Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Killjoy1941

Why I don't play CVs (and what would get me to do so)

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

972
[-K--]
Members
3,075 posts
6,658 battles

We've all seen the CV threads, OP, nerf, buff... it's been endless. However, I don't think an endless stream of negative feedback does anything for WG and certainly doesn't help them understand what their players want. Thus this thread. This is why I, just me and myself, don't play CVs, and what would entice me into picking them up again.

 

Interface

 

While I think everyone who's played CVs extensively has adjusted to an extent, the UI is what initially turned me away. Left-click to select, right-click to order is a pretty standard RTS convention. I don't know why this wasn't the standard here, but it resulted in failure cascades in high activity moments. Nothing was more frustrating than trying to change a squadron's orders only to have my ship begin to YOLO into the middle of the battle. The low speeds of low tier CVs somewhat mitigated this, but I did have my moments where choosing to save my ship cost me my planes. Then there's the delay between order issue and execution...

 

I'm well aware that much of this as a problem can be (and was) solved by me, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

 

Binary Choices

 

Currently the USN CVs are the benchmark for the species. If the majority of USN CVs go AS, IJN has to go AS, except Zuiho. Zuiho just suffers AS Bogues. You can do something different and even succeed, but there's obviously a superior loadout if we consider the average player. That changes at tier 7, where IJN CVs have sufficient numbers of squadrons to allow the bombers to always get through. If AS is no longer a viable way to shut down an opposing CV, players go strike. If USN goes strike, IJN eventually goes strike for lack of opposition. Again, superior players will get results with any loadout, but the choice for the average player is pretty obvious.

 

So now we have the current meta: AS at tiers 5 and 6, strike from tier 7 up. That, to me, simply doesn't look like fun. I can play any other ship type almost any way I wish. I can cap in BBs. I can fire from range in CA/CLs. I can use stand-off attacks in DDs. However, I rarely see CV drivers playing counter to the meta do well. Having one and only one "optimal" way to play generally leaves me selecting another ship every time my cursor is hovering over a CV in port.

 

The mid-high tier strike emphasis puts me off playing CV for another reason: I actually like the CV v. CV game you tend to see at low tiers, whenever you're not up against an AS Bogue, that is. Half the fun I've derived from playing my low tier CVs is in outplaying my counterpart. I don't have to shut him down, just finding ways to foil his plans while trying to execute mine is a major part of the draw.

 

 

 

So, what would get me to start bringing my CVs to the battle?

 

Spotting Damage

 

I'm not going to address the how or how much, just the concept.

 

If I can get XP for keeping opposing ships lit so my teammates can shoot at them, I'd very much try to do it. No other ship type has the recon potential of a CV, and that ability is extremely potent. More importantly, I like doing it. There's something fun about being able to shape a battle by providing intel to my team, and it doesn't hurt that fighters are the most efficient aircraft type with which to do it. That alone might help break up the tier 7+ CV meta, but more on that later. Spotting XP would work for all ship types and might actually help people play them better. That Hatsuharu spending the game repeatedly trying to torpedo that battleship in a corner may very well decide instead to cruise back and forth between the fleets and keep the enemy spotted, which is what it should be doing anyway.

 

Customization

 

This is the one I really want, but I think is also the least likely to happen. CVs have been so subject to the nerf/buff cycle I'm not at all certain the CV players would tolerate any more major changes, not that I would blame them. The idea here is this: since CVs are somewhat more restricted in what they can do compared to other classes, more variation within the class is better.

 

What then, do I specifically want? First and most important, I'd like to see the squadron and plane disparity go. No more squadron disparity and no more 4 v. 6 planes per squad. Instead, I'd like the ability to choose squadrons like consumables, but with soft caps for loadouts. Let's take tier 10 for a conceptual example. Keep in mind, this is conceptual. It's the idea that's important, not the numbers.

 

Midway:

6 Squads

5 Planes per squad

3/1/3 Soft-cap loadout

Hak:

6 Squads

5 Planes per squad

3/3/1 Soft-cap loadout

 

You get to choose your squadrons in the port screen, but if you exceed a soft cap, you're penalized one plane per squadron of that type. So you can run a 4/1/1 Midway, but you have 4 plane fighter squads and 5 plane DBs and TBs. You could run 5/1/0 or 5/0/1, but now you have 3 plane fighter squads. The idea here is to allow players the ability to tailor their ships to their preferred method of play without allowing for seriously OP configurations. If you like USN CVs and like to use TBs, you still can, but it's going to be less effective. National flavor and variation, as well as never quite knowing what you're going to face when you hit battle.

