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

My two cents on CV revamp suggestions

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
634 posts
6,234 battles

IMHO, I think CVs need a much more through revamp than just 'editing the CV interface'.

 

Let me get started on US CVs. What I think, one of the main problem with them is that, they lack squadrons to detect '(light them up!) DDs. Yes, WG try to make it so that different nations have different straits, and indeed with much fewer squadrons they are easier to control. However especially with high tiers it became much harder for US CVs to provide the same amount of support for their teammates than IJN CVs. The support here means both air superiority and situational awareness-light up DDs. 

 

You can see from stats, high tier US CVs have quite a decent damage on average, but why is the winrate so low? 

Good question. This is the same thing with Invisi-firing Zaos (also applies to other ships but i am only using zao as an example), yes, they burned enemy BB, always got 100k damage per game, however, they did not do what a cruiser should do. They did not contribute to AA defense by grouping with others. They did not try to catch DD or to keep DD away from BBs. They  did not fight other CA and thus letting enemy CA burn their own BB down.

 

Such is the case in the 013 Lexington, yes, it depends greatly on player skill, yes. It can do a lot of damage. But it is highly situational ship. Whenever you get a decent Shokaku player, it is a GG.

Besides, you did do a lot of damage through DoT. But did you help the rest of the team? Having to avoid enemy fighters means they cant really provide reconnaissance for teammates.

 

And then their is the problem of trying to catch DDs. Yes, with two Torp squadrons, they are a bit OP, however, nerfing one Torp squadron means  they cant kill DDs anymore. One squadron maybe effective in the case of say, Akizuki with cruiser like rudders and will have a hardly time avoiding torps, but for other Stalin DDs and Freedom fighters alike you can't really hit them with torps unless they have really not being paying attention (or maybe being noob which is unlikely in high tiers)

 

This is not the case with IJN CVs, they have two torpedo squadrons and with some skill, can kill DDs with cross torping reliably. And also, because they have many squadrons, they will be able to detect DDs-potential threats much easier than their US counter parts.

 

But again, this is NOT to say IJN CVs are OP, yes, they have a much higher winrate. But consider the following:

1. Both high tier IJN and US CVs are trash.

2. IJN CV is less trash than US CVs.

3. Thus IJN CV has better Winrate

 

And do I need to stress how useless Dive bomber squadrons are against DDs. I have not seen only once, that a 013 uses all three squadrons on one DD while not getting hit once.

 

And now this brings me to my second point-buff dive bombers. 

 

IRL, torp bombers are very effective against battleships (or torpedoes are effective in general), as seen in the sinking of repluse of PoW, and the sinking of Yamato and Musashi. Dive bombers, when used against BBs is mainly to soften up the AA (in the case of yamato), or (in the case of Bombing the Kure harbour) Against stationary targets with older generation BBs such as the Haruna and ISE (do some near misses and get flooding damage).  dive bombers are also effective if it has a large charge, but they are much deadly against ships with lighter armour-cruisers, destroyers, CVs. Even near misses are deadly against DDs and cruisers. (attack on wake island, those IJN DDs are one shot kill for US planes) 

 

However, in game, as I have mentioned above, dive bombers are useless against DDs, as hitting them is very, very chance based. Hitting CA is equally useless as half the time they will have AA consumable on. Even when hit, Dive bombers does much less damage than Torps. Well, they do set fires and break a thing or two-if they HIT!

 

So, How are US CVs able to kill DDs-a thing that they are tasked to do? I wonder.

 

In addition, the amount of ridiculous AA ships in high tier is ridiculous. US CA HMS CA. KM CA. Even the zao has decent AA thanks to 100mm L65 guns. There is just too much AA at high tier battles.

 

And No im not saying that AA should be removed completely it is just too much AA is too much. Take in mind that a CVs fighting ability, unlike other ships, decreases as the battle goes. 

 

(well seeing as the Des Moines is not over performing I think it should keep its AA.)

