Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
40902nd

Proposal: USN Hybrid 'Heavy Cruiser' Premium USS Saratoga `41

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

EDIT: I have stopped all development of this idea, as people have shown a lack of interest in this project and would much prefer a CV with 8" secondaries. Feel free to continue to have discussions, though.

With the introduction of Hybrid ships into WoWs, and with actually playing them, I have found that they are quite fun, so I am compiling a list of ships that would be brought into the game that I thing would be fun. To start things off, I have started with what is likely to be the most controversial, unlikely, and possibly difficult ship: USS Saratoga (CV-3).

Now, I can guess what you’re thinking: But Why?

Well, I’ll tell ya. What I have here is her in her 1941 configuration, when she and her sister, USS Lexington, were armed with eight 8-inch guns in 4 turrets. Lexington is already in the game and neither of her hulls are equipped with these guns. Instead of making a ship with 8-inch secondaries, I think it would be better to allow the player to have control of these guns.

While the hull is based off of a Battlecruiser and she is a Carrier, I think it would be better for her to be counted as a Cruiser, as she won’t be able to cycle aircraft with any where near as much efficiency as an in-game carrier and her armor and armaments both mean she can’t really be used as a Battleship.

In order for her to actually be somewhat playable as a cruiser, I have knocked her rudder shift down to Alaska levels, though I have kept her turning circle the same. As she is a Lexington-class Carrier, I have also left her spotting distances the same, since it doesn’t make sense for her to be sneaky in the least.

Acceleration-wise, I think she should also be about the same as the Alaska, as though she is larger and displaces a significant amount more, she does have Turbo-Electric drives, which allows for more responsive engine throttling.

Finally, armor changes would be rather simple when compared to the Lexington, if any are needed at all: change her 25mm plating for 27mm, since she would technically be a ‘Heavy Cruiser’. That, and maybe add better tapering to her belt. While I would prefer to have her citadel lowered, she is hardly the only ship to have her citadel so high and her ‘thick-for-a-cruiser’ belt would mean that she’s not British levels of vulnerable.

 

Tier VIII
USS Saratoga `41

http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/7222/file

Displacement: 37,000t (43,746 t full load)
Health: 54,500 - 66,000
Length: 888 ft (270.7 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m)
Speed: 33.25 kts
Rudder Shift: 13s
Turning Circle: 1180m
Detectability By Sea/Air: 15km/10km
Main Armament
4x2 8in (203mm)/55 Mk 9
    Reload: 10s
    Range: 15.8km
    180º Turn Time: 30s

1 – 203mm HE/HC Mk 25
    Max Damage: 2800
    Fire Chance: 16%
    Shell Pen: 34mm
    Muzzle Velocity: 823 m/s

2 – 203mm AP Mk 19
    Max Damage: 4600
    Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s

Air Wing
3 – Torpedo Bombers
    TBD Devastator
    Hit Points: 1838
    Max Speed: 151 kts
    Size of Flight: 8
    Size of Squadron: 8
    Ordnance: Mk.7D
    Payload: 1
    Max Damage: 3500
    Detectability: 10km
    Reload: 180s

4 – Dive Bombers
    SBD Dauntless
    Hit Points: 1890
    Max Speed: 157 kts
    Size of Flight: 8
    Size of Squadron: 8
    Ordnance: HE AN-M65
    Payload: 1
    Max Damage: 7300
    Detectability: 10km
    Reload: 120s

Secondary Armament
12x1 5in (127mm)/25 Mk 5 guns
    Reload: 4s
    Shell: HE Mk32
    Max Damage: 1800
    Fire Chance: 7%
    Penetration: 21mm
    Range: 6.6km
    Muzzle Velocity: 657m/s

Anti-Aircraft Armament
12x1 5in (127mm)/25 Mk 5 guns
5x1 3in (76.2mm)/50 Mk 10 guns
Long Range AA:
    Flak Bursts: 4
    Flak Damage: 1260
    Continuous Damage: 74
    Range: 4.8km
Medium Range AA:
    Continuous Damage: 70
    Range: 3.5km
Short Range AA:
    Continuous Damage: 50
    Range: 2km

Consumables

R - Damage Control Party

T – Improved Fighter

Y – Defensive Fire AA

U – Surveillance Radar (Same as Baltimore, might be dropped, depending)

