2 carriers is 1 too many

[_Rumple_]

Title says it all.... was in a tier 10 game with a tier 9 CV and a tier 10 CV. It was horrendous; spent the entire game dodging torps and bombs and little else. It wasn't enjoyable; not even close. It's like world of tanks with 3 or 4 arty each side, but worse. WG  needs to cap the amount of CV's per game at one only and no more. Even at lower tiers, it's the same thing--spend your game watching the skies instead of actually trying to kill anyone because you're too busy wondering where the next torp bomber is coming from. I think carriers have their place in the game, but when there are two of them, it changes the entire gameplay of the match, and not for the better. Of course, this being the CV forum, I am going to get a lot of flak and remarks like get gud, dodge more etc, so have at it...

[archery713]

Well now you said it yourself, it depends what level they are. When you are in top tier games it should be one. But in the lower tier games (6 or 5 and below) 2 carriers make tactical sense and work fine. 

 

You have to think about all the games, not just the top tier. But I do agree in your case.

[Edgecase]

I agree that four high-tier CVs in the same game is too many, especially IJN because of the larger number of squadrons per CV. Every time I've been in one of those, the skies are way too crowded.

[awiggin]

2 carriers per side doesn't belong in low tier either. It's absurd to put two carriers up against ships with literally no AA. And it seems to be happening a lot lately.

Just played a tier 3-5 game in the Murm, with 2 carriers per side, what exactly are those Tier 3 ships supposed to do? Even tiers 4's aren't exactly equipped to defend against 2 carriers.

[Crucis]

 

The title is wrong.  2 CV's per team is 2 too many.

 

 

[danojaye]

In higher tiers, CV's can only go after destroyers right now. The AA on the Cruisers and Battleships just kills all their planes. In 20 games a night, there might be 2 that have a Carrier in them.

[_Rumple_]

Not complaining about the lack or abundance in gameplay; just that they need to limit it to no more than 1 CV per side. At low tier, like awiggan pointed out, almost all ships have poor AA, so 4 CV's in the game is ridiculous. Mid tier same thing except some ships can deal with it(Texas as an example). High tier with 4 CV's is just a farce.

[YankeeVictor]

From the point of view of regular ships I understand what you say. But from the point of view of CVs, there is no enough planes for so heavy AA.

If I have to face 2 DesMoines, I always thinks that there is 1 too many. I have to wait they go to other place or someone reduces one of them (Not to mention when there is a 3rd, ...or Zao, Roon)...Imagine 2 Iowas plus Montana in tándem and you have only one (ONLY one) TB squad...

Truth is, I do not think too much in such things. I have a map, and I have to figure it out where in the map I can push. Think how I can go, deliver, and (very important), return to the ship. In higher tiers, planes are precious

 

 

[Numbah18]

Not complaining about the lack or abundance in gameplay; just that they need to limit it to no more than 1 CV per side. At low tier, like awiggan pointed out, almost all ships have poor AA, so 4 CV's in the game is ridiculous. Mid tier same thing except some ships can deal with it(Texas as an example). High tier with 4 CV's is just a farce.

 

Low tier is a training tier though. It wouldn't be good to have a first time CV player run into AA that is to big of a threat especially since they can only afford to replace each of there squads once. Wouldn't Higher tier depend on the CV and what they do though? Like if they actively try to guard there fleet from the enemy CV or do they just guard themselves.

[_Rumple_]

Low tier---one CV per side only. AA is poor so they can learn and do dmg. Also, Co-op is a viable training arena for new CV players. Two CV's at low tiers leads to everyone paying attention to the skies and not to actual gunnery/torpedo. Keep in mind that others are learning at these tiers also, so forcing them to keep almost all of their attention on the skies is not a good thing either(from that perspective).

Mid tier---here is where I think that 2 CV's per side is not totally overkill, as ships at these tiers have capable AA to deal with threats from the sky while not overly having to do so, as they actually have some defense.

High tier---Here's where 2 CV's per side is just ridiculous. Everyone is scared to move from any type of high AA cover and it stagnates the game. If you're in a DD, with 4 CV's in the game, you might as well find a nice corner of the map to hide in. I know that WG wants team tactics, but not everyone is willing to go along with this idea. You don't always see CA's escorting BB's in a high air threat environment leaving BB's swamped by successive air torp/bomber runs. For DD's, it's even more painful, especially IJN DD's(Shimakaze in my case). I have an Udaloi that is somewhat decent with AA since the last patch, but you still have to be constantly aware for air attacks. Maybe what I am getting around to is that IJN DD's are woefully unable to deal with any concentrated air attacks, especially with 4 carriers in the game. Maybe they need to buff IJN DD anti-air if WG is not willing to limit the number of CV's per match? My russian DD has adequate defense, but I cannot give an opinion on the US DD's as I am only at Mahan.