 

Synthesis

 

Now combine customization with spotting XP from damage. Theoretically, you now have an incentive to run fighters at higher tiers for XP, have an incentive to win the air war, and can still do damage with your preferred tools. Variation means you no longer know exactly how a battle will play out when you see which CV you're up against. That will get me excited to play CVs, and I'm sure the surface units would be grateful for the reduction in the intense focus they receive from mid-high tier CVs.

 

So...

 

Maybe some "I don't like/I would like" discourse instead of the usual vitriol might help WG and ourselves in turn. That's what keeps me from playing CVs, and what would get me to play them much more often. What keeps you from playing them and what would get you playing them? 

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
409 posts
5,504 battles

No. Kind of... I've actually sorta thought of some of that as well. I'm fine with the UI, but I propose a difference in the soft cap! I think that there should be a DB to TB value, because then DBs will disappear and make them OP. Same with fighters. Also, I don't think it should restrict amount of planes, you just shouldn't be able to use more than X squads. The choice for less squads is viable for low tiers because of reserves, so that should be there without altering size of squads. I think you should have set squads like this: 

Midway:

5 Squads

6 Planes per squad

3 fighter, 1 torpedo bomber, 4 dive bomber

Hakuryu:

8 Squads

4 Planes per squad

4 fighter, 3 torpedo bomber,  4 dive bomber

 

So you can alter with those limits. You cannot have more than 4 dive bombers (maybe just 3? that might give too large a DoT advantage), 3 torpedo's for Hakuryu, 1 for Midway (I would allow two, but they nerfed it so it can't have that...), 4 fighters for Hakuryu and 3 for Midway?

 

 

I don't agree with spotting damage, I think it should just be awarded like capping tick awards, you should get awards, and the longer you spot them the the more XP you get. This would encourage AS at lower tiers because it's easier, but at higher tiers everyone would still go strike. Because: at high tiers the Japanese can lock down most or all of the enemy fighters while attacking, and the planes at that tier are so fast it's hard to react in time, Radar would prevent this from giving as much spotting XP.

 

Edited by python_vs_ruby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
862
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
3,176 posts
7,789 battles

My main grippe with CV is the unit ordering mishaps: it's just too easy to give accidental orders, which causes me to fumble around with my squadrons as I try to fix my mistake while ensuring that I don't miss the point-of-no-return distance for attacking my target. Also, CV's squadrons are buggy on the mini-map: if a squadron has been destroyed and then ordered to launch, the unit icon with flash at the location it has been destroyed and then flash again at the point where it is about to spawn, which gives away the CV's position.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
409 posts
5,504 battles

My main grippe with CV is the unit ordering mishaps: it's just too easy to give accidental orders, which causes me to fumble around with my squadrons as I try to fix my mistake while ensuring that I don't miss the point-of-no-return distance for attacking my target. Also, CV's squadrons are buggy on the mini-map: if a squadron has been destroyed and then ordered to launch, the unit icon with flash at the location it has been destroyed and then flash again at the point where it is about to spawn, which gives away the CV's position.

They fixed that in 0.5.5.

And point of no return? There's no fuel, for planes. Is there? There is a max range I believe, as I have seen it on the minimap sometimes.. is that what you mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
862
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
3,176 posts
7,789 battles

They fixed that in 0.5.5.

And point of no return? There's no fuel, for planes. Is there? There is a max range I believe, as I have seen it on the minimap sometimes.. is that what you mean

 

When I say point of no return, I mean the white dotted circle that shows up when you do a manual drop: when you order the squadron to attack, they cannot break off from their attack once they pass the dotted circumference. If they fixed the mini-map bug, then I didn't notice: I still see my squadrons flashing at the spot they were destroyed on the mini-map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,703 posts
8,559 battles

 

 

What then, do I specifically want? First and most important, I'd like to see the squadron and plane disparity go. No more squadron disparity and no more 4 v. 6 planes per squad. Instead, I'd like the ability to choose squadrons like consumables, but with soft caps for loadouts. Let's take tier 10 for a conceptual example. Keep in mind, this is conceptual. It's the idea that's important, not the numbers.

