You are in charge at Wargaming...

[Goozombies]

What would you change about USN CV's? IJN? Why and what positive impact would they have on the game?

[CorradoG60]

I would fire the whole WOT dev's and replace them with the WOWS dev's

 

[saru_richard]

first give all fighters the ability to strafe warships for low to moderate damage depending on armor, give the USN CV's from tier 8 and up a second torp bomber squad for there strike loadouts while at the same time giving them a torp bomber squad for there AS loadouts and give the IJN planes a kamikaze option.

[RobertViktor68]

I would erase all code for CVs and refund all the credits and Gold spent on them

 

[Skramjet]

first give all fighters the ability to strafe warships for low to moderate damage depending on armor, give the USN CV's from tier 8 and up a second torp bomber squad for there strike loadouts while at the same time giving them a torp bomber squad for there AS loadouts and give the IJN planes a kamikaze option.

 

  ​I'm cool with this as long as fighters take significantly more AA damage when strafing ships. This would allow USN DDs with the AA consumable to shoot them down, so it wouldn't be a major issue for them. It would be a major nerf to the Soviet DDs (however, I feel this is necessary). The issue that stands is the IJN DD's. Because IJN DD's are in no need of a nerf, further reduce their detectability by air.

[paradat]

I would change the load outs to be completely flexible. Player has a number of squadrons can pick what he wants. It would create more variety and create more mystery on what the capabilities of the CV in any given battle is.

[Skramjet]

I would change the load outs to be completely flexible. Player has a number of squadrons can pick what he wants. It would create more variety and create more mystery on what the capabilities of the CV in any given battle is.

​HAHAHAHA no. Imagine either of the tier 10 CVs with a full torpedo bomber loadout.

[Sturg303]

They would all have historical stats because I prefer realistic...

[Flametz]

first give all fighters the ability to strafe warships for low to moderate damage depending on armor, give the USN CV's from tier 8 and up a second torp bomber squad for there strike loadouts while at the same time giving them a torp bomber squad for there AS loadouts and give the IJN planes a kamikaze option.

 

2 TB squadrons.

 

You wanna know why the Essex and Midway got nerfed to their current state? Because of that. Because of the ability to wipe out a Yamato in a single strike. Allowing a 12 TB strike with such a narrow spread and such a bulky/durable set of planes in tier 8 is just going to kill tier 6+ gameplay again.

[RedSeaBear]

One thing I would change...easy I would increase the Marbleheads gun range by 15%. The AFT nerf hurt but the introduction of so many ship with 16k+ gun range just makes her a floating target for any one with good aim. Heck I would buff her AA while I was at it, an average CV player can sink her easily. 

[Chobittsu]

I would buy Gaijin Entertainment, remove War Thunder's tank module, cancel ships and rebrand it as World of Warplanes.

Then I would feast on the tears of Gaijin's staff as I personally would fly/drive to each of their homes and infront of their families fire them, purchase their homes, and evict them.

[Stratego89]

I would erase all code for CVs and refund all the credits and Gold spent on them

 

 

This.

 

Followed by changing detonations to function based on skill rather than RNG.

 

Followed by dealing with the Russian Bias.

 

 

.... Followed by a check of all staff and moderation members to weed out some certain problem members that may or may not exist.

 

 

 

 

................... followed by bacon.

[paradat]

​HAHAHAHA no. Imagine either of the tier 10 CVs with a full torpedo bomber loadout.

 

That would be glorious. Particularly bad though if the other CV had some fighters.

[Skramjet]

 

That would be glorious. Particularly bad though if the other CV had some fighters.

 

I mean, the Des Moines would have fun, but for the rest of people, especially the Yamato (Montana could shoot a few down before going under) it would be misery.

[Estimated_Prophet]

One thing I would change...easy I would increase the Marbleheads gun range by 15%. The AFT nerf hurt but the introduction of so many ship with 16k+ gun range just makes her a floating target for any one with good aim. Heck I would buff her AA while I was at it, an average CV player can sink her easily. 

 

Maybe if the Marblehead driver is a dope... Air defense is not only about AA, it also has to do with maneuvering against an attack. Maybe someone with zot you while you're turning with shellfire, but that's a maybe. Not trying to maneuver against an air attack is just begging for manual drops and certain destruction.

[paradat]

 

I mean, the Des Moines would have fun, but for the rest of people, especially the Yamato (Montana could shoot a few down before going under) it would be misery.

 

Hmmm sounds like a great way to make AA relevant again.

[Zhoyzu]

all ive read is people wish to break any semblance of balance.

 

Id reduce AA to promote fleet "play"  AA is too strong for solo ships.

 

It is both a nerf and a buff to CVs. Nerf side is its really hard to attack a group of ships but those that go off alone are still easy pickings without losing all your planes to a single ship(buff).

[Zhoyzu]

 

2 TB squadrons.

 

You wanna know why the Essex and Midway got nerfed to their current state? Because of that. Because of the ability to wipe out a Yamato in a single strike. Allowing a 12 TB strike with such a narrow spread and such a bulky/durable set of planes in tier 8 is just going to kill tier 6+ gameplay again.

 

exactly, i dont see why people dont see this. Cry about how CVs are OP then propose a change to make them more OP than ever before. FULL LOLs

[RedSeaBear]

 

Maybe if the Marblehead driver is a dope... Air defense is not only about AA, it also has to do with maneuvering against an attack. Maybe someone with zot you while you're turning with shellfire, but that's a maybe. Not trying to maneuver against an air attack is just begging for manual drops and certain destruction.

