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

My personal suggestion for CV Flight Control changes

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

So far from what I've seen and experience with Aircraft Carrier, the balance between 2 nations is still a bit messed up. I have some suggestions for changes to Carrier Flight Control (or aircraft loadout in other word) to balance 2 nations out. Might not it solve all the problems with Carriers, but atleast it should make things a bit more fair for both nations. And yes I'm referring to Carrier vs Carrier mainly.

 

As for aircraft setup, I use Fighter/Torpedo Bomber/Dive Bomber format. 

Example: 1/2/1 setup means 1 Squad of Fighter, 2 Squads of Torpedo Bombers, 1 Squad of Dive Bomber.

 

Roles:

From recent changes to Carrier Flight Control by WG, what they did co Carrier loadouts were:

 

- Reducing Bomber capacity of Strike loadout on Carriers, especially higher ones. Either replace it with Fighter or Dive Bomber (like they did with Haku's 0/4/4 to 1/3/4, and Midway/Essex 0/2/3 to 1/2/2). This decreased the powercreep of some high tier Carriers, such as Haku with her old 0/4/4 setup, which was almost unstoppable.

 

- Reducing Fighter capacity of Air Superiority loadout, but increases Bomber Capacity to give them more viable role when unopposed by enemy Carrier (comes with 0.3.1 patch, changes such as Essex's 4/0/1 becomes 3/0/2).

 

 

In short, they made Carriers less of a 1-trick pony, giving them sufficient capability to do tasks not included in their main loadout. Such as Air superiority loadout being able to actually do damage to surface ships, and Strike loadout actually has some Fighters to defend your Carrier or clear out annoying scouts. I welcomed this, because it makes Carriers less Matchmaker-dependent. Imagine what it's like if you have Essex's 4/0/1 loadout but gets a match with no Carrier on enemy team.

 

 

National difference:

Carriers have their roles split, from all-in-1 to gravitating towards either Air Superiority (USN) or Strike Capability (IJN). All nations have access to balanced loadout, but in all configurations they are still more capable at roles they were assigned to. In other word, USN CV will (almost) always out-Fighter IJN CV, while IJN CV will (almost) always out-Bomber USN CV. Ofcourse, that's in theory, because right now some spots are a bit messed up, hence why I made this post.

 

Additional predictions

 

 Note: Usually CV of a specific nation will have access to balanced loadout, and EITHER Fighter or Bomber heavy. There are exceptions, because sometimes it's difficult to split them correctly. Just keep reading and you may understand what I mean.

 

USN: 

- Langley: There are no options for this ship, 2 squads is too few to divide.

- Bogue: Change 0/1/2 to 1/1/1.

- Independence: Remove 0/1/2 setup.

- Ranger: Change 0/1/3 to 1/1/2.

- Lexington: Change 0/1/3 to 1/1/2.

- Essex: Change 1/2/2 to 2/1/2. (controversal, discuss below)

- Midway: The setups are fine.

 

IJN:

- Hosho: Allow 0/2/1 setup as an optional upgrade.

- Zuiho: Allow 2/2/0 setup as an optional upgrade, remove 0/3/1.

- Ryujo: Remove 0/3/2, add 2/2/1 as an optional upgrade.

- Hiryu: Change 0/3/3 to 1/3/2.

- Shoukaku: remove 1/2/2, 2/2/2 setup becomes stock one and add 3/2/1 in as an upgrade.

- Taiho: Change 1/3/3 to 2/3/2

- Hakuryu: Change 4/2/2 to 3/2/3. Also, change 1/3/4 to 2/3/3.

 

My point of view: Fighters and Torpedo Bombers are the main tools of Carrier. Dive Bombers are usually an addition, being present to serve as balancing factor. Usually when Dive Bomber is added, they allows the Carrier to increase its strike capability but to a lesser extend than adding a group of Torpedo Bomber, mainly for balance purpose.

 

Example 1 is Hosho. Right now she has only 1 setup of 1/2/0, which is a balanced setup. As an IJN CV, she needs a Strike setup but 0/3/0 is too powerful so 0/2/1 should be added instead.

 

Second Example is Ryujo. Her 0/3/2 is too Bomber-heavy so a Fighter is added instead of Dive Bomber to reduce Strike capability, making it 1/3/1. I chose Dive Bomber over Torpedo Bomber because she has that 1/2/2 loadout already, although that is to be switched to 2/2/1 to make it more "balanced" than the still bomber-heavy 1/2/2.

