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

When did American CVs go so wrong? Timeline!

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,304 posts
11,472 battles

 5.5, not 5.3 killed U.S. CVs

This is mostly my personal thoughts on this matter, I have little evidence to back it up, but that unsurprising on the WoWs forums.

 

When did U.S. CVs go so wrong? They are terrible now. Midway's winrate is barely 46.0% on the NA server, Essex is doing not much better at 46.2%.

 

Where better to start our search than 0.5.3, the biggest U.S. CV nerf ever.

Midway lost her 1/2/2 loadout for a choice of 2/1/2 or 1/1/3, in return, her DBs got a 30% increase in damage (doesn't sound like much, but is pretty massive)

AA was significantly buffed, with DP guns becoming the main DPS. This improved the AA of a formation and made large groups of ships impervious to CV.

Midway also lost her jets, which were basically immune to interception and zipped around at light speed.

Any one of these three nerfs would've been massive, in conjunction, they were almost too much. Not quite, however. Maybe player quit the U.S. CV line because of this patch, but the ones who didn't learned and adapted. They used the DBs to their fullest potential and best effect - CV sniping. Like Midway, the U.S. DBs would absolutely burn down any CV that was caught.

 

5.4

Focus fire does 20% more damage to Aircraft

 

5.5

Here's where I think U.S. CVs went from "difficult to play" to inferior in every appreciable aspect to IJN CVs. They added defensive AA to CVs. Now, it's no longer possible to even try to snipe the enemy CV. Before, there was a debate on the expenditure of resources in a CV snipe, now, it's just impossible.

Without the threat of the snipe, CVs could freely use fighters to interdict enemy strikes. This meant that fighter became much more important, a change which favored the IJN CVs, with their balanced loadouts. No longer was a pure strike package the way to go, the strength of the U.S. 1000lb bombs became insignificant under the strafe of a fighter.

Also, panic drop size was increased, no longer possible to expect damage through defensive AA.

Some might say that 5.3 was the death of U.S. CVs, but I disagree, I think this change did them in.

 

5.6

AA buffs across the board. By now the U.S. horse has already been beaten to death, this change is insignificant.

"I am very quiet. Let the months and the years come, they can take nothing more from me, they can take nothing more. I am so alone, and so without hope that I can confront them without fear." -U.S. CVs

 

Edited by Gavorche
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,242
[NDA]
Beta Testers
5,251 posts
8,893 battles

because USN CV's were unjustly nerfed because of all the crying about them when they were insistent on going alone with no AA upgrades.   

 

USN CV's are so precious to me and i will never stop playing them and i will never stop defending them. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,693
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,885 posts
21,765 battles

man the USN ships always seem to get the short end of the stick.....

 

well the game is made in Russia and they're still salty about the cold war sooooo........:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[DOW]
Beta Testers
1,316 posts
18,814 battles

Historicity

:sceptic:

Edited by From_an_1nfidel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,615
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
6,121 posts
27,983 battles

I tend to think of this as the downswing of the nerf-buff pendulum for USN CVs.

 

My understanding is that the reason high tier USN carriers lost their double torpedo loadouts is because they were unbalanceable -- it was just too much unavoidable damage. Removing the torp dunk from the game opened up a balance space where air and anti-air could potentially find an equilibrium. So USN CVs lost the second torpedo bomber squadron, and some of the damage was transferred to the dive bombers starting at Tier 8. For reasons still unfathomable to me, though, 5.3 was also the patch that got rid of Lexington's 2/1/1.

 

CV sniping predated 5.3. However, I do agree that the forced extreme loadouts on USN CVs contributed (and perhaps increased) the prevalence of CV sniping -- given their literal zero-fighter setups, USN strike loadouts had no other way to protect their bombers.

 

In any case, I find it hard to believe that the developers are unaware that USN CVs are broken at this time. The reintroduction of Ranked Battles will make this even more obvious, as Tiers 6 and 7 are the most favorable ones for IJN CVs.

