131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #1 Posted December 30, 2015 I know not many people play the CV nor like the CV nor love the CV. I like my carrier Ryujo. I can manual drop no problem and home in at least 6 torpedoes to poor BBs and set them on fire with my dive bombers. okay. Here is the question that I've asked a while ago. What The F*ck is the difference between the USN CVs and the IJN CVs... u say why I ask? because it seems like IJN CVs seems to have wider torpedo spread, smaller air squad, Absolute garbage fighters. USN CVs get tight as F*ck torpedo spread, faster/better fighters, more planes in squad... so do I just have to conclude that USN CVs are supirior to that of the IJN CVs in every aspect? I mean.... BBs in different nation has their different strength and weaknesses... But I don't see that in CVs... experienced CV players out there... Please educate me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
870 [A-D] Carrier_Ikoma Beta Testers, Alpha Tester 2,638 posts Report post #2 Posted December 30, 2015 Originally IJN were supposed to be strike focused, and USN were supposed to be more about air superiority. IJN CVs were also a bit faster, lending themselves to staying close to the front line a bit easier. IJN also had faster-running torps and damage scaled up with tier. That didn't really pan out though. Would be nice to get an updated post from devs about their vision for CVs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,407 Compassghost Supertest Coordinator 7,223 posts 14,454 battles Report post #3 Posted December 30, 2015 US gets ONE torpedo squad. Japan gets access to two, which can be fired from multiple directions. Japan's fighters are also stronger than American counterparts on a per plane basis, probably 5-fighter strength compared to the US. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
546 [-K--] BelgaraththeSorcerer Members 2,680 posts 7,993 battles Report post #4 Posted December 30, 2015 You can keep thinking that while I demolish rangers in my Hiryu.... USN CV's are much better at dealing the alpha damage of 4-5 torp hits on a BB, but a IJN carrier can start a BB flooding, wait for the repair and then hit again with another set of torp bombers not getting the same alpha but dealing lots of residual damage.... Thats at least how I play mine.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #5 Posted December 30, 2015 Originally IJN were supposed to be strike focused, and USN were supposed to be more about air superiority. IJN CVs were also a bit faster, lending themselves to staying close to the front line a bit easier. That didn't really pan out though. Would be nice to get an updated post from devs about their vision for CVs. yes. because what I notice is that the USN CVs can do what IJN CVs can do. But everything better. While I do understand people hate CVs, and don't play that often, I would love some actual factual stuff from the devs... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
485 [-BWS] StingRayOne Beta Testers 1,896 posts 15,013 battles Report post #6 Posted December 30, 2015 I hear you, clearly IJN Carriers get more squadrons earlier in the tech tree, so if you group your planes you can do as much or more damage than the same level USN Ship. Using the ALT or Manual drop will help the IJN carrier. The US carrier is a slow and painful process until you get to the Lexington. The IJN carrier line goes faster, so if you can division up with a cruiser in game with an IJN Carrier, you can wreak a lot of pain on the enemy. Once you reach the 5 squadron phase of the IJN at tier VI I think, you will see a marked difference. The US Fighter are better but with skills and mods you can improve the IJN to the point where they are serious killers. The US carrier is a easy kill up to the Ranger. The IJN is more maneuverable in my estimation but I am only tier VI. I do not go after other carriers in a game. I support my fleet, I bomb with them to set fires and torp where I can and keep fighters over them. I stay normally moving at all times and near cover(islands, Ships) Hope it helps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
870 [A-D] Carrier_Ikoma Beta Testers, Alpha Tester 2,638 posts Report post #7 Posted December 30, 2015 yes. because what I notice is that the USN CVs can do what IJN CVs can do. But everything better. While I do understand people hate CVs, and don't play that often, I would love some actual factual stuff from the devs... So there's a story behind that. Originally IJN CVs actually dropped USN torps (with the same spread, but only 4 torps)! But the devs promised IJN TBs would get their own torps and stuff, etc etc. And we did... but they were worse. AP divebombs were talked about, but then they said HE DBs were doing enough damage so no AP bombs after all. Etc. And then USN CVs were still "underperforming". Even though their goal was air superiority. So while CVs as a whole got nerfed, the nerfs hit IJN the hardest. USN actually got torpedo buffs. Strike loadouts were done away with, IJN TB squads reduced (their planes were always weak), etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #8 Posted December 30, 2015 US gets ONE torpedo squad. Japan gets access to two, which