Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Player_3356594408

Carrier Suggestions (Constructive Please)

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
15 posts
222 battles

This is a thread (hopefully) that is looking at suggestions that's for improving carrier play for carrier captains. I'm not after balancing suggestions, just things to make carriers more fun.

Firstly, dive bombers. There's a weird little zoom at the start of a dive bombing run that looks a little odd when the little 30s biplanes do it. I'm looking forward to practicing some loft bomb attacks (dropping on the zoom), however loft bombing wasn't common so my suggestion is to have the bombers normally fly at a higher altitude, somewhat like when flying over one of the islands. When the bomber goes into attack, there's no zoom before the dive. However, before the attack, the squadron needs to climb to altitude meaning carriers are even more reliant on their escorts.

Also, at the higher altitude, reduce the AA effect but step it up in the dive (you won't lose as many planes driving around the map but against properly supported battleships, the attacks will become much harder.

Next, make the target reticle more punishing for moves in the dive.This will encourage bombers to target bigger ships and those driving around by themselves meaning the long suffering destroyer captains will get a break. Reducing the view distance for spotting destroyers when at altitude would be further relief.

Torpedoes. No suggestions there. They seem to work fine.

Attack aircraft. Still thinking about them.

Map view. Can I get half, quarter and three quarters speed or more than five waypoints, please? I try to keep close to the fleet to support them and my carrier crew is getting dizzy with all the circles and zig zags that I have to create to follow the fleet are a reasonable distance and I quickly run out of waypoints as I try to create oaths that keep me moving forward but not in a suicidal run moving forward approach.

Edited by Player_3356594408
Edited for spelling and logical flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[HMASW]
Member
19 posts
6,079 battles

1) Stop making the Carrier deck fire proof and AA proof.  If CV wants AA protection do what everyone else does and get to an AA ship and pray.  If they ships misplays on positioning they should get punished harshly just like any ship should.  At the moment, there's no downside.  Lose planes.  Poop out more planes and go again.

2) Genuinely think planes should have range to make a CV move up a bit.  If you want to fly your plane beyond its there and back range, it'll ditch in the sea and make the timer for replenishment go up.

3) Make DFAA viable again.  When activated the aiming recticule on the CV disappears while in its zone and makes plane control more sketchy.  Counter play is to stay outside of that zone for the DFAA period.  

4) Give CV better control of his ship so he can react to 1 better.  

5) Planes can't hard spot on the map.  You're only hard spotted if in a ship range.  Planes will still see you fine if they are attacking you.  Helps with the start of the game where the CV goes to light up the whole map without any downside.

6) Re-think the immunity period.  Sure enough this technique will be perfected and we'll absolutely be back to the skill gap between CV captains.  Which wasn't the goal.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,567 posts
5,943 battles

Nothing about the uselessness of "summonable" fighter groups, the one that strike squadrons have? May as well remove them. Free plane kills for my ships, no more.

Personal catapult fighters are still usable, as they follow the ships that used them, but my AA always kills much more than they do, because their acquisition range and reaction time is a bit... sh*t. 

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[SUMGA]
Member
31 posts
5,083 battles

Personally think they should limit the number of aircraft hangar. Spawning unlimited number of planes is just ridiculous. They could limit it to have 5-6 squads each which could probably last you the whole game if you play it wise enough.

Next, Fighters, this is total garbage is what I think personally. all they do is fly around in an area like a patrol and after it engages same number of planes from the fighter squad it just goes back, this is stupid. They should have the fighters be more mobile.

Dive bombers, due to recent 'Slingshot' tactic this became really really stupid, you can literally engage enemy ships without taking much loss to your planes. They should limit the time of 'Invulnerability' more so it could still take damage from medium to long range AAs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[1NATN]
Member
546 posts
18,098 battles
38 minutes ago, KmonX said:

Personally think they should limit the number of aircraft hangar. Spawning unlimited number of planes is just ridiculous. They could limit it to have 5-6 squads each which could probably last you the whole game if you play it wise enough.

