Jump to content
Wolfhound_06

Aircraft Carrier (CV) Historical discussion

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
4 posts
2,846 battles

Dear Community,

 

 

This post is to address the incorrect balance of aircraft on USN/IJN CVs.


 

#1.  Understanding this is a game, not a historical simulation, no CV would put to sea without Fighter aircraft.

They didn't, don't, and won't. For without Fighters you have no Combat Air Patrol (CAP). No Fighters should not be an option.


 

SOLUTION: All carriers must take at least one Fighter group.


 

#2. All nations did, do, and will seek to balance aircraft (ACFT) load-outs. Making USN CVs take 2 x Dive-bombers and (DBs) and 1 x Torpedo Bomber (TB) is too restrictive. Conversely, having the IJN carriers restricted is equally incorrect.


 

SOLUTION: With regard to #1 above, any carrier should be able to select freely the combination of ACFT the individual captain desires.


 

I have read the logic behind the current imbalanced system (USN went DB/IJN went TB) and though that is correct for technological advancement, it is very incorrect for tactical and operational deployment.


 

I am not going to make a long post longer by referencing all the historical examples. Do your research. I understand the designers want variation between navies. Yet what occurs when the British, French, and even German fleets arrive? Variation is achieved through ordinance delivery variation and load outs.


 

Lastly, the answer: If you want TBs play IJN, if you want DBs play USN, is a cope-out and a fool's remedy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhound_06

Share this post


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

#1: Yes, it's going to be changed next patch. IJN CV will always have some Fighters in all of their loadouts.

 

#2: Every CV have balanced loadout, just that some of them are gimped (less squads than specialized loadouts, such as Ranger' stock 1/1/1 vs upgraded 2/0/2 or 0/1/3). I hope that WG fix this soon.

Unless you mean being able to freely customize what squadrons to pick, then nope that won't happen, because Dive Bombers would become extinct.

 

Lastly: DB are underpowered, they only are effective against Capital ships because of the size and sluggishness of those. Manual Dive Bombing is really tough to do against Destroyers and Cruisers. Even so, HE bombs don't deal much damage, you need to reply on the fire to do the damage, and then you have to trick your opponent into using their Damage Control party and then bomb him again quickly to actually do good fire damage.

 

Personally, I'm not against the idea of forcing USN CV use DB instead of TB, but atleast in that case make USN DB good at dealing hard damage instead (AP bomb anyone?). 

Share this post


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

Bring splash damage on HE bomb and critical to module give damage as well

Or

Give damage 2 to 3 times damage of HE bombs to AP bombs but no splash damage, no fire, and lower chance to module damage

Share this post


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

Bring splash damage on HE bomb and critical to module give damage as well

Or

Give damage 2 to 3 times damage of HE bombs to AP bombs but no splash damage, no fire, and lower chance to module damage

 

Splash damage is a no, because that would kill Destroyers.

 

AP Bomb don't need more damage than HE bombs (atleast not as much as 2-3 times), because they can pierce through the armor.

Share this post


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

Some of you must have the memories of goldfish.

 

The game USED to have AP DBs. They were OP as whatever.

 

But HE bomb is far too weak to be used against anything bigger than CA, RNG based, and considered as much more rubbish than TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
679 posts
3,507 battles

Some of you must have the memories of goldfish.

 

The game USED to have AP DBs. They were OP as whatever.

 

They must not have been in early alpha.  Mind you I liked that era od DBs.

Share this post


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

Some of you must have the memories of goldfish.

 

The game USED to have AP DBs. They were OP as whatever.

 

Ofcourse we don't know that, we are BETA Testers after all.

But still, that's 1 of 2 solutions to USN CV problem, as their Air Superiority loadout is completely garbage in comparison with IJN CV ones (who have both TB and DB). The other solution is exchanging 1 DB squad for TB in all USN CV Air superiority loadout, that one would be easier to do.

 

 

But HE bomb is far too weak to be used against anything bigger than CA, RNG based, and considered as much more rubbish than TB

 

Actually, I find Bombs in general are ineffective against anything not a Capital ship, cuz I don't think most of the population can manual drop Cruisers and Destroyers. HE Bombs are still okay because they can set fire, but you'll need atleast 2 squads to achieve something out of it, and even so the Bomb + Fire damage still pale in comparison with Torpedo + Flooding.

Edited by Gezeiten_Heimatwelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
7 posts
936 battles

 

Ofcourse we don't know that, we are BETA Testers after all.

But still, that's 1 of 2 solutions to USN CV problem, as their Air Superiority loadout is completely garbage in comparison with IJN CV ones (who have both TB and DB). The other solution is exchanging 1 DB squad for TB in all USN CV Air superiority loadout, that one would be easier to do.

