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

The dismal drawn-out decline of CVs

61 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
341 posts
2,790 battles

Hi,

 

Unfortunately it comes to a time where I need to write about the problems concerning CVs.

First off, some significant changes to CVs and for the purpose of simplicity, I will start from the game’s launch.

 

0.5.1

Aircraft torpedoes' chance of causing a flooding has been reduced by approximately half

Aircraft speed has been slightly increased for air squadron assault mode, and damage caused by aircraft in this mode has been increased as well

The logic for fighters behavior has been improved. Now, when fighters attack other fighters, the squadron being attacked will automatically counterattack and will not abandon the dogfight until it runs out of ammunition.

 

0.5.2                               

Increased XP ratios for the following ships:

32% for Hakuryu

Decreased Credit ratios for the following ships:

10% for Lexington

16% for Taiho

 

0.5.3

Midway and Essex: One squadron of torpedo bombers was replaced with one squadron of bombers for the assault setups

Lexington: One squadron of fighters was removed from the default setup.

Lexington, Essex, Midway: Bomber damage increased by 30% (1000lb ANM65 bomb type is now installed on the Curtiss SB2C, Douglas BTD-1 and Kaiser XBTK-1 bombers)

Reworked AA defence and aircraft.

Revised Tech Trees for aircraft.

Reworked the AA armament efficiency (efficiency of AA guns at long-range distance was significantly improved, other AA guns were revised as well).

Increase in efficiency when setting a priority target was reduced by 12% (now, the intensification factor is x1.1).

Intensification factor of the Defensive Fire consumable was reduced by 50% (now, the AA armament intensification is x3 when the Defensive Fire consumable is activated). Now, both dual-purpose guns and large-calibre automatic AA guns deliver fire when the Defensive Fire consumable is activated.

 

0.5.4

Increased the hit points of a number of secondary guns and changed the calculation for how they're damaged by HE shells and shrapnel. The guns are now roughly twice as durable

Increased the efficiency of the AA defense manual targeting from 10% to 30%

 

0.5.5

Added the Defensive AA Fire consumable to aircraft carriers tiers VIII-X

 

0.5.6

Additional AA defenses can now be mounted on the main turrets, because the technology required for this has become available in the game.

Colorado - AA defenses were slightly improved for the top hull. (from 152 to 161 points)

North Carolina -AA defenses were significantly reinforced. (from 185 to 238 points)

Iowa - AA defenses were significantly reinforced. (203 -> 286 points)

Montana -AA guns were reinforced. (from 302 to 318 points)

 

Nagato -AA defenses were significantly reinforced for the top hull.

As a result, her average AA damage within the 3.1km AA engagement area radius increased by 95 points (from 93 to 188 points)

Amagi - AA defenses were reinforced for the top hull.(from 189 to 215 points)

 

0.5.9

Only one aircraft carrier will be available per team, for battles where the maximum tier ship is one of the following: tier VIII, IX or X.

Tier I-IV ships and tier V aircraft carriers: will see battles with opponents only one tier higher

0.5.11

Increased American fighter ammo by 33%.

 

I’ve probably missed a few but I believe these are the significant changes. There are buffs in these notes, but a majority are nerfs. I will leave you to figure out which are which. I believe it is good for people to see the general changes to CVs which have greatly affected them since the launch of World of Warships.

Now onto my points and how these patches affected gameplay.

USN vs IJN

I won’t go too much into detail but as you can see there is a clear discrepancy between the stats of USN and IJN. Why is this you ask? Because IJN are simply more versatile. They have more squads allowing better vision, balanced load outs to perform any role and are mostly reliant on skill.

 

Taking away 1 TB from the strike load outs of Essex and Midway was both a bad and good decision. 2x6 TB squad was evidently overpowered, being able to delete any boat with one strike. However, 1 TB squad pales in comparison and is weak against more agile targets. Replacing them with hard hitting RNG DBs does not fix the problem. They are good against BBs but that’s about it. Sure it can do serious damage but when you hit a DD with a chance-based strike, it is neither fun for you nor the enemy. In one way, you cannot be accuracy with DBs compared to TBs while the enemy has no chance to use skill to dodge the bombs.

