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

Can we just get rid of the "Air Superiority" layouts for both nations? (Tier V and VI)

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
56 posts
5,149 battles

What's the point of playing them anyways? I get the whole "rock, paper, scissors" thing, but this is ridiculous.  They pretty much guarantee that both CV players get little to no xp.  Most good CV players can be "successful" in their sleep with them.  They also have very little effect on the actual battle being fought.  It's like you're playing an entirely different game and the warships just happen to be underneath you. 

 

And here's the funny part, if the other player manages to sneak in ONE good torpedo strike, he'll end up with more xp than the fighter specced carrier he's playing against.  (And yes, I've been on both sides of this.) Not to mention, they focus on one of the least entertaining aspects of this game, dogfighting.  Point > Click > RNG.

 

Thoughts?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,116
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,762 posts
16,840 battles

They should have removed fighters from the game long ago, given CVs AA BARRAGE ability and let it be.   Make CVs use their cruisers and BBs for AA bubble support and said screw the whole fighter mechanic. Its not skill based, its click and hope. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,482 posts
2,386 battles

While I do like the extra diversity in having the ability to have different loadouts, you do bring up a good point in that usually one CV is completely useless and the other can totally dominate the skies, while simultaneously not being a help to his team because his ground attack power is greatly weak.

 

I personally wouldn't mind this if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,482 posts
2,386 battles

They should have removed fighters from the game long ago, given CVs AA BARRAGE ability and let it be.   Make CVs use their cruisers and BBs for AA bubble support and said screw the whole fighter mechanic. Its not skill based, its click and hope. 

 

 

 

I disagree, fighters are still a very crucial part to CVs, they also work great as scouts.

 

But for CVs if it was more equal in that both CVs had a fighting chance with a normal loadout then it would work.

 

Plus, Historically/realistically no CV ever had a fighter or bomber heavy loadout, on the supercarriers, it was always 2 fighter squadrons, 1 torpedo squadron, and 2 dive bomber squadrons for the US lineup.  IJN i'm not sure though.  I believe it was the same though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
212
[ECOM]
Beta Testers
838 posts
11,053 battles

I would say get rid of fighter spec'd loadouts for all CVs.  They are boring to play and nothing but annoying to play against.  They don't add anything good to the game.  We should still get loadouts with fighters in them, but none that are mostly fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,116
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,762 posts
16,840 battles

 

I disagree, fighters are still a very crucial part to CVs, they also work great as scouts.

 

But for CVs if it was more equal in that both CVs had a fighting chance with a normal loadout then it would work.

 

Plus, Historically/realistically no CV ever had a fighter or bomber heavy loadout, on the supercarriers, it was always 2 fighter squadrons, 1 torpedo squadron, and 2 dive bomber squadrons for the US lineup.  IJN i'm not sure though.  I believe it was the same though.

 

Dude all due respect there is really no skill in clicking your fighters around the map to scout or engage.  You know if your fighters are going to win or lose before you engage them.   You can scout with a DB if you wanted to.

 

The fighters have just messed up the balance of the game.  When they took the IJN strike load outs away, and kept the USN Fighter loadouts the same, all hope was lost for WG to have any sense of what was needed with CVs.  Now to add insult they slowed the torps to a crawl so.. shame on me for getting screwed by them once again. (arty in WoT)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[W-G]
Beta Testers
626 posts
7,445 battles

I agree....the fighter loadout has got to be the most boring thing this game has to offer.

 

I mean, I finally started up the CV line again (I had the Essex in CBT) and....no....that Bogue will just sit there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
611 posts
2,887 battles

I got the zuiho, and if the enemy has a fighter load out, doesn't matter what commander skills or ship upgrades you have, you'll get 2 maybe 3 attack runs in if you are lucky, then you're out of planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[TDG]
Members
98 posts
7,432 battles

I would say get rid of fighter spec'd loadouts for all CVs.  They are boring to play and nothing but annoying to play against.  They don't add anything good to the game.  We should still get loadouts with fighters in them, but none that are mostly fighters. 

 

AGREED!!!!!!!!!! 