 

[Numbah18]

High tier---Here's where 2 CV's per side is just ridiculous. Everyone is scared to move from any type of high AA cover and it stagnates the game.

 

I've seen high tier matches with no CV where everyone stayed at max range and sniped each other. Don't think you can use this point. I do agree with most of what your saying though.

[_Caliph_]

Title says it all.... was in a tier 10 game with a tier 9 CV and a tier 10 CV. It was horrendous; spent the entire game dodging torps and bombs and little else. It wasn't enjoyable; not even close. It's like world of tanks with 3 or 4 arty each side, but worse. WG  needs to cap the amount of CV's per game at one only and no more. Even at lower tiers, it's the same thing--spend your game watching the skies instead of actually trying to kill anyone because you're too busy wondering where the next torp bomber is coming from. I think carriers have their place in the game, but when there are two of them, it changes the entire gameplay of the match, and not for the better. Of course, this being the CV forum, I am going to get a lot of flak and remarks like get gud, dodge more etc, so have at it...

 

I can agree with that as a CV lover. I dislike 4 carriers in a match. Particularly so when it turns out to be a smaller battle.

[hlh3rd]

Yes let's limit CVs to one per team only, or better yet no CVs at all. After all we want our BB captains to feel safe and sound sitting in the back, and sniping, without having to deal with those nasty torpedo bombers. And while we're at it, we'll limit teams to only one DD or no DDs, because BB captains need their safe zones. Now that I think about it, maybe we need to get rid of cruisers as well, because how dare our fragile little BB captains have to deal with cruisers spamming HE at them. We should just structure the game so our oh so important BB captains can drive in straight predictable lines, not have to use any situational awareness, and sit way in the back with their broadsides fully exposed, sniping to their hearts content.

 

As someone who plays BBs, CAs, and DDs, and not CVs, I think having more than one CV in a game, especially the high tier games is a damn good thing. Plus I also believe if you give CV captains more flexibility in their aircraft load out, along with making all their aircraft equally effective and deadly, maybe you'll have a cure to the most annoying strategy and tactic BB players employ in a game, especially high tier ones, which is camping way in the back, hiding behind islands, and sniping at max range like cowards, which does nothing to help their team win. Nothing like high tier BB captains camping in the back, having to fight off TB bombers, really effective dive bombers, and fighters with strafing capabilities, to get them to move their butts to the front lines to get added AA protection from the cruisers on their team. If I had my way, there would be two CVs on each team in every game, in all tiers, and I would make them as effective and deadly as possible. There would be no safe zones for the cowardly and stupid BB players who are afraid of getting their ships scratched, if I ran this game.

[Numbah18]

Yes let's limit CVs to one per team only, or better yet no CVs at all. After all we want our BB captains to feel safe and sound sitting in the back, and sniping, without having to deal with those nasty torpedo bombers.

 

Played 6 matches on Ocean recently with my new ARP BB. Worst matches I've played in this game yet. We had no CV and one or two DD in each of those matches so every body on both team lemming trained to one side of the map and did nothing but fire broadside after broadside of HE at each other. They few of us who tried to dodge the enemy shells, use AP, or had very fast firing guns were the only ones left alive after 10 min.

[LeetoF]

Having 50 battles in a Hakuryu I can say that on the one side the biggest problem is that a lot of times the 2v2 CV games are of different tier CVs e.g. 10&9vs10&9 or even worse 10&8 vs 10&8. A lot of the time this happens the higher tier CV captain goes seal clubbing (I do it myself sometimes if the enemy is AS) against the lower tier CV planes and usually renders the lower tier CV useless by the 10th minute in game.

Another thing I've seen is that a lot of the time, tier 8 CVs ragequit!!! They see an enemy Midway and they go "**** MM" and just quit playing. Which leaves you having to face two CVs on your own!

On the counter argument though if you have only one CV on your team, his skill pretty much can carry the game, especially in low (where AA sucks) or top (where CV damage is huge) tiers.

[Combined_Fleet_HQ]

Alright well I'm gonna disagree with you on this. I believe 2 CVs is just fine (memories of OBT come sailing back...).