 

Now onto the simple solution of buffing fighter ammo. That simply does not work. While it may be good for a short term resolution, it ultimately fixes nothing. First of all; a good half of the USN line does not even get fighters in their packages. Second, it over buffs some fighters like the Bogue and Langley. Third, the ammo count of high tier CVs needs to drastically improve in order to protect your surface ally ships as the trade-off for ammo and DPS does not correlate to health gained.

 

RNG

As many of you who play this game knows; this game contains many RNG which inhibits the capacity of players. Predominantly DDs have detonations, CL/CAs have to pray they don’t get hit in the citadel, BBs have dispersion but what about CVs?

 

-Fighter vs Fighter

A huge problem with fighter vs fighter combat is it is a blatant, lazy mechanic of rolling a few dices to determine the winner. Sure, there are more skill based approaches to fighter vs fighter like the alt attack: strafing but predominantly, players will lock fighters and begin the Russian roulette to determine the winner.

 

-AA vs planes

This leads on to another sub-point; tick-based RNG. I’m sure many of you have seen 2 or 3 planes wiped out in less than a few seconds of being in AA. I think no matter what class you play, you have to think this is a real poor design of eliminating planes. When a plane squad flies into AA, again, dice are rolled to determine if the planes will get eliminated. The problem is the dice rolling per tick, meaning 1 or 2 plane dies per tick in quick succession.  This causes either your squad to live for one whole minute or getting wiped out completely in less than 5 seconds.

 

AA and META

The current meta has diverged more into BBs and DDs. There are of course server differences in classes played but overall the meta revolves around BBs and DDs now. What this leads to is the targets that CVs can choose. They can either go for BBs which are practically AA platforms or go for more vulnerable DDs which at lower tiers lack any significant defense against a plane strike. In MY experience, this is what I have been doing and I truly do not believe it is fine for a competent CV to instantly delete a DD within 2 minutes of the match.

 

CVs need to punish the larger capitals BBs – a more reliable way compared to fires from cruisers and torpedoes from destroyers. But with the recent introduction of German BBs, there are a lot more influx of BB players, meaning less CA/CLs, DDs and CVs. Even a recent WG dev has stated that they expected more DDs with the release of German BBs yet there was a decline in them. While there may be national peculiarities of each nation, the AA between the two best nations for AA really does not show this peculiarity. As a great mod once said “Data is more reliable since feedback can be laced with hyperbole and idioms.

 

Lets take USN BBs vs German BBs. I will be using 2 weeks statistics as well as solo games so every game as equal chance of determining if a CV is present as well as eliminating the differences of battle amount.
HeYtU9A.jpg
 

Using the formula 1-GermanBBPlaneKill/USNBBPlaneKill:

The Montana shoots down 14.3% more planes than the Grober Kurfurst.
The Iowa shoots down 20.8% more planes than the Friedrich der Grobe.
The North Carolina shoots down 16.6% more planes than the Bismarck.
The Colorado shoots down 66% LESS planes than the Gneisenau.
The New Mexico shoots down 38.8% LESS planes than the Bayern.
The New York shoots down 61.1% LESS planes than the Konig.
The Wyoming shoots down 37.5% LESS planes than the Kaiser.

 

There is evidently a problem with these percentages when the famed USN has less planes than Germans. The Colorado C hull has an AA rating of 55 with 353 overall DPS while Gneisenau B hull has an AA rating of 64 with 290 overall DPS. This should correlate to 21.7% more planes shot down by Colorado. Meanwhile the North Carolina has an AA rating of 77 with 547 overall DPS while Bismarck has an AA rating of 62 with 374 overall DPS. This should mean the North Carolina will shoot down 46.3% more planes.

 

Tho I have strayed far from my main point. Attacking BBs now will guarantee you losing planes. They say a CV is at its most deadly during late game but that is contradictory as it does and will lose planes attacking most surface targets, not to mention losing 5 Shokaku fighters to one Iowa catapult fighter, either 1) the AA is overpowered or 2) this RNG way of determining if something dies is flawed.

Y9EeO6W.gif


Apologies to ManaTnT and TexJapan for using your names. Notice my 4th and 3rd fighter downed in back to back ticks.

As a WG Dev stated here:
Plane destruction probability for current tick (V) is V=100/T9100%/current ticks remaining).

