Kiyoshimo's Aircraft Loadout + Air-to-Air Combat Rework

[AraAragami 3,890]

 

First step, we'll look at...

 

-- Changes to USN Aircraft Loadouts --

 

USN vs IJN carriers are a big point of contention that I wanted to tackle with my own suggestions.

 

Going to immediately say that I feel like the IJN loadouts are about what one should expect and what I consider "good and useful" to the team in more than one way. And the majority of this comes down to the smaller, more numerous squadrons. I feel like the USN in particular is severely hampered by its "More planes per squadron" and "better individual planes" flavor, and so the USN carriers are where the majority of my changes are going to be.

 

All the proof I need is seen in the vast gulfs in performance between the USN carriers ("More planes per squadron" + "Better stats per plane" + "Fewer total squadrons") vs the IJN carriers ("Fewer planes per squadron" + "Lower stats per plane" + "More total squadrons").

 

All planes will need to be re-balanced due to my next paragraph, but the gist of it should be: USN aircraft are slightly weaker but more rugged while IJN aircraft are stronger but more fragile. A classic Shield vs Sword scenario. One side deals less damage but soaks more, while the other side deals more damage but takes less to bring down. Ideally whichever one wins, over enough battles, should result in a 50/50 split.

 

Biggest change I'm suggesting for USN carriers: All squadrons dropped to 4 planes

--> This allows more squadrons to be fielded, and I will be using the number of IJN squadrons in each tier as a benchmark for how many of each squadron the USN should have

--> Damage numbers and exact stats are also going to need to be tweaked, as the USN will no longer be an "all or nothing" form where they put all their damage on the shoulders of a single torpedo strike.

--> This has a basis in history, as USN and USAF squadrons actually adopted a 4-plane squadron tactic after observing the German 4-plane "Schwarm" formation and noting how much more effective it was than the 3-plane "Vic" formation used by the RAF, Soviet air force, and USAF/USN pilots at the time. The US adoption of Schwarm is now known as "Figure Four", which is already flown by Japanese squadrons in-game.

--> Compare to the current 6-plane formations used by USN carriers, which were never actually used in combat. It's basically 2 3-plane "Vic" groups jammed together and has, much like history's Vic formation, proven inferior to the Schwarm/Figure Four.

--> Decrease all USN torpedo bomber damage. Increase all USN dive bomber damage (barring tiers 8/9/10 as those are already quite high and they will have more of them with this change)

 

Tier 4: Langley -- Only gets a Balanced -- 1/1/1 (contrasting Hosho's 1/2/0) -- the same as it has now, just with 4-plane squadrons. More forgiving, however, if you lose a squadron as you'll have a couple reloads, rather than half of one.

Tier 5: Bogue -- AS/Balance hybrid and Strike -- 2/1/1 or 1/1/2 -- More versitility in its famed AS loadout, and a strike loadout where it stands a chance defending its aircraft.

Tier 6: Independence -- Balance, AS, and Strike -- 1/1/2 or 3/1/1 or 1/2/2 -- Admittedly identical to Ryuujou's loadouts. Might change that 1/2/2 to a 1/1/3 to emphasize the DB focus I'm giving early-tier USN carriers

Tier 7: Ranger -- Balance, AS, Strike -- 1/2/2 or 3/1/2 or 1/2/3 -- Emphasis on dive bombers in all options. DBs should always equal or (more ideally) surpass TBs for US carriers.

Tier 8: Lexington -- Balance, AS, Strike -- 2/1/2 or 4/1/1 or 1/2/3 -- Nearly the same as Ranger, more and stronger planes though. 6 squadrons total in non-stock options.

Tier 9: Essex -- Balance, AS, Strike -- 2/2/2 or 4/1/2 or 2/2/3 -- Strike is under-guarded but at least isn't helpless. I suspect honestly that balance will be used more, but strike has its uses and AS should give Taihou a run for its money. 7 squadrons total in non-stock options.

Tier 10: Midway -- Balance, AS, Strike -- 2/2/3 or 5/1/2 or 2/3/3 -- Pretty much the same options Hakuryu has, to be honest.

 

USN carriers should always have more dive bombers than torpedo bombers, if there is an unbalance between the two. I could even see/suggest losing bombers in AS to add more fighters. 5-1-2 Midway, anyone? Or even 6-1-1? Perhaps similar changes to IJN AS loadouts are also in order. This would have a profound effect on the success of Strike loadouts as well, as they would have a much harder time getting to ships and dropping their ordnance. Overall this will have the effect of reducing carrier damage.

