CV Loadout Idea

[Merkle]

I have been using CV for "abit", have the Independence, and enjoyed the Bogue.

 

The one thing I do not really enjoy is choosing between a basic, full fighter loadout, or a full attack loadout.

 

I propose a simple change.  Let us choose which we wish to have, with a weight attached to them.

 

One Fighter Plane would "cost" 1 slot (The Hanger Capability)

One Torp Plane would "cost" 2 slot's (The Hanger Capability)

One Bomber Plane would "cost" 1.5 slot's (The Hanger Capability)

 

Now these values can be changed quickly to reflect balance, but gives the players the power to do as they wish.

 

Love the game. 

[LtShellShock]

Why would you give one plane type a different "weight" value than another? They're all "supposedly" equally effective at the job they do. I said in another thread it would make more sense to let the CVs carry a full air wing and limit them to how many planes they can launch at any one time. That gives the CV captain the option to change his role mid battle if the situation dictates. Keep in mind, it takes time, and a good bit of it, to bring the squadrons he has deployed back to land so he can send out different types instead.

[Jerjare]

The way Navyfield did it was to have each carrier have a maximum number of planes it could launch at a time.

 

So if the maximum was 6, you could have any combination of six planes prepped for launch (1 squad of six, two of 3, and so forth)

 

The balancing thing there was that better planes took longer to prep. So having a huge squadron of bombers took a lot longer than several squadrons of fighters, for example.

 

But I don't think they could implement that in this game.

[WoodWard_Wilson]

I have been using CV for "abit", have the Independence, and enjoyed the Bogue.

 

The one thing I do not really enjoy is choosing between a basic, full fighter loadout, or a full attack loadout.

 

I propose a simple change.  Let us choose which we wish to have, with a weight attached to them.

 

One Fighter Plane would "cost" 1 slot (The Hanger Capability)

One Torp Plane would "cost" 2 slot's (The Hanger Capability)

One Bomber Plane would "cost" 1.5 slot's (The Hanger Capability)

 

Now these values can be changed quickly to reflect balance, but gives the players the power to do as they wish.

 

Love the game. 

This system has already been suggested, here is the complete work up that me and some other guys kinda drafted back right after patch 0.3.1 

 

 

 

 

 

Carrier Balancing

A solution to solve the Carrier balance problem is a point system on carriers and their loud outs.

Every carrier has a certain # of hangar points every tier you go up you get another hangar point so

Tier 4: 5 Points

Tier 5: 6 Points

Tier 6: 7 Points

Tier 7: 8 Points

Tier 8: 9 Points

Tier 9: 10 Points

Tier 10: 11 Points

For USN Carriers

Fighter Squadrons cost 1 hangar point

Dive Bombers cost 2 hangar points

Torpedo Bombers cost 3 hangar points

(USN carriers have more planes per squad [6] but have less squads, so each squad costs more)

For IJN Carriers

Fighter squadrons cost 1 hangar point

Dive Bombers cost 1 hangar point

Torpedo Bombers cost 2 hangar points

(Japanese carriers carry more Squads, but with less planes per squad, so this allows IJN carriers to carry more squads)

Here is an example of the system applied to USN Carriers

Tier 4: 5 Points ex: 1 FT, 1 TB

Tier 5: 6 Points ex: 1 FT, 1 TB, 1 DB

Tier 6: 7 Points ex: 1 FT, 2 TB 

Tier 7: 8 Points ex: 2 FT, 2 TB 

Tier 8: 9 Points ex: 1 FT, 2 TB, 1 DB 

Tier 9: 10 Points ex: 2 FT, 2 TB, 1 DB

Tier 10: 11 Points ex: 1 FT, 2 TB, 2 DB

Certain Restrictions for USN Carriers:

The Maximum # of Fighter squads would be 3 at all tiers

The maximum # of torpedo bombers would be 2 until tier 10 where it would be 3

The Maximum # of dive bomber squads would be 3 at all tiers 

Certain Restrictions for IJN Carriers:

The maximum # of Fighter Squads would be 3 at all tiers

The maximum # of Torpedo Squads would be 3 until tier 10 where it would be 4

The maximum # of Dive Bombers would be 3 until tier 9 where it would be 4

Pros:

This system would solve any balancing issues with CV's unless its a problem with a specific plane type

This system would allow players to adjust their loadout to their play style with carriers

This system would require more skill because it would mean that their is no "best" loadout on a carrier that everyone would use because you can customize your loadouts so players would always have to be on their toes because they could never accurately assume their opponents loadouts

Cons:

Some minor plane spam of one type may occur, however, the restrictions I have created negate any serious spam of certain aircraft types

What do you guys think?