So destruction probability for each tick depends on:

- Quantity of passed ticks - the less ticks remain, the more is probability

A lot of the time a plane will be instantly deleted from the squad as it enters into an AA aura which is contradictory to the linear progression a squad is required to die. This is my speculation due to tick-barrage where every AA gun fires as the plane enters the aura, causing a huge amount of damage that the probability of a plane dying is huge.

 

0.5.12 and economy
What really lead me to writing this is the fact that there is another nerf, this time on the economy of CV players. With the introduction of the new economy quoted “The fee for the ship repair is now completely replaced by a fixed service charge. This means that the cost will not depend on how much damage a player has received. Moreover, we have reduced the cost of replenishing the ammunition (or air group) for a number of ships.”

 

On paper, it may sound like a buff to CVs but what has secretly happened is a nerf for competent players. CVs naturally are taxed high, require the most experience to go up the line, suffer a lot more drastically from being stock and have the worst exp modifier. With the new economy comes a new exp modifier. Players are now required to not only deal damage, but also spot and shoot down planes (they should have before as well), but the planes and spotting are now attributed into their existing modifier as shown below.

HToLkIA.png

 

Now, they get a worse exp rate, meaning all CVs will on average, receive less income, despite the “buffs”. Also a huge contradictory of spotting for your team in high tiers is the fact that DDs in T8-10 have AA which WILL shoot down planes. It is impossible to spot a DD for a prolonged amount of time due to their detection being lower than their AA firing range. The only real DDs which struggle to shoot down planes are IJN ones and even then, in prolonged times, will shoot down your planes.

 

Conclusion and suggestions
I’m not asking for a simple buff this or nerf this solution, I am asking for a rework which is the only way to fix CVs. WG hints there is a rework but I fear if it will be successful or not based on these patches. Even I do not know how to properly fix CVs but there are definitely some things which needs to and can be fixed right now:

 

Players
A CV is more able to influence the tide of the battle and when you have a unicum player against an average player, one team already has a huge advantage.

 

T8-10 CV Defensive fire
In no way does this need to last for 2 minutes. An “immune to planes” button is good as it doesn’t subtract one cruiser from the team but 2 minutes of immunity is just plain stupid. 30 seconds is plenty to suppress an attacking squad while you retract your fighters/launch your fighters.

 

UI
The UI is what many CV players seem complain about but I believe it is fine. Small improvements could be made like setting macros but overall, it is complete.

 

Autopilot
They really need to fix this as you will often find your carrier sailing right into the enemy or a position in which you did not order it to go.

 

Air Supremacy skill
This skill has more weighting than say Concealment Expert or any 5 point skill as it gives squads a massive boost, not just a 1/7th or 1/5th boost. (Shokaku fighters gain like 50% more DPS). This is very unfair when you have one CV with the skill.

 

AA Aura modifiers
Fighters engaged in combat against an enemy squad under ally AA should gain a DPS boost, not just a higher probability of it winning due to the combination of the AA.

 

Believe me; I have a lot more to discuss about but ultimately, it is up to WG to fix it and the hope that they successfully do is slimmer than an IJN DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Gotta wait for the official patch notes (or *cough* datamine *cough*), but IIRC, carriers get a pretty significant plane cost reduction on top of the economy changes that can help offset the replenishing tax. Otherwise, yeah, CVs are definitely a major work-in-progress. UI changes are definitely in the works, at the very least, and perhaps we may see a major rework of commander skills (that will hopefully see the end of Air Supremacy as a MUST GET). 

 

Just one point of contention though:

 

 They say a CV is at its most deadly during late game but that is contradictory as it does and will lose planes attacking most surface targets, not to mention losing 5 Shokaku fighters to one Iowa catapult fighter, either 1) the AA is overpowered or 2) this RNG way of determining if something dies is flawed.

 

The thing about CVs being deadliest during late-game is more due to the fact that players are firstly, more spread out as the game progresses (for random battles, at least), giving CVs the opportunity to strike lone targets instead of the initial clumping you see in the first 5-7 mins of a match. Secondly, ships at the later stages of the game are more damaged - meaning they've lost significant numbers of AA mounts. Finishing off damaged targets with destroyed AA guns is going to be easier than taking out a fresh target.