can be fired from multiple directions. Japan's fighters are also stronger than American counterparts on a per plane basis, probably 5-fighter strength compared to the US. now what you said might be the fact. BUT. I honestly do not see how IJN CV fighters are stronger than USN CV's... You can keep thinking that while I demolish rangers in my Hiryu.... USN CV's are much better at dealing the alpha damage of 4-5 torp hits on a BB, but a IJN carrier can start a BB flooding, wait for the repair and then hit again with another set of torp bombers not getting the same alpha but dealing lots of residual damage.... Thats at least how I play mine.... Now I don't quite know how it will be like in Hiryu against ranger(getting there). Like you said, yes. I can do that, but my playstyle is hit hard (if 8 torpedoes are launched, atleast 5 is guaranteed to hit) and retreat. I deal metric sh1t ton of dmg at one full strike. Then I go for my dive bombers to set them on fire. But I really don't see how that is the advantage over the USN CVs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
386 Misniso Members 2,829 posts 6,653 battles Report post #9 Posted December 30, 2015 yes. because what I notice is that the USN CVs can do what IJN CVs can do. But everything better. While I do understand people hate CVs, and don't play that often, I would love some actual factual stuff from the devs... USN can't field torpedo equipped planes if they choose an air superiority loadout. IJN generally have 1 TB squadron, even with an air superiority loadout. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,407 Compassghost Supertest Coordinator 7,223 posts 14,454 battles Report post #10 Posted December 30, 2015 now what you said might be the fact. BUT. I honestly do not see how IJN CV fighters are stronger than USN CV's... Now I don't quite know how it will be like in Hiryu against ranger(getting there). Like you said, yes. I can do that, but my playstyle is hit hard (if 8 torpedoes are launched, atleast 5 is guaranteed to hit) and retreat. I deal metric sh1t ton of dmg at one full strike. Then I go for my dive bombers to set them on fire. But I really don't see how that is the advantage over the USN CVs. Flexibility. A US carrier with 2 fighters can realistically engage only two squads at a time. A Japanese one at Tier 6 can engage EVERY squad while doing bombing runs with two remaining, if it chooses to, and also afford to do a bait hook with fewer casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,596 [-KIA-] TenguBlade Banned 9,382 posts 28,945 battles Report post #11 Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) u say why I ask? because it seems like IJN CVs seems to have wider torpedo spread, smaller air squad, Absolute garbage fighters. Looks like this one hasn't learned the differences in manual drops for Japanese CVs... Edited December 30, 2015 by TenguBlade Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #12 Posted December 30, 2015 USN can't field torpedo equipped planes if they choose an air superiority loadout. IJN generally have 1 TB squadron, even with an air superiority loadout. I mean... what is the point of that if USN CVs are gonna delete your fighters + bombers when all 3 squads just swarm the livig sh1t out of my planes? I mean... I don't even... I had so many situations where the Independence would just set his 3 fighters across the map and when 1 spots my stacked fighters+bombers, other 2 would just obliterate my planes in no time and even if I break through by stacking, I have like 2 left is my bomber squad that would get deleted like it was nothing by BB that I am targeting.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,143 Raven114 Members 2,341 posts 6,920 battles Report post #13 Posted December 30, 2015 If the developers got the mechanics right and in some cases they did. The Ryujo is a 1930's carrier with 1930's technology. The Independence is a 1940's ship better planes and tech. So the planes should be better. In History the Japanese carriers were always inferior to the American carriers and planes. So you have to be better at gameplay or move up to a higher tier Ship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
870 [A-D] Carrier_Ikoma Beta Testers, Alpha Tester 2,638 posts Report post #14 Posted December 30, 2015 If the developers got the mechanics right and in some cases they did. The Ryujo is a 1930's carrier with 1930's technology. The Independence is a 1940's ship better planes and tech. So the planes should be better. In History the Japanese carriers were always inferior to the American carriers and planes. So you have to be better at gameplay or move up to a higher tier Ship. Historical accuracy is no basis for balancing anything but a simulator (and only the hard core sims at that). