Now that we have good aircraft progression, let's look at those loadouts.

[clivman]

AP bombs should be introduced soon too, which will help balance CVs.

Assuming WG wants to keep 6/4 plane squadrons for USN/IJN, this looks the most balanced

	USN	IJN
4	1-1-1	1-2
5	1-1-1	1-1-2
6	1-1-1	1-1-2 or 1-2-1
7	1-1-2	2-1-2 or 2-2-1
8	1-1-2	2-2-2
9	2-1-2	3-2-2 or 2-3-2
10	2-2-2	3-3-3

[Skeem689]

AP bombs should be introduced soon too, which will help balance CVs.

Assuming WG wants to keep 6/4 plane squadrons for USN/IJN, this looks the most balanced

	USN	IJN
4	1-1	1-2
5	1-1	1-1-1
6	1-1-1	1-1-2 or 1-2-1
7	1-1-2	2-1-2 or 2-2-1
8	1-1-2	2-2-2
9	2-1-2	3-2-2 or 2-3-2
10	2-2-2	3-3-3

 

Langley has 1-1-1

I don't think it will change 

[clivman]

 

Langley has 1-1-1

I don't think it will change 

 

Fixed

[crzyhawk]

Honestly what I would like to see them do is to make the squadrons different size, rather than make one side smaller squadrons, the other larger but fewer squads.

 

for fighters, both sides either get 4 or 6.  fighters should be ~ =.  IJN TB squadron gets 6 planes, USN 4 planes  USN DBers get 6 planes, IJN gets 4 planes.  Both sides get similar loadouts.  Add captain skills to customize the differences.

[clivman]

Honestly what I would like to see them do is to make the squadrons different size, rather than make one side smaller squadrons, the other larger but fewer squads.

 

for fighters, both sides either get 4 or 6.  fighters should be ~ =.  IJN TB squadron gets 6 planes, USN 4 planes  USN DBers get 6 planes, IJN gets 4 planes.  Both sides get similar loadouts.  Add captain skills to customize the differences.

 

My choice would be 6 plane squadrons and historical loadouts.

Gives the best fighter balance

[Numbah18]

AP bombs should be introduced soon too, which will help balance CVs.

Assuming WG wants to keep 6/4 plane squadrons for USN/IJN, this looks the most balanced

	USN	IJN
4	1-1-1	1-2
5	1-1-1	1-1-2
6	1-1-1	1-1-2 or 1-2-1
7	1-1-2	2-1-2 or 2-2-1
8	1-1-2	2-2-2
9	2-1-2	3-2-2 or 2-3-2
10	2-2-2	3-3-3

 

I could support this if using DB wasn't either A really dull or B a huge amount of work for what seems like a smaller reward.

 

Honestly what I would like to see them do is to make the squadrons different size, rather than make one side smaller squadrons, the other larger but fewer squads.

 

for fighters, both sides either get 4 or 6.  fighters should be ~ =.  IJN TB squadron gets 6 planes, USN 4 planes  USN DBers get 6 planes, IJN gets 4 planes.  Both sides get similar loadouts.  Add captain skills to customize the differences.

 

Looks like a good idea but I don't think it will ever be used 

[Captain_Dorja]

Honestly what I would like to see them do is to make the squadrons different size, rather than make one side smaller squadrons, the other larger but fewer squads.

 

for fighters, both sides either get 4 or 6.  fighters should be ~ =.  IJN TB squadron gets 6 planes, USN 4 planes  USN DBers get 6 planes, IJN gets 4 planes.  Both sides get similar loadouts.  Add captain skills to customize the differences.

 

I fully agree with this sort of concept. Japan's carrier aviation weapon of decision was the torpedo - Give them stronger TB squadron. Give them a bit of a better drop pattern, like a little tighter than it is now, but not crazy tight. Let their air dropped torps hit a bit harder, with higher chance to cause a flood. USN TB squadrons would have fewer planes, worse torps (less damage less floods). Ideally it would get something like where a good IJN TB drop hit 4, and a good USN drop hit 2. Maybe hitting 5 and 3 would be something you can do too, but not super easy you know.