 

Some might argue that this removes carrier diversity, but I feel like the current "diversity" is actively harmful to US carriers and a large part of why they're underperforming, often by significant margins compared to IJN carriers in the same tiers.

 

Next up we need to look at...

 

-- Changes to Fighters and Air Superiority --

 

Big change: Re-introduction of Fighter movement. Remove fighters being "locked" when engaged by other fighters. Instead, change the way they interact when attacked or when carrying out an attack order.

 

This gives Carriers get two options to choose from

--> Fight stationary -- Planes told to attack get a slight DPS boost. If both planes are told to attack, they fight in one place with equally boosted DPS until RNG and numbers starts bringing down aircraft.

--> Running dogfight -- One squadron forfeits their DPS boost to move at a reduced rate (Think how bombers slow down when attacked).

 

This allows allied carriers to drag unwary fighters into allied AA, or drag inattentive enemy fighters out of enemy AA. AS fights become a series of quick skirmishes rather than inescapable deathmatches.

It also allows fighters to retreat when out of ammo (no DPS, decreased movement speed) and acts as a way to punish unawares captains who don't tell their fighters to actually fight the squadron that just ambushed them.

 

ALSO makes fighter ambushes more successful, as a result.

 

the final thing I want to bring up is...

 

-- Cloud cover (Most drastic change!) -- 

 

The inclusion of clouds at high altitudes. These drift lazily across the map in the direction of the wind (we already see this in the skybox), despawning at the map edge and respawning on the other side in a randomized location and size. They are visible from the surface and largely influence aircraft, but are of limited use to surface ships.

 

Clouds...

--> Conceal fighters that fly inside them from aircraft and surface ships.

--> Torpedo and Dive Bombers are in no way concealed by cloud cover. Only fighters and catapult-launched aircraft (fighters/spotters).

--> Fighters that lurk in cloud banks can see other aircraft at a reduced range (about 70-50% of the target's usual spotting range) but will not reveal surface ships at all.

--> Any aircraft that enters a cloud bank will reveal all hostile aircraft inside it. This includes catapult planes.

--> Allows fighters to ambush other fighters and bombers, creates a threat/hazard for bombers.

--> Ships underneath clouds are concealed from all aircraft.

EDITS:

--> Movement of clouds prevents camping and, by disappearing and respawning in a new location to resume moving, also prevents them from being too abuseable or useless, as there's always the next cloud.

--> Clouds appear in 3 bands across the map-- Enemy side, center, allied side. There will always be the same number of cloud banks (give or take a minute for new ones to spawn/old ones to cycle off the map edge) in all 3 zones. Smaller maps will have fewer overall clouds, larger maps will have more.

--> Maybe a visual effect for being under clouds in a surface ship could be the rain effects currently seen in pre-battle. Make them a wandering squall or rainstorm.

 

While I do feel that bombers would realistically be concealed by clouds as well, I felt that carriers already have several advantages versus surface ships and thus do not need another one. This is purely for balance reasons and fairness. This also gives destroyers a place to go to escape fighter stalking, as planes won't see ships from clouds-- only other planes.

 

-- Torpedo Spotting --

I'm tagging a second change to this section that relates to spotting, but is unrelated to clouds: Aircraft spotting torpedoes.

This is a major point of frustration for any and all destroyer captains, but is more of an issue for the IJN as they rely most heavily on torpedoes.

In the current mechanics, torpedoes that are seen by aircraft are revealed for the remainder of their run, even when the aircraft fly out of range. This basically renders the salvo inert and wasted, and requires 0 effort on part of the carrier captain. Torpedo attacks are often rendered 100% harmless entirely by accident.

 

This will only get worse under this post's proposal, as it will result in more aircraft in the air at a time (overall), via USN having more squadrons.

 

I propose we do away with "permanent" torpedo spotting via aircraft, with a caveat: A minor programming adjustment can be made for carriers who mouse-over exposed torpedoes. Hitting F3 will make a voice announcement for their team, warning them of sighted torpedoes. This action will permanently spot them. Otherwise, the torpedoes will disappear once they leave the aircraft vision range.

 

This proposed change puts a bit more micro skill requirement on the carrier, but rewards that skill by allowing them to alert and aid their team. It also renders aircraft something other than a "Why even bother" point for destroyers, as only an attentive carrier captain will perma-spot their weapons.