[Merkle]

This system has already been suggested, here is the complete work up that me and some other guys kinda drafted back right after patch 0.3.1 

 

 

 

 

 

Carrier Balancing

A solution to solve the Carrier balance problem is a point system on carriers and their loud outs.

Every carrier has a certain # of hangar points every tier you go up you get another hangar point so

Tier 4: 5 Points

Tier 5: 6 Points

Tier 6: 7 Points

Tier 7: 8 Points

Tier 8: 9 Points

Tier 9: 10 Points

Tier 10: 11 Points

For USN Carriers

Fighter Squadrons cost 1 hangar point

Dive Bombers cost 2 hangar points

Torpedo Bombers cost 3 hangar points

(USN carriers have more planes per squad [6] but have less squads, so each squad costs more)

For IJN Carriers

Fighter squadrons cost 1 hangar point

Dive Bombers cost 1 hangar point

Torpedo Bombers cost 2 hangar points

(Japanese carriers carry more Squads, but with less planes per squad, so this allows IJN carriers to carry more squads)

Here is an example of the system applied to USN Carriers

Tier 4: 5 Points ex: 1 FT, 1 TB

Tier 5: 6 Points ex: 1 FT, 1 TB, 1 DB

Tier 6: 7 Points ex: 1 FT, 2 TB 

Tier 7: 8 Points ex: 2 FT, 2 TB 

Tier 8: 9 Points ex: 1 FT, 2 TB, 1 DB 

Tier 9: 10 Points ex: 2 FT, 2 TB, 1 DB

Tier 10: 11 Points ex: 1 FT, 2 TB, 2 DB

Certain Restrictions for USN Carriers:

The Maximum # of Fighter squads would be 3 at all tiers

The maximum # of torpedo bombers would be 2 until tier 10 where it would be 3

The Maximum # of dive bomber squads would be 3 at all tiers 

Certain Restrictions for IJN Carriers:

The maximum # of Fighter Squads would be 3 at all tiers

The maximum # of Torpedo Squads would be 3 until tier 10 where it would be 4

The maximum # of Dive Bombers would be 3 until tier 9 where it would be 4

Pros:

This system would solve any balancing issues with CV's unless its a problem with a specific plane type

This system would allow players to adjust their loadout to their play style with carriers

This system would require more skill because it would mean that their is no "best" loadout on a carrier that everyone would use because you can customize your loadouts so players would always have to be on their toes because they could never accurately assume their opponents loadouts

Cons:

Some minor plane spam of one type may occur, however, the restrictions I have created negate any serious spam of certain aircraft types

What do you guys think?

 

I personally would rather have this, then the idea of bringing everything into the fight and then "choosing" what you need/want.

 

Reason being? 

It adds forethought on what you want to do in the game.   Do you want to just counter CV?  or Go for full damage, maybe the middle ground.

 

 

[LtShellShock]

 

I personally would rather have this, then the idea of bringing everything into the fight and then "choosing" what you need/want.

 

Reason being? 

It adds forethought on what you want to do in the game.   Do you want to just counter CV?  or Go for full damage, maybe the middle ground.

 

 

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but the MM kind of ruins your idea. As a CV captain, you never know if you're going to get matched against another CV, or even possibly 1 vs 2. That's why I feel we should be able to bring all types, and have to chose which ones to fly out based on how the MM matches us up. We can't control how the MM matches us. Why should I have to guess? All too often a US CV with a fighter heavy load-out gets matched up against no enemy CV so he/she is basically a useless ship for their team in that battle.

[Merkle]

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but the MM kind of ruins your idea. As a CV captain, you never know if you're going to get matched against another CV, or even possibly 1 vs 2. That's why I feel we should be able to bring all types, and have to chose which ones to fly out based on how the MM matches us up. We can't control how the MM matches us. Why should I have to guess? All too often a US CV with a fighter heavy load-out gets matched up against no enemy CV so he/she is basically a useless ship for their team in that battle.

 

I cannot disagree at all with that point.

 

 

[GravyDave1]

I have been using CV for "abit", have the Independence, and enjoyed the Bogue.

 

The one thing I do not really enjoy is choosing between a basic, full fighter loadout, or a full attack loadout.

 

I propose a simple change.  Let us choose which we wish to have, with a weight attached to them.

 

One Fighter Plane would "cost" 1 slot (The Hanger Capability)

One Torp Plane would "cost" 2 slot's (The Hanger Capability)

One Bomber Plane would "cost" 1.5 slot's (The Hanger Capability)

 

Now these values can be changed quickly to reflect balance, but gives the players the power to do as they wish.

 

Love the game. 

