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

Buff plane kills, remove air superiority, nerf non USN AA, buff US AA, add fuel for planes.

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,304 posts
11,472 battles

People have a lot to complain about CVs. Some of those complaints are IMO justified, other are objectively retarded. Anyways, in this thread I will attempt to address some of those issues and propose a solution. I will not address inter-carrier line balance issues those can be found on another thread here.

 

List of CV complaints that will be addressed:

1.) CVs are able to attack ships without any risk to themselves

2.) AA is too weak/strong

3.) CVs are able to spot DDs and keep them spotted with little expended resources.

4.) Air superiority is *

*Cancer, AIDS, Ebola, Hitler...

 

Proposed changes:

•Buff xp and credits gained from plane kills by a factor of two. Buff the xp and credits gained from shooting down planes with full bomb loads by an additional x2.

•Remove the AS loadouts from all US and IJN CVs. US now has the option between strike and a s*** balanced build.

•Reduce damage from non-US AA guns by 10%. (So Lo Yang will not be affected) Remove modules that upgrade AA for non-US ships. 

• Increase damage from US AA guns by 20-25% increase range by same factor. Reduce US ships detectability by air by 25%. Cruisers and destroyers get a +25% buff to AA dps by virtue of class.

• Add a fuel timer for planes. It should start out around 15-20km before planes are forced to return on a straight line path towards CV. The US should get an ahistorical fuel advantage over their IJN counterparts. Fuel should increase with tier.

 

Addressing complaint #1:

This is IMO a stupid complaint. CVs are the only class that is forced to always put their planes at risk when attacking an enemy ship. There's nobody that can tank for them, nobody else to attract the attention of AA gunners. Nonetheless it is true that from an economical standpoint a CV generally is able to put themselves in a much more favorable position than other ship types in terms of resources expended. A battleship or destroyer must take minutes to set up in a favorable position and when they do so they put everything they have at risk. A CV can quickly and easily position a portion of themselves  to the most favorable position to attack.

This being said I think that the best way to answer a problem of economy is with economics. In a recent game in my Iowa a Taiho sunk me in 4 strike waves with 42 plane losses, doing a total of 100k damage out of 120k damage dealt to me that game. Out of the 42 planes killed 24 were TBs, most of them armed. I only received. Total of 200k credits for that and 30k damage dealt against an Admiral Hipper. This does not reflect my contribution to the game in which I tanked the full resources of a tier IX CV for over 10 minutes and left her useless in the end. A CV's planes in an average game represent a much greater threat than any 1-2 ships. Currently, a CVs complement adds up to the CV's hull's xp. However, the planes are rarely all killed and the hull is rarely damaged, so the xp and credit gain for the other team is usually less when a CV is in play, despite the harder situation they are put in. It's for these reasons why I think plane kills should have increased xp gains.

 

Addresing complaint #2:

AA is not very well balanced in some people's opinion. These two changes I propose would serve to accomplish two things. 1.) Weaken the AA of ships whose AA was never included in designs and/or never compared to US ships. 2.) improve the AA of cruisers and Destoryers, the traditional AA escort ships.

 

Addressing complaint #3:

CVs can spot DDs and their torpedoes, taking away two of their most significant advantages with little expended resources. It is a broken mechanic that can significantly affect the outcome of a game since a single Hakuryu can field 8 squadrons, 5 or 6 of which are DBs and fighters which are expendable to spot DDs. I propose to give planes fuel which would make it more awkward for CVs to spot DDs for an extended period of time. A skilled CV could still do it, but it would require timing her squadrons such that   It requires multiples squadrons rotating around the clock. This is a significantly larger expenditure of resources and should only be done if friendly ships are in a position to engage the enemy DD.

 

Addressing complaint #4:

Air Superiority loadouts have long detracted from the skill and élan of CV gameplay. With one side admiting from the beginning that they cannot match the other, they eschew skill and finesse for brute force. It's a loadout that only limits CV players on both sides.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[SYN]
Members
8,292 posts
14,496 battles

No there will be no fuel for planes.

 

Why so definitive on the no? Fuel sound like a interesting idea. Fuel consumption was a very real logistic for cv born planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,879
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,172 posts
10,843 battles

Why so definitive on the no? Fuel sound like a interesting idea

 

Fuel would make strike carrier loadouts more viable -- strike flights to the enemy front line will burn less of it than loitering with fighters and trying to catch the other guy out.

 

If that's the direction you want to be going in, then yes, fuel is a great idea.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,644
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
12,147 posts
9,111 battles

AA requires 0 skill to use, which means it cant be out played. So AA is either strong enough to cause lots of losses or not strong enough. If you have a ship with strong AA it does not matter how skilled the CV is and how stupidly you play the CV will still lose planes. I long ago made a thread suggesting a way to change AA in a way that benefits surface ships that pay attention and are skilled at countering planes while at the same time giving CVs a way to out play AA to be able to attack ships that currently they wouldnt be able to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[PNP]
[PNP]
Alpha Tester
1,033 posts
3,578 battles

Buffing exp and credits for plane kills, buffing USN AA, and nerfing every other AA?

