CV Rework: AA Defence Ships

[invicta2012]

Reading the news about the Even-Tiered CVs that will be available after the rework is completed, it got me thinking that this would be a nice time to add specific counters to CVs.

 

While we have plenty of Tier IX and X ships which can provide excellent AA cover, there can be a shortage of such ships at lower Tiers, leading to CVs - entirely reasonably - focusing on ships known to have poor AA. A series of premium counter CV ships might be timely, then... a bit like this:

 

Tier IV - HMS Carlisle. Modified C Class cruiser, and the most successful AA ship in the RN in WW2. Armament consisted of 4 x 2 4 inch / 102 mm guns, 1 x Quad 2 pdr  and 8 x 20mm Oerlikons. Consumables: Def AA, Anti AA Radar - this increases the ship's ability to detect aircraft and makes main battery guns count as AA guns, to a range of 2/3rds of their surface range. Detection range is not increased. Firing main battery at surface ships during this time removes benefit from Anti AA Radar and increases detection range.

 

Tier VI - HMS Charybdis - Dido Class AA cruiser. 8 x 4.5 inch DD guns, 10 x 20 mm Oerlikons, 6 x 2 x 20mm Oerlikons, Def AA and Anti AA radar.

 

Tier VIII - HMS Battleaxe, Weapon Class DD -  3 or 2 x 2 x 4inch , 6 x 40 mm bofors, Def AA, Anti AA or Surface Radar

 

These are all quite limited designs in terms of surface warfare so shouldn't disrupt the balance too much... but they would be a nice counter to CV divisions and the like. 

 

For other nations... As we have Atlanta in the game it shouldn't be too difficult to add a late-war AA build or a later Juneau class cruiser at Tier VIII, and perhaps an Allen M Sumner DD too? 

[Gvozdika]

It all depends on how the long-range 'flak' AA works out in the rework, since the UK DP 4.5 and 5.25 guns would likely come under that category. I frankly found flak AA to be nigh useless unless the planets aligned and a 'puff' of flak just so happened to appear in the right spot at the right time. A pretty poor experience if sailing around in a ship like the Cleveland which is utterly bristling with long-range AA - only to have a CV player WASD their way past you and bomb the crap out of you or a friendly in your AA defence zone.

 

On the other hand - playing as a CV - I mainly lost planes to the short-range AA more than the flak, even then I was able to keep attacking multiple times before running out of ordnance/planes. Otherwise I was able to pretty much weave through the outer flak screen with little issue - that would impact the performance of dedicated AA ships like the Dido, Atlanta, etc. which work best by breaking up air attacks at standoff range (preferably before they sink anything). 

 

WG are changing the AA for the next test so that all may be moot and the above may no longer apply. I would like there to be a bit more player control over the long-range AA aside from the RNG system being tested last time - if only for the sake of some consistency. 

 

 

[Darth_Glorious]

Flak bursts are deadly until when you stack afterburner/speed buffs and they become a joke

[El2aZeR]

Generally speaking AA in the rework works like this in my experience:

Long range AA: Shoots completely random puffs in your general direction. Often won't even be on the same altitude. A fireworks show rather than an effective means of defense.

Mid range AA: Throws a wall of puffs directly into your path at certain intervals. Can be fairly easily dodged with WASD and some basic timing/prediction skills.

Short range AA: Inflicts DoT. Won't do jack if your planes haven't been damaged previously. Long and mid range AA will also stop shooting when short range AA engages.

 

At least that was my experience in both test 1 and 2. I went entire matches without losing a single plane in my Midway while completely demolishing Worcesters and the like.

Also note that the Japanese 25mm guns counted as mid range AA in test 2, meaning high tier IJN ships literally don't have short range AA mounts.

 

Basically the role of an AA ship will be dead if WG keeps this up, thus there is no reason to introduce new ones.

[invicta2012]

I did wonder if long range flak would ineffective... however I did suggest the AA radar consumable, which should (substantially) improve long range AA accuracy. It would be a fair trade if a cruiser gave away surface fighting capability for long range AA - make it short action / short cooldown / several charges / like RN smoke, for best value.

 

(I should also say that I'd put in Carlisle and Dido regardless of whether the CVs were re-worked, mid-tier AA defence has always been a bugbear).

[Centurion_1711]

We need a Dido at T6, either with the 4.5" or 5.25" guns (probably the latter), they were important in WWII and would make a good RN premium cruiser to replace Belfast, now that is pretty hard to get. In theory there could be a whole RN AA cruiser line, just rearrange what we have already and add some new ships - Minotaur and Neptune count as AA ships I guess, so we just need a T7 and 8 to fill the gap. the main cruiser line could be supplemented with some heavy cruisers, though they deserve their own line too.

Of course, it is pointless investing the time if the AA rework makes them pointless. But it would be nice nonetheless.

[BeauNidl3]

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Generally speaking AA in the rework works like this in my experience:

Long range AA: Shoots completely random puffs in your general direction. Often won't even be on the same altitude. A fireworks show rather than an effective means of defense.

Mid range AA: Throws a wall of puffs directly into your path at certain intervals. Can be fairly easily dodged with WASD and some basic timing/prediction skills.

Short range AA: Inflicts DoT. Won't do jack if your planes haven't been damaged previously. Long and mid range AA will also stop shooting when short range AA engages.

 

At least that was my experience in both test 1 and 2. I went entire matches without losing a single plane in my Midway while completely demolishing Worcesters and the like.

Also note that the Japanese 25mm guns counted as mid range AA in test 2, meaning high tier IJN ships literally don't have short range AA mounts.

 

Basically the role of an AA ship will be dead if WG keeps this up, thus there is no reason to introduce new ones.

 

Well if it ends up anything like this on live then the guided missile cruiser using plane graphics will be live, it's a bad joke at best. Even if they lack some of the alpha strike they had they will simply DoT stuff to death or crippled to the point where they may as well be dead.

Sounds thoroughly miserable and very bad for the surface ship game.

 

I'm far from convinced this CV rework is sensible, I still think the logical rework would have been to give CV's their own game mode with a small fleet of controllable AA bots per CV multiple CV's per game and a UI that actually works. "Midway Mode" would be fun, but the current rework looks very grim for the game as a whole.

I spent quite a lot last Christmas, but I'm tempted to keep my wallet closed with how these CV changes are shaping up.

[Exocet6951]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Basically the role of an AA ship will be dead if WG keeps this up, thus there is no reason to introduce new ones.

 

Do I detect an Atlanta buff?

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Vor 19 Stunden, invicta2012 sagte:

but they would be a nice counter to CV divisions and the like.

 

Though nothing would keep evil players from using them in CV divisions, of course.

[159Hunter]

25 minutes ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

 

Though nothing would keep evil players from using them in CV divisions, of course.

But why do that if you could (potentially) bring a division with multiple CVs?

[invicta2012]

40 minutes ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

Though nothing would keep evil players from using them in CV divisions, of course.

I am not a fan of CV divisions, multiple CV games and the like. If WG want to give a decent impression of their CV re-work they will put a one-CV-per-team and no divisions rule on the game.