Next, Fighters, this is total garbage is what I think personally. all they do is fly around in an area like a patrol and after it engages same number of planes from the fighter squad it just goes back, this is stupid. They should have the fighters be more mobile.

Dive bombers, due to recent 'Slingshot' tactic this became really really stupid, you can literally engage enemy ships without taking much loss to your planes. They should limit the time of 'Invulnerability' more so it could still take damage from medium to long range AAs.

This.

I tire of seeing teams shooting down in excess of 100+ planes only to have the enemy coming back with full or near full squadrons end game anyway. It's utterly futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
[MRI]
Member
1,832 posts
10,737 battles

I would like to see fighters last longer and have a bigger action radius.

And maybe tweak their mechanics a bit - make their cooldown start immediately when the consumable is activated, not when the fighters run out or expire. Then make fighters shoot down their full number of aircraft instead of leaving early. This would prevent situations like where a 5-plane fighter squadron shoots down 2 planes then just leaves because there were no longer any planes left in the squadron. This would allow CVs to defend teammates better in multi-CV games.

5 hours ago, KmonX said:

Personally think they should limit the number of aircraft hangar. Spawning unlimited number of planes is just ridiculous. They could limit it to have 5-6 squads each which could probably last you the whole game if you play it wise enough.

WG is not going to limit planes, because they don't want to have situations where a CV gets completely deplaned. This is one of the main points of the rework.

4 hours ago, Bex_o7 said:

I tire of seeing teams shooting down in excess of 100+ planes only to have the enemy coming back with full or near full squadrons end game anyway. It's utterly futile.

To be fair though, it is hard to tell how many of those shot down are fighters, which just inflates the numbers.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[SH0T]
Member
815 posts
9,363 battles

Make AA mounts regenerate same as planes do (cant take credit for this idea, was suggested by a mate).

Make CV itself a big, slow squishy marshmellow so if does get spotted its in real trouble the same as the surface ships. No more bouncing BB AP off the deck.

Remove CV AA so CV's have to fear getting dropped from the enemy CV the same as the surface folk do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[INRC]
Member
100 posts
5,113 battles
On 4/25/2019 at 4:20 AM, Player_3356594408 said:

This is a thread (hopefully) that is looking at suggestions that's for improving carrier play for carrier captains. I'm not after balancing suggestions, just things to make carriers more fun.

Firstly, dive bombers. There's a weird little zoom at the start of a dive bombing run that looks a little odd when the little 30s biplanes do it. I'm looking forward to practicing some loft bomb attacks (dropping on the zoom), however loft bombing wasn't common so my suggestion is to have the bombers normally fly at a higher altitude, somewhat like when flying over one of the islands. When the bomber goes into attack, there's no zoom before the dive. However, before the attack, the squadron needs to climb to altitude meaning carriers are even more reliant on their escorts.

Also, at the higher altitude, reduce the AA effect but step it up in the dive (you won't lose as many planes driving around the map but against properly supported battleships, the attacks will become much harder.

Next, make the target reticle more punishing for moves in the dive.This will encourage bombers to target bigger ships and those driving around by themselves meaning the long suffering destroyer captains will get a break. Reducing the view distance for spotting destroyers when at altitude would be further relief.

Torpedoes. No suggestions there. They seem to work fine.

Attack aircraft. Still thinking about them.

Map view. Can I get half, quarter and three quarters speed or more than five waypoints, please? I try to keep close to the fleet to support them and my carrier crew is getting dizzy with all the circles and zig zags that I have to create to follow the fleet are a reasonable distance and I quickly run out of waypoints as I try to create oaths that keep me moving forward but not in a suicidal run moving forward approach.

Suggestion for bomber squadrons (for the sake of make it historically accurate):

Bombers squadrons flies at higher altitude. This makes them immune to AA approach, but not fighter consumables.