Been playing CV's since Alpha. Me and other have some good ideas and knowledge for them. So here a loadout comparison. Some of these CV's had these loadouts already. But WoWs change them in 3.1 patch.

Tier 4

Hosho                            Langley

1/2/0  12 aircraft            1/1/0  12 aircraft

Tier 5

Zuiho                              Bogue

1/2/1  16 aircraft             1/1/0 12 aircraft

0/3/1  16 aircraft             2/0/1 18 aircraft

                                       0/1/2 18 aircraft  (should be 0/2/1)

Tier 6

Ryujo                              Independence

1/2/1  16 aircraft             1/1/1 18 aircraft

1/2/2  20 aircraft             2/0/1 18 aircraft  (should be 3/0/0)

0/3/2  20 aircraft             0/1/2 18 aircraft  (should be 0/2/1)

Tier 7

Hiryu                              Ranger

1/2/2  20 aircraft            1/1/1  18 aircraft

2/2/2  24 aircraft            2/0/2  24 aircraft  (should be 2/1/1)

0/3/3  24 aircraft            0/1/3  24 aircraft  (should be 0/2/2)

Tier 8

Shokaku                        Lexington

1/2/2  20 aircraft            2/1/1 24 aircraft

2/2/2  24 aircraft            2/0/2 24 aircraft  (should be 1/2/2)

0/3/3  24 aircraft            0/1/3 24 aircraft  (should be 0/2/2)

Taiho                             Essex

2/2/2 24 aircraft             2/1/1 30 aircraft

3/2/2 28 aircraft             3/0/2 30 aircraft   (should be 2/1/2)

1/3/3 28 aircraft             1/2/2 30 aircraft   (should be 0/3/2)

Tier 10

Hakuryo                         Midway

2/3/2  28 aircraft            2/1/2 30 aircraft

4/2/2  32 aircraft            3/0/2 30 aircraft  (should be 3/1/1)

1/3/4  32 aircraft            1/2/2 30 aircraft  (should be 0/3/2)

A tier 8 comparison 

Shokaku                                      

1/2/2  Torpedo damage up to 8,567 per plane. 8,567 X 4 = 34,268 pre squad. 34,268 x 2 = 68,536 damage for both squads if they score all hits at one time.

2/2/2  Torpedo damage up to 8,567 per plane. 8,567 X 4 = 34,268 pre squad. 34,268 x 2 = 68,536 damage for both squads if they score all hits at one time.

0/3/3  Torpedo damage up to 8,567 per plane. 8,567 X 4 = 34,268 pre squad. 34,268 x 3 = 102,804 damage for 3 squads if they score all hits at once.

Lexington

2/1/1  Torpedo damage up to 9,867 per plane. 9.867 X 6 =  59,202 total damage. Only 1 squad.

2/0/1  Torpedo damage 0

0/1/3  Torpedo damage up to 9,867 per plane. 9,867 X 6 =  59,202 total damage. Only 1 squad.

Here is a link for the thread. Some good post on ideas and debates to For the IJN and US CV lines. Post your thoughts.  http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/33132-cv-unbalanced-play/page__view__findpost__p__956845__fromsearch__1

One more thing in the 3.1 patch they took out the Sapian for the Bogue. Those of us that play the US line felt this was a horrible mistake. But we never got a response from the DEVS on this issue. The Independence was were the Bogue is now. With Sapian at its current place. 

[WoodWard_Wilson]

I agree with GraveyDaves Changes, all except for the Essex and Midway, I think those are good as they are right now with their 1/2/2 Loadouts, I wouldint change those, everything else I agree with

[GravyDave1]

I agree with GraveyDaves Changes, all except for the Essex and Midway, I think those are good as they are right now with their 1/2/2 Loadouts, I wouldint change those, everything else I agree with

 

Well I can see that. But would like the 3/1/1 loadout myself. Have fighters and do some damage.

[GravyDave1]

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but the MM kind of ruins your idea. As a CV captain, you never know if you're going to get matched against another CV, or even possibly 1 vs 2. That's why I feel we should be able to bring all types, and have to chose which ones to fly out based on how the MM matches us up. We can't control how the MM matches us. Why should I have to guess? All too often a US CV with a fighter heavy load-out gets matched up against no enemy CV so he/she is basically a useless ship for their team in that battle.

 

Well it is just not the MM. With still little in players playing the CV lines. Can lead to 1 CV and sometimes 2 CVs on one side. Some people start eh CV line then quit it. Find it to hard to get Xp for the US line once they get to the Bogue. Some jump over to the IJN line. Then quit once they find planes are easy to destroy. So buffs to each line is needed to balance them. To get more people playing them.