 

It is possible to dodge most if not all of a CVs attack while sailing a Marblehead, I have done it before successfully. What is hard to dodge is two CVs coming after you with 4 squads of torpedo bombers and it was the second time I had the enemy cv or cvs say in chat I was their first target. Even grouping up with other ships didn't discourage their attack on me. Not saying it happens a lot, not all cv players are dumb jerks but the few times it does...well I can understand some of the hate World of Tank players have for artillery players. 

[Goozombies]

Make CV's great again. We need a Donald Trump of the Forums here.

[crzyhawk]

- fighter strafe would suppress AA.  Strafe would also be a fighter specialist skill rather than a generic VF catchall.

- bye bye multiple VT squadrons.

- bye bye 4 and 6 plane squadrons.  Squadron size would grow as captains specialized more in a certain kind of aircraft.  National Flavor would be provided by aircraft ordinance and aircraft characteristics.

- exp for killing airplanes would be increased.

- exp for spotting/scouting would be added.

- exp for killing carriers increased exponentially.

- removed defensive fire for CVs.

- add fighter-bombers.

- general AA nerfs.  Fighters should provide the primary fleet air defenses, and CV players should be rewarded for providing it.

- more captain skills for carrier captains so they can specialize with VF, VB or VT.  As you spec deeper into the tree, the more powerful your aircraft of that type become.

[Carrier_Junyo]

I would change the load outs to be completely flexible. Player has a number of squadrons can pick what he wants. It would create more variety and create more mystery on what the capabilities of the CV in any given battle is.

 

+1 What he said.

 

But, with balances and restrictions of course. The larger the squadron or air group size, the longer it takes to launch and rearm. Make perhaps large groups fly slower and make torpedo arm distamce longer to give the target ship a bit more chance to dodge some. Make small air groups launch quick, fly quick and arm distance for torps smaller si they can drop closer to target.

 

If someone wants send 30 TBs on a strike let them. They will be very vulnerable to enemy fighters.

 

If enemy CV has jo fighters, the counter is strong AA bubbles.

 

You drive a yammy and want to have fun? Want to not get nuked by 30 TBs? Then drive with a few AA escorts like they did in WW2! Carrier task groups had upwards of 50 escort ships per carrier!!!

 

A large air group SHOULD be able to vaoprize a Yamato. Why? Because thats exactly what happened to the real Yamato. It stoo zero chance. Granted it tanked a lot of damage before going down, but there was nothing it couldnhave done. 

 

Now if that yammy was escorted by a fleet, guess what, more likely than not it would have survived the US carrier strike. 

 

2 USN TB squads was overkill though and way too OP which is why they got removed. But at same time, i dont see how a Taiho or Hak triple torp strike is any different except for the wider apreads of torps. 

[Skramjet]

 

+1 What he said.

 

But, with balances and restrictions of course. The larger the squadron or air group size, the longer it takes to launch and rearm. Make perhaps large groups fly slower and make torpedo arm distamce longer to give the target ship a bit more chance to dodge some. Make small air groups launch quick, fly quick and arm distance for torps smaller si they can drop closer to target.

 

If someone wants send 30 TBs on a strike let them. They will be very vulnerable to enemy fighters.

 

If enemy CV has jo fighters, the counter is strong AA bubbles.

 

You drive a yammy and want to have fun? Want to not get nuked by 30 TBs? Then drive with a few AA escorts like they did in WW2! Carrier task groups had upwards of 50 escort ships per carrier!!!

 

A large air group SHOULD be able to vaoprize a Yamato. Why? Because thats exactly what happened to the real Yamato. It stoo zero chance. Granted it tanked a lot of damage before going down, but there was nothing it couldnhave done. 

 

Now if that yammy was escorted by a fleet, guess what, more likely than not it would have survived the US carrier strike. 

 

2 USN TB squads was overkill though and way too OP which is why they got removed. But at same time, i dont see how a Taiho or Hak triple torp strike is any different except for the wider apreads of torps. 

 

​Yammy was with a fleet. Trust me, the USN knew what it was doing when it bombed the Yamato...  

[Estimated_Prophet]

It is possible to dodge most if not all of a CVs attack while sailing a Marblehead, I have done it before successfully. What is hard to dodge is two CVs coming after you with 4 squads of torpedo bombers and it was the second time I had the enemy cv or cvs say in chat I was their first target. Even grouping up with other ships didn't discourage their attack on me. Not saying it happens a lot, not all cv players are dumb jerks but the few times it does...well I can understand some of the hate World of Tank players have for artillery players. 

 

Yeah, most of my experience is against lower-tiered CVs, so I haven't really experienced getting carrier mobbed.

 

Not the best CV driver, but certainly better than a few I've seen.

 

As far as WoT arty hate goes; that kind of helped me understand why CV are hated so much, from both sides...

 

Getting killed by ground-cancer scum is just as salt-educing as being done in by so-called sky-cancer; I recently had a game in a T2 artillery piece where I had enough one-shot kills to actually get a Reaper award... I'd imagine the drivers I whacked weren't terribly happy...

[TheBossNC]

Make USN DBs do reliable, high damage. Problem solved.