Tweaked loadouts for USN carriers, tier 5-8

[codextero]

WG has had a month to gather data, and all the data points to the fact that IJN carriers are OP and USN carriers are garbage. Since WG is taking it's sweet time implementing AP bombs, and they are adamant USN carriers will be crammed full of useless DB's, why not tweak USN carrier loadouts so they aren't complete crap.

 

Floatplane fighters screwed USN carriers much harder than IJN carriers, as it made USN strike literally unuseable. No fighters means that the target puts his floatplane fighter on your one TB squadron, and poof goes all your damage. On the other hand, USN fighter loadouts have the firepower of a match, while IJN fighter loadouts have very respectable striking power .So the change is very simple, one dive bomber from "USN strike" will be changed to a fighter, and 1 DB in USN fighter will be turned into a TB.

 

Bogue 0/1/2 to 1/1/1

Independence, no change, the only USN carrier before Essex worth playing

Ranger 0/1/3 to 1/1/2

Lexington 0/1/3 to 1/1/2 (stock lex 2/1/1 is probably better than this)

 

Ranger 2/0/2 to 2/1/1

Lexington 2/0/2 to 2/1/1

Essex 3/0/2 to 3/1/1

Midway to 3/1/1

 

Bogue and Lexington both suffer from low plane numbers. Bogue doesn't have enough planes to fully replace a lost squadron, increase Bogue loadout to 36 to give each squadron a replacement.

Lexington is carrying far below it's actual complement of planes. While 72 is the same as shokaku, Lexington tends to lose more planes in a bomb run, and have less TB/DB replacements since so many of it's spares are low attrition fighter. During Eastern Solomons, Saratoga carried 90 planes. 90 planes for Lexington class would bump the plane count to 44 fighters, 23 TB, and 23 DB.

 

Unrelated, I'm of the mind that Lexington and Midway could both do with +1 squadron in the air. Compared to IJN carrier of the same tier, Lexington launches the same number of planes as shokaku, while Midway launches less than Hakuryu, in addition to less flexibility from having less squadrons, the planes flying off of Midway and Lexington are often individually worse. 5 squadron lexington and 6 squadron Midway would look something like

 

Lexington

2/1/1 Stock

3/1/1 Fighter

1/1/3 Strike

 

Midway

2/1/2 Stock

2/2/2 Balanced

4/1/1 Fighter

[danredda1616]

My personal thought is they should allow us to customise our own loadouts. Have each hull upgrade or w/e increase the amount of squadrons you can have. Have most stock configs have 2 flying squadrons. Each upgrade adds 1 more. Allow the user to kit it out the way they want. Personally i would love to have 1db, 1tb and 1-2 fighters. I go in first with the db to set fire, wait til they put it out, then the tbs come in and flood. Gives me the flexibility to perform well no matter the MM. Currently if there are no enemy CVs, if you have the US fighter loadout you may as well just quit the game.

[Flametz]

Midway 2/2/2 would be so hilariously broken against either a stock or bomber-heavy Hakuryu. (because WG considers 1/2/2 on T9/T10 atm to be bomber-heavy)

Better fighters? yep

More potent TB squadrons? (smaller spread than IJN, more torps per spread, 2k dmg more per torp) check.

Better DBs? questionable (numerical superiority with 4 squadrons of 4 vs 2 squadrons of 6, but IJN do less dmg per bomb).

 

I actually think that and the Essex are fine on the line. Tier 5-7 could use the love (especially the Bogue... good god), tier 8... let that be the trap for newbie players

[codextero]

Midway 2/2/2 would be so hilariously broken against either a stock or bomber-heavy Hakuryu. (because WG considers 1/2/2 on T9/T10 atm to be bomber-heavy)

Better fighters? yep

More potent TB squadrons? (smaller spread than IJN, more torps per spread, 2k dmg more per torp) check.

Better DBs? questionable (numerical superiority with 4 squadrons of 4 vs 2 squadrons of 6, but IJN do less dmg per bomb).

 

I actually think that and the Essex are fine on the line. Tier 5-7 could use the love (especially the Bogue... good god), tier 8... let that be the trap for newbie players

 

It's no worse than balanced Hiryu against Ranger, or fighter taiho against non-fighter Essex. Fighter Hakuryu would shut down 2/2/2 Midway in a heartbeat, and still have torp planes left over to sink the Midway. If 2/2/2 is a problem, change it to 1/2/3 Strike.

 

Hakuryu fighters are better than Midway fighters one for one, 23% higher DPS for only 9% less health. Both are fast enough that catching anything other than each other isn't a problem

 

Hakuryu TB's are slightly worse. Their pattern is less concentrated but more responsive and flexible. At tier 10, ships get really long and landing 3/4 (because you lose one on the way) isn't a problem at all.

 

I consider Hakuryu dive bombers to be greatly superior. The impact damage from bombs is negligible on anything not a destroyer, and both carriers have armored flight decks. However the Hakuryu dive bombers are 25 knots faster, which means more runs/game, and they can simply outrun any USN fighter other than F2H.