 

Catapult fighters are, well, yeah, they really shouldn't be able to wreck purpose-built fighter aircraft squadrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
54 posts
7,188 battles

Before the "The fee for the ship repair is now completely replaced by a fixed service charge" thingy, Vaexa from reddit have datamined that CVs in 0.5.12 PTS have a lower fuel fee and repair fee

I quote from her post:

 

Fuel fee = base repair cost per-game (ie a fee you get just for hitting battle)

Max repair costs: maximum amount of credits you will have to pay for ship repairs (ie when ending a game with 0% health, in other words, dying)

Ships

  • Hosho/Langley: fuel fee increased (500 > 2000)
  • Zuiho/Bogue: max repair costs decreased (13000 > 12000)
  • Ryujo/Independence: max repair costs decreased (30000 > 29000)
  • Hiryu/Ranger: max repair costs decreased (53000 > 42000)
  • Shokaku/Lexington: max repair costs decreased (100000 > 70000)
  • Taiho/Essex: fuel fee decreased (70000 > 60000), max repair costs decreased (165000 > 82000)
  • Hakuryu/Midway: fuel fee decreased (100000 > 90000), max repair costs decreased (260000 > 140000)

Saipan is exempt from these changes as she already has lower costs (20500/44000 fuel fee/repairs)

Planes

These are not module prices, but prices per plane lost during battle.

  • Martin BM2: cost decreased (220 > 150)
  • Vought F4U: cost increased (800 > 1200)
  • Grumman F3F: cost decreased (320 > 220)
  • Grumman F6F: cost decreased (800 > 550)
  • Grumman TBF: cost decreased (800 > 550)
  • Grumman F4F: cost decreased (550 > 220)
  • Curtiss SB2C: cost decreased (1200 > 800)
  • Grumman F8F: cost increased (1200 > 1700)
  • Mitsubishi A7M1: cost increased (800 > 1200)
  • Mitsubishi A6M2: cost decreased (550 > 320)
  • Douglas SBD2: cost decreased (800 > 220)
  • Yokosuka B4Y: cost decreased (320 > 220)
  • Kawanishi N1K5-A: cost decreased (1200 > 800)

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/53zxl9/05111_live_0512_pt_1_changes/

 

Now I understand, the fuel fee+repair fee wont be the same as the "fixed service charge", and CVs gonna pay more than before because they gonna pay credits like as if they had received damage even though they didnt. BUT, it COULD be that CVs fixed service charge will be much lowered altogther compared to other class like their repair fee. Since they implemented the lower repair cost just for CVs, they could potentially lower their fixed service charge. Again is still up for speculation. Another flaw in fixed service charge is that for cruisers like zao where their niche is stealth firing, they could potentially take very little damage, and suffer low repair fee, but with the "fixed service charge" it means that a zao will have to pay more than before because again they have to pay credits as if they had taken some damage when they in fact didnt take alot of damage.

 

As for playable or not, they are, However I say they are not strong either, especially for T8 and below CVs where they cant access the module that upgrade the HP of attack planes. And AA been buffed patches after patches. Even a non AFT tirpitz can shoot down almost every plane in a squadron now.  Another problem is the bad USN CV loadout that will just lose out to IJN from arguably t6 onwards. And not to say the slow chunky UI.

CV has tons of problems, and WG has trouble finding solutions for them and balance them. Not to mention about the whole " world of battleships" thing where they just only listen to BBs complains but not from other class players like CV who are a minority thanks to their constant buffs to BBs. Think about it, IJN DDs got nerf, their torps got nerf, Gunboats get stronger, BB AA buffed, all for what? all just for the complaining BBs that cant WASD or dodge torps so that they can take less torps which are less punishing by themselves now compared to before

Edited by AKagai42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

I would like to point out that for some unknown reason, the USN T8 and T10 bombers are... slow. Like, really slow. The Lex bombers are slow as hell compared to Shokaku's, and so are Midway's (with a super long rearm time).

 

Other than that, I generally agree with the OP (and have experienced some of the stuff posted above). The main gripe I have with USN 1000 lb bombs is that they are VERY inconsistent; the manual drop reticle size should give you an idea:

http://imgur.com/2MWSBPE

 

 

Edited by stratmania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SGC]
Super Tester
1,459 posts
6,806 battles

Regarding 2 week statistics.