 

-- Rewards --

Part of this rework's intention is to push carriers of both nations into favoring their Air Superiority loadouts, which transforms Strike into a high-risk, high-reward choice. The "High Skill" option, I suppose, as it requires the captain to outmaneuver an opposing carrier who has almost as many fighter squadrons as he has bomber squadrons, while only having a few fighters at his own disposal (Hence my 5-1-2 Midway loadout or the possibility of a 6-1-1 Midway). 

 

But this will still remain an unpopular option so long as aircraft shot down has such poor rewards.

 

Minor rework would be to create a new ribbon for aircraft shot down by aircraft, and repurpose the existing one to reflect aircraft shot down by surface AA. The current rewards (such as they are) can remain with the Surface AA ribbon, while increased credit and EXP gains can be applied to the air-to-air ribbons. Surface ships can get these, of course, but only with catapult fighters. Carriers will see them most often either via fighters or via bomber tailgunners.

 

This feels like the easiest way to reward air superiority builds and the carrier's efforts to protect his own fleet from enemy bombers. Proper incentives will create team play. The rewards for these ribbons should be balanced such that average play in a Strike carrier and average play in an AS carrier should reward about the same. And if the Clear Skies award is tied to the Air-to-Air ribbons, maybe we can reduce the stupidly high requirements to earn it.

 

-- Conclusions --

 

Overall this rebalances carriers against one another and provides a more level playing field.

This will also make surface AA easier to balance, as it no longer needs to be perfectly fine-tuned to defend against overpowering USN ruggedness/huge squads while also not rendering IJN squads 100% harmless. The stat difference between them is smaller and the identical squad size means an individual plane shot down has more impact for the surface ship.

I feel that increasing the numbers of fighters and improving AS packages will also indirectly nerf strike packages, bringing carrier damage down across the board, while the AS/fighter changes should make AS more engaging and interesting.

 

Now all that's left is de-bugging and standardizing that trashy interface...

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo

[Phoenix_jz 1,234]

Wow, I guess her rework was that powerful.

So strong it was able to delete your post

[devastator5000 195]

We wait eagerly for your post.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by devastator5000

[goldeagle1123 1,176]

Are you saying we should delete carriers? I'm down.

 

[AraAragami 3,890]

There we go. Input welcome.

[centarina 499]

I've been advocating 4 plane squadron for US   for balancing purposes.   they need to improve UI    and   give more potential hits  but reduce chance for   max alpha dmg per sortie .      one way to do that is increase arming distance or  force  tbd to go straight before launching torps like it was in real life, but you can increase the speed of torps to allow more hits.     with multiple  tbds, the good vs bad CV driver will show up even more,and be hated.  you need to make cross dropping tougher to do well  and gives players chance to dodge (which has its own cost of showing broadside).      give   xp for scouting and preventing cap. 

 

you have to reduce their overall carry potential of CVs, but still make them useful and fun.     right now, only ones that have fun is top IJN CV drivers. have to change that.

 

 

 

[Personator 750]

Shouldn't the cloud cover also prevent surface ships from seeing the planes as well?

[AraAragami 3,890]

Shouldn't the cloud cover also prevent surface ships from seeing the planes as well?

 

I address this already.

[LuckyStarFan 264]

Completely agree on the rework of USN to 4 plane squads and more squads.  This is the number one problem with balancing the current carriers.  You can;t give USN more squads because they're so big and strong, but with so many fewer squads they get tied down and outmaneuvered by IJN CV too easily.

 

Definitely make squad size and squadron numbers uniform.  Figure out national flavor through the ship's stats or slight differences in loadout.

[Jinxed_Katajainen 1,287]

It's a good start...

I'm always afraid of what will happen when other nations are introduced.. eg: British, German, Italian and more 'flavors' are put into the mix to be balanced.  3 planes?  5 planes?  Mixed?

Carriers have always been a point where balance is likely achieved by actual balance, eg: mirroring quantity and quality rather than take something and give something that we have now, the most drastic example being the Saipan with 3 plane Tier IX squads.  Captain skills like air superiority really does mess with this balance.

[Personator 750]

 

I address this already.

 

Oh now I see it. My bad

[AraAragami 3,890]

Completely agree on the rework of USN to 4 plane squads and more squads.  This is the number one problem with balancing the current carriers.  You can;t give USN more squads because they're so big and strong, but with so many fewer squads they get tied down and outmaneuvered by IJN CV too easily.

 

Definitely make squad size and squadron numbers uniform.  Figure out national flavor through the ship's stats or slight differences in loadout.