Improved Fighter
Action Time: 60s
Number of Fighter: 6
Action Radius: 3km
Cooldown: 90s
Charges: Unlimited

Note about Air Wing:
While the large number of planes in each squadron will allow them to be fairly survivable, enabling them to get to their target, the torpedo bombers will have a wide drop pattern, as the planes will line up abreast to release their torpedoes, making it so an intact squadron can cover a large area, but will have trouble fitting all of their torpedoes into a single target. Similarly, the ellipse for the dive bombers will be large, as there are a lot of planes crowding in order to hit a small target. The Dauntless are the stock dive bombers on the USS Lexington, in-game, while the Devastators are the upgraded torpedo planes from the USS Ranger. The ordinance these planes carry are from the USS Langley. These stats aren't final and are here mainly to serve as the basis for discussion. Also, these planes will not have the rocket boosts as seen on the Aichi M6A2 Seiran of both the Ise and the Tone, as these planes do not require such an assisted take off.

Note about Saratoga `32:
If the planes prove too hard to balance, an alternative proposal could be to use her in her 1932 configuration, which would largely involve stripping her of her AA, except for the 5-inch guns, having a hard-pass on the potential for Radar, and changing the planes she carries.

For Reference:
Tone Torpedo Fighters
    Aichi M6A2 Seiran
    Hit Points: 1670
    Max Speed: 155 kts
    Size of Flight: 4
    Size of Squadron: 4
    Ordnance: Type 5
    Payload: 2
    Max Damage: 3182
    Detectability: 6.7km
    Reload: 180s

Edited by 40902nd
  • Cool 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,304
[UNHLY]
Members
3,414 posts
26,101 battles
1 hour ago, 40902nd said:

With the introduction of Hybrid ships into WoWs, and with actually playing them, I have found that they are quite fun, so I am compiling a list of ships that would be brought into the game that I thing would be fun. To start things off, I have started with what is likely to be the most controversial, unlikely, and possibly difficult ship: USS Saratoga (CV-3).

Now, I can guess what you’re thinking: But Why?

Well, I’ll tell ya. What I have here is her in her 1941 configuration, when she and her sister, USS Lexington, were armed with eight 8-inch guns in 4 turrets. Lexington is already in the game and neither of her hulls are equipped with these guns. Instead of making a ship with 8-inch secondaries, I think it would be better to allow the player to have control of these guns.

While the hull is based off of a Battlecruiser and she is a Carrier, I think it would be better for her to be counted as a Cruiser, as she won’t be able to cycle aircraft with any where near as much efficiency as an in-game carrier and her armor and armaments both mean she can’t really be used as a Battleship.

In order for her to actually be somewhat playable as a cruiser, I have knocked her rudder shift down to Alaska levels, though I have kept her turning circle the same. As she is a Lexington-class Carrier, I have also left her spotting distances the same, since it doesn’t make sense for her to be sneaky in the least.

Acceleration-wise, I think she should also be about the same as the Alaska, as though she is larger and displaces a significant amount more, she does have Turbo-Electric drives, which allows for more responsive engine throttling.

Finally, armor changes would be rather simple when compared to the Lexington, if any are needed at all: change her 25mm plating for 27mm, since she would technically be a ‘Heavy Cruiser’. That, and maybe add better tapering to her belt. While I would prefer to have her citadel lowered, she is hardly the only ship to have her citadel so high and her ‘thick-for-a-cruiser’ belt would mean that she’s not British levels of vulnerable.

 

Tier VIII
USS Saratoga `41

http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/7222/file

Displacement: 37,000t (43,746 t full load)
Health: 54,500 - 66,000
Length: 888 ft (270.7 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m)
Speed: 33.25 kts
Rudder Shift: 13s
Turning Circle: 1180m
Detectability By Sea/Air: 15km/10km
Main Armament
4x2 8in (203mm)/55 Mk 9
    Reload: 10s
    Range: 15.8km
    180º Turn Time: 30s

1 – 203mm HE/HC Mk 25
    Max Damage: 2800
    Fire Chance: 16%
    Shell Pen: 34mm
    Muzzle Velocity: 823 m/s

2 – 203mm AP Mk 19
    Max Damage: 4600
    Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s