As the drawback, the squadron commander cannot spot ships and patrolling fighters below them. What they see is clouds below them. However, they can spot a target within 2.5 km range below them (or the other option is: as the range of the ship's detection in smoke).

So a CV player must do sufficient scouting in prior to dispatch the bomber squadron. From the clouds, the player can see markings of last spotted ships. So it will require a bit more extra work to find the target from their last spot.

The updated situation will comes to their mini map when they  descent down to striking mode.

On the other hand. Ships below can spot the bombers flying high in the sky. The squadrons have higher detection due to the high altitude. They just immune to surface AA when not on attack mode. 

Edited by Robby_Hermanto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,567 posts
5,943 battles
On 4/25/2019 at 2:23 PM, Thyaliad said:

WG is not going to limit planes, because they don't want to have situations where a CV gets completely deplaned. This is one of the main points of the rework.

Can surface ships get regenerating AA mounts? :fish_book: I mean, not all ships are going to lose even 50% of their AA but there are matches where it drags out for 18-20 mins and after a HE slugfest and the CVs survive... I think you know what I'm getting at here... :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
577
[CLAY]
Member
1,055 posts
7,814 battles
2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Can surface ships get regenerating AA mounts? :fish_book: I mean, not all ships are going to lose even 50% of their AA but there are matches where it drags out for 18-20 mins and after a HE slugfest and the CVs survive... I think you know what I'm getting at here... :Smile_hiding:

Especially BBs, who cannot really dodge most strike aircraft. Can you just give the repair party consumable the ability to also repair a percentage of AA? Or is this considered OP because WG WANT CVs to be more powerful late game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
[MRI]
Member
1,832 posts
10,737 battles
2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Can surface ships get regenerating AA mounts? :fish_book: I mean, not all ships are going to lose even 50% of their AA but there are matches where it drags out for 18-20 mins and after a HE slugfest and the CVs survive... I think you know what I'm getting at here... :Smile_hiding:

I don't see why not ... though in all honesty with Aux Armaments Mod I seldom find myself with less than 80% AA anyway.

The exceptions are when I am playing my French and British BBs, and I am up against a Conqueror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,567 posts
5,943 battles
13 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

I don't see why not ... though in all honesty with Aux Armaments Mod I seldom find myself with less than 80% AA anyway.

The exceptions are when I am playing my French and British BBs, and I am up against a Conqueror.

Self-repairing AA mounts...That can help ships with a limited number of AA mounts, like most DDs and some cruisers, BBs, or those with concentrated AA placement on the ship :fish_book:

If CVs have unlimited planes against surface ships, surface ships have unlimited ammo against each other, then why don't AA mounts be unlimited? There will be a cooldown, of course.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
119
[AN-DO]
Member
301 posts
7,055 battles
On 4/25/2019 at 10:50 AM, AndersVolvker said:

1) Stop making the Carrier deck fire proof and AA proof.  If CV wants AA protection do what everyone else does and get to an AA ship and pray.  If they ships misplays on positioning they should get punished harshly just like any ship should.  At the moment, there's no downside.  Lose planes.  Poop out more planes and go again.

3) Make DFAA viable again.  When activated the aiming recticule on the CV disappears while in its zone and makes plane control more sketchy.  Counter play is to stay outside of that zone for the DFAA period.  

Agree to both, carriers right now are literally bomb-proof 😂  And DFAA needs to be better, with the old CVs when you used it the CV would back off until cool down, now it just means they might lose one or two more planes, There definitely has to be more risk to attacking an AA cruiser. I'd actually like to see a hangar capacity limit again, so that CVs have to be a bit more careful with what they choose to target and when, most other ships require making that judgement. I Wouldn't want the situation to be liek the old CVs though where once you ran out of aircraft you were basically just a target barge. I'd propose putting a cap on aircraft, and have you able to launch full squadrons each time until you reach the cap, just like the old CVs, but this time when you reach the limit you can still launch planes but only in say flights of two, so you can still do spotting and damage late game and wont be completely useless. think of it like a DD, by late game you're probably low health you can still use your full firepower but exposing yourself has increased risk, so you'll play more cautiously and will not take opportunities that you would have earlier in the game, you are now less effective, the CV would be in the same situation, because they didn't conserve their planes properly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
16 posts
4,922 battles

I personally think they need to revamp the fighter consumable for carriers. They aren't effective enough and provides no counter-play for CV.