 

Yes, precisely. A USN AS build in the current setup does not have enough fighters to effectively counter an IJN strike build

 

And a USN strike build has fewer squadrons for attacking than an IJN AS build has fighters, and as a result gets completely shut down by it.

 

Strike and AS should be balanced vs one another. As it is, USN has the disadvantage literally everywhere.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo

[Lord_Zath 910]

I really like your ideas!

[HMS_TaterTots 8]

USN carriers are kinda in trash in the current patch. I just HATE the AS loadout in solo random battle but other loadouts are just hilarious compare to those on same tier IJN carries. I personally gave up playing CVs and retrained my 15 skill point captain to play BBs. The idea of fixed loadout for CVs in this game is just stupid, but I admit it's a way to get the gameplay balanced.

[AraAragami 3,890]

USN carriers are kinda in trash in the current patch. I just HATE the AS loadout in solo random battle but other loadouts are just hilarious compare to those on same tier IJN carries. I personally gave up playing CVs and retrained my 15 skill point captain to play BBs. The idea of fixed loadout for CVs in this game is just stupid, but I admit it's a way to get the gameplay balanced.

 

Fixed loadouts are fine from a balance perspective. The big problem is the disparity in squadron sizes vs number of active squadrons. This is why USN carriers are hurting so badly.

[issm 2,683]

This change does nothing at all to trim away the power CVs gain from utility. By giving USN more small squadrons, it worsens the problem.

 

Instead, CV squadrons should be 6 plane, for the purpose of movement, but IJN TB squadrons are broken into halves for the sake of bombing. (i.e. current TBs have the click and drag interface to rotate the drop one, just give IJN TBs 2 of those, one to control each half of the squadron).

 

As for fixing CV interface, changing it to left click select, right click command would solve 90% of the problem.

[AraAragami 3,890]

This change does nothing at all to trim away the power CVs gain from utility. By giving USN more small squadrons, it worsens the problem.

 

Instead, CV squadrons should be 6 plane, for the purpose of movement, but IJN TB squadrons are broken into halves for the sake of bombing. (i.e. current TBs have the click and drag interface to rotate the drop one, just give IJN TBs 2 of those, one to control each half of the squadron).

 

As for fixing CV interface, changing it to left click select, right click command would solve 90% of the problem.

 

Thank you for your opinion but it shall be discarded because you are a known, rampant CV hater. Midway's 39% winrate proves 6-plane squadrons do not work. If they did, it would be higher due to encountering other Midways as well as Hakuryus.

 

After equalizing the squadrons, AA can be more easily balanced to reduce carrier power. Making AS more fun and engaging also directly reduces a CV's offensive power vs surface ships, as AS builds are more attractive and Strike builds become harder to succeed with. Equalized squadrons can also then see more acceptable straight number nerfs to damage if the pressure from better AS options doesn't lower them enough.

 

Clouds also reduce CV scouting power by giving ships places to hide from aircraft, but I see you 100% completely ignored that part of the post because my "Anti-DD stalking" feature was inconvenient for your argument.

 

 

[issm 2,683]

Thank you for your opinion but it shall be discarded because you are a known, rampant CV hater. Midway's 39% winrate proves 6-plane squadrons do not work. If they did, it would be higher due to encountering other Midways as well as Hakuryus.

 

After equalizing the squadrons, AA can be more easily balanced to reduce carrier power. Making AS more fun and engaging also directly reduces a CV's offensive power vs surface ships, as AS builds are more attractive and Strike builds become harder to succeed with. Equalized squadrons can also then see more acceptable straight number nerfs to damage if the pressure from better AS options doesn't lower them enough.

 

Clouds also reduce CV scouting power by giving ships places to hide from aircraft, but I see you 100% completely ignored that part of the post because my "Anti-DD stalking" feature was inconvenient for your argument.

 

- Your opinion is irrelevant because I don't like your opinions. Cool.

 

"Thank you for your opinion but it shall be discarded because you are a known, rampant CV hater. Midway's 39% winrate proves 6-plane squadrons do not work. If they did, it would be higher due to encountering other Midways as well as Hakuryus."

 

Do you even think before you spew out blatantly impossible nonsense?

 

With how mirror MM works, all Midway vs Midway games will result in an average W/R in that match for the ship of 50/50 and will pull the overall average W/R up.

 

All Haku vs Haku games will result in an in match average W/R for that ship of 50/50, which will pull the average W/R for Hakuryu overall down.