 

Midway:

6 Squads

5 Planes per squad

3/1/3 Soft-cap loadout

Hak:

6 Squads

5 Planes per squad

3/3/1 Soft-cap loadout (This wouldn't change the problem with AS vs S loadouts between IJN and US.  Fighters need reduced)  Since IJN currently has the strike potention, the US needs the fighter potential, and right now they don't have it.  As long as US and IJN have same number of fighters, it will be a race to see who can dish out the most damamge, because US cannot stop is strike with same # of fighters.

 

 

The problem right now is at high tiers.  Fighters can be a problem at low tiers as well, but the disparity becomes really high once you get to 9 and 10.  Again, I'm not talking about your once a week CV login and play person, I'm talking about your legit, dedicated/skilled CV players.

 

Hak vs Midway (regardless of US loadout, Hak wins)

 

Taiho vs Essex (regardless of US loadout Taiho wins)

 

The US carriers are encouraged to play fighters, but in reality it doesn't work.  A strike midway cannot keep up with a strike Hak.  On top of that, an AS Midway cannot keep up with a Strike Hak.  See the disparity here?

 

To fix this, there needs to be many changes to come.  IJN needs to lose fighters, period.  All it takes is 1 fighter group to lock up one of mine and wastes my ammo,  Mean time he is getting by with 6 other squadrons, that my 2 other fighter groups have to catch up to, but then again he has another 2 fighter squadrons to lock up my last 2 fighters and again he still has 4 squadrons left.  It's [edited], which is why I have been working up the IJN CV line.  Again, your average player doesn't completely understand this until he gets good and faces a competent opponent.  For example; Austia and Egoist are good Hak players and I have played them both many different times, some wins, some losses.  The point being though is that these guys (like myself) know how to play their CV well, but once you take a good Midway player and a good Hak player, the odds are ALWAYS in favor of the Hak player.  The US CV honestly cannot keep up.

 

So I am definitely in favor of rebalancing this playing field.  How they do it though is going to be tricky and require much testing and feedback from active CV players.

 

As far as the UI is concerned, most of us have gotten use to it by now, but i wouldn't be against any upgrades graphically. In terms of the right click/left click stuff, I'm use to that by now, it may do more harm to current CV players than good by changing it this late in the game.  i also know that changes are in the pipe, as I remember reading about it in a thread somewhere else that they were reworking CVs (i think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
972
[-K--]
Members
3,075 posts
6,658 battles

 

 

The problem right now is at high tiers.  Fighters can be a problem at low tiers as well, but the disparity becomes really high once you get to 9 and 10.  Again, I'm not talking about your once a week CV login and play person, I'm talking about your legit, dedicated/skilled CV players.

 

Hak vs Midway (regardless of US loadout, Hak wins)

 

Taiho vs Essex (regardless of US loadout Taiho wins)

 

The US carriers are encouraged to play fighters, but in reality it doesn't work.  A strike midway cannot keep up with a strike Hak.  On top of that, an AS Midway cannot keep up with a Strike Hak.  See the disparity here?

 

To fix this, there needs to be many changes to come.  IJN needs to lose fighters, period.  All it takes is 1 fighter group to lock up one of mine and wastes my ammo,  Mean time he is getting by with 6 other squadrons, that my 2 other fighter groups have to catch up to, but then again he has another 2 fighter squadrons to lock up my last 2 fighters and again he still has 4 squadrons left.  It's [edited], which is why I have been working up the IJN CV line.  Again, your average player doesn't completely understand this until he gets good and faces a competent opponent.  For example; Austia and Egoist are good Hak players and I have played them both many different times, some wins, some losses.  The point being though is that these guys (like myself) know how to play their CV well, but once you take a good Midway player and a good Hak player, the odds are ALWAYS in favor of the Hak player.  The US CV honestly cannot keep up.

 

So I am definitely in favor of rebalancing this playing field.  How they do it though is going to be tricky and require much testing and feedback from active CV players.

 

As far as the UI is concerned, most of us have gotten use to it by now, but i wouldn't be against any upgrades graphically. In terms of the right click/left click stuff, I'm use to that by now, it may do more harm to current CV players than good by changing it this late in the game.  i also know that changes are in the pipe, as I remember reading about it in a thread somewhere else that they were reworking CVs (i think).