 

- Similarly, Shoukaku shares the same setup as her predecessor Hiryu. I proposed 3/2/1 setup because it still maintains Bomber ratio of 50% which still qualifies as "balanced setup. Also, I think that 1 more group of Fighter is more useful than 1 group of Dive Bomber. The 2/2/2 setup is still available as an option, it's the updated stock one. I think it's a bit stupid to not have access to 2/2/2 setup which was available on Hiryuu, but instead have to grind 11k exp just to get it back.

 

As for US Carriers: Strike loadout of Bogue, Independence is too Bomber-heavy, so a Fighter squad is added instead of Dive Bomber. However, since Independence already has 1/1/1 setup as stock, so that 0/1/2 setup needs to go. Similarly, Ranger and Lexington has their 0/1/3 loadout changes to 1/1/2.

Reasons why I changed them that way:

 

That was a long wall of text, hopefully someone actually reads through all of them :hiding:

Feel free to discuss, but let's keep the topic around Aircraft setups, and less about other mechanics (no point-blank drop OP stuffs please).

 

EDIT: Some of my suggestions are still not balanced, I might correct them later. :hiding:

EDIT 2: Change log (in case anyone read my pre-edit version):

- Changed Zuiho's and Ryujo's loadout suggestion. Now they can field at most 2 squads of Torpedo Bombers.

Reason: 3 Squads of Torpedo Bomber is too devastating, especially lower tiers where most ships have mediocre AA. 3 Squads of Torpedo Bombers are available for Hiryu and up only.

 

LAST EDIT: (hopefully)

This whole post was meant to suggest solutions to the Bomber spamming problem with Carriers recently, which started when IJN CV appeared. Overall, my suggestions promote more Fighters and less Torpedo Bombers.

Edited by Gezeiten_Heimatwelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

Customizble air groups would be even better..

 

I think I proposed it before in CBT forum - basically like a Point system:

 

Say a  Carrier had 10 points; 

Fighter cost 3 points, Dive Bomber cost 2.5 points, Torpedo bombers cost 4 points. (Just an example)

 

That way the devs can control the points a Carrier will have in each tier AND adjust Certain type of aircraft's cost tier-tier or even between nations.

 

This can allow people to try out different tactics and also able to fully utilize a Nation's strength (IJN: Striking Power/USN: Fighters and Air Superiority). 

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

Customizble air groups would be even better..

 

I think I proposed it before in CBT forum - basically like a Point system:

 

Say a  Carrier had 10 points; 

Fighter cost 3 points, Dive Bomber cost 2.5 points, Torpedo bombers cost 4 points. (Just an example)

 

That way the devs can control the points a Carrier will have in each tier AND adjust Certain type of aircraft's cost tier-tier or even between nations.

 

This can allow people to try out different tactics and also able to fully utilize a Nation's strength (IJN: Striking Power/USN: Fighters and Air Superiority). 

 

I'd say full aircraft customization function won't be implemented:

 

- That opens up too many opportunities, but what it does negatively is partially removing differences between Carriers. This would have consequences when alternate CV branches come.

 

- Carriers should be able to have roughly equal number of active aircrafts (i.e the max number of planes they can field on the air at once). Using point system would mean all CV of same tier would have same point. It's possible to create differences, but it's mostly gonna be minor and not as specialized as what we have right now.

 

- There will be problems when players try to spend all their points, but have trouble because the cost of planes and their total points. In your example, a player wants 2 groups of TB but that used up 8/10 points, 2 points left can't buy anything, or maybe they want 1TB and 2 DB, but there's only 1 point left unused. Not using any point is basically placing yourself at a disadvantage. 2 Fighter 1TB is a decent option, but if the player wants more Bomber it's difficult to spend all points.

 

- Dive Bombers would almost never be used with the way they are right now, if you implement fully customizable air groups.

 

I'd vote against this point system with the way you presented. It's entirely possible to tweak them to make it viable, but until a viable solution for that system is suggested, I'd stand by my point of minor tweaking current loadouts.

 

TIP: If you want to suggest point system, I'd say make it so that the total point is divisible by the cost of the plane. 2.5, 3 and 4 is a bad set.

