Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
1HandTiedBehindMyBack

How can WG justify the horrible choices for US carrier squadrons?

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[G-REB]
Beta Testers
358 posts
14,827 battles

So you either go strike (which has no fighters until tier 9) and are useless vs the enemy carrier planes, or you go AS and have no strike power, while the IJN get the best of both world for pretty much every tier!  What part of IJN destroying the US for stats do they not get?  Pretty much the best you can hope for if your team has a US carrier vs a IJN one above tier 5 is he is AS so he can slowly wittle down the IJN planes. 

 

What genius that giving faster planes and more squadrons to the same nation was a good idea?

 

Why are they stuck on different squadron sizes when they couldn't balance things with equal size and only 1 nation? (hint the only premuim is not doing well because of being premium!)

 

How at a year into the game have we not gotten even a hint of an attempt to balance CVs other than massive nerfs to US carriers?
 

All weekend long I got stuck on the short end of this and its not much more fun when its on your team.  (Sunday I had a tier 5 IJN kill 7 people cause WASD is hard)

 

How about you stop adding more power creep ships lines and fix the game!

Edited by BloodravenTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
Members
4,274 posts
4,649 battles

WG has said they want USN CVs to have defined roles for each loadout, and IJN is meant to be a jack of all trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[CMFRT]
Beta Testers
300 posts
7,762 battles

yeah its pretty bad. i play everything US, but rage quit the carriers.

 

Strike is pointless if you have no fighters to screen your bombers.

 

Air Superiority is pointless as you dont get paid for it, and once you win, you have no way to help the team beyond recon and the occasional fires from dive bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
726 posts
1,805 battles

Not a big CV player myself, but I always thought it would be better (or perhaps just different) if they treated loadout's more like consumables. I.E: you have a certain number of slots, corresponding to the number of squadrons you can field, and get to choose what type of planes fill those slots, but only while in port. That way you could customize your loadout to your preferences, but like the current system you would still be locked into that setup once the match starts,and not be able to change it on the fly, like I've seen some people suggest.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
326 posts
6,564 battles

So you either go strike (which has no fighters until tier 9) and are useless vs the enemy carrier planes, or you go AS and have no strike power, while the IJN get the best of both world for pretty much every tier!  What part of IJN destroying the US for stats do they not get?  Pretty much the best you can hope for if your team has a US carrier vs a IJN one above tier 5 is he is AS so he can slowly wittle down the IJN planes. 

 

What genius that giving faster planes and more squadrons to the same nation was a good idea?

 

Why are they stuck on different squadron sizes when they couldn't balance things with equal size and only 1 nation? (hint the only premuim is not doing well because of being premium!)

 

How at a year into the game have we not gotten even a hint of an attempt to balance CVs other than massive nerfs to US carriers?

 

All weekend long I got stuck on the short end of this and its not much more fun when its on your team.  (Sunday I had a tier 5 IJN kill 7 people cause WASD is hard)

 

How about you stop adding more power creep ships lines and fix the game!

 

I heard WG is finally implementing into game XP rewards for spotting enemy ships and spotting damage......All I can say is that they better make them worth while because the current state (Especially at tier 8) is just miserable.  Hell, I just got done slamming my forehead into my desk as I watch my strike loadout Lexington get trolled badly by a Shokaku with not only a heavy fighter loadout (Which by the way can still inflict damage with 2 DB's and 1 TB squadron), but also had the AS captain skill.  So now I'm dealing with 5 IJN fighters in one squadron.  Now even if I did have my air superiority loadout and combined with my captain's AS skill, that's still 14 of my planes in 2 squadrons against his 15 in three squadrons.  Know what's going to happen next?  2 of his fighters will attack my 2 and keep them pinned while the third fighter squadron will most likely strafe into my 2.  Sure he kills his fighters, but he just decimated over half of my force while he still has 2 DB's and a TB squadron with one fighter squadron escort now.

 

This happened to me twice in a row and I nearly punched my fist through my screen as the enemy CV captain starts messaging, "Damn, I only killed 19 planes :P"  Could I have moved my planes over to friendly cruisers for AA support?  I could have.  The point though is now he has neutralized 4 of my bomber squadrons just by being close to where I need to go, but had to go back to the fleet to protect them and let's be real here, there's NO WAY a CV captain at that tier will be stupid enough to keep attacking your bombers as you send them over friendly ships.

Share this post


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

WG has said they want USN CVs to have defined roles for each loadout, and IJN is meant to be a jack of all trades.

 

well they made the jack of all trades too good at every role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,758
[RLGN]
Members
19,134 posts
35,155 battles

Hmmm...

 

Did pretty well with the fighter-less Strike Bogue back during the original carrier challenge...

 

300k damage vs Battleships, 300k damage vs carriers, and my first Clear Sky using just tail-gunners and AA...

 

Got rolled a few times yes, but USN Strike can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,929 posts
20,924 battles

I have 1 game in a cv, and I can tell you first hand that it's an unhealthy mechanic.

 

bWikayE.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by yUPPatriots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,549 posts
5,319 battles

USN suffers from three issues with their carriers.

  1. They always have less squadrons, meaning that even if they are running AS, a IJN CV will still be able to have a couple of squadrons which cannot be engaged by USN fighters
  2. USN strike damage is based around dive bombers, which are horrible in their RNG, making them much less effective than torpedo bombers, especially prior to 1000 lb bombs.
  3. Hyper concentrated load outs which makes the ship really good at one thing and really bad at something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×