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

US Carrier progression is rough

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
200 posts
947 battles

I was wondering why people say the US carriers only start getting good at tier 8. So I looked at the progression of stats and it's pretty rough:

 

 

-You only get another squadron in your default setup every other tier, at tiers 6, 8, and 10. This means every other time, when you get a newer carrier you have one that is painfully similar to its fully upgraded predecessor.

 

-Upgrading planes steadily improves their duality, and usually their speed. But fighters hey shafted- They don't get significant damage boosts until way later, but the planes they are going to need to shoot down will be disproportionally tougher. What's worse is their ammo steadily goes down, so they get less endurance as well.

 

-US carriers have to make due with a single torpedo bomber squadron until tier 8 I believe. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts

Have you seen the Jap destroyer line?

 

You have to spend ~20-35k XP to upgrade the torpedo's to make the ship upgrade be at least on par with the previous ship.  Even then your stealth fades away and the torps slow down till end tier and the grouping reverts to two sets of 3 trops till Tier 8 instead of 3 sets of 2 which makes for much better spread.

 

All downhill after Minekaze

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
368 posts
234 battles

It's pretty straightforward -- the small amount of squadrons embarked and some real clunkers of ships really hurt the line.

 

--Bogue and Independence are ships that are very lacking

Both ships due to their lack of hangar capacity, which means you can't just throw away planes like the IJN ships can.  At best, both ships can only have 1 squadron in reserve of each plane type.

 

--For most of the time, your best bet in loadout is to play the default plane loadout of 1/1/0, then 1/1/1, then 2/1/1

This is because you need to protect your air assets, especially your torpedo bombers, of which you only get 1 no matter what loadout until tier 9

If you do a fighter loadout, you're almost completely useless if the other side does not have a CV.

 

 

Regarding fighters, you'll find that it's pretty much in line with the IJN -- a huge jump in capabilities between T6 and T7, and again between T7 and T8.  There's not much difference here.

 

Ultimately, the tree is still very fun to play, but you do have to be very selective in how you commit your assets.

Edited by Deidryt
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
248 posts
381 battles

If you do a fighter loadout, you're almost completely useless if the other side does not have a CV.

 

 

 

This right here is the biggest problem.

The USN carriers seem to focus around fighters and air supremacy.  Fine, that's great, but once the enemy air forces are dealt with, you have nothing to do, or worse yet, if they have no carrier, you've handicapped yourself.

The focus on fighters also reduces the XP gains as shooting down aircraft provides little reward.

 

 

If fighters had some role to play other than purely anti-aircraft, USN carriers (all carriers actually) would have a little more flexibility.  Heck, just the ability to assign a group of fighters to strafe an enemy ship.  They couldn't do any real damage, but they could have 2 effects on the ships they strafe.  First off they could disrupt the crew (being under constant barrage from strafing planes would cause injuries and be pretty intimidating), so all aspects of the ship could be hurt.  Lower top speed, lower mobility, lower accuracy.  The second effect (perhaps from a captain skill) would be the ability to knock out AA and secondary guns.

Against any ship with decent AA capability, strafing runs would be short lived, but it would give you another option.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
57 posts
4,975 battles

   Its a no-brainer to choose IJN CV's. I got to the Bogue and realized the tier 4 Hosho still had a better plane setup. Later tiers IJN has a huge advantage in number of squadrons, with 2 more than the USA. Any player would rather have more squadrons than more planes in a squadron. It's better tactically to split them up and tie up the enemy fighters while torping with impunity, something the USA definitely can't do. I might save my free xp for when they balance that out but, imo, IJN will be the leet CV guys. The one's willing to grind through USA's will free xp it or just likes history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
57 posts
451 battles

  Any player would rather have The one's willing to grind through USA's will free xp it or just likes history.

 

Or those who wish to have a superior T9 & T10 CV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
834 posts
12,097 battles

I have some ideas for helping the USN CV line. These are just for discussion

 

1. I think one fix that would at least help is that aircraft that are shot down by other aircraft should give better exp. So shooting them down with AA would remain the same but fighters shooting down any other aircraft (including scouts) would give better exp than is currently the case.

