fighters could only spot enemy vessels, and attack enemy aircraft. You only had torpedo bombers and Dive bombers to actually strike Destroyers. (this required a high skill set though since you had to be VERY good at manual dropping dive bombers on such a tiny target, or you had to be good at setting up "cross drop" torpedo runs)
  • It then changed during the rework to a new type of fighter squadron that carried Rockets to attack surface ships.
  • The current setup now is that fighters start an attack run, then start a firing run where upon they open up with machine gun fire, and launch rockets after a delayed time period.

At first I was against this change, but after looking at it from a balancing perspective, I do agree with it. It softens the harsh interaction between DDs and Carrier attacks.

Plus, from a historical perspective, fighters never really “attacked” surface ships while patrolling, they just spotted them. In the extreme case, they would use their tracer fire to either help a ship locate a submarine’s general vicinity, or they would spray the super structure and deck to injure crew/damage modules/or simply spot a specific target.

I’m not saying we should “remove all rockets”, but we could possibly balance this further to make for a more interesting dynamic between fighters and Destroyers.

My thought is broken into two potential balancing propositions:

  1.  HVAR rocket damage initial damage is reduced, but fire chance is increased; this would require MORE passes by fighter aircraft to "significantly damage" a destroyer, but also give a higher chance to set a fire to "spot" it. 
  2. HVAR rockets are removed; machine gun fire instead does ticking damage so long as the ship stays within the duration of the “spray zone”, machine guns would have a chance to damage modules. After being “sprayed” by Fighter machineguns, the DD’s concealment radius is increased by X km for X amount of seconds, this time would be shorter than if set on fire. 

While option one would be a more simplistic way to further balance in game assets. I think option two would not only balance things further and bring them back into the more “historical” realm, but also put fighters into a more “scouting” or “spotting” role. 

Just a curious thought…

 

Quote

HVAR could penetrate 4 ft (1.2 m) of reinforced concrete and was used to sink transports, knock out pillboxes and AA gun emplacements, blow up ammo and oil-storage dumps, and destroy tanks, locomotives, and bunkers. Navy F4U Corsairs and TBF/TBM Avengers made the most extensive use of the rockets in the Pacific theater after the victory in Europe. Over a million HVARs were made during World War II, and production continued until 1955. HVARs remained in the Navy's inventory until the mid-1960s. After World War II, newer versions included a new general purpose type with a proximity fuse, White Phosphorus smoke rounds, an anti-submarine head, and a new shaped-charge warhead for use against tanks. The 6.5 inch (170 mm) RAM rocket was an oversized shaped-charge head on a standard HVAR motor as well.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Velocity_Aircraft_Rocket

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,100
[WPORT]
Members
10,985 posts
15,481 battles

If you want to bring back "Fighters", controlled by the CV, to perform air-superiority patrols and dogfights,
and anything else from the RTS CV era,
then I want the whole RTS CV game experience restored and I want all the odd-tiered CV's restored, too.

Otherwise, it seems like people are blowing smoke rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,600 posts
2,011 battles
1 hour ago, Merc_R_Us said:

Ok, you need to address the plane type you're referencing as rocket planes, not fighters. Fighters are the planes called in by the attack plane types from CVs. 

If you put snazzy clothes on a pig, it's still a pig. If I put 4 missiles on my Buffalo, it's still a fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
481
[HOLE]
Members
262 posts
2,366 battles

I don't have a issue with the cv change but they  should also nerf down torpedo damage as well to cv's since they can strike out of range of defensive fire. Let's not be one sided here. You have dd's that don't even have to be close to drop a lines of torpedo's without any real consequences. Rocket's was their only defense from being sunk by dd's. BB's and Cruisers have always been able to sink cv's from safe distance. Every class can be op if the player knows how to use them correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
35 posts
20 battles
6 hours ago, paradat said:

I never really liked the early game CV DD interaction. I do not mind the spotting but the nearly guaranteed damage that early was a bit harsh for the DD's. 

Huh, complete opposite for me. The planes get locked into reduced maneuverability as soon as a CV player begins the attack run, at which point turning into the attack really screwed with the attacking player's ability to adjust. All you had to do was to pay attention to nearby planes as indicated by the on-screen icon.

