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

Suggestion: ASW Weapons for CVs

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
193 posts
4,448 battles

Sorry, this is a repost. I posted it into the wrong thread and I have no idea how to delete it.

Ok, here I go. My first topic (or technically, second now).

I've never been on the forum before, so excuse any mistakes I've made.

Before you all grab your pitchforks on the word CV, hear me out. Here is what I'm proposing:

---

Every CV should have planes capable of carrying depth charges, but they should not be a new type of plane to exclusively carry these weapons. Instead, a CV's dive or level bombers should be dually capable of dropping depth charges and anti-shipping armament. Here is how I propose it works.

-A dive or level bomber is capable of switching between two armaments in the middle of the battle. They can choose between their normal anti shipping armament (AP bombs, HE bombs, carpet bombs) or dropped ASW weapons like depth charges, which can hit a submarine past a depth where normal anti-shipping weapons like rockets and bombs will fail to hit.

-A bomber cannot instantly change to a new weapon type. Bombers must enter a 30s- 1 minute 'rearmament' or 'reload' period in which all bombers currently available on the carrier (excluding ones already in the air) will be unable to be used as they switch to either ASW weapons or back to their anti-shipping weapons.

-Bombers carrying depth charges have their ability to deal with surface ships slashed, and likewise, a plane carrying anti- surface ship armament cannot deal with a submarine that submerges past 10m.

-Some small carriers, like Saipan, can have enchanced ASW abilities through some gimmick as historically, they were escort carriers who were better equipped and focused to provide ASW capabilities. I am unsure about this, but it may come in the form of some sort of detection equipment.


-An additional gimmick can be added where CVs recieve a debuff when they are rearming their planes; this would be in-line with a historical vulnerability period when a CV was rearming or refueling.

Just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,520
[CLAY]
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
5,146 posts
23,831 battles
2 hours ago, FatFluffyPenguin said:

I've never been on the forum before, so excuse any mistakes I've made.

NO FORGIVENESS!
NO MERCY!

JUDGE HIM HARSHLY!

EAT HIM ALIVE MY PETS!

Sorry.

Hi I'm Max.

Other people may have reasonable responses to your suggestion but...

nothere.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[TF44]
Member
207 posts
1,928 battles

Let me ask you Fluffy, how does that make things easier for players? Because I'm looking at that idea and thinking that it is likely to cause a mess in programming it, so there would need to be some significant benefit for the player base to introduce it. It would seem to me that it is far easier to implement a new aircraft type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
193 posts
4,448 battles
10 hours ago, CarvinMarvin said:

Let me ask you Fluffy, how does that make things easier for players? Because I'm looking at that idea and thinking that it is likely to cause a mess in programming it, so there would need to be some significant benefit for the player base to introduce it. It would seem to me that it is far easier to implement a new aircraft type.

Good point. I actually thought that with the avoidance of introducing a new plane type, it would be easier to program considering that you can use some existing assets like plane models and some things like possibly existing animations of possibly ASW aircraft currently mounted on battleships. 

While I agree there isn't much of a benefit, seeing from the current CV test we have something in the game again where if the player controlling the craft isn't an idiot, they won't be killed. Submarines are often the last ships alive and once destroyers are dead, a team cannot reliably use other ships like BBs with their 3km hydrophones to attack and sink a submarine past the 10m depth. BB anti submarine warfare planes are basically a joke. If you end up in a game where all your DDs are dead and no cruisers with hydro are left, you are left ver much at mercy of a submarine and its concealment, albeit being nerfed. Introducing ASW aircraft gives more counter play options against submarines in situations.

Another major point I considered when I thought of this idea is that by diversifying a CVs armament, you are sharing pressure between ships. As I noted, bombers, one of many CVs most potent weapon, cannot be used for 30s-1 minute after a rearmament period. Clever players may time this period after just releasing a strike, but this still puts you into a choice- you can deal with submarines, or deal with surface ships. If a CV player chooses to deal with submarines, that is a healthy amount of time that a CV isn't getting enormous chunks of unhealable citadel damage on a battleship. By diversifying the CV armament and forcing them to choose, I believe that however small CVs can receive a limitation in dealing with surface ships if they choose to engage in ASW warfare.