But then, US DDs with AA setup can shoot CV planes reliably????? (like they are not good ships already)

 HMS CA doesnt need AA consumable to vaporize planes. And KM CA???????

(How are German ships having good AA, for balance reasons i suppose)

 

[interview with Bismarck Chan]

Q: Guten Tag Bismarck-chan

A: Morning Admiral 

Q: You participated in Operation Rheinübung right?

A: Yes. Why would you ask that admiral?

Q: After that you were attack by Swordfish planes,a pre WWII-bi plane right?

A: Ehhhh. Yes?

Q: And did you shoot'em down?

A (Blushes): Nein.  

 

The amount of AA makes it so that CVs main targets in high tier battles is IJN BB, KM BB, and DDs (well the last one is for IJN CVs only as mentioned before hand US CVs cant really kill DDs. And even then they will inevitably lose planes.

 

And then, inevitably people will start saying that: WE NEED AA! IF WE DONT HAVE AA CV WILL BE OP!!!!

 

Is that really the truth? Do you really need that much AA?

At tier 4 and 5, there are lot of CVs right?

At tier 4 and 5, there are no AA ships right (except Yubari but that is premium and hardly anyone has it)

Then why is CV not OP in these tiers?

 

And if we BB and CA players can have good games because matchmaking made it so. Can't CV have good games because MM paired them up with Ships who have bad AA. Heck I am a Yamato driver and I dont mind so.

 

And repair fees..This feature is not helping at all. Rather than Deducting a certain amount of repair fees. I think CV repair fees should be mainly based on how many planes they lost. With the ship repair fee be a minor part. 

 

So, in conclusion. my suggestions:

 

1. Change US CV squadrons to have say, 5 planes per squadron, but give them more squadrons.

2. Make Dive bombers more effective, make near misses a thing, or if that is not possible, greatly increase the accuracy of Dive bombers. Also, make a damage system for dive bombers, the lighter the deck armour is, the more damage dealt.

3. Balance the AA of ships so that overall less AA. 

4. Do something about the repair fees.

 

 

Again, just my two cents.:coin:

 

Edited by TorpedoBeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
381 posts
9,958 battles

1. You will need to remove or significantly tone down the advantage of USN attack aircraft under DF to compensate for that.

2. For USN sounds like a good change. IJN divebombers feel pretty ok to me in its current state though. I can manual drop on DD and land at least 1 hit 90% of the time. 

3. It's the problem with MM imo. I watched a lot of CV streams and Hakuryu/Midway just rofl stomp anything that doesn't have DF (yeah even Montana) so AA is not that strong.if the MM gap is not 2.

4. I think repair cost are already plane-dependent. What we need is better income.

Share this post


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

But again, this is NOT to say IJN CVs are OP, yes, they have a much higher winrate. But consider the following:

1. Both high tier IJN and US CVs are trash.

2. IJN CV is less trash than US CVs.

3. Thus IJN CV has better Winrate

What the hell ....?

IJN CV are FLAT OUT broken at ALL Tier

High tier IJN CVs are trash ? Are you shitting me ? ARE YOU SHITTING ME ?

One more important question is that why the hell are you talking about high tier CV whilst you only have 1 game in your Ryujo which is also your highest tier CV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
634 posts
6,234 battles

What the hell ....?

IJN CV are FLAT OUT broken at ALL Tier

High tier IJN CVs are trash ? Are you shitting me ? ARE YOU SHITTING ME ?

One more important question is that why the hell are you talking about high tier CV whilst you only have 1 game in your Ryujo which is also your highest tier CV

 

First of all, 1 good game doesnt mean anything. Also the player is unicum, not all players are good.

Secondly, pleaase provide evidence on how they are 'broken' at all tiers/

Also, one doesnt have to be using a ships to comment on it.

Example: Sports commentators doesn't play the sport themselves, or does it for a minor hobby, but they still criticise the players and people trust their opinions.

Share this post


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

 

First of all, 1 good game doesnt mean anything. Also the player is unicum, not all players are good.