Air Wing
3 – Torpedo Bombers
    TBD Devastator
    Hit Points: 1838
    Max Speed: 151 kts
    Size of Flight: 8
    Size of Squadron: 8
    Ordnance: Mk.7D
    Payload: 1
    Max Damage: 3500
    Detectability: 10km
    Reload: 180s

4 – Dive Bombers
    SBD Dauntless
    Hit Points: 1890
    Max Speed: 157 kts
    Size of Flight: 8
    Size of Squadron: 8
    Ordnance: HE AN-M65
    Payload: 1
    Max Damage: 7300
    Detectability: 10km
    Reload: 120s

Secondary Armament
12x1 5in (127mm)/25 Mk 5 guns
    Reload: 4s
    Shell: HE Mk32
    Max Damage: 1800
    Fire Chance: 7%
    Penetration: 21mm
    Range: 6.6km
    Muzzle Velocity: 657m/s

Anti-Aircraft Armament
12x1 5in (127mm)/25 Mk 5 guns
5x1 3in (76.2mm)/50 Mk 10 guns
Long Range AA:
    Flak Bursts: 4
    Flak Damage: 1260
    Continuous Damage: 74
    Range: 4.8km
Medium Range AA:
    Continuous Damage: 70
    Range: 3.5km
Short Range AA:
    Continuous Damage: 50
    Range: 2km

Consumables

R - Damage Control Party

T – Improved Fighter

Y – Defensive Fire AA

U – Surveillance Radar (Same as Baltimore, might be dropped, depending)

Improved Fighter
Action Time: 60s
Number of Fighter: 6
Action Radius: 3km
Cooldown: 90s
Charges: Unlimited

Note about Air Wing:
While the large number of planes in each squadron will allow them to be fairly survivable, enabling them to get to their target, the torpedo bombers will have a wide drop pattern, as the planes will line up abreast to release their torpedoes, making it so an intact squadron can cover a large area, but will have trouble fitting all of their torpedoes into a single target. Similarly, the ellipse for the dive bombers will be large, as there are a lot of planes crowding in order to hit a small target. The Dauntless are the stock dive bombers on the USS Lexington, in-game, while the Devastators are the upgraded torpedo planes from the USS Ranger. The ordinance these planes carry are from the USS Langley. These stats aren't final and are here mainly to serve as the basis for discussion. Also, these planes will not have the rocket boosts as seen on the Aichi M6A2 Seiran of both the Ise and the Tone, as these planes do not require such an assisted take off.

Note about Saratoga `32:
If the planes prove too hard to balance, an alternative proposal could be to use her in her 1932 configuration, which would largely involve stripping her of her AA, except for the 5-inch guns, having a hard-pass on the potential for Radar, and changing the planes she carries.

For Reference:
Tone Torpedo Fighters
    Aichi M6A2 Seiran
    Hit Points: 1670
    Max Speed: 155 kts
    Size of Flight: 4
    Size of Squadron: 4
    Ordnance: Type 5
    Payload: 2
    Max Damage: 3182
    Detectability: 6.7km
    Reload: 180s

Your hearts in the right place BUT !!!!!!!!!!!!

No God Please... GIF - PleaseNo MichaelScott TheOffice - Discover & Share  GIFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

Is it that I am using a Carrier as a Cruiser?

Could it be that it gets two different squadrons to launch?

How about that it gets that meaty health pool?

I am open to a discussion, if only I knew where your issues lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,185 posts
6,541 battles

The issue is this game has gotten out of hand with Fantasies and make-believe. Not worth the money anymore.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

While there has been  a bit of creativity used during the process of statting this ship out, there has, thus far, been little fantasy, which the exception being the 27 mm plating over the 25 mm plating, but that is more game balancing than anything. If anything, the does a good job of representing her as she was for most of her career. Again, I am having out what you core complaint is about the work I have posted.

Or are you generally dissatisfied with the state of the game and have chosen my humble little corner of the forums to vent such dissatisfaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
20 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Is it that I am using a Carrier as a Cruiser?

Could it be that it gets two different squadrons to launch?

How about that it gets that meaty health pool?

I am open to a discussion, if only I knew where your issues lie.

I mean... She wasn't really a hybrid, she was just a heavily armed CV. The difference in purpose between Hybrids and CVs is that Hybrids would be expected to have a hybrid purpose in a fleet, but the Saratoga didn't. It was a pure aircraft carrier with heavy secondary weapons for protection just like Akagi and Amagi, but she was not expected to behave as a gunnery warship whereas ships like Ise, Tone & Gotland were expected to fulfill both a supporting aircraft role and a gunnery warship role.