 

Same thing with DBs. USN having bigger DB squadrons with better bombs, IJN smaller weaker DB squadrons. There are other things in that same vein that they can do to work on it too. Make USN TBs panic worse under Defensive Fire. Make USN DBs not panic as much as IJN DBs under Defensive Fire, and give the two sides different DB drop patterns to reflect the strengths/weaknesses there too. They can keep working this into other trees as more nations come out and more CVs appear from the cocktail napkin design achieves (you know, where SerB gets most of the new stuff for WoT these pasted 3 years or more).

[WanderingGhost]

Honestly, all they need to do is change the loadout and DPs of IJN planes, to a  higher DPS and possibly, a lower load out, given loadout appears to be ammo. That way the two types are different and can potentially use different tactics, but in an equal 1 on 1 fight have it so IJN can have a shot at beating USN. Then just change the fighter number of IJN to match USN for the various set up types (AS having 3 as an example on both USN and IJN) and moving the extra squadron to an attack group. Which could help further differentiate them because while IJN could send an unholy swarm against 1 ship, give it a option to send two equal forces against 2 ships. Whereas USN would be better suited to focusing one. I'm a firm believer that fighters should be truly equal but different, hence why they keep number per group but alter so they can stand toe to toe, and that aside from how fighters kill enemy planes, in this exact case USN being the longer haul with it's durability and ammo amount, and IJN with quick knockout, but from number of overall squadrons and the attack planes. It's why I back the 5.3 tier 9 and 10 USN changes because it shifts the focus to DB's, with torpedo's being IJN's thing. I don't have the numbers in front of me right this second but just using what he has up top since I'm not 100% sure IJN gets 9 or USN gets 6, have the set ups be 

 

setup/USN AC	Fighter	Torpedo	Dive	IJN	Fighter	Torpedo	Dive
AS	3	0	3	AS	3	2	4
Mix	2	1	3	Mix	2	3	4
ATK	1	1	4	ATK	1	4	4

 

If their balanced 1-1 with fighters, as in they can be an even match 1 on 1, any one of these set ups can beat the others if played smart. Odds are that yeah, most will pick a mix set up just because it's the most flexible. AS would have the edge in air control ability but not as great anti-ship. Where as ATK (attack) would have a harder time controlling the air, but USN can pound away with those bombers at a target and launch some torps while IJN can straight up swarm a ship or say, break out and send 1 group of 2 and 2 at one ship and another at a different ship. IJN keeps a distinct advantage in torps, USN, while having the same squad count, has more DB's overall and as anyone that's played both lines knows, vastly superior bombs and bomb accuracy. While full control of the skies is a matter of who out plays who in fighters. I know some people would likely have a coronary at seeing 16 TB's heading at them, but A: they have to actually get past the AA and B: IJN doesn't exactly have the greatest spread, you can better close the gaps, but likely still see some dodging, least when manual drop isn't being exploited. But I think fighters need to be PROPERLY balanced along with a change to squadron setups.

 

Also, odds are they intend to keep the current 6/4 set up of USN vs IJN, and I think they should, keep some diversity. And seeing as they easily have enough UK having 5 planes per flight and a squadron count between USN and IJN, and, like as I listed above be more DPS based for fighters, and focus more on TB's because theres a surprising lack of native DB's (lots of lend lease but who wants that) and Germany, which you CAN stretch a line for (working up on 4-5 different notepad documents ships, planes, etc) having 7 planes per group, and, seeing as there the inverse of UK in terms of planes, plenty of DB variants in the Stuka as well as at least 1 related development project and 190 variants that can be DB's as they were purpose built for ground attack (the F and G series) but no real TB development (1 biplane for low tiers, 1 stuka mod, 2 190 variants could carry them) focus on bombs, more so than USN in actually having more punch and all.

 

 

[Zhoyzu]

the damage per bomb/torp is based off squad size and number. its why american CVs hit so [edited]   hard

[clivman]

The problem right now are just the B.S. strike/fighter loadouts, which are completely unrealistic and not fun to play.