One thing they could do is make rocket aircraft have machine guns that can engage aircraft. Since aircraft are fast make the machine guns fire with computer help but with players able to aim as well for more precise hits.

Give the current fighter consumables to ships like the IJN aviation cruisers and aviation battleships if WG wants to introduce them. They can provide point aerial defense and becomes a "unique" consumable for those kinds of ships.


Also they need to do something about plane regen. I really do not find it fair and the argument that "if they run out of planes they have nothing to do".... tell that to the destroyed torpedo tube on my akizuki or destroyed main batteries on BBs.

Plane regen time is currently NOT a drawback, as it doesn't hinder the CV enough. The ships they damage don't get all their health back, especially destroyers that have no heal. On the other hand CV have unlimited planes that makes it almost meaningless for DDs to shoot down planes as they will be back in less than a minute... That, or reduce DD air spotting more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
119
[AN-DO]
Member
301 posts
7,055 battles

I cant see them giving the rocket planes guns to shoot down other aircraft, then it just becomes world of warplanes, they should change the deployable fighter mechanic though so it can be dropped anywhere in say 10km of an allied ship (that way you cant just drop them over the enemy lines at the start. that way you can actually help protect your team from the other CV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[NZSQN]
Member
181 posts
3,557 battles
On 4/30/2019 at 3:34 AM, I_am_stupid_so said:

Plane regen time is currently NOT a drawback, as it doesn't hinder the CV enough. The ships they damage don't get all their health back, especially destroyers that have no heal. On the other hand CV have unlimited planes that makes it almost meaningless for DDs to shoot down planes as they will be back in less than a minute... That, or reduce DD air spotting more.

Maybe a way to get around this problem would be to tweak the rate at which they regenerate as the battle progresses. 

For example, if you are smart with your planes and don't waste many, they regenerate at the same rate as the battle progresses.

If you like to go tearing in and lose all your planes without much care, then the more you lose the slower the planes regenerate- therefore the less impact you can have on the later stages of the game if you have been wasteful. 

Guess it's kind of similar to how the Adrenaline Rush skill works but in reverse.

No doubt this has been mentioned, but my time on here is becoming more and more limited these days so I tend to miss things..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[S_X_S]
Member
19 posts
On 4/25/2019 at 12:58 PM, Bex_o7 said:

This.

I tire of seeing teams shooting down in excess of 100+ planes only to have the enemy coming back with full or near full squadrons end game anyway. It's utterly futile.

I agree with the fighters.  They dont do enough.  You watch your fighter squad get killed by a torp squad and then proceed to be dropped by torps afterwards.  Fighters need to be faster to react to incoming squads and deal enough damage that there is no chance they can drop you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[66666]
Member
20 posts
5,271 battles

Make damaging a CV reduce the max size of squadron that can be launched. It should tip the scale early in battles from dd focus to trying to get chip damage on CV's to have a compounding effect on match outcome. Lets be honest the battle of midway was not about bombing all the fleet ships into oblivion and then going ok lets get their CV's now. As said above, the CV should not be immune to the current stay with team blob meta. Maybe once CV gets down to 50% health stop wave size reduction and impact plane regen times. I guess I like that over the course of a match the fleets AA gets whittled down by HE etc getting damaged and less effective, it would be good if that happened to the CV also.