 

I get it, which is why I asked people to focus on the concept, not the numbers.:)

 

I put forward the things which keep me from taking my CVs out and what would get me to take them out. For me that's variation and a change of ship type focus.

 

You're an experienced CV player, so you also happen to be one of the people whose views on what you don't like and would like to see are important here. WG is only going to get so much feedback from surveys, and having a general idea of what, if anything, dedicated WoWs players want or expect from the class can only be a good thing. It might be something Niko can pass up the line, "Look, here's what players want when the OP/nerf/buff cycle doesn't poison the discussion." Or something like that.

 

If you come back to this, could you tell me, generally, what you would like to see happen with CVs and what you don't want changed? Why do you like them, and what detracts from that enjoyment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
5,082 posts
5,575 battles

I don't play CV either. Here's what it would take to persuade me:

 

1. Replace all strike loadouts on all CVs with a buffed version of the balanced loadout.

2. Introduce spotting rewards (similarly to WoT) and increase air kill rewards, especially against strike aircraft.

 

Simple as that. Currently the only thing stopping me from playing is the sensation that I have a binary choice: either a) take strike, screw over my team but win big on XP, or b) play for the team with air superiority, but receive jacksh1t for XP. Therefore I'd like to see a way for CV players, which at that point would include myself, to be able to ostensibly perform both of their primary roles and to literally not be able to neglect the protection of their team before they even load in.

 

I'd play CVs under these conditions alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[NO2BB]
Members
306 posts
4,921 battles

Like what amphibiouz said, main problem stems from the terrible game mechanics of fighters. Fighters are just simply too ineffective at what they are supposed to do. Dogfight taunt is a horribly bad mechanic, basically just renders both fighters useless especially at tier 10 where fighters run out of ammo after 1 dogfight. Fighters also do way too little DPS, it takes way too much time and ammo for you to shoot planes down which is why many players spam strafe. Strafe is just a sloppy solution for a much bigger problem. Its horribly based on rng, and really is frustrating to use and play against. 

In the same notion, the need to add options for bombers to play around fighters. Currently, if your bombers get tagged by fighters they slow down quite a bit (doesnt make sense, if i was a pilot and started getting shot at, I would haul [edited]). The only thing you can do is pray your tail gunners do something (very underwhelming perk), or that the fighters run out of ammo. There needs to be some kind of system that allows you to micromanage your planes such as changing altitude like in Navyfield, and if the player using the fighters doesnt keep up with your altitude changes, then his dps is less effective. 

 

As for customizable flight decks, that kind of falls into the arguement of national flavors, and is pretty dependent on what WG wants to do with CVs. Based on their current actions, I doubt it will ever happen unless a full CV rework is carried out. WGs current philosophy is that they want IJN to be bomber and strike heavy line, while the USN is more focused on fighters. They probably dont like how some CVs (midway and essex) are able to keep up with the IJN lines in terms of average damage, and want to widen the gap in order to seperate the two nations into very distinct personalities. Not necesarrily a bad plan, but what they fail to realize is that fighters are garbage, no fun to play, and reap no rewards. Navyfield CV meta was very fighter heavy because they provided the most important role of scouting (which any plane or ship can do in WoWS), and it was fun and rewarding to play because there were some tactics and micro involved, and you got a very decent amount of credits for shooting down planes. If people were able to pick squads, itd basically be like the CBT videos I watched. As much as bombers as possible.

 

Oh yeah, and AA in this game is just dumb in general, but thats an entirely different thread...:hiding:

Edited by _Zergling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,703 posts
8,559 battles

 

 

I get it, which is why I asked people to focus on the concept, not the numbers.:)

 

I put forward the things which keep me from taking my CVs out and what would get me to take them out. For me that's variation and a change of ship type focus.

 

You're an experienced CV player, so you also happen to be one of the people whose views on what you don't like and would like to see are important here. WG is only going to get so much feedback from surveys, and having a general idea of what, if anything, dedicated WoWs players want or expect from the class can only be a good thing. It might be something Niko can pass up the line, "Look, here's what players want when the OP/nerf/buff cycle doesn't poison the discussion." Or something like that.

