Anti Aircraft Power Creep.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

I just recently started grinding up CVs again after a long break, I ground to the Ryujo a long time ago and then stopped because frankly CV play was uninteresting to me. Recently I picked up the Hosho and Langley then ground up to the Independence and even at low tiers the CV play is very different. 

 

Back when I originally ground the IJN line the were a couple AA powerhouses (Cleveland, Atlanta, Yubari, Texas, NM, maybe a couple others) that needed to be avoided and a lot of ships with relatively little AA but if they grouped up their AA would make strikes costly. The biggest most recent example of the AA power creep seems to the KM BBs with a very strong long ranged AA that can brutalize squadrons that are not even close to their ships. Probably the best example is currently the Gneisenau which has a crazy amount of long range AA which upgrades extremely well with AFT and Manual AA. 

	Gneisenau		Colorado
Range (km)	Damage	Range (km)	Damage
5.2	136	4.2	58
3.5	62	3.5	161
2	92	2	133

 

All this really good AA has two effects on the game:

1. It makes CVs very difficult to use against even solo targets.
2. It devalues ships that are built around the AA escort role. 

 

CVs at least at low tiers need to target ships that are relatively alone or hunt down ships with weakened AA because they have so few reserves that a bad strike means often means you have no replacements. I think there is a good balance for long ranged AA, to make it costly for a CV to circle ships trying to line up a perfect drop but when it reaches the point where even diving in to drop and getting out ASAP is prohibitively expensive even against one single BB it really diminishes the ability of a CV to do what it was meant to do.

 

Additionally if you have a division of  Gneisenaus for example there really is little need for an AA escort except against tier 9 or maybe tier 8 aircraft because their AA together is sufficient to stop a strike from a Ryujo, Hiryu, or Independence even though the Ryujo and Hiryu use the same TBs. I division a decent amount with a couple of the remaining CV players and they are now extremely picky about what they strike because so many of the newer ships are very expensive to strike. 

 

I dont know if the AA strength continues up the KM line, I just know from experience striking from tier 4-6 that KM BBs are the last ones on my priority list as well as other people that play CVs. AA power is something that is really impossible for a CV to out play CVs just have to choose other targets or wait until AA has been destroyed enough to make an attack not prohibitively expensive. Now I remember playing back when CVs were extremely powerful and I dont want to see that return but I do think that there is a power creep with AA that makes CVs even harder and less fun to play than they already were and probably frustrates a lot of newer and less experienced CV captains. 

 

 A single BB alone should be a somewhat vulnerable target to CVs especially if the BB does not attempt to maneuver forcing the CV to reorient for a new attack. AA should make circling targets expensive for CVs if they cant quickly line up good attacks, and AA of multiple ships should be a strong repellent to air attack, but single targets should be able to CTRL+Click and basically ignore aircraft. 

[My_Other_Car_Is_A_Tank]

I'm only up to tier 5 but my Hosho was perfectly able to line up TB strikes on Konigs and only losing like 2 planes. It always seems like planes are too weak when I play my regular ships, and too durable when I play my CVs. Maybe that's just me.

[Big_Spud]

The issue stems from the fact that, originally only the USN ships were supposed to be heavy on AA. Then came the German cruisers, the Russian cruisers, and now the German battleships. Most if not all of them have flat out superior AA power when compared to what the supposed "AA" ships have. Naturally this has led to an AA power creep.

 

A Colorado may be a hard nut to crack with lower tiered CV planes, but you used to he able to just hit the guy next to him instead. Now that guy next to him is an AA spec Gneisenau or a Kutuzov. The entire team may as well he Atlantas. Good luck getting good strikes through that.

[10T0nHammer]

The entire DE BB line has incredibly powerful AA. They get the most important kind of AA, the large caliber AA. Unlike USN ships, which most of their raw AA strength lies in medium and small caliber guns, the DE BBs have most of their weight in the long range guns making flying near one basically brutal. Combine that with the secondary builds everyone is going for and you have AA pickets that are reaching out 7km easy.

[Terrible_Turtle]

Agreed. The AA flavor of US cruisers and battleships is being watered down by all the AA buffs. 

[Wo_9]

AA should def be nerfed on non-usn ship's 

 

i dare say USN should only have def fire as well(carrier's being the obvious exception) . 