 

I can provide with plenty of other good games if I want to. I really wonder why in the last month I haven't seen a single good USN CV game on Youtube whilst I've seen multiple good IJN CVs games

 

Secondly, pleaase provide evidence on how they are 'broken' at all tiers/

 

Winrate compared to USN CV+ Avg Damage or Avg planes kills. Most of the time IJN CVs either beats out prem ships in term of damage or have the highest damage for non premium ships, only beaten by prem ships. 

 

Also, one doesnt have to be using a ships to comment on it.

Ok, I will now comment on the Bismarck at tier 8. The Bismarck is a ship for complete idiots, all they have to do is click their hydro button and ctrl+click on enemy ship to use the Bismarck secondary. It is so easy that even my 3 years old sister will be able to get 70% winrate with her

Example: Sports commentators doesn't play the sport themselves, or does it for a minor hobby, but they still criticise the players and people trust their opinions.

But they do hours upon hours of training, they have to learn about the theory part of each sports, learn all the rules, all the great players etc, AND they also have to watch hundred of hours of sport tournament as well. You neither have the training or experiences required to make you a reliable source of information about CV gameplay

 

Edited by silenthunter19944

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
341 posts
2,790 battles

CVs in my opinion will never be fixed. Over the past year, every update has been a nerf to CVs, weather it be economical or mechanical. Buffing plane speed but giving them less HP and increasing enemy AA DPS. There is also the power creep of every single class getting  Defensive fire. All these nerfs have driven almost every single CV player away. There remains only a handful of unicum CV players yet despite this, all feedback is ignored and static fixes like "33% ammo buff" is given without the thought of consequences (making bogue strafe what? 6 times?).

 

But you are definitely right when you say UI changes will NOT fix the problem with CVs.

Share this post


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

Stop wasting your time on CVs. We have been giving WG some excellent feedback and suggestions on how to finally balance the CV but it's all deaf ears and they have already announced their goals of "making the gap between good and bad players disappear". All we can expect now is a deeper dive into the craphole for the CVs, more dumbing down.



 

 

BTW, you high or something? High tier IJN CVs are trash? Taiho and Hakuryu? A ship that could easily do 130k avg damage/game while maintaining air superiority?

Edited by Deicide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,250 battles

Srsly, using Bismarck as an example isn't (frankly) even a bit convincing. At top tiers the ships have amongst the best AA weapons of WWII. Montana has the 127/54 DP guns which is probably the best large caliber naval AA for WWII (this gun's single mount entered service on MW, late 1945 a bit after WWII). GK gets the 55mm/77 guns which are better than the well-known 40mm Bofors guns, and the 128/61 KM40, a relatively great performing land based AA gun. DM has 76.2/50 guns which served till the cold war, Hindenberg also has the 55mm/77 guns, Moskva's 130/55 is a post-war design (the 45mm is also post-war, but wasn't quite successful). Well the Japanese… They have the best they can offer. And look at the Brits! Srsly you want to challenge their AA with propeller planes? Even jets are quite paper against that kind of AA.

Minotaur gets 5*2 QF Mark N5 guns in five Mark XXVI mounts, which historically entered service in 1959 on HMS Tiger in modified Mark XXVI turrets. These guns are the best 6" AA guns, capable of 20rpm and a transverse faster than a single closed 127/38 mount. HMS Tiger, with only 2*2 of these guns, can project more metal per minute than a Project 68/bis (Chapayev/Sverdlov). These guns are better than the 127/38 guns in almost every aspect, and 127/38 has proven themselves very powerful against propeller planes.

And Minotaur has 8*2 76.2mm/70 N1, which is probably the best mid caliber AA, having a top rpm of 120, they have made the Tiger-class (3*2 of them) an AA fortress.

Even the T9 Neptune gets the post-war STAAG.

So just stop complaining, your planes are durable enough compared to reality.

