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

Strafing:

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

Strafing is your only chance of winning against an opponent who has a superior fighter force compared to yours. Right now, strafing is incredibly hard to pull off successfully, and it's very unforgiving if you miss. I have a suggestion that will make fighter combat more skill-based and reliant on strafing (rather than just point/click), and AS more skill-based as well.

 

1. Reduce the DPS of a single strafe, and reduce ammo consumption of strafes:

Right now, a successful strafe means that your opponent will get all of his planes wiped out. Instead of having an all or nothing kind of chance, we should make strafes only able to shoot down 2-3 planes. But in return, you will now be able to strafe more times in succession without rearming, making strafing a more viable option in fighter vs fighter combat.

 

2. Reduce the damage output of non-strafe attacks, and increase ammo loadout:

In order to make AS more skill reliant, locking your fighters will now do less damage than before. Players will now have to rely more on strafing in order to shoot down enemy bombers as well. However, since strafing uses up a lot of ammo, the ammo will have to be increased in order to prevent fighters from having to go back to rearm too frequently.

 

Thanks for reading, and please leave a comment below!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

Or you know- they could completely REMOVE fighter-locking as it's the stupidest mechanic in the game and the #1 reason CVs feel so terrible.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

Or you know- they could completely REMOVE fighter-locking as it's the stupidest mechanic in the game and the #1 reason CVs feel so terrible.

 

I mean, you can't NOT have fighter locking either. So what do your fighters do, run away? If they run away, (unless they have rear guns) they won't be doing any damage while moving away. That's why i just suggested reducing the damage for fighter-locking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

 

I mean, you can't NOT have fighter locking either. So what do your fighters do, run away? If they run away, (unless they have rear guns) they won't be doing any damage while moving away. That's why i just suggested reducing the damage for fighter-locking. 

 

No. They can just fight the way they do now if they have to- but NOT lock into place with no way to break off an engagement or prevent one from occurring if you so choose to. The fact that there is 0 control whatsoever over it if/when two fighter groups inevitably get too close to each other is the primary problem. The lack of interaction in the fight is a very close second, but still not first.

 

EDIT: To give another example. It's the same reason why at low tiers USN CVs are OP. They lock onto your fighters with impunity and a complete lack of skill, and win 100% of the time without question. It's also the same reason IJN CVs are OP at higher tiers. They lock onto your fighters with impunity and you can do nothing at all while his strike bombers go in and do their work on your friendlies. It is a 100% broken, bad, outdated, overly simplistic mechanic no matter how you try to slice it. It's the #1 thing that's gotta go.

Edited by Stratego89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,772
[RLGN]
Members
19,164 posts
35,198 battles

Or just get rid of strafe.

 

It's like an infinite repeater wiping out a whole gang of bad guys without reloading in a Hollywood western,

 

One fighter squad wipes out 20-30 enemies in a single pass? What a load of malarkey, arcade game or not.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

Or just get rid of strafe.

 

It's like an infinite repeater wiping out a whole gang of bad guys without reloading in a Hollywood western,

 

One fighter squad wipes out 20-30 enemies in a single pass? What a load of malarkey, arcade game or not.

 

I just gave you a solution to stop that. Of course, sometimes it's just better to remove a mechanic than to try to fix it. But without any strafing, fighter play becomes stale and boring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

I'd rather they just get rid of the "Big Wing" concept altogether. I refuse to call it "strafing" when there's no such thing as air-to-air strafing unless you employ the "Big Wing" concept pioneered during the Battle of Britain by the RAF. 

 

The theory goes something like this, a massive formation of planes in an abreast formation or massive V formation in which they would maintain the formation at all times, fly towards an enemy formation of aircraft and all aircraft would fire at once creating the effect of a giant aircraft bristling with dozens of MGs and Cannons. Of course, a tiny, nimble fighter can always outmaneuver a giant, large aircraft (there's a reason you never saw B-17s trying to dogfight with Me-109s) and, well, you can guess the outcome. 

 

The "Big Wing" formation took so much time to form, so much room to maneuver and keep the aircraft abreast of each other, that the Germans literally laughed at the RAF's attempts to wield against them while the Luftwaffe just chewed them to pieces with their "finger four" and "loose" formations that allowed individual planes and small pairs to just fly circles around the Big Wing and mowed them down with ease.