 

The Ideal solution, which is also the historical one, is to switch the squadron sizes for IJN and USN, as well as torp pattern.

[BattlecruiserOperational]

solid post my man! +1, as a rather frustrated USN CV player(at Lex atm). The Ranger pain was real. Far worse than the 1st time around I played it, when it still had 2 TB squads. Same with the lady Lex...

[Flametz]

My personal thought is they should allow us to customise our own loadouts. Have each hull upgrade or w/e increase the amount of squadrons you can have. Have most stock configs have 2 flying squadrons. Each upgrade adds 1 more. Allow the user to kit it out the way they want. Personally i would love to have 1db, 1tb and 1-2 fighters. I go in first with the db to set fire, wait til they put it out, then the tbs come in and flood. Gives me the flexibility to perform well no matter the MM. Currently if there are no enemy CVs, if you have the US fighter loadout you may as well just quit the game.

So basically this idea? http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/40178-revamping-cv-customization-and-the-loadout-system/page__p__1008168#entry1008168

 

It's no worse than balanced Hiryu against Ranger, or fighter taiho against non-fighter Essex. Fighter Hakuryu would shut down 2/2/2 Midway in a heartbeat, and still have torp planes left over to sink the Midway. If 2/2/2 is a problem, change it to 1/2/3 Strike.

 

Hakuryu fighters are better than Midway fighters one for one, 23% higher DPS for only 9% less health. Both are fast enough that catching anything other than each other isn't a problem

 

Hakuryu TB's are slightly worse. Their pattern is less concentrated but more responsive and flexible. At tier 10, ships get really long and landing 3/4 (because you lose one on the way) isn't a problem at all.

 

I consider Hakuryu dive bombers to be greatly superior. The impact damage from bombs is negligible on anything not a destroyer, and both carriers have armored flight decks. However the Hakuryu dive bombers are 25 knots faster, which means more runs/game, and they can simply outrun any USN fighter other than F2H.

 

The Ideal solution, which is also the historical one, is to switch the squadron sizes for IJN and USN, as well as torp pattern.

Except the firepower of a Midway is more akin to a 0/3/3 loadout Hiryuu tier-wise. Giving it 2 fighter squadrons to play with would be more like Hiryuu 2/3/3 vs a Ranger.

Sure they turn slower and have slightly impaired reaction times, but when they hit, they hit hard. Have fun surviving a wave in even a Yamato, you'll most likely come off crippled at 5-digit HP or dead.

Giving it an extra fighter-squadron to play with would give every lower-tier, fighter-heavy carrier hell.

Besides, getting shut down by a fighter-heavy Hakuryu wouldn't be any different from a 2/1/1 lexington shutting down the bombers on a shoukaku while still having a TB squadronto nuke any lower tier BB/CA. 

Alternatively how about we do away with this terrible set-in-stone loadout system and do something similar to what I linked above?

[codextero]

Except the firepower of a Midway is more akin to a 0/3/3 loadout Hiryuu tier-wise. Giving it 2 fighter squadrons to play with would be more like Hiryuu 2/3/3 vs a Ranger.

Sure they turn slower and have slightly impaired reaction times, but when they hit, they hit hard. Have fun surviving a wave in even a Yamato, you'll most likely come off crippled at 5-digit HP or dead.

Giving it an extra fighter-squadron to play with would give every lower-tier, fighter-heavy carrier hell.

Besides, getting shut down by a fighter-heavy Hakuryu wouldn't be any different from a 2/1/1 lexington shutting down the bombers on a shoukaku while still having a TB squadronto nuke any lower tier BB/CA.

 

I think USN torps at high tier are overrated. While they have a denser pattern and slightly higher damage, the agility of USN torp bombers is utterly terrible, and the running speed of the torpedoes is only 35 knots while IJN torps run at 45+. From point of no return to arming is 6 seconds for IJN TB's, and 8 seconds (+ further away) for USN TB's. The tradeoff is raw power against capital ships in exchange for being a lot worse against cruisers and destroyers.

 

It's not like as if balanced Hakuryu doesn't already makes a mess out of lower tier carriers. Only N1K's stand a chance before the Kikka, Bearcats and Corsairs drop like flies. On the other than F2H has a hard time against N1K, and it has even less ammo than bearcat without gaining any DPS. It won't stomp as hard on low tiers as one would think because it runs out of ammo a lot, and has a long rearm time.

[Flametz]

If you think the bearcat and F2H run out of ammo fast, boy do I have badness for you if you try IJN T9/T10 fighters...

Chew through 5 planes with the J7W1 on a USN TB squadron off a Essex, run out of ammo and I end up eating a single torp. Bloody hell. 

And sure they have low running speed, but catch them turning away and you can get them to eat all 6 off a single spread. It's a more effective BB and CV killer (both classes are long and turn terribly at high tiers) than the IJN can. 

 

That aside, why bother trying to fix a broken loadout system? It's a meaningless system and restrictive to people who enjoy flexibility. Do away with it and add in a point system (made a massive topic in it, along with counters to anyone who tries spamming a single class of planes). 