 

 

Actually, I find Bombs in general are ineffective against anything not a Capital ship, cuz I don't think most of the population can manual drop Cruisers and Destroyers. HE Bombs are still okay because they can set fire, but you'll need atleast 2 squads to achieve something out of it, and even so the Bomb + Fire damage still pale in comparison with Torpedo + Flooding.

I'm an USN cv player.

I still think DB is weak because boom damage is still weak.

TB can make more damage but DB can't.

IJN cv have 2 or 3 TBs and they are very fast.It's easy to make high damage,isn't it?

As you can see,more and more players choose IJN cv because it can use TB to kill someone in a moment.

But USN cv can't!THEY JUST USE THEIR F**KING DBs!

In ASIA SERVER,123 players have Hakuryu,and only 47 players have Midway.

Someone still play USN cv because their fighter planes are good.

But at 0.4.1,IJN fighter plane is as good as USN fighter plane.

Fewer and fewer players choose USN cv,sometimes they think WG should delete USN cv because they think it like a sh*t.

If USN cv didn't get buff,just delete it. No one will think USN is weak.

neither do i

 

Share this post


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

I'm an USN cv player.

I still think DB is weak because boom damage is still weak.

TB can make more damage but DB can't.

IJN cv have 2 or 3 TBs and they are very fast.It's easy to make high damage,isn't it?

As you can see,more and more players choose IJN cv because it can use TB to kill someone in a moment.

But USN cv can't!THEY JUST USE THEIR F**KING DBs!

In ASIA SERVER,123 players have Hakuryu,and only 47 players have Midway.

Someone still play USN cv because their fighter planes are good.

But at 0.4.1,IJN fighter plane is as good as USN fighter plane.

Fewer and fewer players choose USN cv,sometimes they think WG should delete USN cv because they think it like a sh*t.

If USN cv didn't get buff,just delete it. No one will think USN is weak.

neither do i

 

 

DB "could" achieve same level of damage as TB, not quite as much but close.

To do that, you need to trick the enemy into using his Damage Control Party, then quickly strike with your DB and lit him up then let the fire burn him down.

Unfortunately such tactics doesn't always work, and it's really hard to reliably land bomb drops against any but Capital ships.

 

Also, I'd say USN Fighters are still better than IJN ones, because of their relatively comparable stats but higher ammunition count, allowing them to engage enemies for longer period of time before having to land. This is especially important when repelling enemy Bombers. Also, the F2H Banshee on the Midway is superior (slightly) to the J8N1 Kitsuka because it has roughly 10% more hp. The F2H is also slightly faster thus it can dictate the engagement.

Edited by Gezeiten_Heimatwelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
7 posts
936 battles

 

DB "could" achieve same level of damage as TB, not quite as much but close.

To do that, you need to trick the enemy into using his Damage Control Party, then quickly strike with your DB and lit him up then let the fire burn him down.

Unfortunately such tactics doesn't always work, and it's really hard to reliably land bomb drops against any but Capital ships.

 

Also, I'd say USN Fighters are still better than IJN ones, because of their relatively comparable stats but higher ammunition count, allowing them to engage enemies for longer period of time before having to land. This is especially important when repelling enemy Bombers. Also, the F2H Banshee on the Midway is superior (slightly) to the J8N1 Kitsuka because it has roughly 10% more hp. The F2H is also slightly faster thus it can dictate the engagement.

 

44c0b23df8dcd10092632745748b4710b8122fda

Well,i have to say that cv damage depends on TB .

the last line is TB damage,it's 180380.

But it's still normal for IJN cv players because they can make this high damage easily

BUT,it's impossible for USN cvs because they just have 1 squadron before tier 9.

and the last but one is DB damage.CAN DBs MAKE HIGH DAMAGE LIKE TB?

OF COURSE NOT!

And it's also easy for IJN cv players to shoot down the planes

Hiryu has 2/2/2.But Ranger just have 1/1/1.

It makes Ranger the weakest cv of all.

1 squadron of fighter planes can't do anything,can't protect mate and your boomers.

higher ammunition count?it's a joke!

Before you run out of ammunition,the planes are shot down.

If Hiryu has 3/1/2,it's better to delete Ranger because 2/0/2 can't do anything,either

 

Share this post


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

 

44c0b23df8dcd10092632745748b4710b8122fda

Well,i have to say that cv damage depends on TB .

the last line is TB damage,it's 180380.

But it's still normal for IJN cv players because they can make this high damage easily

BUT,it's impossible for USN cvs because they just have 1 squadron before tier 9.

and the last but one is DB damage.CAN DBs MAKE HIGH DAMAGE LIKE TB?

OF COURSE NOT!

And it's also easy for IJN cv players to shoot down the planes

Hiryu has 2/2/2.But Ranger just have 1/1/1.