 

So if they keep the misnamed "Strafing" in the game as it is now, then they have to keep the penalty for using it, no more ammo and suffering because of that. The RAF themselves lost a horrid amount of aircraft when they couldn't afford to lose any. Between that and the rivalry among commanders vying for glory in their attempts to stop the Germans at any cost... lack of cooperation that resulted... led at one point to one stubborn commander using a Big Wing as an offensive weapon against retreating Germans after he deliberately allowed the Germans to bomb the airfields of his rivals and then hoped to pounce upon them as the formations were on their way back to France and not expecting a fight at that point. LOL

 

Those crazy Brits. My guess is, there's a Brit on the development team for this game and the strafing attack is their homage to the RAF's massive losses. Either as a tribute or as trolling. You decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts

And as you can see by this British newspaper article from 2012 and veterans who saw the Big Wing firsthand... well, don't be surprised if it's still as controversial and condemned now as it was back then, haha.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206657/Second-World-War-veterans-accuse-flying-ace-Sir-Douglas-Bader-putting-pilots-risk-Battle-Britain-tactics.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[_REKT]
Members
490 posts
4,096 battles

And as you can see by this British newspaper article from 2012 and veterans who saw the Big Wing firsthand... well, don't be surprised if it's still as controversial and condemned now as it was back then, haha.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206657/Second-World-War-veterans-accuse-flying-ace-Sir-Douglas-Bader-putting-pilots-risk-Battle-Britain-tactics.html

 

That article's an interesting find! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,772
[RLGN]
Members
19,164 posts
35,198 battles

I just gave you a solution to stop that. Of course, sometimes it's just better to remove a mechanic than to try to fix it. But without any strafing, fighter play becomes stale and boring. 

 

I won't disagree about the potential boredom.

 

'Point-and-click-to-win' is a complaint constantly leveled against the class and players of CVs as a whole; of all aspects of carrier game mechanics, I consider 'Strafe' to be the most deserving of that.

 

Yes, is could be considered 'skill based' just like manual weapons drops, and yes I can do it; I had to learn how as a simple matter of survival; but that still doesn't mean I have to like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,367
Members
2,688 posts
4,560 battles

Personally I'd say remove it.  Barring that,  limit the amount of damage it can do to the amount of ammo spent.  If a third of the air groups ammo is equal to 2000 damage,  cap it at 2000 damage.  It'll still delete an entire squadron without any fear of reprisal but won't cause massive losses.  As it stands strafe is not really about skill,  its about abusing it as often as possible because you are functionally immune to other fighters during it and dealing out excessive amounts of damage to everything in a relatively long line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

Personally I'd say remove it.  Barring that,  limit the amount of damage it can do to the amount of ammo spent.  If a third of the air groups ammo is equal to 2000 damage,  cap it at 2000 damage.  It'll still delete an entire squadron without any fear of reprisal but won't cause massive losses.  As it stands strafe is not really about skill,  its about abusing it as often as possible because you are functionally immune to other fighters during it and dealing out excessive amounts of damage to everything in a relatively long line.

 

If you spam strafes all the time, you will run out of ammo very quick, and your fighters will be shot down on the way back to the ship. Strafing doesn't make you immune to other fighters, it actually makes you more vulnerable if executed incorrectly because the enemy can counter strafe. And i think you'll agree that strafing requires much more skill than the current fighter locking method. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

Said it before, will say it again. Remove air-to-air strafing completely. Introduce air-to-ship strafing (similar area as dive bombers), yet only does damage to lightly armored DDs or damages secondaries/AA emplacements on the heavier ships. Then remove the fighter "locking" as well (if I want my planes to ignore enemy fighters so they can get to where I need them, then I should be able to tell them to do that).

 

While we're on the topic, every carrier loadout should come with at least 1 squadron of fighters - and if Japanese cvs get 2 (or more) squadrons of torpedo planes, then the USN should as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,012 posts
1,480 battles

Said it before, will say it again. Remove air-to-air strafing completely. Introduce air-to-ship strafing (similar area as dive bombers), yet only does damage to lightly armored DDs or damages secondaries/AA emplacements on the heavier ships. Then remove the fighter "locking" as well (if I want my planes to ignore enemy fighters so they can get to where I need them, then I should be able to tell them to do that).

 

While we're on the topic, every carrier loadout should come with at least 1 squadron of fighters - and if Japanese cvs get 2 (or more) squadrons of torpedo planes, then the USN should as well.

 

2 USN torpedo bombers would require 3 torpedo bombers for IJN to be equivalent in numbers. right now USN gets up to 3 DB squads.

 

in which case wouldnt the IJN need 4-5 dive bomber squads on top of the 3 torpedo bomber squads to be around the same amount of torpedo and dive bombers?  because now thats sounds like quiet the strike package for IJN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

 

2 USN torpedo bombers would require 3 torpedo bombers for IJN to be equivalent in numbers. right now USN gets up to 3 DB squads.