Share this post


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

i've long since suggested changing USN CV's mod 3 air superiority setup (3/0/2 for tier 8 above) to 2/1/2 (fighter/torpedo/bomber)

i've never really had a problem with any IJN strike loadout although they are quite indeed a bit OP

what really needs changing on the IJNs are their air superiority setup starting from taiho (3/2/2) and hakuryu(4/2/2). from my experience, this setup is very OP when opposed to a USN CV. USN CVs lose their torpedo bombers for air superiority, IJN retains them. At tier 9 and 10, IJN figthers are now on equal footing against american fighters so this aggravates the imbalance even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
41 posts
387 battles

 

I'd say full aircraft customization function won't be implemented:

 

- That opens up too many opportunities, but what it does negatively is partially removing differences between Carriers. This would have consequences when alternate CV branches come.

 

- Carriers should be able to have roughly equal number of active aircrafts (i.e the max number of planes they can field on the air at once). Using point system would mean all CV of same tier would have same point. It's possible to create differences, but it's mostly gonna be minor and not as specialized as what we have right now.

 

- There will be problems when players try to spend all their points, but have trouble because the cost of planes and their total points. In your example, a player wants 2 groups of TB but that used up 8/10 points, 2 points left can't buy anything, or maybe they want 1TB and 2 DB, but there's only 1 point left unused. Not using any point is basically placing yourself at a disadvantage. 2 Fighter 1TB is a decent option, but if the player wants more Bomber it's difficult to spend all points.

 

- Dive Bombers would almost never be used with the way they are right now, if you implement fully customizable air groups.

 

I'd vote against this point system with the way you presented. It's entirely possible to tweak them to make it viable, but until a viable solution for that system is suggested, I'd stand by my point of minor tweaking current loadouts.

 

TIP: If you want to suggest point system, I'd say make it so that the total point is divisible by the cost of the plane. 2.5, 3 and 4 is a bad set.

 

IMHO (not playing CVs myself) a variable loadout system could be implemented, but say the number of SQUADRONS is limited. Then you get to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

 

IMHO (not playing CVs myself) a variable loadout system could be implemented, but say the number of SQUADRONS is limited. Then you get to choose.

 

So you mean like:

- Each Carrier can decide how many squads of certain types he could bring, be it 100% TB or 100% Fighter?

- Each Carrier has limited number of max squads he can field at once, depending on the tier of the ship and the squad size?

 

That's not much different from what Alvin suggested, but I'd say your view is open to alot of gameplay breaking issues.

In my view, the loadout options for Carriers should be limited. Yes, usually when you place a limit on something, it's not as fun. But let's look at it from another perspective:

- If you allow all Carriers to choose whichever loadout they want freely, then all carriers would be able to do any role.

- It's not the Carrier that makes the character, it's the planes. If you normalize the plane loadouts, then all Carriers would lost half of their individuality. What's left is how fast the ship can move and how many planes it has, this would make ships with similar configurations like Soryu and Hiryu almost completely identical.

- Limiting certain roles from Carrier would open opportunities for other Carriers of same tier but different branch to do things the other couldn't. Example: If Hiryu is Strike-oriented Carrier, Soryu could be Fighter-oriented Carrier. This in turn would born individual differences and gives player the motive to grind multiple ships of different lines, because each Carrier has their own playstyle with different strengths and weaknesses.

- The motive for players to grind different lines is what could keep the playerbase alive for long term, which is what this game needs (in fact, all online games).

 

Previously I opposed the idea of enforcing limited roles onto Carriers, but now after playing them for quite some time I appreciated what WG did to make them more individual-like. Ofcourse there are some minor problems that needs tweaking, which is what I'm suggesting some fixes now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
30 posts
3,415 battles

I got 1 thing to say after I got frustrated by the number of torp bombers heading on your way if you are a BB or a CV or a cruiser that would be 6 if those guys are in platoon having loadout which has 3 torp bombers for each carrier (now I did not add their bomber that too) so you see 6 torp bombers incomming for your ship you are pratically deadmeat!

No I am not saying they are OP offcourse not lol hahaha fk but their loadout pls change it!!!!!!! wg pls you do know how are BB Cpt.'s are feeling atm I used to feel ok in CBT but now ..... hmmmmm BB are really tough to survive for the first 3mins of the battle.