 

Since Hakuryu is being played a LOT more than Midway, we should expect more Hakuryu vs Hakuryu matches than Midway vs Midway mathes.

 

As such, we should expect the Hakuryu overall average being pulled down to 50% more strongly than we see Midway's being pulled up to 50%.

 

And that is EXACTLY what we see.

 

The pattern exists in every tier except T7 (ignored because 3 CVs at the tier makes it a goddamn pain in the rear to think through) and T4. I would guess that the pattern breaks down at lower tiers because multi CV battles are more common, which causes deviation from the zero sum game that single carriers face.

 

Of course, this is pure theorycrafting on my part, and would require someone to do some math to confirm anything. On the other hand, you haven't demonstrated that you've even gone this far and thought it out, to provide a logical argument as to why your statement is true....so......

 

Either way, you have failed to demonstrate that 6 plane squadrons don't work. You've only shown that a few 6 plane squadrons are potentially the reason why USN CVs are weak against IJN CVs with many 4 plane squadrons.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

"After equalizing the squadrons"

 

How would equalizing squadrons a 6 planes e different from equalizing them at 4, for the purposes of your AA changes?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

"Clouds also reduce CV scouting power by giving ships places to hide from aircraft, but I see you 100% completely ignored that part of the post because my "Anti-DD stalking" feature was inconvenient for your argument."

 

As per your rework, clouds give ships planes to hide from fighters. Not bombers. And I've certainly used spent bombers to stalk DDs when my fighters have been occupied elsewhere. Unless that's just an oversight?

 

And while it's a step in the right direction, unless you plan on having half the map consist of clouds, there's no guarantee that the clouds will be where the destroyer needs to be. This would be another case of RNG deciding which team has the advantage, and we don't need more of that.

[Oberarzt_U511 93]

Seems pretty reasonable overall, I would say that for T5 do not include the 2/1/1 loadout because it will give the USN carriers too much damage denial while allowing them to stack DoT.

 

-snip-

 

"Clouds also reduce CV scouting power by giving ships places to hide from aircraft, but I see you 100% completely ignored that part of the post because my "Anti-DD stalking" feature was inconvenient for your argument."

 

As per your rework, clouds give ships planes to hide from fighters. Not bombers. And I've certainly used spent bombers to stalk DDs when my fighters have been occupied elsewhere. Unless that's just an oversight?

 

And while it's a step in the right direction, unless you plan on having half the map consist of clouds, there's no guarantee that the clouds will be where the destroyer needs to be. This would be another case of RNG deciding which team has the advantage, and we don't need more of that.

 

Clouds are a tricky mechanic to implement. Too small and they serve no function - fighters will just sit on the edge of the cloud and still spot DDs. Too large and they give DDs an unreasonably large area to free roam, as well as bringing another hidden disadvantage - large area denial to strike aircraft (too risky to run them into a huge cloud where fighters could be anywhere within them). 

 

 

[AraAragami 3,890]

 

Destroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 28 June 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

-- Cloud cover (Most drastic change!) -- 

 

 

 

The inclusion of clouds at high altitudes. These drift lazily across the map in the direction of the wind (we already see this in the skybox), despawning at the map edge and respawning on the other side in a randomized location and size. They are visible from the surface, but for surface ships, are little more than decorations.

 

 

 

Clouds...

 

--> Conceal fighters that fly inside them from aircraft and surface ships.

 

--> Torpedo and Dive Bombers are in no way concealed by cloud cover. Only fighters and catapult-launched aircraft (fighters/spotters).

 

--> Fighters that lurk in cloud banks can see other aircraft at a reduced range (about 70-50% of the target's usual spotting range) but will not reveal surface ships at all.

 

--> Any aircraft that enters a cloud bank will reveal all hostile aircraft inside it. This includes catapult planes.

 

--> Allows fighters to ambush other fighters and bombers, creates a threat/hazard for bombers.

 

--> Ships underneath clouds are concealed from all aircraft.

 

 

 

[issm 2,683]

 

 

I misread that then.

 

Cool.

 

That fails to bring up the other points I, and others brought up concerning clouds.

 

How do you make clouds large enough to be useful, but not so large as to practically remove CV/DD interaction?

 

How do you ensure that clouds do not give one team an advantage, by spawning them where one team;s DDs need them, but not the others? CV interaction should depend on player skill, not RNG.