I have noticed an anomaly.

 

All the stats seem to be artificially inflated. Evident in how all tier 1s and 2s have MORE than 50% win rate.

Also the Krispy Kreme has a 55% win rate on our server. And that ship is just outright horrible.

My theory is that an amount of below average players are hiding their statistics, leaving only average to above average players opting to not hide their stats thereby artificially inflating the recent stats.

 

CVs needs a rework. Badly.

And its one I can not wait too long for, my Ranger sits ever so sadly in my port.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

Regarding 2 week statistics.

I have noticed an anomaly.

 

All the stats seem to be artificially inflated. Evident in how all tier 1s and 2s have MORE than 50% win rate.

Also the Krispy Kreme has a 55% win rate on our server. And that ship is just outright horrible.

My theory is that an amount of below average players are hiding their statistics, leaving only average to above average players opting to not hide their stats thereby artificially inflating the recent stats.

 

CVs needs a rework. Badly.

And its one I can not wait too long for, my Ranger sits ever so sadly in my port.

 

You know

Some Below average player are quita ashame about their own stats

Well, not like we can complain about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

Gotta wait for the official patch notes (or *cough* datamine *cough*), but IIRC, carriers get a pretty significant plane cost reduction on top of the economy changes that can help offset the replenishing tax. Otherwise, yeah, CVs are definitely a major work-in-progress. UI changes are definitely in the works, at the very least, and perhaps we may see a major rework of commander skills (that will hopefully see the end of Air Supremacy as a MUST GET). 

 

Just one point of contention though:

 

 

The thing about CVs being deadliest during late-game is more due to the fact that players are firstly, more spread out as the game progresses (for random battles, at least), giving CVs the opportunity to strike lone targets instead of the initial clumping you see in the first 5-7 mins of a match. Secondly, ships at the later stages of the game are more damaged - meaning they've lost significant numbers of AA mounts. Finishing off damaged targets with destroyed AA guns is going to be easier than taking out a fresh target.

 

Catapult fighters are, well, yeah, they really shouldn't be able to wreck purpose-built fighter aircraft squadrons.

 

The thing about mid-high tier BB AA that somewhat irks me is that it can (and will) give an equal-tier CV quite the aircraft casualty (even without AA spec). This gets FAR worse when you get 2 Iowas sailing together and even an Essex can't strike it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

 

The thing about mid-high tier BB AA that somewhat irks me is that it can (and will) give an equal-tier CV quite the aircraft casualty (even without AA spec). This gets FAR worse when you get 2 Iowas sailing together and even an Essex can't strike it properly.

 

Honestly, mid-tier is a bigger issue than high tier. Every plane loss hurts when you don't have enough spares. T5 and t6 carriers are annoying to play as a consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
117 posts
1,365 battles

 

You know

Some Below average player are quita ashame about their own stats

Well, not like we can complain about that

Really?   Some Below average player are ashamed about their stats? The more you post the more ridiculous your ridiculousness becomes ridiculous. Clearly possible! Who'd of thunk. As you were. SMH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,452 posts
2,950 battles

Oh wow. Quite a well-made post.

 

Though I am fine with RNG-based AA DPS rather than something like an HP pool. 

 

The thing is, every ship has an absurd amount of AA relative to plane/squadron count. At most, you would only see 38 enemy (CV) planes in a T10 match in the air at a time- But that's if the Hakuryu dragged his fighters. Usually, strike packages come in 2-3 squadrons per wave in the IJN's case and 1-2 squadrons per wave in the USN's case. This translates to 6-15 planes attacking at a time.

 

Against 100+ AA mounts.

 

You have to compromise between making the quantity of AA batteries on a ship work whilst still allowing CV players a chance to get close to the ship. RNG is a great way to guarantee that both attacker and defender have a chance. Making AA for short to long-range stack in DPS would make most ships nigh-untouchable, so their DPS is done separately.

