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

USN Carriers aren't the problem

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,106
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,673 posts
19,267 battles

You know which carriers ARE the problem? IJN carriers. They outclass USN counterparts at every tier. At one time, the last three USN carriers were competitive with their IJN counterparts, but WG couldn't have that and nerfed them all into the ground.

 

Now, for the Essex vs. Taiho, for example, the max number of squads an Essex can have in the air is five. A Taiho can have at least SEVEN. Seven squads in the air at once.

 

The most fighters an Essex can have in the air is three, and two dive bombers, which are useless. It doesn't matter if Japanese fighters are weaker than their USN counterparts because so long as the IJN CV has enough fighters to tie up the USN carriers fighters, their bombers have free reign of the skies and can strike with little to worry about in terms of interception.

 

Enough is enough, WG. Either buff USN carriers to be competitive with their IJN counterparts at all tiers or nerf IJN carriers down to USN carrier levels.

Edited by Zaydin
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[SCCC]
Members
715 posts
22,085 battles

You know which carriers ARE the problem? IJN carriers. They outclass USN counterparts at every tier. At one time, the last three USN carriers were competitive with their IJN counterparts, but WG couldn't have that and nerfed them all into the ground.

 

Now, for the Essex vs. Taiho, for example, the max number of squads an Essex can have in the air is five. A Taiho can have at least SEVEN. Seven squads in the air at once.

 

The most fighters an Essex can have in the air is three, and two dive bombers, which are useless. It doesn't matter if Japanese fighters are weaker than their USN counterparts because so long as the IJN CV has enough fighters to tie up the USN carriers fighters, their bombers have free reign of the skies and can strike with little to worry about in terms of interception.

 

Enough is enough, WG. Either buff USN carriers to be competitive with their IJN counterparts at all tiers or nerf IJN carriers down to USN carrier levels.

 

  .....

 

That's why we said that the USN CVs are the problem, they suck going against their counterparts.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

You know which carriers ARE the problem? IJN carriers.

 

... *snip*...

 

Either buff USN carriers to be competitive with their IJN counterparts at all tiers or nerf IJN carriers down to USN carrier levels.

 

So, in summary, either make USN carriers a problem also, or nerf IJN carriers to be less of a problem. Why, the choice should be obvious by your own logic, but somehow I suspect you hope for a USN buff more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,106
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,673 posts
19,267 battles

 

So, in summary, either make USN carriers a problem also, or nerf IJN carriers to be less of a problem. Why, the choice should be obvious by your own logic, but somehow I suspect you hope for a USN buff more than anything else.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a modest buff for US carriers and a modest nerf for IJN carriers so that they are competitive with each other without making them utter terrors to every other ship type.

 

Though part of that last part tended to come from people who would wander off alone adn get singled out by the carrier as an easy target.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[---]
Banned
6,739 posts
10,145 battles

 

So, in summary, either make USN carriers a problem also, or nerf IJN carriers to be less of a problem. Why, the choice should be obvious by your own logic, but somehow I suspect you hope for a USN buff more than anything else.

 

Honestly why not a bit of both? knock off those damn fighters on the japanese strike loadouts (it's stupid that the hak has 2 fighters as well as 6 strike aircraft vs the midway who has 1 fighter at best and only 4 strike aircraft, three of which rely on RNG) AND make the american carriers more potent but not by an extreme ammount
Edited by Raptor_alcor
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,396
[SALVO]
Members
28,044 posts
41,542 battles

This is what happens when you have squadrons of different sizes.  If all CV's had the same number of planes per squadron, balancing CV's of different nations against each other would be VASTLY easier.  In large part, it would come down to the quality of the planes themselves, which should be fairly easy to balance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,106
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,673 posts
19,267 battles

This is what happens when you have squadrons of different sizes.  If all CV's had the same number of planes per squadron, balancing CV's of different nations against each other would be VASTLY easier.  In large part, it would come down to the quality of the planes themselves, which should be fairly easy to balance.

 

Giving US and IJN carriers the same sized squads would definitely a big step towards balancing them against each other.

 

Like I said, though, even if a Japanese carrier has fewer fighters and loses to US fighters, if they can keep the US fighters tied up long enough, their bombers have a free run at their targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,106
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,673 posts
19,267 battles

 

Honestly why not a bit of both? knock off those damn fighters on the japanese strike loadouts (it's stupid that the hak has 2 fighters as well as 6 strike aircraft vs the midway who has 1 fighter at best and only 4 strike aircraft, three of which rely on RNG) AND make the american carriers more potent but not by an extreme ammount

 

I honestly wish you had more control over what planes you had in the air rather than the arbitrary limit to pre-selected now. I would prefer that they gave you a fixed number of each plane type and that you could only have X squads in the air at once.

 

I'd feel more useful as a US CV if I could get more torpedo bombers out, given that dive bombers right now are a joke, since they drop HE bombs rather than the armor piercing bombs that they should be.

 

I mean, in THEORY a high tier US DB bomb can do 10k damage. I have never seen it do that much damage before, however.

 

And there's the RNG like you said; I'e had perfectly lined up manual drops on massive targets like an Izumo, Scharnhorst, or the German tier 10 BB (forgot it's name), and even though the BB filled the whole aiming circle, only two bombs hit their mark.