 

2. I also like the idea of strafing and one aspect that I have not seen mentioned is perhaps allowing strafing to reset cap. That would be tremendously useful and it also gives exp. Resetting on a domination map could be very rewarding.

 

 

 

 

 

Just some thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
368 posts
234 battles

 The one's willing to grind through USA's will free xp it or just likes history.

 

Not really... if I was going by which ships I liked more, I'd go with the IJN line at the moment (given the lack of Yorktown at the moment).  What I do like about the USN is the tighter torpedo spread and the hardier squadrons.  Just have to get past the low points. as with any tech tree line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
200 posts
947 battles

It seems like they balanced the carriers on paper based on squadron numbers and sizes. But more squadrons is just more flexible. US carriers really need something equivalent going for them to balance it out. 

 

-Lower tier fighters need more of a gradual improvement in damage vs a flat curve like they are now. 

 

-Planes shot down by fighters should give you about 40xp and 1,000 credits a plane. So finish a match with 25 plane kills and get 1,000 xp and 25,000 credits for the effort.

 

-Change the captain skill that gives you +1 plane per squadron to +33% bigger squadron. IJN squadrons are now 5 planes, US fighter and dive bomber squadrons are now 8 planes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
922 posts
5,325 battles

It's pretty straightforward -- the small amount of squadrons embarked and some real clunkers of ships really hurt the line.

 

--Bogue and Independence are ships that are very lacking

Both ships due to their lack of hangar capacity, which means you can't just throw away planes like the IJN ships can.  At best, both ships can only have 1 squadron in reserve of each plane type.

 

--For most of the time, your best bet in loadout is to play the default plane loadout of 1/1/0, then 1/1/1, then 2/1/1

This is because you need to protect your air assets, especially your torpedo bombers, of which you only get 1 no matter what loadout until tier 9

If you do a fighter loadout, you're almost completely useless if the other side does not have a CV.

 

 

Regarding fighters, you'll find that it's pretty much in line with the IJN -- a huge jump in capabilities between T6 and T7, and again between T7 and T8.  There's not much difference here.

 

Ultimately, the tree is still very fun to play, but you do have to be very selective in how you commit your assets.

 

The Bogue's low hangar capacity I can understand, the Independence's seem ok to me.

 

For USN CVs, it seems the default loadouts are the way to go for now. I felt the loadouts were reasonably balanced before IJN CVs were added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

I think the CV line is borked to be honest. It follows no historical or lineage pattern at all. The Langley did not lead to the Bogue as there was 2 decades of carrier development in between the two. And it's really unnerving that you start off at tier IV in the immediate post-WWI era of the early 1920s with the original first CV but then go to tier 5 and into a late-war WWII era CV, a giant leap of more than 20 years in just one tier. Why? Same with the Independence at tier 6, another late-war WWII carrier that takes you to... guess what... a 1920s ship that should be the logical successor to the Langley but it's a tier 7? And then at tier 8, another 1920s design that was actually the backbone of the fleet before WWII ever was thought of.

 

Also, if you go in chronological order, CV-1 was the Langley at tier IV, CV-2 was the Lexington which is tier 8, and CV-4 was the Ranger which is strangely tier VII. Doesn't make sense about their tier placement.

 

I wonder if they will fix all of this mess when they add in the second CV branch to the tech tree?

 

EDIT: For the record, the Bogue was CVE-9, which was an escort carrier because of it's small size. It being put into the CV tech tree is like putting the Chester over in the BB line at tier 4 or 5. It doesn't belong, CVEs should have their own branch of the tech tree or even make them premiums.

 

Also, where in the tech tree does WWII take place? Seem WG is trying to tell us that WWII is totally encompassed in Tier 8 judging by the CV branch. Also, WG needs to realize that many of the most famous CVs were one-off ships built as-needed, or as replacements as-needed, and are not actual ship classes full of other ships of the same type or design. Lexington, Saratoga, Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise, way, way too many ships to fit into tier 8. How do they plan on representing all of those ships? I fear the US players are going to either get robbed of seeing those ships in the game, or there will be like a dozen premium carriers filling up one whole tier that would probably cost a player thousands of dollars to acquire. Where's the fun in that?