 

 

[PTX_007_03C]

Oh boy you have no idea, wait until you see a Bismarck.

 

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

AA should def be nerfed on non-usn ship's 

 

i dare say USN should only have def fire as well(carrier's being the obvious exception) . 

 

I dont think I would go that far, there is likely room for a slightly improved version like the KM sonar or VMF radar. However just in terms of normal AA even without panic there needs to be some changes made, instead of a few strong AA ships now CV players hunt down the few weak AA ships it seems. 

[Shatara422]

For comparison, a historically-accurate West Virginia hull would have:

 

16x 5"/38:   121 @ 5km
40x 40mm: 159 @ 3.5km
50x 20mm  180 @ 2km

 

So twice the long-range DPS (but still less than Gneisenau, with worse range), about the same mid-range DPS, and a small boost in short-range DPS. Maryland I presume has similar barrel counts.

[BlazerSparta]

CVs should have infinite planes, and be balanced around reload time and number of squadrons.

 

AA should gain a boost proportionate to tier to make up for the infinite planes.

[Gavroche_]

CVs should have infinite planes, and be balanced around reload time and number of squadrons.

 

AA should gain a boost proportionate to tier to make up for the infinite planes.

 

I think that AA should target all squadrons in its range instead of just focusing on one. If we balance it around that, IJN stacking torpedo bombers suddenly stop being OP. E.g. A Shokaku attacks an NC, 6 planes die and two land torpedo hits, NC loses ~10k hp. Iowa vs. Taiho, 6 planes die, Taiho lands 6 torps, 30k hp. 

 

Also, nerf the AA on IJN, KMS and VMF ship. 

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

CVs should have infinite planes, and be balanced around reload time and number of squadrons.

 

AA should gain a boost proportionate to tier to make up for the infinite planes.

 

The idea I posted several times for changing CV play revolved around eliminating reserves all together, but really this thread is dealing more with the balance of AA rather than the interaction between cvs and AA. 

[Stonehammers]

CVs should have infinite planes, and be balanced around reload time and number of squadrons.

 

AA should gain a boost proportionate to tier to make up for the infinite planes.

 

What's the point of flying aircraft back then rather than just getting them killed off?

[BadlyBrowned]

 

I think that AA should target all squadrons in its range instead of just focusing on one. If we balance it around that, IJN stacking torpedo bombers suddenly stop being OP. E.g. A Shokaku attacks an NC, 6 planes die and two land torpedo hits, NC loses ~10k hp. Iowa vs. Taiho, 6 planes die, Taiho lands 6 torps, 30k hp. 

 

Also, nerf the AA on IJN, KMS and VMF ship. 

 

IJN AA has already been nerfed. It's the KM and VMF that are encroaching on the USN's supposed AA crown. 

[Aduial]

Yes, i agree. Only a few ships should have enough AA to slaughter planes, namely the USN cruisers and some of their BBs. It gets too hard for CVs to pick a target. 

[Submarine_Wahoo]

 Colorado has been due for an AA buff since the AA rework, since the majority of the Colorado's AA power was in the Bofors that were nerfed by the rework. Since the rework, Colorado's AA has been extremely weak against same-tier carriers. Carriers one tier lower don't have much reason to be concerned over Colorado AA either.

[BlazerSparta]

 

What's the point of flying aircraft back then rather than just getting them killed off?

 

Longer replacement times.

 

As it is right now, at average CV engagement ranges, the time needed to rearm a fully lost squadron is little more than the time it would have taken for the squadron to return, land, and rearm normally.

 

With infinite planes, the rearm times would be increased depending on tier.

 

At high tiers (T8+, arguably T7+) very little change would be needed, since plane reserves, for practical purposes, are already unlimited. At worst this will close the gap between the scrub Shoukaku that throws all their planes at a Des Moine and a skilled player who....doesn't. Narrower band of performance = easier to balance.

 

At the mid tiers (5/6) where CVs meet fairly powerful AA (Cleveland, Atlanta...), but currently lack the reserves, a slight increase in rearm time for lost planes, roughly an extra 2 seconds or so per plane lost should make up the difference. (so 8 seconds extra to reload a fully lost IJN squadron, vs 12 for USN, keep in mind IJN has more squadrons to lose).