 

So lets talk about low tier. Ships with no AA? That may be the case but low tier CVs, believe or not, do not carry that many planes. At IV or V they can fully resupply ~2 squadrons for US and ~4 for IJN. That's not a lot when you consider a squadron per use. Plus this not only trains CV players and weeds out those who can't adjust, it also teaches the team the importance of group up and not lone wolfing; which will carry with them as they advance to the higher tiers. It necessitates the team to split evenly for map coverage and play their roles. It also places a limiter on DDs (another class which gets rants filled with salt), blocking off areas to access to avoid being spotted by planes

 

At VI and VII your ships now have somewhat decent stock AA that, with skills and modules, can be upgraded to hold your own. The Colorado, Nagato, Cleveland, Atlanta, Budyonny, Myoko are some ships that can mitigate dmg by shooting down planes. Cluster them with other escorts and BBs and a CV will have to sacrifice planes in order to deal dmg.

 

VIII-X is a "sweet spot." CVs now have a sizable reserve of planes to draw from and can field more squadrons at once. Likewise, many ships at this tier have some level of AA that can be bolstered to be a threat. The NC, Iowa, Monty, Moskva, Hindenburg, Yamato, Kutuzov, Des Moines can achieve an AA rating of 100. Even ships that can't like the Amagi, Roon, Hipper, Mogami, Atago, Chapayev can also be outfitted with sufficient AA to shoot down a fair number of planes. Lets not forget CAs have def AA so couple that with fact that your sailing as a group and it makes things difficult for a CV. For instance, a few months back (prior to the AA buff) I was in a match with my Amagi. The legendary iChase appeared in his Midway. Just from the fact that we knew who he was, when our team split our ships were no farther than a few km from each other. iChase couldn't get a single drop unless he sacrificed fighters to provide cover for his TBs. We didnt even have a single US BB with us, just some IJN and KM ships

 

Many ships received noticeable AA buffs or an extra hull dedicated to AA (i.e. Hipper and Amagi). Torpedo dmg was nerfed and torpedo protection % buffed. The CV meta is dying and you want gut it out by limiting it to one CV a piece? There are so few nowadays anyway, seeing a 2v2 CV setup is now a spectacle. I'm sorry but this OP is lunacy. CVs need to stop being nerfed and or limited in what they're allowed to do. Too many torps you say? What the hell are you doing then?

[FirestormMk3]

Title says it all.... was in a tier 10 game with a tier 9 CV and a tier 10 CV. It was horrendous; spent the entire game dodging torps and bombs and little else. It wasn't enjoyable; not even close. It's like world of tanks with 3 or 4 arty each side, but worse. WG  needs to cap the amount of CV's per game at one only and no more. Even at lower tiers, it's the same thing--spend your game watching the skies instead of actually trying to kill anyone because you're too busy wondering where the next torp bomber is coming from. I think carriers have their place in the game, but when there are two of them, it changes the entire gameplay of the match, and not for the better. Of course, this being the CV forum, I am going to get a lot of flak and remarks like get gud, dodge more etc, so have at it...

 

 

The title is wrong.  2 CV's per team is 2 too many.

 

 

 

There is a push by a vocal minority to nerf indirect combat into oblivion.  We saw it with artillery in WoT and I think CVs will over the course of the next year go the same way.  CVs are certainly not unplayable, but I doubt there will be anything to counter the huge AA buff, and I would not be surprised to see CVs get a further nerf in the future until they are just RNG dependent ships lucky to score a couple hits per battle.  That way die-hard CV players still technically have the ships to play, but they are so ineffective that only the most die-hard anti-indirect combat people will continue to complain.  They will of course continue to do so because just like in WoT their stated goal is to get the class if not removed from the game so weak that no one will play it and if they do they'll be unable to affect the battle.  Unless WG takes a solid stance that they're complaints will be ignored it will continue, and unfortunately if WoT is a guideline they'll just continue to give into them. 

[Hopelesshobo]

I feel that as a member of the aircraft carrier community, I should officially apologize to the OP.

 

I am sorry your BB was turned into an SS.

I am sorry that you do not understand how AA works, and how multiple ships can cover each other, which can quite easily render an attack from a CV virtually laughable (especially when you factor in the frequency of attacks).

I am sorry that you do not understand that certain nations have weak AA guns, but have strengths elsewhere, which makes the ship balanced.

[Skyfaller]

I agree with OP. The moment I see 2 CVs per side I know the game is over because nobody is able to play until the cvs are done shooting their planes down...or if both are pure strike then it just becomes an idiotic 10 minutes of waiting for your turn to be torped by planes you cannot avoid if you aren't a massive AA platform (aka USN).