Edited by Destin65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[G-REB]
Beta Testers
358 posts
14,827 battles

Biggest problem is WG made dive bombers horrible, then nerfed the americans to have even WORSE than the IJN so that  you get as many bomb hits with 6 as they do with 4.  How do you make dive bombers the focus of the american line and then turn them into TURDS, did they not bother to read about the battle at midway.  (wow shocker dive bombers kill IJN carriers wth)  The fact is WG doesn't seem to care about balance or even making a good game they are just creating  a grindy game with a 3 map rotation per tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

Here is how the CV tech tree should look in it's proper, historical, chronological and lineage-by-successive-design...

Tier II     -   USS Langley     CV-1 - Commissioned 1922
Tier III    -   USS Lexington  CV-2 - Commissioned 1927

Tier IV   -   USS Saratoga   CV-3 - Commissioned 1927
Tier V    -   USS Ranger      CV-4 - Commissioned 1934
Tier VI   -   USS Yorktown    CV-5 - Commissioned 1937
Tier VII  -   USS Enterprise  CV-6 - Commissioned 1938
Tier VIII -   USS Wasp          CV-7 - Commissioned 1940
Tier IX   -   USS Hornet        CV-8 - Commissioned 1941*
Tier X    -   USS Essex         CV-9 - Commissioned 1942*

*- denotes ships not in full service prior to Pearl Harbor attacks.

All ships in the chronological listing served in WWII and most survived. Some that were sunk were rebuilt as totally new ships but with the same name, two most prominent being the Yorktown replacement (CV-10) and Lexington replacement (CV-16).

I just feel like WG filling up the US CV tech tree with escort carriers and filler-type carriers while holding the actual, pre-WWII carriers until high-tier, late-war scenarios does both a disservice to the game and players. Especially when you consider the Lexington at Tier VIII was serving alongside the USS Wyoming and New York for much of its career and was commissioned nearly 20 years before other tier 8 ships like the North Carolina were even built. Heck, it was in service well more than a decade before even the South Dakota BBs were built. So yeah, the US CV tech tree needs work. Whoever researched it for them needs to be fired.

EDIT:

Was thinking, if they wanted to keep the tier 4 arrangement then it could be condensed down to the Langley (4), Lexington (5), Ranger (6), Yorktown (7), Enterprise (8) Wasp (9) Essex (10).

Edited by Destin65
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
615
[POW1]
Members
5,078 posts

I was wondering why people say the US carriers only start getting good at tier 8. So I looked at the progression of stats and it's pretty rough:

 
 
-You only get another squadron in your default setup every other tier, at tiers 6, 8, and 10. This means every other time, when you get a newer carrier you have one that is painfully similar to its fully upgraded predecessor.
 
-Upgrading planes steadily improves their duality, and usually their speed. But fighters hey shafted- They don't get significant damage boosts until way later, but the planes they are going to need to shoot down will be disproportionally tougher. What's worse is their ammo steadily goes down, so they get less endurance as well.
 
-US carriers have to make due with a single torpedo bomber squadron until tier 8 I believe. 

Check this link out http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/33132-cv-unbalanced-play/page__fromsearch__1

A quick comparison

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.

Now this is what's in game now. Even with perks and modes. Which does help both lines out. Their is a big difference. I can break other lines down if you  want. But the out come is the same. they are unbalanced right now. Someone ask this question on another post so sharing it.

The CV part of the game is unbalanced right now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[-TRG-]
Members
12 posts
4,464 battles

If no A2A role is available, I use my fighters to spot and continually keep enemy DD's on the map. Eliminating their visibility advantage makes them easy targets, and their AA is never enough to really make losing aircraft an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[7RET]
Beta Testers
35 posts

It's pretty straightforward -- the small amount of squadrons embarked and some real clunkers of ships really hurt the line.