 

Also, if you could address what I actually replied to:

 

You claim that:

 

"Midway's 39% winrate proves 6-plane squadrons do not work. If they did, it would be higher due to encountering other Midways as well as Hakuryus."

 

Except, you can not demonstrate this is true at all.

 

Simple math demonstrates that given the significantly higher number of people playing IJN CVs vs USN, you would EXPECT USN CV W/R to be further below 50/50 than IJN is above it.

[AraAragami 3,890]

 

I misread that then.

 

Cool.

 

That fails to bring up the other points I, and others brought up concerning clouds.

 

How do you make clouds large enough to be useful, but not so large as to practically remove CV/DD interaction?

 

How do you ensure that clouds do not give one team an advantage, by spawning them where one team;s DDs need them, but not the others? CV interaction should depend on player skill, not RNG.

 

Also, if you could address what I actually replied to:

 

You claim that:

 

"Midway's 39% winrate proves 6-plane squadrons do not work. If they did, it would be higher due to encountering other Midways as well as Hakuryus."

 

Except, you can not demonstrate this is true at all.

 

Simple math demonstrates that given the significantly higher number of people playing IJN CVs vs USN, you would EXPECT USN CV W/R to be further below 50/50 than IJN is above it.

 

RE: Clouds

Ships are concealed from aircraft under clouds. Doesn't matter if the aircraft is under clouds or not. Ship must be visible from other ships for aircraft to see them. things like spawn areas and the like will obviously have to be tested and fine-tuned. Imagine this as the aircraft flying above (or inside) the clouds and thus cannot see what is beneath them.

 

RE: Winrate

So I poorly worded it. But my point still stands. If Midway v Midway and Hakuryu v Hakuryu don't change their stats, then Midway v Hakuryu should add up to 100%. Except they don't.

which I suppose means Midway is losing to Taihous and Essexes too.

 

My point still stands that squadrons need to be equalized and bringing them down to 4 planes makes the most sense, largely because it gives them enough squadrons to actually fight each other in a balanced fashion. Strike Independence vs Strike Independence, for example, is basically a CV Truce situation because they can't attack each other. Meanwhile Strike RJ vs Strike RJ at least can meddle with each others' planes because even the IJN strike loadout has at least 1 fighter squadron.

 

Also means that AS loadouts aren't completely de-fanged and can still contribute to the match if the opposing carrier runs out of planes or is killed early, in a way other than spotting. I'm not even touching on how scouting (the secondary function of my theoretical 6-1-1 Midway) rewards the carrier with nothing in the way of credits.

 

And historically speaking (I know you hate history but bear with me, here), 4-plane squadrons were the favored operating norm for USN carrier aircraft. What is in the game now is a "double-Vic", consisting of 2 3-plane Vic squadrons. the Vic formation fell into disuse by 1939-1940 as the RAF and USAF observed the effectiveness of the German 4-plane Schwarm, and the 4-plane Finger Four was developed based on that.

 

EDIT: And once the carriers are balanced vs one another, their numbers can be appropriately lowered to bring them more in parity with the surface ships, via simple things like reducing torpedo and bomb damage, or altering plane survivability. As it is, the surface-aircraft relationship is nearly impossible to balance due to the huge differences in stats required to make 6-plane squadrons even work.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo

[issm 2,683]

 

RE: Clouds

Ships are concealed from aircraft under clouds. Doesn't matter if the aircraft is under clouds or not. Ship must be visible from other ships for aircraft to see them. things like spawn areas and the like will obviously have to be tested and fine-tuned.

 

RE: Winrate

So I poorly worded it. But my point still stands. If Midway v Midway and Hakuryu v Hakuryu don't change their stats, then Midway v Hakuryu should add up to 100%. Except they don't.

which I suppose means Midway is losing to Taihous and Essexes too.

 

My point still stands that squadrons need to be equalized and bringing them down to 4 places makes the most sense, largely because it gives them enough squadrons to actually fight each other in a balanced fashion. Strike Independence vs Strike Independence, for example, is basically a CV Truce situation because they can't attack each other. Meanwhile Strike RJ vs Strike RJ at least can meddle with each others' planes because even the IJN strike loadout has at least 1 fighter squadron.

 

Also means that AS loadouts aren't completely de-fanged and can still contribute to the match if the opposing carrier runs out of planes or is killed early, in a way other than spotting. I'm not even touching on how scouting (the secondary function of my theoretical 6-1-1 Midway) rewards the carrier with nothing in the way of credits.

