Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
sulghunter331

The New Hybrids and Carriers

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

380
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
1,018 posts
12,254 battles

With the new hybrids, we can see how a player can control a surface combatant (i.e. armed with main guns), while also managing an air group, however small it may be compared to an actual carrier.

A thought had crossed my mind however, that these hybrid ships also show what it may look like if carriers could control their guns as main armaments. This would boil down to treating every carrier as a hybrid ship as far as the control scheme is concerned, with the obvious fact that a carrier would still want to avoid a surface engagement at all costs.

Some of the carriers, such as Kaga and Lexington (pre-refit), even carry 8" guns.

And, to sweeten the deal and to ensure that WG will at least consider this idea if not implement it right away:

The upcoming Tier X Russian CV effectively has a Smolensk bolted onto its starboard side, with half a Smolensk on the port side.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808
[NUWES]
Members
3,525 posts
13,339 battles
6 hours ago, sulghunter331 said:

With the new hybrids, we can see how a player can control a surface combatant (i.e. armed with main guns), while also managing an air group, however small it may be compared to an actual carrier.

A thought had crossed my mind however, that these hybrid ships also show what it may look like if carriers could control their guns as main armaments. This would boil down to treating every carrier as a hybrid ship as far as the control scheme is concerned, with the obvious fact that a carrier would still want to avoid a surface engagement at all costs.

Some of the carriers, such as Kaga and Lexington (pre-refit), even carry 8" guns.

And, to sweeten the deal and to ensure that WG will at least consider this idea if not implement it right away:

The upcoming Tier X Russian CV effectively has a Smolensk bolted onto its starboard side, with half a Smolensk on the port side.

Why bother? You pretty much answered your own question. CVs aren't going to come close enough to use them if they can help it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,712 posts
2,065 battles
1 hour ago, Tzarevitch said:

CVs aren't going to come close enough to use them if they can help it.

Cowards aren't going to come close enough to use them if they can help it. On one hand I like using the current system in gunfights with my Ryujo & Weser. They have enough guns to hit the target anyway, and I've boosted their accuracy & reload. Meanwhile I can focus on maneuvering & shooting at planes(with my playstyle it often ends up as me vs enemy CV). On the other hand, I would really like to use my Hosho's guns manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
1,018 posts
12,254 battles

The reason why I'd think that having manual control of the guns would be a useful back-up to have, like when an enemy team's push has caught up with you, or you ran out of planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,378
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers
3,491 posts
11,210 battles

With a citadel as massive as Nakhimov's? Yea good luck with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
421
[W_H_S]
Members
150 posts
9,552 battles
On 7/23/2021 at 3:16 AM, sulghunter331 said:

With the new hybrids, we can see how a player can control a surface combatant (i.e. armed with main guns), while also managing an air group, however small it may be compared to an actual carrier.

A thought had crossed my mind however, that these hybrid ships also show what it may look like if carriers could control their guns as main armaments. This would boil down to treating every carrier as a hybrid ship as far as the control scheme is concerned, with the obvious fact that a carrier would still want to avoid a surface engagement at all costs.

Some of the carriers, such as Kaga and Lexington (pre-refit), even carry 8" guns.

And, to sweeten the deal and to ensure that WG will at least consider this idea if not implement it right away:

The upcoming Tier X Russian CV effectively has a Smolensk bolted onto its starboard side, with half a Smolensk on the port side.

What's the problem Graf Zepplin and Lowenhardt have a light cruiser attached to each side and a dd on top just to make sure and better secondary range?

Midway has an Atlanta strapped to each side also lol.

Edited by Sbels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,604
[SGSS]
Members
6,324 posts
On 7/23/2021 at 4:16 AM, sulghunter331 said:

With the new hybrids, we can see how a player can control a surface combatant (i.e. armed with main guns), while also managing an air group, however small it may be compared to an actual carrier.