 

Low tier, T4, would require the greatest change, but AA isn't that much of a thing at this point anyway. And extra 4 seconds or so per plane should be sufficient here.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

 Colorado has been due for an AA buff since the AA rework, since the majority of the Colorado's AA power was in the Bofors that were nerfed by the rework. Since the rework, Colorado's AA has been extremely weak against same-tier carriers. Carriers one tier lower don't have much reason to be concerned over Colorado AA either.

 

The Gneisenau is kind of an extreme example because it has longer AA range and more long range AA power than every other KM BB except the tier 10. But its hardly the only example just one of the most available ones. There is no denying that the AA power of ships in general has been increasing. 

 

Carriers at tier 7 have either exactly the same TBs (IJN) or only get a boost in speed (USN) over their tier 6 predecessors. 

 

[Aethon]

Yes, i agree. Only a few ships should have enough AA to slaughter planes, namely the USN cruisers and some of their BBs. It gets too hard for CVs to pick a target. 

 

I believe any ship should be able to defend itself against aircraft, if its player is willing to equip it and train the captain in such a way as to maximize its AA effectiveness, at the expense of focusing on other tasks.  Sacrificing other useful skills to orient one's ship toward a specific threat should be a thing, IMHO.

[BlazerSparta]

I believe any ship should be able to defend itself against aircraft, if its player is willing to equip it and train the captain in such a way as to maximize its AA effectiveness, at the expense of focusing on other tasks.  Sacrificing other useful skills to orient one's ship toward a specific threat should be a thing, IMHO.

 

"Sacrificing other useful skills to orient one's ship toward a specific threat should be a thing, IMHO"

 

This is not an unreasonable idea by it's nature, however, when taken into the context of the rest of CV gameplay, it absolutely is.

 

For one, building against CVs is not just a matter of grabbing one or two skills. You need to sacrifice so much potential anti surface specialisation just to counter one ship that might not even be in the game,  while that ship needs to sacrifice zero power to counter...anything else, really.

 

Just like everything else about CVs, the cost/benefit balance is completely off.

 

CVs have a massive advantage in terms of builds, with litle downsides, while to counter CVs, you take a massive penalty for very little practical benefit.

[Aetreus]

I think that this is mostly down to that the currently introduced lines generally are from nations that did have fairly sophisticated long range AA(KM), or are late/postwar(VMF, RN top tier). Having lines that are earlier in history, and from nations that put less emphasis on anti-aircraft would cut down on this. A RU BB line would for instance only get serious AA at top-tier, RM and MN lines would generally have moderate to poor AA, UK battleship line would be decent to good at the high end but generally not to the standard of the USN.

 

One thing I've frequently wished for is UI elements to show AA ranges and surviving mounts on hostile ships, and for DB's to be more capable at punching past AA fire and wrecking mounts. Maybe it'll happen some day, but IDK.

[10T0nHammer]

 

What's the point of flying aircraft back then rather than just getting them killed off?

 

The Midway takes about 32 seconds a squad to launch. Losing a squad increases the reload timer to aobut 1:30. That adds up real quick.

[pyantoryng]

 

The Midway takes about 32 seconds a squad to launch. Losing a squad increases the reload timer to aobut 1:30. That adds up real quick.

 

Is that figure with both the aircraft service increase equipment and ASE skill?

[10T0nHammer]

 

Is that figure with both the aircraft service increase equipment and ASE skill?

 

Yes it is.

[BlazerSparta]

The Midway takes about 32 seconds a squad to launch. Losing a squad increases the reload timer to aobut 1:30. That adds up real quick.

 

See, again, this isn't strictly true.

 

Yes, there is a significant increase in prep time for completely losing a squad.

 

HOWEVER, the time it takes is usually quite similar to the time it takes for a squadron to get back, land, and rearm at typical CV engagement ranges.

 

I've had many instances in Shoukaku where I send in 2 TB or DBs, completely lose one, but he other gets out mostly healthy. Typically when that happens, unless I'm attacking a target on the opposite side of an island to me, the lost squadron will be ready to go about the same time as the squadron that had to return.

 

Pre nerf, what was happening was that it was literally faster to just sacrifice a squadron instead of bringing it back, because there was effectively zero penalty for losing planes.

 

If plane reserves were increased to infinite, then the penalty for losing squadrons would need to be further increased, depending on tier.