Edited by _Halcyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,671 posts
10,499 battles

I dont mind high AA fire from groups , since you have to set intercept course from far away , not turning when close in. What i do mind are ships with high enough AA to be able to Yolo alone without being afraid of air strikes , 4/5 cruiser lines can do it , US/German BB can if they take manual AA which is dumb.Too many times it is a GG because a no fly zone ship has full HP from sniping like a noob got left behind and i cant rekt him. AA should be high , but not independantly high , it should be a force multiplier based feature depending on number of contributers. This also compel the reasons in Ranked battle strike CV has no use as the AA even from 1 ship is stupidly high and it make groups nigh impossible to attack. CV is very strong in random if one can circumvent AA bubble but in Ranked they are completely useless as each of them run AS load out and rightclick dogfight allday long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

You're beating a dead horse, people have been beating it since alpha and are still beating it today.

 

First let me re-post this link to clarify that I, too, agree that CVs need a complete overhaul.

It's basically a re-write of a thread I made back in the middle of alpha testing with pretty much the same content.

 

Then let me tell you that WG is actively working on a major rework.

From one of the latest Q&As:

 

Q: Quick question, is a CV revamp in the works?

From the economic portion to gameplay anything would be appreciated

A: Yes.

Q:  Soon or SoonTm ?

A: In developement plan.

Problem is recognized and accepted as a problem.

The only factor that slows us down that the problem is complex and cannot be solved by a couple of tweaks.

We are working on it. I wish I could give you the exact date, but I cannot.

Don’t expect it to be solved until Spring at least.

 

Source

 

Now it's pretty much just: "Endure it and give feedback once that rework hits the public test server."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,044 battles

As it is, the most obvious change that needs to happen is the removal of 013 loadouts in USN... that loadout is extremely inconsistent. AA on certain BBs also need to be toned down (Gneisenau).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

AA on certain BBs also need to be toned down (Gneisenau)

 

Yeah to kill them easily??? Gneisenau has Good AA I agree But nerfing it makes players to hold it even more back. you want that to happen??? why not nerf Cleveland's and Atlanta's AA too they are quite OP as well.

Share this post


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

 

Yeah to kill them easily??? Gneisenau has Good AA I agree But nerfing it makes players to hold it even more back. you want that to happen??? why not nerf Cleveland's and Atlanta's AA too they are quite OP as well.

 

Well Cleveland can't be nerfed because it is what set the Cleveland apart from other cruisers, that insane AA, it is also a US cruiser trait. 

Atlanta was a devastating AA platform in real life. Nerfing her AA would be like nerfing Yamato's shell damage and penetration 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

Well Cleveland can't be nerfed because it is what set the Cleveland apart from other cruisers

 

In that case that is what sets Gneisenau apart from other Battleships of it's tier. It needs ability to go on it's own, Push the enemies make them retreat. When you give ship like that bad AA then yeah good luck with pushing when a CV is around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,056 posts
9,044 battles

 

Yeah to kill them easily??? Gneisenau has Good AA I agree But nerfing it makes players to hold it even more back. you want that to happen??? why not nerf Cleveland's and Atlanta's AA too they are quite OP as well.

 

I'm saying tone it down to Colorado level or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BRU]
Member
309 posts
11,163 battles

Uhmm sir are you drunk?? You say high tier CV's are trash?? 3 TB's from Taiho and Hakuryu can obliterate a battleship/cruiser(no def AA consumable used) with 1 strike, and a single TB and 2-3 DB's from Essex and Midway can deplete a ship's HP faster with its fire/flood combination. High tier CV's are the pinnacle which the brave CV' players are grinding hard to get the Hakuryu and Midway and that's the best achievement for CV players. As for the AA change, AA defense is based on RNG on how many planes you down so I don't care about it. On the other hand, I only agree about the CV's repair costs. Plane costs are okay but the ship itself is badly needed to decrease its repair costs or increase the income per game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BRU]
Member
309 posts
11,163 battles

For the Lexington change, 0-1-3 is okay for me because I know how to outsmart enemy CV sometimes. If there will be changes, I prefer 1-1-2 setup for balance recon, attack, and defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

I'm saying tone it down to Colorado level or something. 