 

If you come back to this, could you tell me, generally, what you would like to see happen with CVs and what you don't want changed? Why do you like them, and what detracts from that enjoyment?

 

Well, TBH, I enjoy the National flavor that WG came up with, but it needs improvements.  The most important of which, as I mentioned above is the Fighter problem and the way it works out.  Currently regardless of which fighter group has higher DPS or higher survivability or faster speed doesn't matter in most situations.  Like I previously stated, a smart IJN CV will escort his attack planes with his fighters, which leaves you 2 options.  You can attempt a strafe run, which some times works on new players, but once your against good CV players they know better than to fall for this trick and split their squads up or lock down your fighter group before he can strafe.  In order to fix this, You cannot allow IJN and US to have the same number of fighters.  Currently Hak can have 2 fighter squads with a strike setup,  US gets 3 with AS setup.  Regardless of the number of planes per squad, it is irrelivant in the function of an AS CV.  AS CV's function is to shut down enemy attack planes, not have dogfights with fighters, allowing his attack planes to get through.  Granted, there are games when AS can work, typically not when you have 2 good CV players facing off.  The only time in my experience Essex/Midway that an AS loadout works is when its Essex vs Essex or Midway vs Midway, in those circumstances it can be effective.  WG just needs to remove a fighter group from IJN if they plan to run strike (or increase fighter reload) with all of those squadrons and dish the idea that since US has more total planes its fair, because that is the wrong mindset when comparing fighters.  In summary here, with so many IJN squads, it is near impossible for 3 US fighters to cover the whole map, not mentioning if any fighter gets intercepted by their fighters.

 

Squad sizes aren't specifically a problem either, the problem mostly as mentioned previously is the fighter parity.  I wont even mention though, fighter reload times for US.  That is also something that needs to be reworked by WG to allow US to actually keep up with IJN if they choose to run AS setup.  Perhaps another option would be giving AS loadouts a bonus to reload speed.  Since they chose to go that route let them reload planes faster.  Currently if you run AS you can equip 20% survivability and 5% speed boost,  Leave that option there, but in another slot add -20% ammo reload time, so in games they actually have a chance at preventing attacks more often instead of spending so much time reloading on their CV runway.  Fighters are a big disparity right now and that is first what needs to be looked at by WG to balance out IJN vs US.  I dont think I have ever met a AS IJN CV? lol?  They don't need to run AS, it comes default.  The problem with most IJN arguments in this, is that they claim they never win dogfights with US fighters and that is often true, but they are missing the entire point of their fighters.  Good IJN players use their fighters as bait, scouts, and lockdown tools to counter other US fighters.

 

Beyond that though WG has somewhat left the "total" plane count similar, but generally IJN has better strike capability, I am ok with that, but they have to allow US players the capability and tools to counter that.  Ever since I have been playing this game I have been told that US>Fighter loads and IJN > Attack loads.  Which is generally accepted as factual.  Need I mention the reload time of the IJN attack planes is much, much shorter than US, Including fighters.  Another discussion I had opened in the past was allowing US to specialize in bombs and IJN to specialize in torpedo's, which I think WG has been trying to do and I think this is a good idea, it adds personality and mild customizational flavor for players to select what type of CV play they enjoy the most.  For me personaly, I am a bomb [edited]lol, I love my bombs and have gotten very good at them.  I am sure many IJN players say the same with their torpedo's.  Something that many people do not realize is that it is much easier to hit with IJN bombs than it is with US bombs though.  The drop circle is MUCH smaller on the IJN bombers.  With 1 bomber in my squad I can hit a target nearly everytime when playing as IJN,  the same cannot be said with US CVs.  So in summary, WG should continue this seperation of US Bombers and IJN torpedos, allowing the US bombs to be more powerful and IJN torpedo's to be more powerful, vice versa, etc.

 

I am currently up to Ryujo, on the IJN CV line.  Once I get my Hak I will be happy to more thoughtfully explain the differences and thoughts I have on the lines.

 

Have fun out there.

Edited by Amphibiouz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
117 posts
4,447 battles

You played 1.2% as CV and as soon as you said the Zuiho fails against Bogues it was obvious you never really learned how to play them. Only 6 matches in a Zuiho.

 

Granted the game can be improved but across the whole board. This game will continue to evolve, it hasn't been out all that long.