Hm.. I thought we had Russian bias at WoWS...

 

Maybe you wrote it wrong?

 

I mean the US had the best AA of the air, and it should be far above any other nation as its the only thing American BB's stand out in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
978 posts
4,372 battles

Sure, just as soon as they nerf aircraft turn rates to something approaching accuracy, as it stands they whip around like UFO's.

Edited by RevolutionBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109
[CRZ13]
Members
1,912 posts
8,727 battles

Destroyers and cruisers were the AA workhorses in the war because there were just so many of the darn things, they were easily replaceable compared to CVs and BBs, and so they arranged task forces with the CVs and BBs in the center. CVs and BBs still had the heaviest AA armament - compare a Fletcher, a Baltimore, and an Iowa's AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

Buffing exp and credits for plane kills, buffing USN AA, and nerfing every other AA?

Hm.. I thought we had Russian bias at WoWS...

 

Maybe you wrote it wrong?

 

USN ships have no role in game (except for DDs which are really good) other than to be mediocre in ever role. They're even being eclipsed in the one thing they have been best at. Not only that, but if you compare USN AA in WWII to the capabilities of any other nation, even Britain who did pretty well, the disparity is laughable in favor of the USN. Some of the guns we had which were bad would have been considered pretty decent by most of the other major combatants. Pretty much every other historical strength of the USN which could have inspired strengths is either not modeled in game (accurate long range gunner, radar fire control, radar in general*, high build quality, materials quality, damage control, best carrier aircraft in the war especially fighters, best carriers in the war, best carrier doctrine in the war, well trained crews, great leadership) or because of the mechanics becomes a weakness instead (super heavy shells, lower velocity shells, armor schemes on battleships).

 

At least throw the US a bone and let them be truly good at something.

 

*radar in general is sort of in game, but it's not really representative of anything - case and point, Russia has better radar than the US, and I'm not certain if the Russians even could produce a functioning radar set in 1950.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[---]
Banned
6,739 posts
10,146 battles

Shouldn't have made this thread, while I support USN being the kings of AA as a whole (anyone who says the US cruisers are kings don't know how mediocre tier 7-9 AA is) you'll get alot of anti-USN people attacking you/giving terrible counter suggestions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

Shouldn't have made this thread, while I support USN being the kings of AA as a whole (anyone who says the US cruisers are kings don't know how mediocre tier 7-9 AA is) you'll get alot of anti-USN people attacking you/giving terrible counter suggestions. 

 

The problem I have with being "Kings of AA" in a USN ship is that CV's are horrifically infrequent in games past about T7... so... that means they suck at pretty much everything else and are more of a detriment to your team than a help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,304 posts
11,472 battles

Sure, just as soon as they nerf aircraft turn rates to something approaching accuracy, as it stands they whip around like UFO's.

 

I mean, it took ships minutes to make a turn so...
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,304 posts
11,472 battles

Destroyers and cruisers were the AA workhorses in the war because there were just so many of the darn things, they were easily replaceable compared to CVs and BBs, and so they arranged task forces with the CVs and BBs in the center. CVs and BBs still had the heaviest AA armament - compare a Fletcher, a Baltimore, and an Iowa's AA.

 

DDs and Cruisers traded capability for economic factors (easier to build, maintain, crew...) in a game without those factors they have to be balanced somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
737 posts
9,014 battles

 

I mean the US had the best AA of the air, and it should be far above any other nation as its the only thing American BB's stand out in. 

 

 

USN ships have no role in game (except for DDs which are really good) other than to be mediocre in ever role. They're even being eclipsed in the one thing they have been best at. Not only that, but if you compare USN AA in WWII to the capabilities of any other nation, even Britain who did pretty well, the disparity is laughable in favor of the USN. Some of the guns we had which were bad would have been considered pretty decent by most of the other major combatants. Pretty much every other historical strength of the USN which could have inspired strengths is either not modeled in game (accurate long range gunner, radar fire control, radar in general*, high build quality, materials quality, damage control, best carrier aircraft in the war especially fighters, best carriers in the war, best carrier doctrine in the war, well trained crews, great leadership) or because of the mechanics becomes a weakness instead (super heavy shells, lower velocity shells, armor schemes on battleships).

 

At least throw the US a bone and let them be truly good at something.

 

*radar in general is sort of in game, but it's not really representative of anything - case and point, Russia has better radar than the US, and I'm not certain if the Russians even could produce a functioning radar set in 1950.

 

I don't know about you guys but I would prefer asking for other buffs than AA if a ship is underperforming.

There aren't many CVs in the game and buffing AA won't help that much since our main goal is to sink ships.

I think you are talking mainly about USN cruisers because DDs and BBs are ok (in my view [t8~]) and I won't talk about CVs because I don't really know about them.

 

And don't get the wrong impression, I think some USN ships need some love but nerfing AA to all ship across the board?

I play almost only IJN ships (BBs and CAs) and it's really hard to kill planes... I could only cry seeing it being nerfed (because it would be almost impossible)...