 

in which case wouldnt the IJN need 4-5 dive bomber squads on top of the 3 torpedo bomber squads to be around the same amount of torpedo and dive bombers?  because now thats sounds like quiet the strike package for IJN

 

I disagree. They can always tweak the number of planes in each squadron or the hp of each "plane" to provide balancing, but giving more squadrons to one player gives them a huge advantage. With 1 torpedo squadron, if the enemy ship captain maneuvers they can avoid all torpedos (modified by how well you did the drop and how well they maneuver). With 2 torpedo squadrons, the enemy ship gets hit (and likely sunk) - again modified by how well you did the drop and how well they maneuver.

 

Also, if the US gets an additional torpedo squadron, I never said they couldn't lose a DB squadron in return. But giving one side 2 torp squadrons while the other only gets one is a broken mechanic that greatly favors one side. I haven't looked at the stats, but from the 1000+ games I've played I can saw I face more IJN CVs than USN CVs. IJN CVs get more squadrons. Yes, each is slightly less powerful than the USN side, but spread them out and it means you always have at least one squadron to fly un-opposed. The US side never gets this advantage. Add to that the damage that can be done by dropping 2 torpedo drops at differing angles making it nearly impossible to dodge (assuming average skill of CV captain and average skill of target vessel). It is much easier to dodge USN Torpedo drops.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with changing how many planes are in each squadron or how many hp each has, but if one side gets more of something than the other, that's a problem. USN strike loadout gets no fighters, yet IJN strike does? That's a problem. USN gets 1 torp squadron, IJN gets 2... that's a problem.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,012 posts
1,480 battles

 

I disagree. They can always tweak the number of planes in each squadron or the hp of each "plane" to provide balancing, but giving more squadrons to one player gives them a huge advantage. With 1 torpedo squadron, if the enemy ship captain maneuvers they can avoid all torpedos (modified by how well you did the drop and how well they maneuver). With 2 torpedo squadrons, the enemy ship gets hit (and likely sunk) - again modified by how well you did the drop and how well they maneuver.

 

Also, if the US gets an additional torpedo squadron, I never said they couldn't lose a DB squadron in return. But giving one side 2 torp squadrons while the other only gets one is a broken mechanic that greatly favors one side. I haven't looked at the stats, but from the 1000+ games I've played I can saw I face more IJN CVs than USN CVs. IJN CVs get more squadrons. Yes, each is slightly less powerful than the USN side, but spread them out and it means you always have at least one squadron to fly un-opposed. The US side never gets this advantage. Add to that the damage that can be done by dropping 2 torpedo drops at differing angles making it nearly impossible to dodge (assuming average skill of CV captain and average skill of target vessel). It is much easier to dodge USN Torpedo drops.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with changing how many planes are in each squadron or how many hp each has, but if one side gets more of something than the other, that's a problem. USN strike loadout gets no fighters, yet IJN strike does? That's a problem. USN gets 1 torp squadron, IJN gets 2... that's a problem.

 

cross drop is only a broken mechanic for players who dont have any skill. I've shown this over and over when people face against me in my CV. i wouldnt never cross drop and still torp a DD with just 1 squad of IJN TB. even manage to hit 2 torps more often than 1 torp. Cross dropping is a waste of resources. you basically waste all if not nearly all of the torps from one squad to guarantee that you hit a decent amount from the other squad. as my own goal, i would make sure to average 3 out of 4 torps per drop on anything larger than a DD unless i lost planes ofc. but that's also how i had an average damage around 100k with a fighter heavy loadout and focusing on attacking DD's at the start fo the match. both of which dont exactly pad that damage stat. with USN I would focus on getting 4 out of 6 torps per drop minimum, otherwise I would be doing trash compared to how I normally am. and TBH if your going to hit more than 8 torps in a cross drop with USN then that ship must have been out of position anyways so why waste 2 squads at once instead of just using one and waiting for him to use repair. So much more damage that way.

 

TLDR; once you got to my level or some of the other members of VP-9(when it still existed), you would see that we didnt do cross drop cuz you cant be good with crossdrop since you waste too much.

Edited by Systemrename33576
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,023 posts
5,027 battles

 

2 USN torpedo bombers would require 3 torpedo bombers for IJN to be equivalent in numbers. right now USN gets up to 3 DB squads.

