Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
OnceBittenTwiceShy

Aircraft issues that have not yet been discussed

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
77 posts

I think we should reconsider the different attack models.

To me, the most questionable mode is the one used for dive bombers. The currently used pull-up maneuver was not used by piston aircraft. Their engines were not strong enough to pull the plane up to the needed altitude in the required time, without stalling. If dive bombers approached at higher altitude than other aircraft and simply dove down, would give them more time to line up and their targets more time to evade. 

The method used for torpedo bombers is fine but the lack of any aiming aid makes them awkward to use. It's point blank dropping or missing. Can't we have the same gray / green indicator, that everyone else has ?

Finally, attack aircraft.

It is my understanding that IJN fighter planes weren't armed with rockets. Before the Rework, fighters where the hallmark of IJN CVs. One could chose to go with a fighter layout and suppress opponent aircraft instead of doing damage. What's wrong with cannons or machine guns, that can shoot at anything ? A "fighter consumable" for aircraft seems to be one of those "spirited" ideas. You either have fighter escort or you don't and if you have, they normally stay with you. 

 

I think most players would appreciate more realism and historical accuracy - and not only for aircraft.  

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,768 posts
1,636 battles

British bombers have "level bombing" when British dive bombers killed the first warship in that method of bombing.

 

Historical accuracy went right out of the window.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
2,606 posts
6,459 battles
8 hours ago, OnceBittenTwiceShy said:

Can't we have the same gray / green indicator, that everyone else has ?

I'd like to see this, even if only as an option; at the very least, it'd making learning to aim with torp bombers a bit easier...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,558 posts
13,419 battles
1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

it'd making learning to aim with torp bombers a bit easier...

That would be OP. Part of the "skills" you learn with CVs is to give the correct leed. If it was shown where to aim it would be to easy. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
2,606 posts
6,459 battles
3 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

That would be OP. Part of the "skills" you learn with CVs is to give the correct leed. If it was shown where to aim it would be to easy. 

Aye, I did wonder about that - you're probably right.

 

I'm just having a lot of trouble hitting anything with torp planes, but I'm pretty sure that this specific case is a PBKAC error...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
773 posts
4,770 battles
10 hours ago, OnceBittenTwiceShy said:

I think we should reconsider the different attack models.

To me, the most questionable mode is the one used for dive bombers. The currently used pull-up maneuver was not used by piston aircraft. Their engines were not strong enough to pull the plane up to the needed altitude in the required time, without stalling. If dive bombers approached at higher altitude than other aircraft and simply dove down, would give them more time to line up and their targets more time to evade. 

The method used for torpedo bombers is fine but the lack of any aiming aid makes them awkward to use. It's point blank dropping or missing. Can't we have the same gray / green indicator, that everyone else has ?

Finally, attack aircraft.

It is my understanding that IJN fighter planes weren't armed with rockets. Before the Rework, fighters where the hallmark of IJN CVs. One could chose to go with a fighter layout and suppress opponent aircraft instead of doing damage. What's wrong with cannons or machine guns, that can shoot at anything ? A "fighter consumable" for aircraft seems to be one of those "spirited" ideas. You either have fighter escort or you don't and if you have, they normally stay with you. 

 

I think most players would appreciate more realism and historical accuracy - and not only for aircraft.  

 

You mean divebombers would come in high, dive trading altitude for speed, dropping their load  and pull out and speed away wavetop altitude making AA much less effective due to AA weapon elevation limits.....not climb back up, trading speed for altitude becoming slot sitting ducks in AA weapon effective elevation,  which would have them killed, and which in fact does kill most of out planes now.

 

You are right but judging that WG guy ( Nelson ) that decides on such things he's interested in game balance, not historic/fysics accuracy. He's probably right because AA wasn't all that effective. Bismarck and Yamato and various carriers proved that.....could't have that in game, CV/aircraft would be all powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_C]
Players
261 posts
7,034 battles
9 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

That would be OP. Part of the "skills" you learn with CVs is to give the correct leed. If it was shown where to aim it would be to easy. 

got just the time to learn it that they decreased their speed :Smile-angry: 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,558 posts
13,419 battles
7 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

Aye, I did wonder about that - you're probably right.

 

I'm just having a lot of trouble hitting anything with torp planes, but I'm pretty sure that this specific case is a PBKAC error...