 

The reason I believe we will see a swing toward the buffing part of the cycle is that the key pieces are now in place. The removal of double-6 torpedo squadrons opened up a balance space in the first place. The increase in AA across all ships has also created a relative normalization of AA levels -- ships now have more similar AA levels than they did prior to 5.3. IJN carriers are getting closer to balance as a consequence, although rough spots remain. I suspect the next steps will be a CV mechanics revision, and a major overhaul on the USN CV lines, although I have no idea when these will occur, or in which order.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[WG]
[WG]
Administrator, In AlfaTesters
1,119 posts
24,125 battles

I think it's funny that Wargaming would remove the double tb squad from USN CVs (12 torpedo bombers total) because it's too strong but leave it intact on Taiho and Hakuryu; 3 squads of 4 each with converging cones, again 12 torpedo bombers total, and the loadout still gets a maximum of 10 fighters and dive bombers (15 DBs in the case of Haku) to ensure fires after your devastating torpedo drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[TO07]
Members
88 posts
9,935 battles

I tried playing my fully upgraded Essex the other day and just saw my planes drop from AA fire and haven't played it since.  I used to like the CV play, but not anymore. I have the XP for the Midway, but see no reason to upgrade because there does not seem to be a real benefit to it.  So for now, I have started the IJN CV line and we shall see how that goes.

Share this post


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

I tried playing my fully upgraded Essex the other day and just saw my planes drop from AA fire and haven't played it since.  I used to like the CV play, but not anymore. I have the XP for the Midway, but see no reason to upgrade because there does not seem to be a real benefit to it.  So for now, I have started the IJN CV line and we shall see how that goes.

 

Yeah it's pretty bad.  I actually fear the Montana's worse than the baltimores now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,304 battles

Where did they go wrong? When WG thought that the USN would be better off relying on RNG instead of skill...

 

Lets look at stats shall we!

Midway 10 CV   963 43.72% 81,389 1,443 1.1 27.1 74%
Hakuryu 10 CV   1,174 48.81% 92,820 1,763 1.5 24.8 78%
Essex 9 CV   4,400 44.68% 65,006 1,232 1.0 20.0 73%
Taiho 9 CV   2,911 55.10% 79,574 1,567 1.4 20.1 82%
Lexington 8 CV   11,538 47.94% 48,891 1,105 0.8 12.8 70%
Shokaku 8 CV   5,888 51.68% 51,928 1,230 0.9 17.5 76%

 

 

You can see that relying on RNG instead of skill (DB vs TB), you really cannot affect the outcome of a game since you have do direct input when its really needed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,344 posts
3,206 battles

And then WG changed DBs to be skill dependent (instead of RNG), and USN CVs made their glorious return to relevance! Oh wait, right, that hasn't happened yet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[TOG]
Members
4,758 posts
34,564 battles

I tried playing my fully upgraded Essex the other day and just saw my planes drop from AA fire and haven't played it since.  I used to like the CV play, but not anymore. I have the XP for the Midway, but see no reason to upgrade because there does not seem to be a real benefit to it.  So for now, I have started the IJN CV line and we shall see how that goes.

 

Yeah after I saw that happen a few many times, I changed tactics. Try to kill/cripple dd's on the capture points in the opening phase, Kill any ship that is alone in the middle phase. Kill any ship try for a cap in the end game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[TO07]
Members
88 posts
9,935 battles

 

Yeah after I saw that happen a few many times, I changed tactics. Try to kill/cripple dd's on the capture points in the opening phase, Kill any ship that is alone in the middle phase. Kill any ship try for a cap in the end game.

 

I guess that's what the USN cv is regulated to now, DD control.  I don't mind hunting them down, but it is nice to get the bigger ship kill also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

At this point, I feel like WG is trying to compensate for the IJN's greater flexibility with lower durability, but the AA RNG means that's not as effective in practice as it could be.  I think the AA system as a whole needs a rework so it's damage-based with a RNG component that might result in a plane getting shot down before its HP is depleted (with the RNG skewed in the USN's favor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[NLIST]
Members
618 posts
8,201 battles

 

I guess that's what the USN cv is regulated to now, DD control.  I don't mind hunting them down, but it is nice to get the bigger ship kill also.

 

DD control? The USN CV's can't even do that with dive bombers missing.... what? 75% of the time!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,615
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
6,121 posts
27,983 battles

DD control? The USN CV's can't even do that with dive bombers missing.... what? 75% of the time!?

 

My bombers hit 100% of the time.