 

Clouds: Still leaves the issue, unless cloud cover is fixed which I doubt you mean, how do you ensure cloud cover doesn't have one team or the other an advantage? Map changes should either be fixed, like island cover, or global, like the storms. 

 

Winrate:

 

No, you don't understand.

 

Midway's W/R is further below 50% to a greater degree than Hakuryu's is above 50% not because 6 plane squadrons are just that bad, rather, it's a function of the number of games played by each ship.

 

The average win rate for the ship as a whole is determined by the sum of all of the possible outcomes.

 

With T10 CVs, because of how rare they are, we can simplyify the problem with the reasonable, imo, assumption that all T10 CV battles are 1v1.

 

Because of that, we have 3 possible configurations. USN vs USN, USN vs IJN, and IJN vs IJN. 

 

To obtain the overall average W/R for USN, you need to sum up the results of USN vs USN and USN vs IJN. USN vs USN matches, after all, are still matches played, and must be counted. Likewise, to find overall IJN W/R, you must sum up USN vs IJN and IJN vs IJN.

 

i.e., Overall average W/R for USN= [(W/R_{USN v USN})*(#Games_{USN vs USN})+(W/R_{USN v IJN})*(#Games_{USN vs IJN}) / (total#games_USN)

Flip the subscripts for IJN overall average formula.

 

If we have USN vs USN, the win rate contribution to the USN overall average is  always 50%.

IJN vs IJN will also always provide an input of 50%.

With USN vs IJN battles, we can't be certain, however, we know it strongly favours IJN, so I'll just make up some numbers, 60% IJN wins, 40% USN wins.

 

Now, if the games where USN plays USN is exactly equal to the number of games played between USN and IJN, your assertion that the average win rate between USN and IJN should be exactly 50% is true.

 

However, this is not the case. IJN CVs are played more than USN CVs at almost a 3:2 ratio.

 

Let's illustrate my point with a simple scenario. Assuming that every single game in which USN can possibly face IJN, that happens, let's throw some numbers into that equation I gave above.

 

Yay Maths!

- (W/R_{USN v USN}) = 50%, as it always is

- (#Games_{USN vs USN}) = 0 - in our scenario, every USN match that can be paired with an IJN match, we do that, and USN runs out of matches first, meaning no USN matches remain to face each other

- (W/R_{USN v IJN}) = 40%, assumption for this example, as the real number is not available

- (#Games_{USN vs IJN}) = 664 (from 2 week stats on warships.today)

- (total#games_USN) = 664 (total games = USN vs IJN games because, as I mentioned above, we're assuming every single game USN can play against IJN, that happens)

 

The equation becomes: [(50%W/R)*(0 games)+(40%W/R)*(664 games)] / (664 games).

This results in an average overall winrate for USN of 40%.

 

Let's repeat this for IJN, using the same scenario.

 

- (W/R_{IJN v IJN}) = 50%, as it always will  

- (#Games_{IJN vs IJN}) = 165 - this is the number of IJN matches remaining after all the IJN matches paired with USN matches are removed, (331) divided by 2, as they pair off (I have no idea why there's an overall odd number of CV games at T10 Perhaps the match isn't counted if someone never loads in?)

- (W/R_{USN v IJN}) = 60%, assumption for this example, as the real number is not available

- (#Games_{USN vs IJN}) = 664 (identical to USN number)

- (total#games_IJN) = 829 (IJN vs IJN games + IJN vs USN games)

 

The equation this time becomes [(50%W/R)*(165 games)+(60%W/R)*(664 games)] / (829 games)

This results in an overall average win rate of IJN of 58%.

 

As we can see, due to the differing amount of games played, IJN has a win rate of 58%, while USN has a win rate of 40%. Simply adding these up and dividing by 2 does not  give you 50%.

 

In the actual game, with random MM, the numbers will be different, but the same effect will exist. The ship with more games played will be closer to 50% average win rate than the ship with fewer. 

 

I'm going to also correct my previous post - T4 and T7 do indeed follow this pattern.

 

While Houshou and Langley both have W/R over 50%, Langley with more games played, has a W/R closer to 50% than Houshou. (1.9% deviation from 50% for Langley, vs 4.34% for Houshou) I still suspect multi CV matches to be the reason for these numbers both being above 50%.

 

This pattern also exists at T7. Ranger is the most played, and deviates from 50% by 2.65%. Saipan is the least played, and deviates from 50% by 6.73%. Hiryuu is intermediate in matches played and has an intermediate deviation from 50% - deviating by 3.17%.