American carrier's are quite balanced I do like that.

Japan...... you know....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
802 posts

Can't really comment on CV vs CV balance in regards to aircraft loadout, but just thought I'd congratulate the OP on making a well thought out thread with observations and potential solutions, instead of making another whinge thread in which we all justifiably call the OP an idiot.

 

Props to you OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[BLUMR]
Member
1,134 posts
1,377 battles

I got 1 thing to say after I got frustrated by the number of torp bombers heading on your way if you are a BB or a CV or a cruiser that would be 6 if those guys are in platoon having loadout which has 3 torp bombers for each carrier (now I did not add their bomber that too) so you see 6 torp bombers incomming for your ship you are pratically deadmeat!

 

 

But you can only have a max of 1 CV per Platoon/Divison and a max of 2 CVs per side in one match...(with the exception of the training room)

 

On Topic: Without a drastic redesign of the Flight Control system, this idea looks great +1 from me.

I don't think that a dynamic squadron customisation would be implemented cause at the end of the day, there are gonna be people who will find the perfect "Min-Max" settings and we might end up lessening or killing CV variety altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
30 posts
3,415 battles

Without editing my original post, yea division can not have 2 carrier's but let's say MM gives a team 2 IGN carriers (which it does right now for obvious reasons) have load out having 3 torp bomber each...

I was wondering if this could help, if wg is not deciding to do something about the number of bombers one can launch from a IGN carrier then limit CV to maximum 1 on each side? (Atleast this way one can have a breathing space for some time.)

 

Holds back the decision to buy a IGN carrier for myself because of the way they function now and make ppl cry lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,921 battles

My major problem with the Carriers in game is the lack of reward for AA work, just fix that and everything will be worth the trouble with regards to teamwork, AA setups and all

Share this post


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

Lexy 2/0/2 setup is a joke... need to be removed (who favor DB over TB????) Or buff the DB

Or change it to 1/2/1 but must research the 0/1/3 (or suggested 1/1/2) first

Or just add above and add 3/1/0 loadout after 2/0/2

Edited by Harpoon01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,063 posts
509 battles

Don't know what is IGN carriers but oh well.

 

Also good suggestion, though it resembles all the old "trying to suggest a change for planes" topics during cbt and also resembles the one currently being used in nf2.

 

With making a suggestion like this do note that you may remove some of the skill aspect of cv gameplay as people will always stick to the "recommended" plane count per type every single battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
372 posts
715 battles

Hmm saying about customizing your squadron seems a pretty good idea but the squadron that is given is based on their history references so I don't think WG will give this kind of customization it will be good if it have there's advantage and disadvantage also 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
41 posts
387 battles

 

So you mean like:

- Each Carrier can decide how many squads of certain types he could bring, be it 100% TB or 100% Fighter?

- Each Carrier has limited number of max squads he can field at once, depending on the tier of the ship and the squad size?

 

That's not much different from what Alvin suggested, but I'd say your view is open to alot of gameplay breaking issues.

In my view, the loadout options for Carriers should be limited. Yes, usually when you place a limit on something, it's not as fun. But let's look at it from another perspective:

- If you allow all Carriers to choose whichever loadout they want freely, then all carriers would be able to do any role.

- It's not the Carrier that makes the character, it's the planes. If you normalize the plane loadouts, then all Carriers would lost half of their individuality. What's left is how fast the ship can move and how many planes it has, this would make ships with similar configurations like Soryu and Hiryu almost completely identical.

- Limiting certain roles from Carrier would open opportunities for other Carriers of same tier but different branch to do things the other couldn't. Example: If Hiryu is Strike-oriented Carrier, Soryu could be Fighter-oriented Carrier. This in turn would born individual differences and gives player the motive to grind multiple ships of different lines, because each Carrier has their own playstyle with different strengths and weaknesses.

- The motive for players to grind different lines is what could keep the playerbase alive for long term, which is what this game needs (in fact, all online games).

 

Previously I opposed the idea of enforcing limited roles onto Carriers, but now after playing them for quite some time I appreciated what WG did to make them more individual-like. Ofcourse there are some minor problems that needs tweaking, which is what I'm suggesting some fixes now.

 

Eh fair enough. I don't play carriers myself anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×