Edited by Illegal401Immigrant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
Members
16,315 posts
12,285 battles

Interface

 

While I think everyone who's played CVs extensively has adjusted to an extent, the UI is what initially turned me away. Left-click to select, right-click to order is a pretty standard RTS convention. I don't know why this wasn't the standard here, but it resulted in failure cascades in high activity moments. Nothing was more frustrating than trying to change a squadron's orders only to have my ship begin to YOLO into the middle of the battle. The low speeds of low tier CVs somewhat mitigated this, but I did have my moments where choosing to save my ship cost me my planes. Then there's the delay between order issue and execution...

 

I'm well aware that much of this as a problem can be (and was) solved by me, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

 

ziPGLgB.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
972
[-K--]
Members
3,075 posts
6,658 battles

 

 

FTFY

 

If you have nothing worth saying, then don't speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,929 posts
20,996 battles

If you have nothing worth saying, then don't speak.

 

this isn't your private fiefdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
972
[-K--]
Members
3,075 posts
6,658 battles

You played 1.2% as CV and as soon as you said the Zuiho fails against Bogues it was obvious you never really learned how to play them. Only 6 matches in a Zuiho.

 

Granted the game can be improved but across the whole board. This game will continue to evolve, it hasn't been out all that long.

 

Fail to get the point much? Go read the first paragraph in the OP again. If at that time you can't find something useful to say, please go [edited] right off.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
972
[-K--]
Members
3,075 posts
6,658 battles

this isn't your private fiefdom

 

And this topic isn't your toilet, though seeing as you treat the rest of the forum that way, what should I expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,929 posts
20,996 battles

 

And this topic isn't your toilet, though seeing as you treat the rest of the forum that way, what should I expect?

 

wjf7e34.png?1
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
354 posts
4,973 battles

I don't play CV either. Here's what it would take to persuade me:

 

1. Replace all strike loadouts on all CVs with a buffed version of the balanced loadout.

2. Introduce spotting rewards (similarly to WoT) and increase air kill rewards, especially against strike aircraft.

 

Simple as that. Currently the only thing stopping me from playing is the sensation that I have a binary choice: either a) take strike, screw over my team but win big on XP, or b) play for the team with air superiority, but receive jacksh1t for XP. Therefore I'd like to see a way for CV players, which at that point would include myself, to be able to ostensibly perform both of their primary roles and to literally not be able to neglect the protection of their team before they even load in.

 

I'd play CVs under these conditions alright.

 

You're right in that it's a binary choice, but you're incorrect in what the choices are.

 

Here's the thing with CV strike loadouts and AS loadouts- you aren't helping your team when you take an AS loadout. CVs are functionally utility vessels, but they still need to be putting out damage just the same as your surface combatants. They're the hard-counter to reverse-sniping BBs and run-away cruisers, and a three-squad of dive bombers can and will get rid of those jukey little destroyers for you. They're the center of the threat-triangle, built to prevent passive, overly defensive play. When you go AS, you cripple your ability to fill that role, in exchange for providing Air Coverage. Air coverage that can already be provided by Cruisers and American BBs. Air coverage that can be evaded- with careful and skilled play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
972
[-K--]
Members
3,075 posts
6,658 battles

 

You're right in that it's a binary choice, but you're incorrect in what the choices are.

 

Here's the thing with CV strike loadouts and AS loadouts- you aren't helping your team when you take an AS loadout. CVs are functionally utility vessels, but they still need to be putting out damage just the same as your surface combatants. They're the hard-counter to reverse-sniping BBs and run-away cruisers, and a three-squad of dive bombers can and will get rid of those jukey little destroyers for you. They're the center of the threat-triangle, built to prevent passive, overly defensive play. When you go AS, you cripple your ability to fill that role, in exchange for providing Air Coverage. Air coverage that can already be provided by Cruisers and American BBs. Air coverage that can be evaded- with careful and skilled play.

 

That's kind of the problem though, at least for me. It should not be binary, nor should a specific loadout be a "bad" choice. If Choice #1 is clearly superior to Choice #2, what reason does #1 have to exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,703 posts
8,559 battles

 

Slak i have recently realized you and yup are related lol

 

Both forum trolls

Edited by Amphibiouz

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.

×