 

--Bogue and Independence are ships that are very lacking

Both ships due to their lack of hangar capacity, which means you can't just throw away planes like the IJN ships can.  At best, both ships can only have 1 squadron in reserve of each plane type.

 

--For most of the time, your best bet in loadout is to play the default plane loadout of 1/1/0, then 1/1/1, then 2/1/1

This is because you need to protect your air assets, especially your torpedo bombers, of which you only get 1 no matter what loadout until tier 9

If you do a fighter loadout, you're almost completely useless if the other side does not have a CV.

 

 

Regarding fighters, you'll find that it's pretty much in line with the IJN -- a huge jump in capabilities between T6 and T7, and again between T7 and T8.  There's not much difference here.

 

Ultimately, the tree is still very fun to play, but you do have to be very selective in how you commit your assets.

 

I'm on the Bogue currently, not fully upgraded but its fun. I do feel however that Manual torp drops need some complexity added to them, not just a meta game of lining up the shot, would like to see "things" happen to the squadron, maybe have the torps drop not perfectly simultaneously or even somewhat rng'd. Have the Ai auto drop being something more interesting than a total waste of time to do.

 

o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,106 battles

I think the CV line is borked to be honest. It follows no historical or lineage pattern at all. The Langley did not lead to the Bogue as there was 2 decades of carrier development in between the two. And it's really unnerving that you start off at tier IV in the immediate post-WWI era of the early 1920s with the original first CV but then go to tier 5 and into a late-war WWII era CV, a giant leap of more than 20 years in just one tier. Why? Same with the Independence at tier 6, another late-war WWII carrier that takes you to... guess what... a 1920s ship that should be the logical successor to the Langley but it's a tier 7? And then at tier 8, another 1920s design that was actually the backbone of the fleet before WWII ever was thought of.

 

Also, if you go in chronological order, CV-1 was the Langley at tier IV, CV-2 was the Lexington which is tier 8, and CV-4 was the Ranger which is strangely tier VII. Doesn't make sense about their tier placement.

 

I wonder if they will fix all of this mess when they add in the second CV branch to the tech tree?

 

EDIT: For the record, the Bogue was CVE-9, which was an escort carrier because of it's small size. It being put into the CV tech tree is like putting the Chester over in the BB line at tier 4 or 5. It doesn't belong, CVEs should have their own branch of the tech tree or even make them premiums.

 

Also, where in the tech tree does WWII take place? Seem WG is trying to tell us that WWII is totally encompassed in Tier 8 judging by the CV branch. Also, WG needs to realize that many of the most famous CVs were one-off ships built as-needed, or as replacements as-needed, and are not actual ship classes full of other ships of the same type or design. Lexington, Saratoga, Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise, way, way too many ships to fit into tier 8. How do they plan on representing all of those ships? I fear the US players are going to either get robbed of seeing those ships in the game, or there will be like a dozen premium carriers filling up one whole tier that would probably cost a player thousands of dollars to acquire. Where's the fun in that?

 

Reason for that is plane loads. The Lexington could carry 70-80 planes which would be flatly OP at tier 5.  Reason they put in the Bogue and Independence, is the fact they were ESCORT carriers and while 20 years newer, carried about the same amount of planes as the Langley and we're about as fast.

 

 

Have to remember.  Bogue and Indy are escort carriers built for ASW and as extra platforms for more planes when the Essex class was not around in large numbers.

 

Ranger and on were designed as FLEET carriers.  Having a ship at tier 5 that can carry 60-80 planes would be flatly OP.

 

Unless you want to seriously make the Lexington and Ranger completely a historical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
200 posts
947 battles

 

Reason for that is plane loads. The Lexington could carry 70-80 planes which would be flatly OP at tier 5.  Reason they put in the Bogue and Independence, is the fact they were ESCORT carriers and while 20 years newer, carried about the same amount of planes as the Langley and we're about as fast.

 

 

Have to remember.  Bogue and Indy are escort carriers built for ASW and as extra platforms for more planes when the Essex class was not around in large numbers.

 

Ranger and on were designed as FLEET carriers.  Having a ship at tier 5 that can carry 60-80 planes would be flatly OP.