Fighters need a serious rethink, utterly pointless, I assume it is a platform problem why they are not controllable/flyable so you could actively hunt other planes rather than using them as glorified radars while farming fleet damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
445 posts
6,326 battles

Yes fighters, “Dogfights” is the key to balancing CVs with the rest of the fleet, this is a way to mitigate CV total attack, forcing carriers to focus on each other for awhile (as per old RTS).

If not including dogfights was by game limitations then fair enough but if it was by design then re-work. And make all aircraft dogfight-able with fighters as specialist and TB alike terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[REPOI]
Member
5,016 posts
20,165 battles

removing AA from CVs is the dumbest idea ever, the whole point of giving CV DFAA back even in the old days of RTS was so that a enemy unicum cant devstike your CV and have literally free reign on murdering your whole team, same now, if the enemy CV kills your CV you *will* lose, you will have far less spotting and lose a person who in terms of damage should be near the top of the the team, as well as being able to pin point targets/kill secure ect ect

 

and as for making CVs squishy, they already are with the exception of the T10s and the RNCV line, who's irl gimmick was armored carriers in the first place so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[HTMS]
Member
4 posts
1,561 battles

As CV main, I like to see:

1. CV vs CV. Either
1.1 Fighter consumable should be increased to 4 or 5 encouraging more fighter play. Most CV players are afraid to use this and cause pro CV to unicum on them.
1.2 or combine old RTS fighter with new fighter consumable by allowing CT to actually place a fighter anywhere in the map from map interface. Fighter will fly to designated location from CV so there are some delay not just appear from nowhere. Fighter act the same as what current fighter does. Stay there for 1 min and come back to CV. CV can later spawn fighter again. This can be limited to 3 or 4 uses per match. Or you can remove fighter consumable and make this idea unlimited use with delay flying in and out.

2. AA should be more well balanced. You can reduce damage of CV rocket, torp, bomber but plss dont make it like in T10 you just suicide bomb everything while in T6 AA can do nothing to planes. (T8 is somewhat ok on the same tier but OP on the lesser tier) That's why ppl always complain about CV when they play in T6-8 but CV player will complain when they play CV in T10 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[AMPOL]
Beta Tester
279 posts
7,183 battles

Limit to one per side per match, regardless of Tier

Increase plane spawn time

Reduce plane speed, they seem to be able to launch and cross the map and strike the enemy fleet at its spawn, in less then a min from match start, seems excessive :) Jet engines are bad for the environment after all :)

Decrease bomb and rocket damage, 50%

Increase Torp damage, 25%

Never up tier them, no T8 CV in T10 matches OR see next one

Give them the ability spec anti air / spotting and reward it properly

MY thoughts, probably better ones above, I've never played a CV, and have no desire to but I have played AGAINST them, all but 2 games since rework, so I have some experience fighting them :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,567 posts
5,943 battles
On 4/25/2019 at 6:17 AM, Paladinum said:

Nothing about the uselessness of "summonable" fighter groups, the one that strike squadrons have? May as well remove them. Free plane kills for my ships, no more.

Personal catapult fighters are still usable, as they follow the ships that used them, but my AA always kills much more than they do, because their acquisition range and reaction time is a bit... sh*t. 

1. Make fighters fighters again.

2. Make AA mounts regenerating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
16 posts
4,922 battles

I propose adding one or two point to friendly team for every plane they shoot down.

Sinking ships gives points to team, I see no reason why shooting down planes shouldn't. It will also make CV more careful about choosing targets or deciding when to attack, as well as makes shooting down planes feel less futile as you are actually rewarded and contribute to team.

Edited by I_am_stupid_so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[ULAG]
Member
891 posts
8,284 battles

Balancing CV is quite easy, just make plane spotting similar to cyclone spotting. In return, give CVs a little bit of dmg buff.

Also, make AA usable and skill based so that other ships dont feel completely helpless.

Done:cap_cool:

Edit : The upcoming speed boost nerf is a complete BS decision. If spotting is the issue then rework spotting for CVs, not fundamental movement mechanics

Edited by _TAMAL_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×