 

in which case wouldnt the IJN need 4-5 dive bomber squads on top of the 3 torpedo bomber squads to be around the same amount of torpedo and dive bombers?  because now thats sounds like quiet the strike package for IJN

Since when has WG cared about numbers equivalency?

 

Excluding tier IV, here are the numbers:

USN gets 1 VT squad of 6 bombers, totaling 6 VTs. IJN gets 2+ VT squads of 4 bombers, equalling 8 total VTs. 6 < 8

USN gets 2-3 squads of 6 VBs, totaling 12 to 18 (that's a lot of RNGeezus). IJN gets 1-2 squads of 4 VBs, totaling 4-8 (however, IJN ALSO gets smaller dispersion). 12-18 > 4-8

USN gets 0-1-2-3 squads of 6 fighters, totalling 0-6-12-18. IJN gets 1-2-3 squads of 4 fighters, totaling 4-8-12 fighters. 4<6<8<12=12

 

So, the IJN gets as many planes (or barely less) or more planes in 2 departments as a USN CV. Plus, each IJN spec gets more squads of its spec type than the USN spec of that type, save Strike, where they are equal in number of strike aircraft, but the distribution is off.

 

Now, if you're good, you can do a great deal of damage with USN strike, but you also have to be very, very lucky.

USN strike relies on DoT to deal most of it's damage, however, you need 4. instances of luck to do this. First, luck for AA. Then, luck for the VB strike. Then, luck for the DoT. Finally, luck for the flooding from a torpedo hit. If you get all that, you get good damage. If you don't, and it's very easy to not get lucky four times, then you're screwed.

 

Lets look at probability.

IJN has 4 rolls. Probability to survive * Probability to hit * Probability for Good Damage roll * Probability to DoT (let's define this as x*y*z*w) and all of this times 2 VB squads (the rest are skill-aimed)

USN has 4 rolls. Probability to survive * Probability to hit * Probability for Good Damage roll * Probability to DoT (x*y*z*w) and all of this times 3 VB squads

 

But, let's give these some hypothetical numbers (NOTE: These are not actual stats or in-game numbers, I made these up).

x = 90% = 0.9

y = 40% = 0.4

z = 60% = 0.6

w = 15% = 0.15

 

Now, let's do formulas:

IJN (0.9*0.4*0.6*0.15)^2 = 0.00104976 ~ 0.1%

USN  (0.9*0.4*0.6*0.15)^3 = 0.00003401222 ~ 0.003%

 

And that's for a single perfect strike from all VB squads, assuming no DF or Fighter intervention. And, all of this can be work for a perfect strike 

 

Then, there's VTs, which rely on 3 rolls: Survival * Good Damage Roll * DoT

Here come the hypothetical numbers again (x, y, and w):

 

USN 0.9 *1*0.15 = 0.135 = 13.5%

IJN (0.9*0.15*1)^2 = 0.018225 = 1.8225%

 

So, the US has a better chance of a good torp strike, however, the IJN has a shorter re-armament time, so it gets 3 chances for every 2 the US gets.

Edited by Raze_3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,012 posts
1,480 battles

Since when has WG cared about numbers equivalency?

 

Excluding tier IV, here are the numbers:

USN gets 1 VT squad of 6 bombers, totaling 6 VTs. IJN gets 2+ VT squads of 4 bombers, equalling 8 total VTs. 6 < 8

USN gets 2-3 squads of 6 VBs, totaling 12 to 18 (that's a lot of RNGeezus). IJN gets 1-2 squads of 4 VBs, totaling 4-8 (however, IJN ALSO gets smaller dispersion). 12-18 > 4-8

USN gets 0-1-2-3 squads of 6 fighters, totalling 0-6-12-18. IJN gets 1-2-3 squads of 4 fighters, totaling 4-8-12 fighters. 4<6<8<12=12

 

So, the IJN gets as many planes (or barely less) or more planes in 2 departments as a USN CV. Plus, each IJN spec gets more squads of its spec type than the USN spec of that type, save Strike, where they are equal in number of strike aircraft, but the distribution is off.

 

Now, if you're good, you can do a great deal of damage with USN strike, but you also have to be very, very lucky.

USN strike relies on DoT to deal most of it's damage, however, you need 4. instances of luck to do this. First, luck for AA. Then, luck for the VB strike. Then, luck for the DoT. Finally, luck for the flooding from a torpedo hit. If you get all that, you get good damage. If you don't, and it's very easy to not get lucky four times, then you're screwed.

 

Lets look at probability.