Spotting, on the other hand ... getting detected whilst surface ships are nearby is a surefire way to invite a barrage from cruiser rifles which (a) deal more damage and (b) are far more persistent than a plane squadron that can only attack so many times, let alone your chances to reduce the amount of planes (and thus maximum ordnance) via AA as opposed to "quickly" getting rid of those cruisers pummeling your location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,364
Members
2,686 posts
4,301 battles
8 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

Wargaming has mentioned that the guns will cause damaging effects in the future, but they're still testing how. Question is, why the HVAR? Since the change would only affect certain American carriers, it seems random and unnecessary.

That seems like a REALLY important part of the fighter rework to have left for later.  I mean I am not surprised,  heck I am not even disappointed anymore,  I think I am just at the acceptance phase for what Wargaming has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,840
[RAN]
Members
817 posts
10,462 battles
14 hours ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

Hey WG, and Community,

 

First off, this is a CV balancing discussion, so I don’t want any flame wars to start since it’s a touchy subject. I want to have a open, positive, discussion about the current state of Fighter Squadrons in the game since the recent change.

  • Originally, back in the start of WOWS, fighters could only spot enemy vessels, and attack enemy aircraft. You only had torpedo bombers and Dive bombers to actually strike Destroyers. (this required a high skill set though since you had to be VERY good at manual dropping dive bombers on such a tiny target, or you had to be good at setting up "cross drop" torpedo runs)
  • It then changed during the rework to a new type of fighter squadron that carried Rockets to attack surface ships.
  • The current setup now is that fighters start an attack run, then start a firing run where upon they open up with machine gun fire, and launch rockets after a delayed time period.

At first I was against this change, but after looking at it from a balancing perspective, I do agree with it. It softens the harsh interaction between DDs and Carrier attacks.

Plus, from a historical perspective, fighters never really “attacked” surface ships while patrolling, they just spotted them. In the extreme case, they would use their tracer fire to either help a ship locate a submarine’s general vicinity, or they would spray the super structure and deck to injure crew/damage modules/or simply spot a specific target.

Quite frankly your full of it.  From a historical perspective US planes did attack japanese destroyers with rockets and machine guns.  See belo

 

14 hours ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

My thought is broken into two potential balancing propositions:

  1.  HVAR rocket damage initial damage is reduced, but fire chance is increased; this would require MORE passes by fighter aircraft to "significantly damage" a destroyer, but also give a higher chance to set a fire to "spot" it. 
  2. HVAR rockets are removed; machine gun fire instead does ticking damage so long as the ship stays within the duration of the “spray zone”, machine guns would have a chance to damage modules. After being “sprayed” by Fighter machineguns, the DD’s concealment radius is increased by X km for X amount of seconds, this time would be shorter than if set on fire. 

 

 

Reducing HVAR rocket damage is erroneous and shouldnt be done.  We see in this vid from a community contributer thats a  carrier player that is attacking a Kitikaze, a large slow DD.  it takes him ten attacks to finally sink him.

Thats ten attacks.  You see how long that takes.   A Destroyer is at more danger of being killed by another destroyer or other surface ships than by carrier rocket attacks now after the change.

This myth that carriers are the prime killers of Destroyers is trash.  Other ships are the prime killers of Destroyers.  Carriers might kill them after they have suffered a lot and i mean a lot of damage.  There is no one, two or three salvo kills now

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,319
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,902 posts

Its very simple. Detect the dd. esepcially in Ranked, Random, Clan Battle etc when it is one of the only DD's on enemy team.

\when the DD is detected the entire team will delete same. It wont take more than a minute at best. Its already dead. If its not dead yet your planes just keep it permadetected and its chased out into a corner completely out of the bigger fight as your team pushes forward knowing torps are not a problem.

FDR has planes with armor from god. You can sit over a DD all day and not get melted. I have some DD's with DFAA active capable of melting 14 planes of the carrier in a few moments. Never a FDR squadron. I usually am sunk before I shoot down more than say two or three FDR planes. Which is why that carrier is banned or restricted from certain games.

I have been earning airdefense achievements in larger numbers as human CV's try to vulture me and my DD with the wrong carriers. Because they don't own the FDR yet.

I actually have one carrier human who will fly over my entire team just to get to my specific BB in the far corner at game start to reduce my health almost half with rockets. Then torps. I take that behavior to mean that this person is a problem online and requires a little more attention as far as recording game play for submission with tickets against this one among other pending decisions. This is supposed to be a game, not some kind of vehicle to express real life hatred etc. I have no probem melting 40 of his planes in the beginning as long our 5 dd's take the whole lock stock and barrel in say epicenter mode.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,014
[WOLFG]
Members
34,350 posts
10,591 battles
3 hours ago, DevilD0g said:

  A Destroyer is at more danger of being killed by another destroyer or other surface ships than by carrier rocket attacks now after the change.