 

When in my destroyer if I see 2 cvs I just sail far from my team, far from the red ships and wait and see what the carriers end up doing because nobody can play until they're done.

 

Its outright STUPID design and its sad WG refuses to address this problem.

 

The problem is that there are too many squadrons per CV and the torpedoes being dropped at point blank range makes it impossible to dodge...and before anyone claims 'turn into them' the fact is any CV player that is a step above incompetent learns to drop torps so they activate just an instant before hitting the hull... because that is the range that no ship has a chance of evading or avoiding getting hit.

 

Carriers should not have manually controlled aircraft. Simple as that. The player should plot a flight path and an attack target and launch the airplanes... no different than a destroyer firing 20km torpedoes. Fighters would be assigned patrol flight paths and CAP orders on friendly ships, etc.

[Wowzery]

I don't know, its fun being the Texas when there are 2 CVs a team.  I watch the enemy squadrons keep their distance from me, even if I'm the lone wolf.  I've shredded squadrons in that ship and never knew they were there, only that suddenly I was getting the ribbon for downing planes.

Ah, such fun!

[Carrier_Junyo]

4 CVs in a game is just fine. Makes it fun and challenging for everyone, especially the CV players. Leave as is and learn to deal with it. Dont go solo, stick close to AA and i guarantee u the planes wont come even ckose to you. Leave the AA bubble and its your own fault. 

[sartt]

Title says it all.... was in a tier 10 game with a tier 9 CV and a tier 10 CV. It was horrendous; spent the entire game dodging torps and bombs and little else. It wasn't enjoyable; not even close. It's like world of tanks with 3 or 4 arty each side, but worse. WG  needs to cap the amount of CV's per game at one only and no more. Even at lower tiers, it's the same thing--spend your game watching the skies instead of actually trying to kill anyone because you're too busy wondering where the next torp bomber is coming from. I think carriers have their place in the game, but when there are two of them, it changes the entire gameplay of the match, and not for the better. Of course, this being the CV forum, I am going to get a lot of flak and remarks like get gud, dodge more etc, so have at it...

 

I dont think this game is for you... lol

[Carrier_Lexington]

Title says it all.... was in a tier 10 game with a tier 9 CV and a tier 10 CV. It was horrendous; spent the entire game dodging torps and bombs and little else. It wasn't enjoyable; not even close. It's like world of tanks with 3 or 4 arty each side, but worse. WG  needs to cap the amount of CV's per game at one only and no more. Even at lower tiers, it's the same thing--spend your game watching the skies instead of actually trying to kill anyone because you're too busy wondering where the next torp bomber is coming from. I think carriers have their place in the game, but when there are two of them, it changes the entire gameplay of the match, and not for the better. Of course, this being the CV forum, I am going to get a lot of flak and remarks like get gud, dodge more etc, so have at it...

 

What were you playing? CVs need an overhaul in general. USN Strike badly needs a buff to fighter protection and air combat, USN CAP needs to be re-thought because it still loses to IJN CAP, and USN Stock need more squadrons in general. Carriers work by flushing out cowardly BBs and nailing a cruiser or two who's sailing too close or too straight. They aren't gods like you claim. Instead, work as a team.

Carriers should not have manually controlled aircraft. Simple as that. The player should plot a flight path and an attack target and launch the airplanes... no different than a destroyer firing 20km torpedoes. Fighters would be assigned patrol flight paths and CAP orders on friendly ships, etc.

Carriers should have a gameplay that requires no skill and is completely unrewarding to them while everyone else gets easy-mode dodging torpedoes and DBs.. Oh, and DDs should have an invisibility consumable and a torpedo-reload, and BBs should have an invulnerability consumable, and Cruisers should get an extra damage consumable. Who cares about balance? Let's just make the game so that everyone can be a superstar, but only you, and everyone else gets hard mode.

 

Try playing a carrier. It isn't easy mode like you think it is.

 

And try teamwork. Teamwork negates the effectiveness of CVs. Hanging around a New Orleans or Des Moines will ruin the enemy's ability to ruin your game. Sailing off on your own, particularly in a BB or CL/CA, is just inviting attack.

[aethervox]

I'm surprised by all this negativity about CVs.

I have three of them (one elite & two grinders).

CVs are a challenge to play.

I advise all players to have, at least, one (to learn to play that class).

[thelegionnaire1]

only allowing 1 cv in a game at a time would be a deathblow not just because CV are much weaker that people think. but also because the CV is self defeating. the fact that CV have a defensive loadout causes this.  all it takes is one captain  to say screw it pick the fighters load it and they have instantly shut down any CV that has picked strike.