 

Unless you want to seriously make the Lexington and Ranger completely a historical.

 

Yeah I figured obviously they chose the carriers they did for a gradual progression, getting a bigger airwing each time.

 

 

 

What about total hangar capacity? That is another thing to consider. Because US carriers use bigger squadrons, they seem to use up their planes faster.

 

 

Honestly I don't mind IJN's carriers being the way they are. It makes for a challenging matchup when I know if I'm not careful he's going to apha strike me in 1 wave. But on the flip side if I catch him early enough I can completely neuter him with my fighters. The issue is fighters in general; like others have said if there was an equal reward for shooting down fighters as there is for damaging ships, then US carriers would have a unique role that was more viable (without needing to make their fighters more powerful to do it). Similarly, they need to do something about Dive Bombers as well. Dive Bombers are weirdly inaccurate. I can get incredibly lucky and have 5 hit (never had 6 hit yet) and still only do about 3500 damage to a battleship. Even hitting with only 1 or 2 torpedoes on my torpedo bombers will do more damage, and it is more consistent on whether I'm gonna hit or miss.

 

 

If dive bombers were more effective in some kind of balanced way, then US CVs would have a means to reliably get exp with them as well. But right now reliable exp/money seems to revolve mostly around getting torpedo hits, which unfairly skews toward IJN.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2 posts

Here is how the CV tech tree should look in it's proper, historical, chronological and lineage-by-successive-design...

 

Tier II     -   USS Langley     CV-1 - Commissioned 1922

Tier III    -   USS Lexington  CV-2 - Commissioned 1927

Tier IV   -   USS Saratoga   CV-3 - Commissioned 1927

Tier V    -   USS Ranger      CV-4 - Commissioned 1934

Tier VI   -   USS Yorktown    CV-5 - Commissioned 1937

Tier VII  -   USS Enterprise  CV-6 - Commissioned 1938

Tier VIII -   USS Wasp          CV-7 - Commissioned 1940

Tier IX   -   USS Hornet        CV-8 - Commissioned 1941*

Tier X    -   USS Essex         CV-9 - Commissioned 1942*

 

*- denotes ships not in full service prior to Pearl Harbor attacks.

 

All ships in the chronological listing served in WWII and most survived. Some that were sunk were rebuilt as totally new ships but with the same name, two most prominent being the Yorktown replacement (CV-10) and Lexington replacement (CV-16).

 

I just feel like WG filling up the US CV tech tree with escort carriers and filler-type carriers while holding the actual, pre-WWII carriers until high-tier, late-war scenarios does both a disservice to the game and players. Especially when you consider the Lexington at Tier VIII was serving alongside the USS Wyoming and New York for much of its career and was commissioned nearly 20 years before other tier 8 ships like the North Carolina were even built. Heck, it was in service well more than a decade before even the South Dakota BBs were built. So yeah, the US CV tech tree needs work. Whoever researched it for them needs to be fired.

 

EDIT:

 

Was thinking, if they wanted to keep the tier 4 arrangement then it could be condensed down to the Langley (4), Lexington (5), Ranger (6), Yorktown (7), Enterprise (8) Wasp (9) Essex (10).

 

Each tier should be a class not a specific ship. Starting at Tier 4, the progression should be as follows for the CV line (not CVE, not CVL):

 

IV - Langley

V - Lexington

VI - Ranger

VII - Yorktown (the USS Wasp was a modified Yorktown class; would make a nice Premium ship option)

VIII - Essex

IX - (it gets a bit tricky here to keep it to Fleet Carriers, but I would go with...) Ticonderoga (even though it is a 'long hull' Essex class.)

X - Midway

 

Optionally, if the timeline allows, move the Midway to IX and add the Forrestal class to Tier 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,106 battles

 

Each tier should be a class not a specific ship. Starting at Tier 4, the progression should be as follows for the CV line (not CVE, not CVL):

 

IV - Langley

V - Lexington

VI - Ranger

VII - Yorktown (the USS Wasp was a modified Yorktown class; would make a nice Premium ship option)

VIII - Essex

IX - (it gets a bit tricky here to keep it to Fleet Carriers, but I would go with...) Ticonderoga (even though it is a 'long hull' Essex class.)