  There is no one, two or three salvo kills now

 

And this is a problem why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,485
[BONKS]
Members
3,081 posts
52 battles
3 hours ago, DevilD0g said:

Thats ten attacks.

Of which only one was aimed well which also happens to be the only one that dealt quite a bit of damage. I fail to see the point quite frankly.

Edited by El2aZeR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,010
[PVE]
Members
7,464 posts
4 hours ago, DevilD0g said:

Quite frankly your full of it.  From a historical perspective US planes did attack japanese destroyers with rockets and machine guns.  See belo

 

Interesting, I didn't know the firing delay was a historically accurate thing.  Look for yourself, I don't think I saw more than one rocket hit in that entire video. :Smile_trollface:

Edited by Slimeball91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[CLUMP]
Members
397 posts
36 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Interesting, I didn't know the firing delay was a historically accurate thing.  Look for yourself, I don't think I saw more than one rocket hit in that entire video. :Smile_trollface:

IRL, planes were incredibly inaccurate. You would have to launch hundreds of planes in some cases to get a single hit.

"The U.S. Navy’s own prewar studies had determined the success rate of horizontal attacks against capital ships at sea was near 8%.  Japanese carrier based level bombers achieved a 16% hit rate against the stationary battleships at Pearl Harbor. However, against maneuvering targets at sea it was close to 0%.  In World War II, only one warship at sea was sunk by horizontal bombing, a Japanese destroyer that believed the attacking B-17s were so ineffective it took no evasive action."

It was found against moving ships, aircraft hit rates were near 0. Against stationary ships less than 10% hit rate.

"During the eight month siege of Tobruk, 4,105 enemy aircraft were engaged by harbor and ship AAA. Only seven ships were sunk in the harbor for 374 aircraft losses. The harbor remained in operation.  KGM Tirpitz in her fortified fjord was attacked by 521 bombers with hundreds of additional support aircraft over months before succumbing."

Things like this make you go hmmm. Yes I understand this is an arcade game, but still CVs are given way above and beyond effectiveness.

"A single torpedo hit to KGM Bismark crippled her maneuverability and doomed her to destruction by the pursuing British fleet.  But, like the Prince of Wales and Repulse, she had no escorts. She was also finished off by heavy guns and torpedoes from the British fleet, not with airpower. In an opposite case, an 8” hit on IJN Hiei off Guadalcanal left her unmanuverable.  When dawn came, waves of U.S. aircraft, including B-17 level bombers achieving a 2% hit rate, eventually finished her.  Here, aircraft definitely facilitated the death of a capital ship, but were not the sole causal factor."

Yes, we do have some cases of airpower being effective. But a 2% hit rate? I would be ok with giving CV bombers in game a 2% hit rate lol. And you also have examples like the following:

"Before the famous torpedo attack on Bismark, the same aircraft attacked HMS Sheffield in a case of mistaken identity but achieved no hits.  She defended herself with maneuver alone. In March 1942, Bismark’s sister ship KGM Tirpitz was attacked at sea by 20 carrier based torpedo bombers and emerged unscathed."

Entire attack runs with zero hits. It would be OK if CVs in game had entire attack runs with zero hits on a regular basis. But here is another example.

"During the Battle of Empress Augusta Bay, four CL and four DD were attacked by 100 Japanese aircraft.  They took two bomb hits that only inflicted minor damage, and shot down 17 of the attackers.  Much earlier in the war, one heavy and three light cruisers with four old destroyers, none with modern AAA fittings, shot down 6 of their 36 attackers (16%) with one cruiser disabled. Had the formation stayed together, rather than scattering for maneuverability (proven to be better tactic based on wartime experience) they might have emerged unscathed.  The HMS Ark Royal, attacked on 26 September 1939 by German aircraft, struck her own fighters below deck, fighting them off with AAA alone.  On two occasions IJN Ise came under attack by nearly 100 US carrier based aircraft and escaped. This totals more aircraft than the IJN sent to bomb Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor. "

How about examples like this:

The carrier fighters were only credited with eight attacking aircraft and several of the reconnaissance aircraft shadowing the force. The defending flak accounted for a similar number, but was intense enough to dissuade most of the attackers from pressing home their attacks. It wasn’t until the force came within range of German Stuka dive bombers that hits began to mount, but for 220 escorted bomber sorties only two ships were directly hit, and one forced to leave the convoy due to damage from a near miss. On 13 August 1942, an additional 78 aircraft made a highly coordinated attack against the convoy whose escorts had been thinned out, and inflicted no damage.