It makes Ranger the weakest cv of all.

1 squadron of fighter planes can't do anything,can't protect mate and your boomers.

higher ammunition count?it's a joke!

Before you run out of ammunition,the planes are shot down.

If Hiryu has 3/1/2,it's better to delete Ranger because 2/0/2 can't do anything,either

 

 

The Ranger and Bogue sux, we know that.

USN CV loadouts are kinda messed up, but I'm sure WG gonna fix it in future patch (nobody knows when).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
7 posts
936 battles

 

The Ranger and Bogue sux, we know that.

USN CV loadouts are kinda messed up, but I'm sure WG gonna fix it in future patch (nobody knows when).

 

 

We don't care that.We just want WG to buff DB.It's more important.

DB is not weak and it killed many ships in history.

Everyone knows that USN is not good at TB.

Share this post


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

 

We don't care that.We just want WG to buff DB.It's more important.

DB is not weak and it killed many ships in history.

Everyone knows that USN is not good at TB.

 

Duh, TBF/Ms are Great Multi-Purposed Torpedo Bombers.

It's just the TBD Peformed too poorly and affected USN's usage on Torpedo Bombers - It's not until 1944 the USN Torpedo Bombers Score a Direct hit again after Mid-1942.

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
11 posts
1,926 battles

If you wish to go " Historical", CVs should have to be moving before they can launch planes. This would stop them just camping behind islands or sitting were they spawn

Share this post


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

If you wish to go " Historical", CVs should have to be moving before they can launch planes. This would stop them just camping behind islands or sitting were they spawn

 

In real life it's not necessary for CV to move in order to launch their planes, up until the point in which Carrier planes become too heavy that they also need to go into the wind to launch planes.

For lighter planes for the most part, they can take off before they hit the end of flight deck.

 

And btw: CV camping behind island is reasonable choice on some CV (mainly Lexington and Midway) because of their gargantuan detectability range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

In real life it's not necessary for CV to move in order to launch their planes, up until the point in which Carrier planes become too heavy that they also need to go into the wind to launch planes.

For lighter planes for the most part, they can take off before they hit the end of flight deck.

 

And btw: CV camping behind island is reasonable choice on some CV (mainly Lexington and Midway) because of their gargantuan detectability range.

 

The idea WWII CVs could and did travel without regard to the wind when conducting flight ops on war patrols is just silly. I don't know where you get that idea.

 

Normal CV operations meant travelling into the wind at high speed to achieve greatest possible additional air speed over the wings and hence greatest lift

 

There were hydraulic catapults on CVs in WWII, but they REDUCED the need for air flow across the decks, they did NOT eliminate it. Even so, I believe one suggested stat is that perhaps as many as 40% of launches were done using these catapults by the END of WWII. Which means even by the end of the war, 60% were not.

 

The whole "sitting safely behind an island" in this game is laughably fictitious, an entirely gamey load of BS. Fine, it's a game, but please don't write that it's in anyway reasonable because there are people who might read the forum and believe it, just as you presumably did in order to write it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
45 posts
1,228 battles

 

Duh, TBF/Ms are Great Multi-Purposed Torpedo Bombers.

It's just the TBD Peformed too poorly and affected USN's usage on Torpedo Bombers - It's not until 1944 the USN Torpedo Bombers Score a Direct hit again after Mid-1942.

 

 

Unless facing early war ships with woeful flak all torpedo bombers fared poorly. Devastators (TBDs) were slaughtered. TBMs had a zero survival rate on there first raids when in the torpedo role and huge loss rates throughout their service. Kates and other Japenese derivatives all suffered in the face of intense flak and the limitations imposed by a torpedo bomber approach. All could be used as level bombers but even then suffered quite heavily. Dive bombers were far more effective and survivable which is why the torpedo bombers were eventually retired in their favour.

 

 

Torpedo bombers in game are a joke, I don't understand why one of the least effective weapons has been made into one of the most effective. Aircraft in general are poorly simulated and torpedo bombers especially so. CVs don't really fit into the game well and should either be removed or completely changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

I totally agree that TB in this game is a big joke. Slow, sluggish, and have to maintain a direct approach during launch which is parallel to waterline and not too steep making them the biggest turkey shooting festival for fighters and ship's AA. Meanwhile DB is heavily nerfed for a not-very-wise reason (aha).

 

IMO, I think WG should (yes, should), split up the USN DB squad into smaller fractions and can launch them seperately into different "approach" with let's say, few seconds of delay between each drop player would stretch the timer at their liking. They would go into a single squad while cruising, however player can direct them into different approach angles and delay to maximize hitting effect. That would make USN DB much harder and require more skill to play, yet it would differentiate the playstyle between the 2.

 

Just some humble advises...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×