A thought had crossed my mind however, that these hybrid ships also show what it may look like if carriers could control their guns as main armaments. This would boil down to treating every carrier as a hybrid ship as far as the control scheme is concerned, with the obvious fact that a carrier would still want to avoid a surface engagement at all costs.

Some of the carriers, such as Kaga and Lexington (pre-refit), even carry 8" guns.

And, to sweeten the deal and to ensure that WG will at least consider this idea if not implement it right away:

The upcoming Tier X Russian CV effectively has a Smolensk bolted onto its starboard side, with half a Smolensk on the port side.

Why more on 1 side than other?

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,031
[WOLFG]
Members
34,398 posts
10,713 battles
1 minute ago, jags_domain said:

Why more on 1 side than other?

I don't know, you'd have to ask the people that built....... oh wait, never mind.....:Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,111
[PVE]
Members
7,595 posts

I like the idea, and this could help balance CVs.  Hybrids get weak plans because they have player controlled guns.  WG could do the same for CVs, you get to control your guns and in return you get one weak squadron of planes every 2-2.5 minutes.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,604
[SGSS]
Members
6,324 posts
18 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I don't know, you'd have to ask the people that built....... oh wait, never mind.....:Smile_trollface:

Lolol:cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,849
[WOLFC]
Members
3,412 posts
12,121 battles
41 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

Why more on 1 side than other?

While the OP is technically correct about the arrangement of the guns, it should be noted that the ship has a “one Smolensk-grade” secondary broadside off both port and starboard. The superstructure is located on the starboard side of the ship, and it is not uncommon for aircraft carriers of the era to have a large portion of their heavy guns concentrated near the superstructure, where they can theoretically engage surface targets to port or starboard with equal efficiency, but more importantly have much better field of fire when used as AA guns. The Essex-class were commissioned with a battery of 12 5” guns, with 8 mounted above the deck in 4 super-firing turrets, while the remaining guns were located in single mounts below the flight deck on each side of the ship.

You can see the extra guns the OP is talking about in in the dev blog image of Nakhimov. She has two quadruple 130mm turrets mounted on the deck level fore and aft of the superstructure, and an additional 2 turrets on each side located below the flight deck (and thus unable to engage surface targets off the other side of the ship). Thus, she has a 6x4 130mm AA battery that translates into a 4x4 130mm broadside.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/166

 

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,716 posts
18,740 battles
32 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

While the OP is technically correct about the arrangement of the guns, it should be noted that the ship has a “one Smolensk-grade” secondary broadside off both port and starboard. The superstructure is located on the starboard side of the ship, and it is not uncommon for aircraft carriers of the era to have a large portion of their heavy guns concentrated near the superstructure, where they can theoretically engage surface targets to port or starboard with equal efficiency, but more importantly have much better field of fire when used as AA guns. The Essex-class were commissioned with a battery of 12 5” guns, with 8 mounted above the deck in 4 super-firing turrets, while the remaining guns were located in single mounts below the flight deck on each side of the ship.

You can see the extra guns the OP is talking about in in the dev blog image of Nakhimov. She has two quadruple 130mm turrets mounted on the deck level fore and aft of the superstructure, and an additional 2 turrets on each side located below the flight deck (and thus unable to engage surface targets off the other side of the ship). Thus, she has a 6x4 130mm AA battery that translates into a 4x4 130mm broadside.

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/166

 

While I don't know about this ship in particular most CVs have a similar set up. Besides the superstructure mentioned above you also have the smoke stacks... assuming this paper ship isn't nuclear powered... coming out one side of the ship... which cuts down on the area to place AA guns on that side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,716 posts
18,740 battles

The OP brings up a good point about hybrids and CVs. Now while were at it how about returning control of our AA and Damage Control.

It's the main reason I don't play CVs any more. The AI is controlling my ship not me. It's way too easy to pop a CVs AA, stay out of range until it goes on cooldown then go in for the kill. As for fires the AI puts out the first one immediately and automatically... after that it's all burn baby burn.

If the hybrids can maintain control of these things why can't CVs???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×