That's why she shouldn't be done as a Hybrid and instead should behave much like GZ which is a CV with good secondaries.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

I know that she was a heavily armed CV, and she was made at a time when it was unknown if the air wing of a carrier would be enough firepower for a ship of her size, which was why she was given such big guns. It is also why when it was proven that yes, Carriers were just fine without big main guns, they were promptly removed on both the Lexington and the Saratoga. I just find it a shame that these ships aren't modelled in what I think is one of their most interesting (albeit it not most efficient) configuration.

The reason I suggest having her as a Cruiser in-game instead of a Carrier is I think it would be a waste to have the 8 inch guns be relegated to being fairly ineffectual secondary guns. If we go off of Lexington's 4.5km secondary range, we get a max range of 6.48km with commander and equipment. If we give her the standard American BB secondary range of 6.6km, we can stretch it out to a more manageable 9.5km. However, there is still the issue with the poor accuracy of secondary guns and the 10-15 second reload that you could expect from them (before skills and equipment are factored in).

Well, I did say that this would be the most difficult of the hybrids I'd be stating out, and as no one else seems to want to voice support for this ship, I suppose it is best to lay this mad fever dream of a concept to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
13 posts
244 battles

putting 4 x 8" gun turrets that high, they would have to be extremely thinly protected,

or the ship is going to need a LOT of extra ballast in the bottom (common practice today with double hulled ships). It would require a lot of balancing down inside the hull, because of all the weight on the starboard side (island and turrets). Adoption of angled flight deck and its supporting port side "sponson bulge" ... not exactly sure what they call it... ) could partially offset that,... but that wasn't under consideration yet for your timeframe.

Plus the blast of 8" cannon fire over the deck will interfere with aircraft handling at the same time (obviously no landings/recovery if you are needing to engage the main guns across the deck...

At most, 6" guns. Have to factor in, where is the shell magazine and powder room in relation to the rest of the ship's operation areas required for a carrier,

and then you have to "snake" all that ammunition handling equipment thru the available internal area....

You would have a ship with cruiser armament, unable to go toe-to-toe with other cruisers or destroyer flotillas because the flight ops would interfere during "gunfighting" too much, and when the ship was primarily engaged in proper air operations, the 4x 8" turrets would be occupying much needed deck space.

Carrier gunnery is best left to defensive armament. If you want an "assault carrier" concept, perhaps instead a US Ise with the (Brooklyn?) three triple 155 turrets on the front (or even Alaska-sized with 2x triple 12") and use the ship as support for amphibious landings....

A lot of similiar musings here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/gfintr_f.htm

While the idea of mixing missions sounds appealing, sometimes we are best served by keeping specialization (large cruiser kept as separate from carrier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

@SomethingDownThere

I think you are misunderstanding something here: the design is real. The whole question of the concept I have here is whether or not the Lexington-Class Carrier as (re)designed and originally commissioned would be better served as a Carrier or a Cruiser in terms of World of Warships. There is precedent for muddying a ship's classification for sake of game balance (See just about every Super Cruiser in the game). It's just that the changes from real life designation to in game designation are always from one type of surface combatant to another, since that is what 75% of the current in game classifications cover.

The reason I specify the 1941 configuration of the USS Saratoga is because she had her 8-inch guns dismounted, including the barbettes and hoist, and was fitted with an equal number of dual 5-inch/38 turrets which are of the same type as seen on battleships and cruisers of the time. The only thing not historically accurate is the number of .50 machine guns, as I was having a hard time trying to determine how many where fitted and when.

As for the armor on the turrets being thin, while I have yet to find an armor diagram, I have seen somewhere that the armor of the turrets of 76mm or so, not that something like that would stop WG from 'balancing' the ship. Also, they were less worried about cross-deck firing interfering with flight operations and more worried about it damaging the flight deck with the muzzle blast, but it was theoretically capable of doing so, there was no limiter or stop to keep them from doing so. If you needed to put those guns to work, the carrier would likely be too busy undergoing maneuvers to be able to launch planes anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[LOVE]
[LOVE]
Members
118 posts
16,550 battles

You do realize what you are asking for is another Saratoga?  Lexington is not represented in this game, she was sunk before she could have those 4 duel 5in mounts that were mounted on Saratoga. I wish they'd just swap name and give us a proper Lady Lex 1942, 8in mounts is just over kill for DD defense.