 

This has the unfortunate side-effect of going outside the intended "Linear loss of planes" because different AA types have their own ticks. A possible solution to the instant plane deletions would be to limit AA DPS based on their type. For example, this would make long-range AA only activate a range of 3.1/3.5-5km rather than being 1 of 3 sources of DPS calculations for a plane within 2km of a ship. For medium range AA, it could be 1-3.5km, with anything within 1km making medium AA ineffective- However, this cannot be practically used for anything other than spotting given that planes within that range cannot strike: It would also expose them to short range (0-2km) AA.

 

The above suggestion intends to make only 1 AA aura activate. Whichever AA category possesses the greatest AA DPS within that range would be the only one active.

 

While I dislike how the economy would change due to spotting mechanics, I do believe that this will encourage CV players to actively spot targets for the team than loiter.

 

UI is bad in ways I'm too sleepy to list now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

 

Honestly, mid-tier is a bigger issue than high tier. Every plane loss hurts when you don't have enough spares. T5 and t6 carriers are annoying to play as a consequence.

 

I consider T4-T5 as low tiers (AA at those tiers don't really hurt that much), T6-T8 to be mid tiers, and T8-T10 to be high tiers. 

 

AA at T8+ can REALLY cost you planes. The issue is not so much with reserves but that even if you do have reserves the AA can make it such that only a few torps drop into the water in each attack, and that's unpleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[AUSNZ]
Super Tester
82 posts
11,152 battles

Great OP, I think i started playing the game at 5.4 and started CV's at 5.6 down the USN line. I made it to the Lexington after a horrid grind on the Ranger, primarily using the standard squadron setup 1-1-1, simply because i found the AS setup not interesting or fun enough, as you pointed out relying on RNG to determine the outcome of aerial dogfights is not why I want to spend time playing World of WARSHIPS! After 15 or so games in Lexington I parked it completely because it was just awful against a Shokaku as most players correctly point out. I was then advised to try the full strike loadout. WTF, no fighters?! Well it took me a few games to adjust my play style and I can honestly say it's far superior, in my opinion. I'm nearly at the Hiryu and even with all those squadrons, including a FT, I actually prefer the hard hitting USN DB's over TBD's! The USN strike setup has changed my view entirely of CV's. Yes the CV economy needs a rework, ie gaining credits/xp for spotting, shooting down aircraft etc.

I think the gameplay of the full strike loadout is far more enjoyable, and yes there's an element of RNG involved in manual bomb drops, but I've now lifted my WR in Lex to 50% (almost :playing:) and avg dmg to 65k, but am reliably punching out 100k dmg a game of late. I think the manual torp and bomb drop functions work fine and are in line with the same sort of RNG you get with main guns on other ships in the game, as you pointed out in the OP.

Now, this isn't every game as I have run into some very capable Shokaku drivers, and even Lex drivers using the 2-0-2 setup, and combined with a below average team my influence has been substantially lessened. However, by not being lazy and being smart about finding attack runs, using allied CA's for AA cover, the 013 setup can be devastating. Yes, I'm hanging out for the 113 setup on the Essex, and if WG wanted to easily and practically balance out the USN v IJN CV's, they'd add a FT squadron to the existing strike setup in the Lexington. Simples.

Re defensive AA fire, I'm not even convinced that this should even be in the game. Aircraft Carriers took over from Battleships as the dominant naval weapon as WW2 evolved, and that should be reflected in a game like WOWS. If WG are trying to balance things to make surface warfare ie gun and torpedo battles more prevalent because it's what players want, then just remove CV's from the game and be done with it. Restricting the number of CV's per team in tiers 8-10 i think is a good move to ensure the game is enjoyable for all classes of ship, but the whole defensive AA fire thing is what makes playing a strike loadout on a CV mind-numbingly frustrating. I played a game yesterday, one I wish I recorded; I sent in my 3 x squadrons of DBs to hit an enemy Bismarck i think from memory. I had the manual reticle perfectly aimed, then the reticle enlarged and I remembered I had seen a Des Moines in the area, but it wasn't in screen. I then realised the DM was hiding in the smokescreen of a teammate and a second later, all 21 of my DBs were gone. Sure, it's a tier 10 AA Cruiser and I'd expect to lose a few planes, but all 21 in 1 second is just ridiculous. This then resulted in a tirade of abuse from a couple of my team mates for running the 013 setup...an issue i'm going to address in my next YouTube vid, but that's straying from the OP :)

Anyway, my 2 cents on the matter...here's hoping CV's do receive some appropriate buffs to restore some balance in the world of naval justice

Edited by The_Corn_Cartel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

The main issue with DF that I have is that it flat-out counters strike packages/setups with no skill involved and really screws them over.