 

if i have to go up against a fighter spec'd cv  in a match i consider it a victory if i even get ONE good torpedo run in but in most cases my team "lemming trains" down one side of the map leaves me all alone fighters and bombers get "shutout" and then some MORON has the nerve to tell me to "outrun" the other team when i'm in a ship which can be outrun by EVERYTHING because its top speed is under 20 knots..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[BIO]
Members
5 posts
6,802 battles

Completly agree, playing against a fighter loadout just feels boring and frustrating. On a related note why do US CVs get infinitly better fighters?

Edited by zammster7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[OPGS]
Members
608 posts
4,038 battles

Playing fighter require skill but learning to manage an opponent playing fighter setup is also skill. If you keep losing all your planes you are getting outsmarted.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[ARGSY]
Members
10,326 posts
16,228 battles

it would be easier to balance with standard load out as well.     I never understood the variation that they allowed in CVs.      added complication to a class that is already tough to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
639
[BOTO]
Members
1,509 posts
21,930 battles

 

I disagree, fighters are still a very crucial part to CVs, they also work great as scouts.

 

But for CVs if it was more equal in that both CVs had a fighting chance with a normal loadout then it would work.

 

Plus, Historically/realistically no CV ever had a fighter or bomber heavy loadout, on the supercarriers, it was always 2 fighter squadrons, 1 torpedo squadron, and 2 dive bomber squadrons for the US lineup.  IJN i'm not sure though.  I believe it was the same though.

 

Actually, historically by the second half of 1944 US carriers had a very heavy fighter loadout, the typical ESSEX class in late 44 would have a CVW such as this:

 

Fighters: 54

Dive Bombers: 24

Torpedo Bombers: 18

 

By the end of 44 through the end of the war it got even heavier:

 

Fighters: 73

Dive Bombers: 15

Torpedo Bombers: 15

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
707 posts
6,036 battles

I'm still a relative CV newb, only ran a Hosho for ~10 games but it's quite clear to me that both CV balance as well as XP distribution for CVs are horribly broken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
Members
2,688 posts
4,560 battles

One issue with that is that early on,  the 'fighter' spec is the only thing the US carriers have going for them,  and the IJN carriers catch up to that at tier 6,  while US carriers don't get a dual torpedo setup until tier 9.  It would completely erase the uh...'advantage' the US sort of have at early tiers.  

 

Honestly,  with what little experience I have I think the early tiers need some help.  You may not notice as much playing the US carriers,  but flipping to IJN really hammers home the differences.  As an IJN carrier you have a lot of control over the battle,  even early on.  Being able to sandwich ships between eight torpedo's lets you get hits in on just about everything with minimal effort,  and the recent changes to torpedo spread really helped that.  The US carriers,  however,  have a wider spread and require a lot more effort to be effective.  Meanwhile air combat is flipped,  where the IJN...really can't be effective until T6,  while the US fighters can clear the air of IJN and non-fighter specced relatively easily.  Really they just run counter to one another.  If my Zuiho doesn't have a fighter spec to deal with it runs rampant.  If it does have one to deal with then the match depends on me having an AA ship to hide above until my opponent slips up and gives me opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
Beta Testers
1,259 posts
6,287 battles

I agree....the fighter loadout has got to be the most boring thing this game has to offer.

 

I mean, I finally started up the CV line again (I had the Essex in CBT) and....no....that Bogue will just sit there.

 

This would only work if the USN strike load out was rebalanced to the IJN standard.  Bring dive bomber damage up to par with torp bombers and give them a single fighter to defend with.  Then both sides would have a small fighter wing to defend with and similar damage output.  Right now if the USN CV goes strike, not only do they have less damage output but they are completely at the mercy of the fighters the IJN strike package has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1 post

Ive just recently got the Independence and I know a lot of people rav on about not fitting for fighters as you cant really do much damage with bombers compared to torps.


 

But since Ive had it the majority of enemy carriers I run into are fighter fit so I think im going to be forced to fit it and play ball, as with all the other enemy carriers fitting it Im forced to keep my TB's and DB's back over friendlies as when I move the enemy keeps his distance and just moves with me waiting till I leave friendly AA cover.


 

Any ideas how to overcome this without been a typical fighter fit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,812
[-KIA-]
Members
5,244 posts
16,375 battles

Yes, please.  Carriers did not win the war by shooting down planes, they won by destroying ships with their planes.  I hate those dang AA Independences and Bogues.  At high tier, it really doesn't matter what loadout you pick since AA is basically just fighter-oriented, but at low tier is where things piss me off.  AA carriers at Tier 5 and 6 just are useless to their team, and simply act as trolls to the opposing team's carrier.