Edited by Zaydin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,829 posts
6,653 battles

 

Honestly why not a bit of both? knock off those damn fighters on the japanese strike loadouts (it's stupid that the hak has 2 fighters as well as 6 strike aircraft vs the midway who has 1 fighter at best and only 4 strike aircraft, three of which rely on RNG) AND make the american carriers more potent but not by an extreme ammount

 

This used to be the case.

 

And you know what happened when there were 4 TB and 4 DB squadrons?

Share this post


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

Though part of that last part tended to come from people who would wander off alone adn get singled out by the carrier as an easy target.

 

Wandering off alone is also known in some circles as carrying a passive potato team. IMHO the last thing it should result in is immediate and inevitable punishment in the presence of a CV if there's any chance that people will keep doing what's necessary instead of curling in a ball in the back of the map and sniping.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Though part of that last part tended to come from people who would wander off alone adn get singled out by the carrier as an easy target.

I watched as a Hak flew into my DMs AA, strike a Gearing and fly away with half its squads. With DF active. Hak simply has too many planes to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
804 posts
696 battles

Hey look its the daily post about how USN sucks. Waiting for somebody to say Russian bias...

 

Russian bias :P

Share this post


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

I watched as a Hak flew into my DMs AA, strike a Gearing and fly away with half its squads. With DF active. Hak simply has too many planes to stop.

Pre-nerf Midway was much worse, especially since CV matchmaking wasn't mirrored at the time.  Had my Amagi (C hull) nuked while a Des Moines had DF up, there was an Iowa and Montana running with me, and the Lexington on our team had a fighter squad each attached to his TBs.  Guy lost 5 of his aircraft in total and didn't even need his dive bombers to finish me off.

Share this post


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

Pre-nerf Midway was much worse, especially since CV matchmaking wasn't mirrored at the time.  Had my Amagi (C hull) nuked while a Des Moines had DF up, there was an Iowa and Montana running with me, and the Lexington on our team had a fighter squad each attached to his TBs.  Guy lost 5 of his aircraft in total and didn't even need his dive bombers to finish me off.

 

Agreed, 12 TBs is simply too much, add in the DBs and you get strike packages which rival on that of having multiple BBs firing at you lol

 

I don't think nerf/buff is going to solve the problem. They need to rework the carrier system as a whole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a modest buff for US carriers and a modest nerf for IJN carriers so that they are competitive with each other without making them utter terrors to every other ship type.

 

Though part of that last part tended to come from people who would wander off alone adn get singled out by the carrier as an easy target.

 

USN CVs are already utter terrors to other classes, as long as there's no IJN CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
7,501 battles

Just make USN equal to IJN with squad sizes and numbers and tweak plane stats from there.

Much easier to balance.

Share this post


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

Just make USN equal to IJN with squad sizes and numbers and tweak plane stats from there.

Much easier to balance.

 

Just make USN CV great again.  if everyone had equal squad size and they removed the AS captain skill it would be really nice.  also both cv's having 2/2/2 loadouts in tier 8+ would be great as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,106
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,673 posts
19,267 battles

I watched as a Hak flew into my DMs AA, strike a Gearing and fly away with half its squads. With DF active. Hak simply has too many planes to stop.

 

Well, this IS a thread about how OP IJN carriers are, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[SF-3]
Beta Testers
594 posts
8,966 battles

I watched as a Hak flew into my DMs AA, strike a Gearing and fly away with half its squads. With DF active. Hak simply has too many planes to stop.

 

I watched my divisionmate in a Taiho devastating strike a Des Moines with TBs. It's completely unjustifiable that the best AA in the game isn't enough to stop a lower-tier carrier from deleting you from the game with three clicks on a whim. Sure you can turn into one squadron, then the other 2 hit you with anvil attack. IJN CVs need a major overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
270
[BS]
Alpha Tester
586 posts
1,053 battles

You actually don't have any idea what you're talking about.

 

The only USN carriers that were ever competitive with their IJN counterpart are the old Essex and Midway with the 2 TB setups.

 

USN CVs are the problem because they're inherently unfun to play for a large part of the player base. They have inflexible load outs and are mostly dependent on RNG. Add to the fact that Wargaming keeps trying to push them into an air superiority role when any decent CV driver will tell you that damage > plane shootdowns if you want to win. Fighters are probably the worst plane type in the game; If you gave the top CV players the the option to pick their own load out, I guarantee you they would pick all TBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[CRANE]
Alpha Tester
9,505 posts
3,688 battles

 

Just make USN CV great again.  if everyone had equal squad size and they removed the AS captain skill it would be really nice.  also both cv's having 2/2/2 loadouts in tier 8+ would be great as well. 

In this plan would the Japanese still get more squadrons in the air at once?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

Wow it's almost like I have an aircraft carrier rework thread that addresses this exact issue and offers a very simple solution to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,342
[NG-NL]
Members
7,135 posts
12,563 battles

Come on WG, look into Kiyo's rework, fix that stupid Air Supremacy skill so so it's not such a problem (haven't finished my grind to it yet), and make CVs more fun to play.

 

And give US CV back their 2 TB at T7-10. And add the AP bomb option.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[CRANE]
Alpha Tester
9,505 posts
3,688 battles

Come on WG, look into Kiyo's rework, fix that stupid Air Supremacy skill so so it's not such a problem (haven't finished my grind to it yet), and make CVs more fun to play.

 

And give US CV back their 2 TB at T7-10. And add the AP bomb option.

2tb squadrons? Sure. So long as they have fewer planes per squadron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×