R.jpg.ac96cafa946c9905a34afbe6f4a3f276.jpg

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[MUG-T]
Members
782 posts
4,258 battles
13 minutes ago, Fallschirmfuchs said:

You do realize what you are asking for is another Saratoga?  Lexington is not represented in this game, she was sunk before she could have those 4 duel 5in mounts that were mounted on Saratoga. I wish they'd just swap name and give us a proper Lady Lex 1942, 8in mounts is just over kill for DD defense.

R.jpg.ac96cafa946c9905a34afbe6f4a3f276.jpg

 

Not if they shoot AP:Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[ZZZZ]
Members
42 posts
8,488 battles
On 7/3/2021 at 11:36 AM, Fallschirmfuchs said:

You do realize what you are asking for is another Saratoga?  Lexington is not represented in this game, she was sunk before she could have those 4 duel 5in mounts that were mounted on Saratoga. I wish they'd just swap name and give us a proper Lady Lex 1942, 8in mounts is just over kill for DD defense.

Like most tech tree ships Lexington is based on the class as a whole rather than the particular ship who's name it bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[LWOP]
Members
8 posts
281 battles
On 7/3/2021 at 11:52 AM, 40902nd said:

@SomethingDownThere

I think you are misunderstanding something here: the design is real. .....

Just because a design was real, doesn't mean it was a good idea.

History is laden with "designed by a committee" military hardware that was more problematic during actual use in the hands of the fighting men and women who had to use it.

Tactics and doctrine and "committee weaponry" do not always make for military success. And in those rare instances when it did and does, it's more because of the ingenuity and skill of the users (sailors and their leaders in the battle with them, in these instances) who had to learn to work with "what you had, not you wanted".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

Well, the 8-in guns were installed at a time when the Navy wasn't sure if a carrier's air wing would have been a good enough to combat enemies, so the 8-in armament was there to use when you were in trouble... Ya know, I thought I have a clever thing to say here, but it seems to have escaped me. Sorry, been working on a big project and my sleeping meds decided that now was the time to take effect, not 3 or 4 hours ago, when I actually took them. Once it was realized that, no, carriers did not actually need those guns, they ditch them quite quick, with USS Saratoga getting the standard dual mount 5"/38 turrets in their place, and the USS Lexington was give quad 1.1" guns in those positions, instead.

I was under the impression the SomethingDownThere thought that it was something that I had imagine whole-cloth out of my mind. He even directed me to a website full of historical fiction designs for some sort of game. Not that there is an issue with that, it just reinforces the perception.

However, if the idea of the Lexington-Class carriers, as completed, then what I have cooking up will give ya hives! A full line of French Carriers armed to the freakin' teeth and ready to rumble. The issue at the moment is trying to set up and balance the air wings. Currently, I am thinking of having them be fast, durable, but few in number, meaning it's hard to lose them unless you are flak diving, but each death should hurt. To further complicate things, the bomber and torpedo runs will require fairly extensive run-ups. This comes in part because France has some excellent twin-engine carrier bombers which could do both level bombing and torpedo bombing.

At the moment, what I am having to biggest problem with at the moment is trying to get the name of French aerial ordinance, like rockets, bombers, or torpedoes. I've at least identified the naming convention of the air-dropped torpedoes and found on to use as an example. As I can't find their bombs, I can't tell if I should use HE or AP bombs, and rockets are right out, since I haven't found a good fighter to work with, so I am going with a new strike craft type: Recon Planes. Basically, when you activate them, they drop out of formation and circle the air for 10*Tier seconds before returning to the ship, meaning you have a dedicated group for spotting, and you can have multiple spotting groups up at once. Ya, it is another way to annoy Destroyers, but it doesn't put them in direct danger. Also, it gives the CV and it's team much more map awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[SOSV]
Members
21 posts
2,555 battles

I'd like to see a reasonable copy of 1941 CV-3 Saratoga as a CV in game with the 8" guns. Make them auto secondary's if your flying planes and the player can take control of the 8" guns if they are not flying by clicking a button, like a consumable. Example, click Y and you can take control of the 8" guns, click again and they go secondary auto or if you launch planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

That would actually probably be the most ideal solution, though I don't think WG would actually do it. One can hope, though.