 

I myself play strike carrier, with the maximum number of strike planes I can get.  Those dumb AA carriers leave their fighters over my carrier and I waste them with AA fire.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,482 posts
2,386 battles

Yes, please.  Carriers did not win the war by shooting down planes, they won by destroying ships with their planes.  I hate those dang AA Independences and Bogues.  At high tier, it really doesn't matter what loadout you pick since AA is basically just fighter-oriented, but at low tier is where things piss me off.  AA carriers at Tier 5 and 6 just are useless to their team, and simply act as trolls to the opposing team's carrier.

 

I myself play strike carrier, with the maximum number of strike planes I can get.  Those dumb AA carriers leave their fighters over my carrier and I waste them with AA fire.

 

I do the exact same thing, I remember one game where a fighter heavy bogue and langley were against me and they sent ALL their fighters to my CV since I had only bombers on my bogue, and I pretty much shot down 99% of their fighters LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
Beta Testers
1,259 posts
6,287 battles

Yes, please.  Carriers did not win the war by shooting down planes, they won by destroying ships with their planes.

 

And yet historically CVs carried more fighters than bombers, for escort duty and to provide an anti AA defense for their own ship.  So acting like they played no part in winning the war is a bit misleading as they served a vital role in both the offensive and defensive role a CV played in the war.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1 post
7,071 battles

While the number of fighters is great info, you do have to keep in mind that most fighters were "fighter-bombers" or "attack fighters". These planes were designated as fighters yes but their strike capability included rockets, an assortment of bombs, and sometimes cannons. These planes are unrealistically represented as "anti-air" only and don't cover the full responsibilities that they were designed and used for in WWII. I know that high tier play would struggle without fighters but in the case of a carrier being within 100 km of a strike force (like in the game), planes of all designations would be armed with strike layouts in an attempt to provide as much firepower as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
357 posts

"Whaa I can't wthpwn everything on the map because someone actually gave up kills to be my counter! NERF THEM!"

 

That is all I hear in the first post and the majority of those supporting it. Complaining about how another players way of playing makes their way "less fun" but never once considering that without that counter they end up doing the very same thing to other players. Try being a cruiser some day; bad enough their are as many same-tier battleships that outgun & out-armor you along with being as fast. Having to spend the entire time with your head on a swivel to maybe avoid being torpedoed by every kill-hungry CV a full map length away just makes it not worth playing at times. Even an AA-heavy Atago can't stop a squadron from actually launching its torpedoes and it only takes a few hits to sink such an expensive ship if Damage Control party isn't available very soon.

 

However since I'm feeling generous and would rather offer a solution instead of pointing out how the other side are a bunch of hypocrites I'll let them in on a little secret. Its called "tactics". In other words - don't just send your bombers straight at enemy ships when enemy fighters are possible and expect them to come back in recognizable pieces.

 

If you don't want your all-bomber setup murdered by fighters then make sure the fighters are too far away from your bombers to do anything when they're detected. Send your planes to a remote area and have them loiter until the other sides CV sends his fighters somewhere. Then have your bombers move up then swing in to attack the other sides ships while they're without air cover. If you've timed it right your bombers can make their runs and be well on their way home (again via waypoint to not paint a "here's a fat CV" path for every DD out there) to rearm. A plan as old as organized warfare still taught in military colleges because it works. Of course it requires a little patience (which is in VERY short supply among gamers) so its unlikely most players would consider it, and even fewer would be willing to delay their gratification long enough to learn how to judge when & how to execute this sort of plan. Hence why a simple option is also available - partner with an air-superiority CV in a division. Let him sweep the sky while you're bombers hammer at the ships. Again of course it runs into the problem of requiring patience, learning to coordinate actions, and expecting real cooperation so its highly unlikely most people here could actually pull that sort of plan off.

 

Because in the end what the first poster and his lackies want isn't balance but the classic "my item/ spec/ class is a walking I WIN button! Worship me n00bs!". Fifteen years of online gaming and the more the names change but the more the whines and attitudes stay the same. Its no wonder humanity is headed for extinction with this sort of self-centered self-involved mindset.

  • Cool 1

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.

×