Mostly water, though.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
5,818 battles

I used to love my Midway. She was feared. A year later she's a husk of her former self... Quite pointless, and I don't recommend anybody invest their time and effort into her until she gets a MAJOR fix. Little tweaks won't do it. The most hilarious fact actually is that even in her prime a year or so ago, I quit playing her because even then the IJN CVs were better. I stepped away to hopefully let things straighten out between the power level differences of the 2 nations' CVs, before I would come back. Now I'm back and things have gotten exponentially worse instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[DOW]
Beta Testers
1,316 posts
18,814 battles

It's all about Russian mediums, CV way down the priority list now and US CVs are even further from view...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[BTH]
Members
180 posts
9,598 battles

See, here was the key kicker to me:

 

1. Extra torp bomber squadron deep sixed. Extra DB squadron added instead.

2. Dive bomber damage increased. Defensive fire debuff to dive bombers decreased.

 

All right, seems like a decent tradeoff, but then...!

 

3. Fire chance for DBs nerfed, and nerfed hard.

4. Defensive fire debuff increased pretty much back to original values.

 

And increasing the damage of DBs by 30 percent didn't matter all that much in the long run, because even with manual aim you're never going to get all 6 bombs to hit, and they will NEVER, EVER EVER get anywhere near that 10k full damage. Almost every time I drop bombs and they hit, they do about 3k damage per hit, tops.

 

So basically, we lost the buffs that were supposed to help compensate for the loss of the TB squadron, and then even more nerfs hit. Oh and in the meantime, IJN CVs still basically get a full strike loadout in addition to two fighter squadrons, so a good IJN CV captain can shut down a USN strike captain any time he wants.

 

Granted, I do really well in my Lexington compared to the global stats, but relying on RNGesus for damage and then not even getting decent payoff from said damage is asinine.

 

Even battleships have it easier, because if RNG favors them they can one shot an enemy ship, and even if it doesn't they have to wait 30 seconds tops before they try again. Meanwhile, USN CVs have to drag their planes all the way back to the carrier (which has to sit practically at the back of the map to avoid getting spotted), wait for a minute while their squadrons land, reload, and then take off again, and THEN try to get back in strike position, all while having to avoid IJN fighters and praying that they can get past cruisers' defensive fire.

 

In the meantime, IJN CVs get way more torp bombers, which can wreck pretty easily with a little skill, and they can rearm way faster even if their squadrons are destroyed completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
922 posts
5,325 battles

USN CVs got shafted by WG's version of "national flavor" when the IJN CVs were introduced. A long, long time ago, USN CVs used to have a loadouts of 2/2/0. Now they have 1/1/1 or 2/0/2, etc. Basically, any loadout that used to have at least 2 TB squadrons with 1 or more fighter squadrons were kicked in the nuts by removing 1 TB squad. Then air-dropped torpedo speeds were slowed down and the arming distance was increased. Why? Because people have no idea WASD exists.

Edited by SG_ONeill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
63
[ANK-S]
Beta Testers
241 posts
4,380 battles

USN CVs got shafted by WG's version of "national flavor" when the IJN CVs were introduced. A long, long time ago, USN CVs used to have a loadouts of 2/2/0. Now they have 1/1/1 or 2/0/2, etc. Basically, any loadout that used to have at least 2 TB squadrons were kicked in the nuts by removing 1 TB squad. Then air-dropped torpedo speeds were slowed down and the arming distance was increased. Why? Because people have no idea WASD exists.