I've pretty much given up on this concept, but the feedback in it did serve me well when making the French Carrier line, specially the PA-PC branch (ei: not trying to turn them into hybrids, but keeping them as CVs with big secondaries). Still got a bit of tweaking to do on it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[VVV]
Members
2,951 posts
5,065 battles

I wouldn't mind too much if CVs with relatively heavy armament (AkagiGraf Zeppelin, a potential Saratoga '41) were still classed as CVs but also had the option to go "hybrid mode" and manually control the main guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[RSDWG]
Members
551 posts
12,254 battles

They should make all the CV's work like the ISE and TONE. How many close DD's, within 5" range, could of you took out with a CV if you could of controlled the 5" or whatever your favorite CV has for main guns, only to watch a close DD dodge all of your torps and bombs and now rockets only to plaster you because your AI can't hit the broad side of a barn 100' away.

Also maybe if we could manual control CV's main guns it would take the sting from the latest rocket nerf!!!

And we know it can now be done!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

@rustydawg The question at handing isn't about taking control of 5" guns, but the ability to control the 8" guns that the Lexington and the Saratoga had been originally fitted with.

As for having Carriers behave like Ise and Tone, I am sure there are plenty of players who would be happy with carriers that have to wait 2-3 minutes per air strike, most carriers are armed with relatively light armament, meaning that if you were to give the player control of the 'main armament', they'd lose the ability to use them as secondaries, which would mean that the carriers would be overly vulnerable to attacks when the player is flying their aircraft.

I've put together a line of French carriers with a split into secondary focus carriers which you can find here. They have 8", 11", and 13" guns at tier 6, 8, and 10, respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[RSDWG]
Members
551 posts
12,254 battles
34 minutes ago, 40902nd said:

@rustydawg The question at handing isn't about taking control of 5" guns, but the ability to control the 8" guns that the Lexington and the Saratoga had been originally fitted with.

As for having Carriers behave like Ise and Tone, I am sure there are plenty of players who would be happy with carriers that have to wait 2-3 minutes per air strike, most carriers are armed with relatively light armament, meaning that if you were to give the player control of the 'main armament', they'd lose the ability to use them as secondaries, which would mean that the carriers would be overly vulnerable to attacks when the player is flying their aircraft.

I've put together a line of French carriers with a split into secondary focus carriers which you can find here. They have 8", 11", and 13" guns at tier 6, 8, and 10, respectively.

The CV-3 guns would be nice to have as was said, but what I'm trying to say is you should be able to have control of the CV main guns and be able to use them as a last ditch attempt if needed. I wouldn't use the feature to get in close with the rest of the team and duke it out with guns. There's many times when I came back to the CV to find a DD getting close. If I had control of my 5" guns I could easily finish him off. The bombs, torps and rockets do less damage then a good volley of 5" guns could. I seems with the AI 1 out of 50 or 60 rounds hit. Just with the Lex version we have now you have the 8 5" guns on the deck plus 4 on each side, that means up to twelve 5" guns, could possible be aimed at the DD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

Which is probably one of the reasons why they won't let you do it, as a carrier isn't supposed to be able to duke it out with a destroyer and win. It's a trade-off. The air wing provides a striking range unparalleled by any other class, but the down side is reduced functions of the ship. Heck, even the Damage Control Party and Fighter consumables are taken out of the player's hands. I'd support manual control of the guns if the player also had to juggle manual control of the consumables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[VVV]
Members
2,951 posts
5,065 battles
7 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Which is probably one of the reasons why they won't let you do it, as a carrier isn't supposed to be able to duke it out with a destroyer and win.

And yet, look what tends to happen when a DD tries to 1v1 Graf Zeppelin already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,216 battles

Well, the Graf Zeppelin isn't what it was. I was able to 1 v1 a pair of (bot) Iowas before the skill rework. Though you have to admit that Graf Zeppelin is an exception, not the rule. Also, there is the investiture of modules and skill that are required to achieve that result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[VVV]
Members
2,951 posts
5,065 battles

If you want a USN hybrid cruiser, trying to turn an actual CV into a CA is not the answer. Here is what would be a better choice for that role.

s511-05.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×