X - Midway

 

Optionally, if the timeline allows, move the Midway to IX and add the Forrestal class to Tier 10.

 

 

Jesus god no.  Lexington at tier 5?! You'd never run out of planes! And a FORRESTAL?! Are you out of your mind? So it should have F4 Phantoms and A4 Skyhawks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2 posts

 

Jesus god no.  Lexington at tier 5?! You'd never run out of planes! And a FORRESTAL?! Are you out of your mind? So it should have F4 Phantoms and A4 Skyhawks?

 

Note that I stated I was referring to ship classes.The Lexington class refers to the USS Lexington (CV-2) and the USS Saratoga (CV-3) not the USS Lexington (CV-16) which was an Essex-class carrier. As for my comments about the Forrestal, that's just an off the wall idea to help fill out the classes at tiers 9 and 10. Her carrier wing complements do not have to be instantly upgraded to Vietnam-era components. For example, the A-1 Skyraider and F-9F Panther would be viable options in game.

Edited by _JackBurton_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,106 battles

 

Note that I stated I was referring to ship classes.The Lexington class refers to the USS Lexington (CV-2) and the USS Saratoga (CV-3) not the USS Lexington (CV-16) which was an Essex-class carrier. As for my comments about the Forrestal, that's just an off the wall idea to help fill out the classes at tiers 9 and 10. Her carrier wing complements do not have to be instantly upgraded to Vietnam-era components. For example, the A-1 Skyraider and F-9F Panther.

 

Yeah and CV2 could carry even at the time of her commission 70 freaking planes. IJN doesn't get that many till what tier 7/8.  Oh wait that's where the Lexington is.

 

Who'd of thunk it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

 

 

Each tier should be a class not a specific ship. Starting at Tier 4, the progression should be as follows for the CV line (not CVE, not CVL):

 

IV - Langley

V - Lexington

VI - Ranger

VII - Yorktown (the USS Wasp was a modified Yorktown class; would make a nice Premium ship option)

VIII - Essex

IX - (it gets a bit tricky here to keep it to Fleet Carriers, but I would go with...) Ticonderoga (even though it is a 'long hull' Essex class.)

X - Midway

 

Optionally, if the timeline allows, move the Midway to IX and add the Forrestal class to Tier 10.

 

 

I do like your ideas too, though I'd have to agree the Forrestal may be a bit too new though it was a Korean War ship which is what the game seems to encompass.

 

 

 

Yeah and CV2 could carry even at the time of her commission 70 freaking planes. IJN doesn't get that many till what tier 7/8.  Oh wait that's where the Lexington is.

 

Who'd of thunk it.

 

In response to this, and your previous reply, I'd like to point out that I was referring to the CV-2 version of the Lexington. The tier 8 Lexington in the game is the 1920s-built CV-2 Lexington but it is placed at tier 8 against much more modern warships. I could understand if the tier 8 ship were the CV-16 version of the Lexington. I just don't think it's right to have to wait til the end-game tiers just to use a WWI-era ship like the Lexington when you got WWI-era battleships like the South Carolina and Wyoming down in tiers 3 and 4. Shouldn't that make things unfair for the other tier 3 and 4 ships?

 

As far as the amount of planes carried, consider this... the Battle of the Coral Sea saw the IJN carriers such as the Shokaku carrying 72 aircraft each. And this is a very early war engagement taking place in 1942. It should be noted that the Lexington was scuttled and sunk at this battle, proving that even at tier 5 it would in no way be over-powered since the IJN ships would be the historical opponents and comparable in aircraft capacity. Gotta remember, historically the two sides were balanced in real life. They would be just as balanced in the game if they would represent them earlier in the tiers the way they should. Think about it, the Lexington couldn't handle an early war low-tier ship like the Shokaku, and likewise, since they were both lost in the Coral Sea. That's balanced, isn't it?