I'm right their with ya bud, look at my signature, I remover when the crap"national flavor" system was introduced, I remember back when the Lexington had a 2/2/0, when every USN CV had 2 TB's, and the funny thing is, that until the onslaught of newbies that arrived in mid CBT from the beta weekend sneak in, nobody complained that USN CV's had 2TB's, but when the boonies cried WG listened to all them, and removed 2 TB from basically all US carriers, (while introducing the IJN line which had as an option on every carrier to just take no fighters at all and replace it with an extra TB squad , like I remember the hoshos  0/3/0, the ryujos 0/3/2 hiryu 0/3/3, and the Hakus 0/4/4 which was terrifying if u where in a BB, as for the U.S, they where not done,they took the indi at T5 and put it at T7, and removed the Saipan (which was T7) entirely, and for the longest time USN CV's only had 2 TB at high tiers, which was perfectly fine, but then the #of people with midways began to stack up, and the occurance of a devastating 2 TB strike on a BB went up, coupled with the fact that at T10 USN CV players where deadly accurate with their TB's, and BB's began to cry, so WG decided to make CV's a support class, rather than the Hunter Killer style it was, they decided to turn them into a class designed to deal damage with fires and flooding, instead of outright alpha strike power, which I think is what has killed CV's, back when CV's could alpha strike a BB who was being an idiot, it was way more fun to play, and now they can only set it on fire and flood it, which isn't nearly as fun as alpha striking, and so people lost interest because the fun factor of CV's (the obliteration of an enemy with an alpha strike) was removed, and so interest in CV's died down, and it's so much so now that at Higher Tiers, most BB's take all secondary builds, as AA isn't as much of a necessity, because their are no CV's to be worried about, what WG should do IMO is institute A "Formations" system where aircraft can be set to fly in different formations, you could have the wedge (what we have now) which would offer the fastest launch time, and protection from enemy fighters, but is the hardest to land the highest number of hits with, you could have the "Anvil" formation, 2 groups of 3 planes (that operate and are marked as 1 squadron, but can be controlled as if they where 2) while this formation would be able to conduct anvil attacks and land more successive hits, it would be more vulnerable to enemy AA and fighters because of less mutual protection (and by more vulnerable I mean that enemy fighters will do like 20% more damage), their would be the "Arrow" formation, which can get in, and drop Torps quickly, and get out of AA fire quickly, but all the Torps go in random directions towards the target (an this is within a area size similar to the wedge drop, the difference is that the Torps don't form a evenly spaced wall, but a randomly spaced barrage of Torps heading different directions) While this form gate tees higher plane survivabilty because it's not exposed to AA as long, it's sacrifices sone accuracy in te drop a fourth formation could be the "V" formation, where the Torps are dropped in a cross formations where they head inwards towards a point like how IJN TB's ATM, the possibility a are endless, but you understand what I mean, you could change the formation to change the drop pattern and increase or decrease the chance of getting hits, but you would sacrifice or buff some other attributes to get it. for USN carriers, USN TB squads should get the A "Formations" system where aircraft can be set to fly in different formations, you could have the wedge (what we have now) which would offer the fastest launch time, and protection from enemy fighters, but is the hardest to land the highest number of hits with, you could have the "Anvil" formation, 2 groups of 3 planes (that operate and are marked as 1 squadron, but can be controlled as if they where 2) while this formation would be able to conduct anvil attacks and land more successive hits, it would be more vulnerable to enemy AA and fighters because of less mutual protection (and by more vulnerable I mean that enemy fighters will do like 20% more damage), their would be the "Arrow" formation, which can get in, and drop Torps quickly, and get out of AA fire quickly, but all the Torps go in random directions towards the target (an this is within a area size similar to the wedge drop, the difference is that the Torps don't form a evenly spaced wall, but a randomly spaced barrage of Torps heading different directions) While this form gate tees higher plane survivabilty because it's not exposed to AA as long, it's sacrifices sone accuracy in te drop a fourth formation could be the "V" formation, where the Torps are dropped in a cross formations where they head inwards towards a point like how IJN TB's ATM, the possibility a are endless, but you understand what I mean, you could change the formation to change the drop pattern and increase or decrease the chance of getting hits, but you would sacrifice or buff some other attributes to get it.

 

sorry about the text size of its buggy, I just pasted the formations section from another document I had written

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323
[KOOKS]
Alpha Tester
2,869 posts
4,864 battles

Looking back to those days when US CVs only had each other to do battle against...

 

US carriers relied much on torpedoes, and dive bombers were all but crap. Almost none bothered with either extremes because the stock loadout was good enough, until the Lexington's 2/2/0, that is.

 

Something had to be done to differ Japan from the US...and what happened led from one thing to another, the US carriers are now extremes or bust, while there is no such thing as extremes in Japanese end...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
63
[ANK-S]
Beta Testers
241 posts
4,380 battles

Looking back to those days when US CVs only had each other to do battle against...

 

US carriers relied much on torpedoes, and dive bombers were all but crap. Almost none bothered with either extremes because the stock loadout was good enough, until the Lexington's 2/2/0, that is.

 

Something had to be done to differ Japan from the US...and what happened led from one thing to another, the US carriers are now extremes or bust, while there is no such thing as extremes in Japanese end...

I agree that U.S. Carriers had to be different from the Japanese ones, I thought that the differences in squadron sizes, and the fact that while IJN planes did less damage per strike but where about 20% faster was plenty of difference, I liked how IJN was more about DPM whereas USN was about the DPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,072 posts
1,908 battles

Personally OP I think the first loadout change is what started all these problems. We got forced to USE RNG DB and to make a choice weather we wanted to be good at X or Y or meh at both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,526 posts
3,480 battles

and they still havent added the Yorktown carriers into the game as of yet makes me wonder what are they doing right about now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×