Edited by PauloBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[NG-NL]
Members
7,138 posts
12,577 battles

Complaint #1:

Makes sense, but CVs are not around that frequently. You need an AA build (generally) to pose a threat and the CV has to come after you. I've rarely faced any CV planes in my AA-specced Cleveland or (before I sold her) my AA-specced NC. CVs that know their stuff know which ships to avoid.

 

Complaint #2:

Community would lash out if their AA got nerfed. Many of my best CV matches I found the enemy team scattering and many yoloers beyond AA support. My experience is people want to lone wolf, and they'll protest strongly against any changes that threaten their way of having fun in WOWS. US ships are not the only popular ones, especially at high tiers, and doubtful the community would be thrilled having to stay within 6km of their US teammates just because now they're the only ones with good AA.

 

Not so sure cruiser/DD AA should be buffed. AA blobs are what CVs fear most, not AA-specced loners. Plus AA is already ridiculous beginning with T8.

 

Complaint #3:

As an IJN CV main, adding fuel will just make CV multi-tasking harder. It's already demanding enough picking targets, scouting, getting bombers in position, making the sortie, guessing other CV's intentions, watching minimap--it goes on.

 

Complaint #4:

AS loadout is dubious value because 1) not enough fighters in T7-10 CV to intercept opposing bombers, especially IJN line, 2) meager rewards for air control and preventing potential damage, and 3) it's boring just trying to cat-and-mouse with strafe and correctly guessing where the enemy bombers will appear next. As a CV player, I have the most fun attacking enemy ships, so my fighters are busy fighting the enemy fighters or spotting or escorting my bombers.

 

Besides, one big complaint players have vs. strike loadout is that they want fighter cover from their CV. If AS gets air-to-air ribbons and proper buffs so it's rewarding enough, then as strike loadout's natural predator, it's more attractive. Right now, just one way to have a semi-useless CV trying to shut down the other CV. Remove the junk stuff and it's useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

Part of why I want the US AA to be dominant is because I'm forward thinking. I mean that in basically 2 ways.

1. Carriers are so powerful, that even if I only run into 1 CV in 15 battles, I'd rather have AA capability for the 1 battle than not have something like Hydro search for the 14.

2. This game is built partially under the understanding that carriers exist in matches. They are too dead, and it's unhealthy for the game. The Dev Team knows it, and are making small adjustments to try and keep them alive while they rework the class as a whole. I expect that in some future updates, the AA will matter again. When that day comes, Germany (who historically had garbagio for AA) shouldn't be top AA in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,879
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,172 posts
10,843 battles

Carriers are so powerful, that even if I only run into 1 CV in 15 battles, I'd rather have AA capability for the 1 battle than not have something like Hydro search for the 14

 

This. Without DF every cruiser is great XP/credit pinata for a skilled carrier -- they aren't nimble enough to dodge torpedoes like DDs, and don't have enough XP to shrug off hits like BBs. I often go for cruisers as my first target in a carrier. When I encounter DF it's not big deal, I still get a torpedo hit or maybe even two most of the time, which makes it worthwhile. If DF isn't there (or the player didn't pay enough attention to pop it) then that cruiser loses most of its HP, and sometimes gets outright one-shot.

 

Same for my Fletcher, btw. I don't always have carriers in my games, and they rarely focus me, but when they do I'm glad as heck that I have DF instead of engine boost. It's one of those "better have it and not need it than need it and not have it" type of things.

 

Germany (who historically had garbagio for AA) shouldn't be top AA in game.

 

Who says they are top AA now? Well, with the exception of Bayern and its sick AA when you have manual targeting skill (with BFT it's an ungodly 100*1.1*1.3*2 = 283DPS at tier 6 from DP guns alone, which extends to 6.3km with AA module and AFT, and is more than Cleveland's total AA DPS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,260
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

If you are going to add in fuel, then plane speed needs to be increased significantly, or planes not in the process of launching an attack need to be significantly harder to shoot down. Right now there are many times you have to fly around an area with strong aa. Realistically, a fuel consumption model that won't make spotting easy will also scrap the ability to take safe flight paths to targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

Who says they are top AA now? Well, with the exception of Bayern and its sick AA when you have manual targeting skill (with BFT it's an ungodly 100*1.1*1.3*2 = 283DPS at tier 6 from DP guns alone, which extends to 6.3km with AA module and AFT, and is more than Cleveland's total AA DPS).

 

The German thing was more of a poke at the general LoL of the AA in game, and less a specific claim that Germans have best AA in game. In effect though, with a lot of their cruisers they do have the best AA in the game. It's not much weaker than the USN CA AA, but it's on a platform that's much more likely to actually be present in game. Also all cruiser AA really needs to be effective enough is the Defensive Fire cooldown to be present on the cruiser and for the player to use the consumable. Their BBs also have pretty strong AA too, better than Japan for sure, which does sort of call into question the whole "historically inspired*" bit.

 

* I frequently say that the only historical accuracy I want in game are ship names and ship models, but WG are big on the idea that national flavors are inspired by history, which is why I used that terminology

Edited by Captain_Dorja

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.

×