 

You are right that Escort carriers were not Fleet carriers. That's the whole point of why the Navy used them. They were largely used as convoy escorts. They did not have to be fast, only fast enough to stay with the merchant vessels they were escorting. Also, they were cheap and easy to build, expendable even, made from the same merchant ships they were escorting. They were built so that ships like the Bogue could escort the North Atlantic convoys to Britain instead of having to waste enormous resources by having the Lexington or Enterprise do it and which were so valuable that they would have required an entire fleet of ships to protect them while they protected the convoy, putting way too many high-value assets at risk of attack by German U-boats. That's why the Bogue carried so few planes compared to a fleet carrier as well. Why put 72 planes escorting convoys when arguably 2/3rd of them at a minimum would be sitting idle the entire voyage since they would never encounter an enemy fleet in the North Atlantic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

I would prefer they created carrier branches the way in which they are talking of doing with the cruisers. Whereas they are getting the cruiser and light cruiser branches on the tech tree, so too should the carriers get the CV and CVE branches. I'm not against CVEs being in the game, I'm just against them being used as low-tier fodder-grinders to prevent players getting to the 2nd aircraft carrier ever built by the US, the Lexington. Admit it, isn't it strange to have one of the earliest and most low-tech aircraft carriers ever built situated at the highest end of the tech tree to square off against ships it never faced and all of which were far superior in every way?

 

Just wait til the Russian tech tree is implemented and there are paper carriers with 120+ planes sinking every Lexington in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,106 battles

 

 

I do like your ideas too, though I'd have to agree the Forrestal may be a bit too new though it was a Korean War ship which is what the game seems to encompass.

 

 

 

In response to this, and your previous reply, I'd like to point out that I was referring to the CV-2 version of the Lexington. The tier 8 Lexington in the game is the 1920s-built CV-2 Lexington but it is placed at tier 8 against much more modern warships. I could understand if the tier 8 ship were the CV-16 version of the Lexington. I just don't think it's right to have to wait til the end-game tiers just to use a WWI-era ship like the Lexington when you got WWI-era battleships like the South Carolina and Wyoming down in tiers 3 and 4. Shouldn't that make things unfair for the other tier 3 and 4 ships?

 

As far as the amount of planes carried, consider this... the Battle of the Coral Sea saw the IJN carriers such as the Shokaku carrying 72 aircraft each. And this is a very early war engagement taking place in 1942. It should be noted that the Lexington was scuttled and sunk at this battle, proving that even at tier 5 it would in no way be over-powered since the IJN ships would be the historical opponents and comparable in aircraft capacity. Gotta remember, historically the two sides were balanced in real life. They would be just as balanced in the game if they would represent them earlier in the tiers the way they should. Think about it, the Lexington couldn't handle an early war low-tier ship like the Shokaku, and likewise, since they were both lost in the Coral Sea. That's balanced, isn't it?

 

You are right that Escort carriers were not Fleet carriers. That's the whole point of why the Navy used them. They were largely used as convoy escorts. They did not have to be fast, only fast enough to stay with the merchant vessels they were escorting. Also, they were cheap and easy to build, expendable even, made from the same merchant ships they were escorting. They were built so that ships like the Bogue could escort the North Atlantic convoys to Britain instead of having to waste enormous resources by having the Lexington or Enterprise do it and which were so valuable that they would have required an entire fleet of ships to protect them while they protected the convoy, putting way too many high-value assets at risk of attack by German U-boats. That's why the Bogue carried so few planes compared to a fleet carrier as well. Why put 72 planes escorting convoys when arguably 2/3rd of them at a minimum would be sitting idle the entire voyage since they would never encounter an enemy fleet in the North Atlantic?

 

Yeah and guess where the Shoukaku is in the lineup? Oh wait that's right 7 IIRC.  You cannot put CV-2 at the time of her launch till the day she was sunk that could carry 78 planes at tier 5.  Beyond broke.  Then putting the Ranger 1 tier above it that carried LESS planes.  Yeah no.

 

There is a reason it is as it is.  If you went historical with the lineup, it would be all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×