Final reason is probably my weakest one. While historical accuracy has never been a great factor in the game after the Russian BB line, WoWs still does pride themselves in being history oriented after unironically stating Stalingrad's engine power in a Drydock episode. In real life, while for fleet carriers ASW was not a primary focus, almost every carrier DID CARRY ASW weapons- why would they not carry weapons to use against their biggest weakness? For escort carriers like Saipan, the opposite was true- their priamry weapon was ASW weapons and rockets, while anti-shipping ordnance like dive bombs and torpedoes were secondary. Adding ASW weapons to CVs isn't only realistic in simply adding ASW weapons to CVs, but also introducing concepts like a rearmament period which possibly may pave way to mechanics like reloads after landing normal squadrons for future CV play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[TF44]
Member
207 posts
1,928 battles

But you are proposing switching armaments on the ships. That delay you are proposing doesn't exist elsewhere. That is where the programming comes in. The addition of new assets is something the program already has the capability to add. I must admit I have no understanding of the sub gameplay because I haven't participated in the current test, and haven't seen anything of it.

And I have to admit that my knowledge of WWII CVs is fairly limited, by I know an S-3 Viking and A-6 Corsair were 2 very different aircraft when it comes to the Cold War era carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
193 posts
4,448 battles
1 hour ago, CarvinMarvin said:

But you are proposing switching armaments on the ships. That delay you are proposing doesn't exist elsewhere. That is where the programming comes in. The addition of new assets is something the program already has the capability to add. I must admit I have no understanding of the sub gameplay because I haven't participated in the current test, and haven't seen anything of it.

And I have to admit that my knowledge of WWII CVs is fairly limited, by I know an S-3 Viking and A-6 Corsair were 2 very different aircraft when it comes to the Cold War era carriers.

What I anticipated was far simpler than you think- it is as simple as switching and reload. Take this:

Most ships have HE and AP shells. However, most only have one type of player-controlled gun. When a user wants to switch from HE to AP, the guns must be reloaded again. 

Same applies for dive bombers -> ASW aircraft. They are re-arming, and the 'delay' is the easiest of all to program- it is quite literally a reload.

And for WW2 fleet carriers, all carried ASW weaponary, even though it was not their primary armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[TF44]
Member
207 posts
1,928 battles
56 minutes ago, FatFluffyPenguin said:

What I anticipated was far simpler than you think- it is as simple as switching and reload. Take this:

Most ships have HE and AP shells. However, most only have one type of player-controlled gun. When a user wants to switch from HE to AP, the guns must be reloaded again. 

Same applies for dive bombers -> ASW aircraft. They are re-arming, and the 'delay' is the easiest of all to program- it is quite literally a reload.

And for WW2 fleet carriers, all carried ASW weaponary, even though it was not their primary armament.

I get it. But what I'm saying is that switch in ammo is basically what happens now when the CV chooses what planes to launch. That is something the program is designed to recognise. Your proposal sounds like you are then adding another part to the system.

I might also suggest that adopting dive bombers to the ASW task would produce a very tight drop of ordinance. Basically a hit will be a kill, and that is something that they seem determined to avoid. Unless you are proposing that it would need a different drop pattern in it's ASW role, in which case I will return to the point of, what does this idea add that cannot be accomplished by the addition of a new aircraft type?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
193 posts
4,448 battles
3 hours ago, CarvinMarvin said:

I get it. But what I'm saying is that switch in ammo is basically what happens now when the CV chooses what planes to launch. That is something the program is designed to recognise. Your proposal sounds like you are then adding another part to the system.

I might also suggest that adopting dive bombers to the ASW task would produce a very tight drop of ordinance. Basically a hit will be a kill, and that is something that they seem determined to avoid. Unless you are proposing that it would need a different drop pattern in it's ASW role, in which case I will return to the point of, what does this idea add that cannot be accomplished by the addition of a new aircraft type?

I was planning another drop pattern, similar to the level bombing currently adopted by British CVs. As for your previous point- basically, making sure that CVs have to actually lose something if they want to counter CVs. Adding an additional aircraft type make them too versatile and lose basically nothing to counter submarines, which if implemented, will have the community grabbing pitchforks again, and admittedly understandably so. One of the biggest points of adding ASW weapons through their level bombers was not just for historical accuracy- fleet carriers did not prioritize ASW armament, and thus had no specialized planes or whatnot for this task (even if they had the weapons), but also because it limits CVs.

A bomber squad with depth charges cannot attack surface ships, and that in itself is something that would be agreeable with many players.

In addition, I think it would be right to have a very long attack prepare time, which makes sure that CVs, combined with submarine air spotting, cannot be attacked by CVs alone. Something has to detect them first. In the time that a submarine is detected, they have 30s to a full minute rearmament time, excluding flight time, to escape before a carrier's ASW planes reach them. If the carrier already has ASW planes loaded, then all this time spent with ASW planes ready is time that a carriers bombers, oftentimes the best weapon in their arsenal, is not available for attacking surface ships.

Also, I do not think the 'reload' feature will be hard to add, considering that something similar was in place when RTS CVs were around (I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm mistaken).

Edited by FatFluffyPenguin
mistake in writing

Share this post


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

×