IJN has 4 rolls. Probability to survive * Probability to hit * Probability for Good Damage roll * Probability to DoT (let's define this as x*y*z*w) and all of this times 2 VB squads (the rest are skill-aimed)

USN has 4 rolls. Probability to survive * Probability to hit * Probability for Good Damage roll * Probability to DoT (x*y*z*w) and all of this times 3 VB squads

 

But, let's give these some hypothetical numbers (NOTE: These are not actual stats or in-game numbers, I made these up).

x = 90% = 0.9

y = 40% = 0.4

z = 60% = 0.6

w = 15% = 0.15

 

Now, let's do formulas:

IJN (0.9*0.4*0.6*0.15)^2 = 0.00104976 ~ 0.1%

USN  (0.9*0.4*0.6*0.15)^3 = 0.00003401222 ~ 0.003%

 

And that's for a single perfect strike from all VB squads, assuming no DF or Fighter intervention. And, all of this can be work for a perfect strike 

 

Then, there's VTs, which rely on 3 rolls: Survival * Good Damage Roll * DoT

Here come the hypothetical numbers again (x, y, and w):

 

USN 0.9 *1*0.15 = 0.135 = 13.5%

IJN (0.9*0.15*1)^2 = 0.018225 = 1.8225%

 

So, the US has a better chance of a good torp strike, however, the IJN has a shorter re-armament time, so it gets 3 chances for every 2 the US gets.

 

Im just saying that the OP cares about number equivalency.

 

the USN bomb dispersion is larger but compensated with stronger bombs.

 

he shorter rearm time is cut into by the longer landing and launching time of 3 squads compared to 2. 

 

and most of a CV's damage should be DoT and not direct. at least thats how I always did it, regardless whether i was strike or fighter heavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

People frequently respond to this issue by saying things like "I have no problem getting x damage or x number of hits therefore there's no problem". But you need to take into account the average player.

 

Yes, an above average or highly skilled CV player can do amazing things with a torpedo drop. Yes, an above average or highly skilled ship player can do amazing torpedo avoidances. But designing game balance needs to look at the average players.

 

The average player with 2 torpedo squadrons (either using cross drop or stacking both together and dropping together) will do better than the average player with 1 torpedo squadron against the "average" target player. Unless the CV player is far below average, they will do better with 2 torpedo squadrons than the average player with only one. In my humble opinion, dive bombers are nearly useless (I wouldn't even take any if I had that option). The only time I can see a diver bomber being more useful than a torpedo squadron is if the ship is in a very tight channel. Right now USN CVs are far more subject to the RNGesus than IJN. [And a skilled CV player with 2 torpedo squadrons can simply delete one ship per attack.]

 

USN has more dive bombers (but those are greatly influenced by factors out of your control - random number generator). I've gone entire games of not having a single dive bomber actually score a hit.

 

All I'm saying is that each side needs to have the same number of squadrons (of each type) available for each selection (AS, Strike, Balanced). You can add nationality differences by giving one side greater numbers of planes in each squadron, or adjusting speed of planes or survivability of planes, how fast they re-arm, how fast they take-off/land, stats of the individual CV (one side can be faster, but the other side gets more hp, one side gets more concealment in exchange for .... you get the idea) - but the number of squadrons needs to be the same.

 

If it wasn't for the fact that it would mean starting over from a level 1 Japanese cruiser, I'd scrap my USN CV and use the IJN line of CVs... but I simply have too much invested and don't feel like starting over to do that, so I'll keep my USN Ranger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[DAS]
Members
23 posts
13,396 battles

Whenever I line up a strafe my fighters make a big slow loop to line up and by then my target is out of the strafe box. wtham I doing wrong?  Opponents fighters rip through with strafing runs from all angles without doing this and now with this stupid economy I have to run AS because even if I get high calibers with multiple kills I don't make hardly any net credits. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[DAS]
Members
23 posts
13,396 battles

Whenever I line up a strafe my fighters make a loop around even if they are lined up and by the time they start their run the target is out of range. What am I doing wrong?:ohmy:

 

Share this post


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

 

Im just saying that the OP cares about number equivalency.

 

the USN bomb dispersion is larger but compensated with stronger bombs.

 

he shorter rearm time is cut into by the longer landing and launching time of 3 squads compared to 2. 

 

and most of a CV's damage should be DoT and not direct. at least thats how I always did it, regardless whether i was strike or fighter heavy

That's the theory any way, but as is, the usn is given all or nothing loadouts with dive bombers closely resembling all or nothing. That kind of variance makes balance difficult. If the usn is going to be the dive bomber flavor, then it should have the more accurate dive bombers. If you need to make the bombs weaker that's fine.

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.

×