[codextero]

If you think the bearcat and F2H run out of ammo fast, boy do I have badness for you if you try IJN T9/T10 fighters...

Chew through 5 planes with the J7W1 on a USN TB squadron off a Essex, run out of ammo and I end up eating a single torp. Bloody hell. 

 

That aside, why bother trying to fix a broken loadout system? It's a meaningless system and restrictive to people who enjoy flexibility. Do away with it and add in a point system (made a massive topic in it, along with counters to anyone who tries spamming a single class of planes). 

 

Man hours, WG would take a long time to do a flexiable loadout system, and a lot less to stopgap their current system meanwhile.

 

Your proposed system was pretty much the way that battlestations pacific did it, and it worked great.

[019Delta]

If this game is basing stats off of history then why do the USN carrier have such bad load-outs. This is straight from Independence CV wiki:

Aircraft carried: original plan was 30;
9 dive bombers
9 torpedo-bombers
12 fighters; for most of war operated 33–34, 24–26 fighters and 8–9 torpedo bombers.

I don't see anywhere that the CV's had no fighters for the load-outs, so why give IJN fighters with dps and not give USN the same.

[suleiman71]

The loadouts may be ****, but they are actually realistic. IJN loadouts focused on attack, while US loadouts were usually air superiority and balance. 

 

 

[019Delta]

The loadouts may be ****, but they are actually realistic.

 

 

 

not really check wiki or any USN site in fact the Ranger was in service before the Independence.

[mouth1313]

WG has had a month to gather data, and all the data points to the fact that IJN carriers are OP and USN carriers are garbage. Since WG is taking it's sweet time implementing AP bombs, and they are adamant USN carriers will be crammed full of useless DB's, why not tweak USN carrier loadouts so they aren't complete crap.

 

Floatplane fighters screwed USN carriers much harder than IJN carriers, as it made USN strike literally unuseable. No fighters means that the target puts his floatplane fighter on your one TB squadron, and poof goes all your damage. On the other hand, USN fighter loadouts have the firepower of a match, while IJN fighter loadouts have very respectable striking power .So the change is very simple, one dive bomber from "USN strike" will be changed to a fighter, and 1 DB in USN fighter will be turned into a TB.

 

Bogue 0/1/2 to 1/1/1

Independence, no change, the only USN carrier before Essex worth playing

Ranger 0/1/3 to 1/1/2

Lexington 0/1/3 to 1/1/2 (stock lex 2/1/1 is probably better than this)

 

Ranger 2/0/2 to 2/1/1

Lexington 2/0/2 to 2/1/1

Essex 3/0/2 to 3/1/1

Midway to 3/1/1

 

Bogue and Lexington both suffer from low plane numbers. Bogue doesn't have enough planes to fully replace a lost squadron, increase Bogue loadout to 36 to give each squadron a replacement.

Lexington is carrying far below it's actual complement of planes. While 72 is the same as shokaku, Lexington tends to lose more planes in a bomb run, and have less TB/DB replacements since so many of it's spares are low attrition fighter. During Eastern Solomons, Saratoga carried 90 planes. 90 planes for Lexington class would bump the plane count to 44 fighters, 23 TB, and 23 DB.

 

Unrelated, I'm of the mind that Lexington and Midway could both do with +1 squadron in the air. Compared to IJN carrier of the same tier, Lexington launches the same number of planes as shokaku, while Midway launches less than Hakuryu, in addition to less flexibility from having less squadrons, the planes flying off of Midway and Lexington are often individually worse. 5 squadron lexington and 6 squadron Midway would look something like

 

Lexington

2/1/1 Stock

3/1/1 Fighter

1/1/3 Strike

 

Midway

2/1/2 Stock

2/2/2 Balanced

4/1/1 Fighter

Please provide a link to "all the data" so we can judge for ourselves. When you are dishonest in your first sentences it is hard for people to trust the rest, regardless of its merrit. 

[suleiman71]

 

not really check wiki or any USN site in fact the Ranger was in service before the Independence.

 

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

[Anumati]

2/2/2 Midway would be one of the few reasons to even upgrade.  18km spotting range. Inferior fighters, less fighters than a 3/2/2 or a 4/2/2 Hak which gets 15-20 Fighters with better stats with upgrades. Oh by the way, the Hakryu sacrifices nothing. I mean at this point, lets go full [edited]and have midways with 0/3/3. I'm already predicting Russian carriers with crazy 5 man squadrons of land based fighters/bombers.

[suleiman71]

2/2/2 Midway would be one of the few reasons to even upgrade.  18km spotting range. Inferior fighters, less fighters than a 3/2/2 or a 4/2/2 Hak which gets 15-20 Fighters with better stats with upgrades. Oh by the way, the Hakryu sacrifices nothing. I mean at this point, lets go full [edited]and have midways with 0/3/3. I'm already predicting Russian carriers with crazy 5 man squadrons of land based fighters/bombers.

 

Wouldn't be that suprising if the Russian t10 carrier had 0/5/5 or 3/5/5 for SerB giggles.