 

You have provided no valid reason why 4 plane is superior to 6 plane. IMO, restricting the utility bombers provide allows you to load more power onto them, while not making them simultaneously good at everything.

Edited June 28, 2016 by issm

[AraAragami 3,890]

You have provided no valid reason why 4 plane is superior to 6 plane. IMO, restricting the utility bombers provide allows you to load more power onto them, while not making them simultaneously good at everything.

 

And you have provided no valid reason why 6 plane is better, so we're at an impasse.

 

Honestly you want carriers to focus on utility, which they can only do with more squadrons anyway. All we have to do is load more fighters in than bombers and the ship's focus shifts. Stronger AS loadouts will result in a decline in Strike loadouts, as it becomes more difficult to field them. Overall carrier damage is reduced as a result, through a combination of attrition in AS vs Strike encounters, and the increase in AS use.

 

4 plane squadrons can more easily field an AS loadout while not being 100% worthless to the team in situations where air superiority is no longer needed. Just look at USN AS loadouts, which don't even have enough squadrons to do their job against a USN Strike package, and is a joke for any carrier that isn't Zuiho (screw you, Bogue)

 

it gives the ship more flexibility, which is supposed to be the niche of aircraft carriers. 6 plane squadrons force specialization, which runs counter to the class design and destroys a large part of the flavor they have that differentiates them from surface ships.

 

As a side note, another way to make AS more attractive is to increase the credit rewards for planes shot down by carrier aircraft. Keep the surface-AA rewards the same, and this will prompt more AS built carriers to appear as the act of protecting your fleet is actually rewarding, along with actually fun and engaging per the air-to-air adjustments proposed in the OP.

 

Clouds move to prevent camping under them by ships as well as camping in them by aircraft. The only other way to do this would be to make them disappear and reappear in other locations, but moving clouds is more believable than teleporting clouds.

 

EDIT: To summarize, then

4-Plane -- Historically accurate, easier to balance, provides more utility (which you insist these ships should be good for), more flexible (which I think should be the carrier's niche)

6 plane -- Historically inaccyrate, harder to balance, provides less utility (counter to what you want for carriers), less flexible (forces specialization, unraveling their niche)i

 

From everything you've said in your previous discussions, It seems like you actually agree with 4-plane squads and are just pushing for 6 plane just to oppose me. Or you're pushing for 6 plane squads because you know they're the worst option for the class, while willfully ignoring my "damage numbers can be lowered to balance them properly" response. Which suits your "nerf carriers or delete them" agenda.

 

So which is it? Do you want them reworked, effective, balanced, and fun for all players in the game or do you want them removed "until reworked but only if I sign off 100% on the rework (which will be never)"?

Edited June 28, 2016 by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo

[issm 2,683]

 

And you have provided no valid reason why 6 plane is better, so we're at an impasse.

 

Honestly you want carriers to focus on utility, which they can only do with more squadrons anyway. All we have to do is load more fighters in than bombers and the ship's focus shifts. Stronger AS loadouts will result in a decline in Strike loadouts, as it becomes more difficult to field them. Overall carrier damage is reduced as a result, through a combination of attrition in AS vs Strike encounters, and the increase in AS use.

 

4 plane squadrons can more easily field an AS loadout while not being 100% worthless to the team in situations where air superiority is no longer needed. Just look at USN AS loadouts, which don't even have enough squadrons to do their job against a USN Strike package, and is a joke for any carrier that isn't Zuiho (screw you, Bogue)

 

it gives the ship more flexibility, which is supposed to be the niche of aircraft carriers. 6 plane squadrons force specialization, which runs counter to the class design and destroys a large part of the flavor they have that differentiates them from surface ships.

 

I have justified why 6 plane squadrons are better - they trim off excess utility to allow CVs to focus on damage. Power needs to be trimmed from somewhere, and I don't particularly care where it's trimmed off of.

 

CVs still have the flexibility to strike throughout the map with 6 plane squadrons, and, if you read my entire post, splitting the squadrons in half for attacking only allows CVs to keep the flexibility of attacking from multiple angles - although you can't cross drop from quite as close by.

 

If you want more flexibility for fighters, go Saipan and give CVs 3 plane fighter groups, with 6 plane bombers.

 

I am not stuck on "make CVs a utility support" class. That's just your straw man of me. I'm fine with anything that works, and I'll critique any suggestions on their own merit.

Edited June 28, 2016 by issm