220 Bomber Sorties, and an additional attack by 78 aircraft and you got 2 hits for all that effort. Only 1 was forced to leave the convoy. The second attack resulted in no damage. It would be ok if CVs had a higher chance of missing, and a higher chance of losing aircraft in this game. We really need a buff to ingame AA:

"British post war analysis showed that defensive fire reduced the chance of any ship being hit by 50%."

DFAA IRL would reduce a ships chances of being hit by 50% alone. Granted that means if a plane was going to hit you (we are talking about less than 1% chance) you could further reduce that by 50% with DFAA. So with DFAA on it would be great if we only had a 0.5% chance of being hit by aircraft in game (I know this isn't realistic and wouldn't make for good game play).


I make no doubt that air power during WW2 was powerful, and resulted in some pretty amazing outcomes. However, airpower was also a war of attrition. In some cases hundreds of planes sent with less than 1% hits. I also understand this is an arcade game, and with the majority of one nation having fantasy ships, I realize its not a realistic game at all. With that being said CVs could be given some changes that might be unrealistic but make the game fun for everyone. 

What CVs should be is either High Risk/High Reward or Low Risk/Low Reward. CV - DD interaction should be fun for both players, not a clubbing session. 

Edited by USMC_FMF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,466
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,935 posts
22,995 battles
20 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

Wargaming has mentioned that the guns will cause damaging effects in the future, but they're still testing how.

Do you have a link to that? Everything I've read just says that they do no damage, with no promises of that changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[CLUMP]
Members
397 posts

Just played a match in a T6 DD I am regrinding vs T8 CV. He decided to focus me down, and keep me spotted the entire first part of the match. Not really much game play to be had when your AA is one drunk sailor with a pistol. Probably going to be it for me today for this game. Interactions like this just take the fun and even gameplay out of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
513
[THICC]
Beta Testers
1,109 posts
7,280 battles
22 hours ago, Mr_Secondaries said:

Hey WG, and Community,

 

First off, this is a CV balancing discussion, so I don’t want any flame wars to start since it’s a touchy subject. I want to have a open, positive, discussion about the current state of Fighter Squadrons in the game since the recent change.

 

  • Originally, back in the start of WOWS, fighters could only spot enemy vessels, and attack enemy aircraft. You only had torpedo bombers and Dive bombers to actually strike Destroyers. (this required a high skill set though since you had to be VERY good at manual dropping dive bombers on such a tiny target, or you had to be good at setting up "cross drop" torpedo runs)
  • It then changed during the rework to a new type of fighter squadron that carried Rockets to attack surface ships.
  • The current setup now is that fighters start an attack run, then start a firing run where upon they open up with machine gun fire, and launch rockets after a delayed time period.

At first I was against this change, but after looking at it from a balancing perspective, I do agree with it. It softens the harsh interaction between DDs and Carrier attacks.

Plus, from a historical perspective, fighters never really “attacked” surface ships while patrolling, they just spotted them. In the extreme case, they would use their tracer fire to either help a ship locate a submarine’s general vicinity, or they would spray the super structure and deck to injure crew/damage modules/or simply spot a specific target.

I’m not saying we should “remove all rockets”, but we could possibly balance this further to make for a more interesting dynamic between fighters and Destroyers.

My thought is broken into two potential balancing propositions:

  1.  HVAR rocket damage initial damage is reduced, but fire chance is increased; this would require MORE passes by fighter aircraft to "significantly damage" a destroyer, but also give a higher chance to set a fire to "spot" it. 
  2. HVAR rockets are removed; machine gun fire instead does ticking damage so long as the ship stays within the duration of the “spray zone”, machine guns would have a chance to damage modules. After being “sprayed” by Fighter machineguns, the DD’s concealment radius is increased by X km for X amount of seconds, this time would be shorter than if set on fire. 

While option one would be a more simplistic way to further balance in game assets. I think option two would not only balance things further and bring them back into the more “historical” realm, but also put fighters into a more “scouting” or “spotting” role. 

Just a curious thought…

 

They just nerfed rockets, buddy.  If you're still getting hit by them in destroyers the problem is on your end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×