 

Well we know Lolorado has Not so good AA why do you need to go upon Gneisenau??? go for other ships and don't touch it like you do with Cleveland and Atlanta

 

Man You're an Amazing CV player. You have your tactics which are mostly on point and you can easily kill ships I've seen you play. Why do you care about Gneisenau that much??? Not like Gneisenau shoots down every plane you send at it.

Edited by Aaditya_AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
563 posts
4,686 battles

First of all, 1 good game doesnt mean anything. Also the player is unicum, not all players are good.

Secondly, pleaase provide evidence on how they are 'broken' at all tiers/

Also, one doesnt have to be using a ships to comment on it.

Example: Sports commentators doesn't play the sport themselves, or does it for a minor hobby, but they still criticise the players and people trust their opinions.

It means everything. See that poor tirpitz? Even the Iowa is stomped. Hakuryu and Taiho is BROKEN. It has 12 torp plane in 3 squadron. It can drop better than the old midway. Also the guaranteed fire dive bomber. Fix the flooding? Here, eat 3 fires. The converging torps also allow it to do a long drop. Further increases its flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
341 posts
2,790 battles

 

Well we know Lolorado has Not so good AA why do you need to go upon Gneisenau??? go for other ships and don't touch it like you do with Cleveland and Atlanta

 

Man You're an Amazing CV player. You have your tactics which are mostly on point and you can easily kill ships I've seen you play. Why do you care about Gneisenau that much??? Not like Gneisenau shoots down every plane you send at it.

 

The Colorado shoots down 66% LESS planes than the Gneisenau. 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. 

 

When you have BBs capable of defending themselves from aircraft alone, there is a problem, especially non-dedicated AA platforms unlike the Atlanta or Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
563 posts
4,686 battles

The Colorado shoots down 66% LESS planes than the Gneisenau. 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. 

You completely ignore range and effectiveness of long range AA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,174 posts
10,495 battles

 

 

The Colorado shoots down 66% LESS planes than the Gneisenau. 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. 

 

 

 

When you have BBs capable of defending themselves from aircraft alone, there is a problem, especially non-dedicated AA platforms unlike the Atlanta or Cleveland.

 

 

 

Okay lets see what WG says about these ships

 

Colorado with full AA

 

UhBfIcg.png

 

Gneisenau with full AA

 

RCjZwyQ.png

 

Even WG admits that it is a Deadly ship for planes. compared to Colorado's Good AA. Why do you want to nerf the ship which is made to deal with planes?? Just because you can play freely. Now I'd say Nerf CVs because my fuso cannot deal with them. Will it be right??? Think about other ships as well not only about your CVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
341 posts
2,790 battles

You completely ignore range and effectiveness of long range AA

 

Yes, I did but that's beside the point.

 

 

Okay lets see what WG says about these ships

 

Colorado with full AA

 

UhBfIcg.png

 

Gneisenau with full AA

 

RCjZwyQ.png

 

Even WG admits that it is a Deadly ship for planes. compared to Colorado's Good AA. Why do you want to nerf the ship which is made to deal with planes?? Just because you can play freely. Now I'd say Nerf CVs because my fuso cannot deal with them. Will it be right??? Think about other ships as well not only about your CVs

 

First of all, Imain Cruisers and DDs, have more games in both of them compared to CVs. Second, the problem is that there are ships which can go off solo and defend against enemy CVs completely alone. Maybe if you tried playing the class you would have a better understanding. As for your fuso example, that's cherry picking, the same as complaining your DD doesn't have enough AA to defend against CVs. I also never said anything about buffing CVs directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
68 posts
3,836 battles

How about giving fighters the ability to deal dmg to ships via missiles/rockets. IJN CVs got more squadron. US CVs should be balanced with missile enabled fighters to dmg ships for once (UK CV soon). They are efficient at fend off enemy aircraft but slower if they didn't unload their missiles first. This might change the way high tier CV battle I think. 

Share this post


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

×