Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Lichtbringer

Include the effect of catapults on squadron take-off time

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
38 posts
3,824 battles

Historically speaking, also as visible on in-game models, Essex-class and Midway-class carriers had two catapults, while earlier carriers did not. Evidently it is only reasonable to let Essex and Midway's squadrons take off at least twice as quickly as earlier carriers. Why is this not implemented in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
509 posts

What annoys me most is not take off time but the time it takes squadrons to land. With 8 in the Taiho sometimes they just fly around my carrier randomly not trying to land. They should all try to land asap. Takes way too long to get all the planes back aboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
295 posts
501 battles

keep complaining while a modern carrier takes about 30 second to land a plane and 10-20 second to launch a plane (clear for the next one to use the deck)

 

Edited by yanyatcheng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,888 posts
9,936 battles

How about having catapults fighter like Cruiser or Battleship so you can have emergency interceptor to protect your CV in case you under attack, it will be 1-2 planes circling around CV uncontrollable and land when running out of fuel. 

 

But most likely thats wont happening :D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,725 posts

Balance > Realism

Since you said that, let all the Japanese torpedo's range to 26km and undetected!! Coz historically speaking & it is only reasonable to let Japanese torpedoes be deadlier than what it is now. Why is this not implemented in the game? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
6,287 battles

Balance > Realism

Since you said that, let all the Japanese torpedo's range to 26km and undetected!! Coz historically speaking & it is only reasonable to let Japanese torpedoes be deadlier than what it is now. Why is this not implemented in the game? :P

 

Sure - so long as I get my 42 Km Firing range, the ability to put a full broadside at 10 km with a dispersion of less than 200 meters, Radar Fire control systems for calculating shooting solutions and spotting planes that spot the enemy destroyers out to ranges of 100 Km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

While we're at it, carriers should be required to travel at at least ahead standard into the wind for all flight ops.

 

Incidentally, only about 20% of launches were performed using catapults by the end of the war. In many cases they weren't necessary or weren't desirable.

 

CVs are probably THE LEAST realistic of all classes in this game. I don't think they should be complaining too much, and their statistical performance suggests they should sit quietly in a corner and hope the nerf bat avoids them for as long as possible.

 

If WG is going to pretend to be interested in balance, let alone actually be interested in it, CVs are going to be nerfed. Did you know, for example, that every IJN CV of tiers 5-10 has a higher av dam per battle than the Des Moines, and that CVs make up 4 of the top 5 vessels for av dam/battle? (I'm assuming that website with data is correct, to be clear)

 

So, yeah, CVs should be complaining they're nerfed. LMAO.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,043 posts
4,300 battles

Historically speaking, also as visible on in-game models, Essex-class and Midway-class carriers had two catapults, while earlier carriers did not. Evidently it is only reasonable to let Essex and Midway's squadrons take off at least twice as quickly as earlier carriers. Why is this not implemented in the game?

 

oh, aren't they implemented? how else can you have 7 planes in the air in just 11 seconds? wait, langley doesn't have catapult, so why can it launch its planes as fast as a midway? hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,196 battles

Isn't it faster to launch planes the old fashion way since they are all lined up on the deck and takes off once the one in front has cleared the deck, since for catapult, you have to retract the catapult and then move the plane into place and launch it after.

 

Remember catapult (on carriers) were use only for launching jet fighters, who didn't have enough runway length to take off from a carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Isn't it faster to launch planes the old fashion way since they are all lined up on the deck and takes off once the one in front has cleared the deck, since for catapult, you have to retract the catapult and then move the plane into place and launch it after.

 

Remember catapult (on carriers) were use only for launching jet fighters, who didn't have enough runway length to take off from a carrier.

 

That last part's not true, sorry. Catapults were included on CVs well before jets.

 

But, yes, deck load is certainly a factor in deciding whether to use the catapult.

Share this post


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

×