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #15 Posted December 30, 2015 Flexibility. A US carrier with 2 fighters can realistically engage only two squads at a time. A Japanese one at Tier 6 can engage EVERY squad while doing bombing runs with two remaining, if it chooses to, and also afford to do a bait hook with fewer casualties. u mean, I have to choose the 3 fighter 1 TB and 1 DB? hell no. I always go for 1 fighter 2TB and 2DB... this is what gives me the strike strength. Looks like this one hasn't learned the differences in manual drops for Japanese CVs... you need to read. UNTIL THE END. I said I always manual drop that is why I hit so hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,466 [KTKM] IKU19 Beta Testers 4,633 posts 4,078 battles Report post #16 Posted December 30, 2015 Originally IJN were supposed to be strike focused, and USN were supposed to be more about air superiority. IJN CVs were also a bit faster, lending themselves to staying close to the front line a bit easier. IJN also had faster-running torps and damage scaled up with tier. That didn't really pan out though. Would be nice to get an updated post from devs about their vision for CVs. Can't say about all tiers, but they find Midway balanced and say that an AS Hakuryu is what makes it balanced. [citation needed] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,407 Compassghost Supertest Coordinator 7,223 posts 14,454 battles Report post #17 Posted December 30, 2015 Independence only has 2 fighters. Also, stacking your squadrons is literally the worst thing you can do against a fighter squadron. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #18 Posted December 30, 2015 If the developers got the mechanics right and in some cases they did. The Ryujo is a 1930's carrier with 1930's technology. The Independence is a 1940's ship better planes and tech. So the planes should be better. In History the Japanese carriers were always inferior to the American carriers and planes. So you have to be better at gameplay or move up to a higher tier Ship. so if history was affected in this game...... No.... It would not have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #19 Posted December 30, 2015 Independence only has 2 fighters. Also, stacking your squadrons is literally the worst thing you can do against a fighter squadron. why I do is because everytime I do it, the enemy CV captain can only click 1 of the stacked squads or sometimes 2. but the other 2 can break through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
870 [A-D] Carrier_Ikoma Beta Testers, Alpha Tester 2,638 posts Report post #20 Posted December 30, 2015 u mean, I have to choose the 3 fighter 1 TB and 1 DB? hell no. I always go for 1 fighter 2TB and 2DB... this is what gives me the strike strength. you need to read. UNTIL THE END. I said I always manual drop that is why I hit so hard. Yep I don't really buy into the 3 fighter meta. Worst case, you can bait with bombers. It's not ideal but you can always get a strike through. Best case, or even middle case-- you hit a lot harder with the extra bombers. why I do is because everytime I do it, the enemy CV captain can only click 1 of the stacked squads or sometimes 2. but the other 2 can break through. It's the alt-clicks you have to be careful of... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,143 Raven114 Members 2,341 posts 6,920 battles Report post #21 Posted December 30, 2015 Historical accuracy is no basis for balancing anything but a simulator (and only the hard core sims at that). Then why is there a tech tree based in the progression of time and history of construction practices? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,407 Compassghost Supertest Coordinator 7,223 posts 14,454 battles Report post #22 Posted December 30, 2015 Alt click for USN fighters before the buff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 [DCMA] After__Effect Members 262 posts 8,972 battles Report post #23 Posted December 30, 2015 Yeah I don't really buy into the 3 fighter meta. Worst case, you can bait with bombers. It's not ideal but you can always get a strike through. Best case, or even middle case-- you hit a lot harder with the extra bombers. It's the alt-clicks you have to be careful of... but either way, if enemy USN CV is screening the whole [edited]map, all I can do is to find a little border f*cking method so that I can snipe the CV. But if my fighters would stand a chance against these USN CV fighters, I can carry on with my striking buisness.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
870 [A-D] Carrier_Ikoma Beta Testers, Alpha Tester 2,638 posts Report post #24 Posted December 30, 2015 Then why is there a tech tree based in the progression of time and history of construction practices? It's an approximation only, and because being historically themed generates a lot of interest in the game. If it was "sci fi warships!" WoWS wouldn't have nearly as many players. But! themed is not the same as making a historically accurate simulation. It is only a theme/feel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
870 [A-D] Carrier_Ikoma Beta Testers, Alpha Tester 2,638 posts Report post #25 Posted December 30, 2015 but either way, if enemy USN CV is screening the whole [edited]map, all I can do is to find a little border f*cking method so that I can snipe the CV. But if my fighters would stand a chance against these USN CV fighters, I can carry on with my striking buisness.... Bait into friendly AA, or just use bombers to bait them away. (But note this doesn't mean try to tank them!) In the end, they have fewer squadrons and you can always get through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