 

How so? If a strike USN with 0 fighters somehow evades enemy fighters and actually reaches the target, that DF buys 40 seconds for fighters to arrive unless you want the strike package to have a wide spread. This is something that I find extremely frustrating when I was grinding Ranger and Lexington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
345 posts
3,668 battles

A lot of tier VII CV players would be happy if WG moves the "pay-to-win" saipan to tier VIII :)

 

UYr27Lt.jpg

Edited by Loshirai14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

The main issue with DF that I have is that it flat-out counters strike packages/setups with no skill involved and really screws them over.

 

How so? If a strike USN with 0 fighters somehow evades enemy fighters and actually reaches the target, that DF buys 40 seconds for fighters to arrive unless you want the strike package to have a wide spread. This is something that I find extremely frustrating when I was grinding Ranger and Lexington.

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.asia/index.php?/topic/15094-carriers-do-not-need-defensive-fire-consumable/

 

I posted this a while a go but people didn't want to listen, some dismissed the idea and some posted messages that are border lining derogatory 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.asia/index.php?/topic/15094-carriers-do-not-need-defensive-fire-consumable/

 

I posted this a while a go but people didn't want to listen, some dismissed the idea and some posted messages that are border lining derogatory 

 

Well, I was refering more to surface ships in general (a hidden USN DD can really ruin that BB drop). 

 

But yes, I get your point. Strike loadouts with 0 fighters are mechanically unable to deal with fighter presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[AUSNZ]
Super Tester
82 posts
11,152 battles

The main issue with DF that I have is that it flat-out counters strike packages/setups with no skill involved and really screws them over.

 

100000% agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
43 posts
4,264 battles

As a T6 CV captain (Both Independance and Ryujo) 

 

There are issues on every level for CVs, but I think mid tier is actually suicidal right now.
In a T6 Carrier you will almost always get bottom tier in random battles and pretty much every single T7 ship will absolutely shred planes.
Even destroyers with decent AA will delete your planes if you follow them too long.

I think CVs need more MM tweaks, or scaling upgrades, where your planes get HP or something adjusted depending on the tiers of ships in the game...
Its actually painful haha

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATLAS]
Beta Tester
464 posts
9,865 battles

USN BB shoot down less plane than KM BB, USN was supposed to have the best AA in the game. 

Well done War Gaming, well done.

 

the so called best AA nation is actually doesn't start having their best AA armament until later tier. I said this back then, Wyoming and New York actually have worse AA than their Japanese counterpart on the top hull. The presence of Germans Battleships which already have decent AA at stock hull (except konig) also contributes into the data where their monstrous DP tearing the planes on top hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,017 battles

 

the so called best AA nation is actually doesn't start having their best AA armament until later tier. I said this back then, Wyoming and New York actually have worse AA than their Japanese counterpart on the top hull. The presence of Germans Battleships which already have decent AA at stock hull (except konig) also contributes into the data where their monstrous DP tearing the planes on top hull.

 

Also, manual AA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
2,265 posts
10,789 battles

As a T6 CV captain (Both Independance and Ryujo) 

 

There are issues on every level for CVs, but I think mid tier is actually suicidal right now.

In a T6 Carrier you will almost always get bottom tier in random battles and pretty much every single T7 ship will absolutely shred planes.

Even destroyers with decent AA will delete your planes if you follow them too long.

 

I think CVs need more MM tweaks, or scaling upgrades, where your planes get HP or something adjusted depending on the tiers of ships in the game...

Its actually painful haha

 

Sometimes (i guess usually) CVs tier 6 meet tier 8 CAs or BBs and they try to charge BBs but they don't know how powerful AA in tier 8 such as NC, Bismark class, Amagi and they try to kill themselves 

For me I play RJ and try to escape AA from tier 8 and try to troll DD and sink them or rush CV first game (I got Confederate, High Caliber, Devastating Strike, FB and Arsonist and i got reported 2 times that game lol)

Share this post


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

×