Try to always give a bit more than you think ;) 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
2,606 posts
6,459 battles
1 minute ago, MortenTardo said:

Try to always give a bit more than you think ;) 

Cheers - that was the conclusion I was starting to come to, but hadn't had a chance to test yet. The current Op allows CVs, so I was having a bit of a play yesterday; I'll have another crack after work - Frontline permitting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[G-S-W]
Beta Tester
141 posts
7,314 battles

Another thing that botters me (could be my graphic settings, but I think I have everything on max so it shouldnt be the problem) is that those damage effects (the ship burning) does start rendering at around 8km. So, if I want to see if the enemy uses his DCP I have to circle at 8km to see if the fire goes out. So you cant even surprise attack your target.

If its your own DOT you at least the the damage counter go up and know when you can make your second strike.

 

Problem is: surface ships dont have the same problem, there I always see those damage effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,768 posts
1,636 battles
21 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

You mean divebombers would come in high, dive trading altitude for speed, dropping their load  and pull out and speed away wavetop altitude making AA much less effective due to AA weapon elevation limits.....not climb back up, trading speed for altitude becoming slot sitting ducks in AA weapon effective elevation,  which would have them killed, and which in fact does kill most of out planes now.

 

You are right but judging that WG guy ( Nelson ) that decides on such things he's interested in game balance, not historic/fysics accuracy. He's probably right because AA wasn't all that effective. Bismarck and Yamato and various carriers proved that.....could't have that in game, CV/aircraft would be all powerful.

 

It's one of the reasons for the armoured decks on British carriers, It was assumed that the enemy would always get through in some fashion so better make sure the deck could take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,345 posts
7,746 battles
7 minutes ago, Seeigel said:

Another thing that botters me (could be my graphic settings, but I think I have everything on max so it shouldnt be the problem) is that those damage effects (the ship burning) does start rendering at around 8km. So, if I want to see if the enemy uses his DCP I have to circle at 8km to see if the fire goes out. So you cant even surprise attack your target.

If its your own DOT you at least the the damage counter go up and know when you can make your second strike.

 

Problem is: surface ships dont have the same problem, there I always see those damage effects.

Well, there is "alternative interface mode" in option, which shows ship hp. If its ticking down, then there is good chance cook wanted to heat up dinner quickly, but due to no microwave used flamethrower and things got out of hand somewhat:Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
952 posts
20,786 battles

This, the below, i find of particular importance as just me being an average carrier-player (..meaning, i am just 1x out of the masses trying & playin, experiencing the new carriers); would be nice if we could get it as hotfix #3 for next weekend? I hope so, but then again, i am objective, i am not the expert here (WG knows best, they see the total picture here, i know)...but as just being some consumer-player, i experience the below as true, just constructive input (feedback):

 

>>>>>>>>yesterday we got 2nd hotfix and am fine with that: significant improvement with regard to planes<----> aa-defense, in short, yr planes "live" somewhat longer. I am playing Ryujo (VI) + Shokaku (VIII); skill gap plays a far less important role (= good for game!)---> battles last longer & are more balanced. What to focus next (3rd hotfix) is the question? imho, the following:

 

the silver carriers very often face being up-tiered, meaning ya loose yr planes very fast; yeah, ya can decide "to do almost nothing, bit scouting + creating fighter-zones or so"...but this will bring ya nothing: no xp and ending bottom-region-scorelist + having to pay huge expenses after battle (...so, ya will NOT start another one of those kind of battles with yr carrier, no one wants, that is easy ta understand?!): in short ya get "totally nothing out of yr investing 20 minutes in some battle" What i would suggest is following: since ya loose yr planes so fast, so MAKE IT so that yr planes get far more fastly re-generated (often, me, i face myself with waiting for minutes long!!! for getting some planes back which i later on loose in just some seconds during a strike----> make re-generating planes far, faster, at present for Shokaku it is: Attack aircraft 66secs (????) + torpedo planes (98 secs????) + dive bombers (76 secs???)....come on????...do ya realy think any gamer willing ta wait sooooooooo long doing almost totally nothing???...fcaus not!!! So, make it faster cuz planes are also shot out of skies in attack-strikes in just some secs. Faster re-generation would also result that other (enemy) ship classes getta shoot more planes down in great visuals (sounds) ways---> vibrancy + this will bring them extra XP + credits that way.

 

Last, any players stating that at present they can totally "shield off" any caps for my own destroyers????...I laugh at them!...those are certainly not real destroyers players themselves, for sure: i still manages doing cappings regularly basis in battles with carriers in it (even if 2x enemy carriers) using smoke right moments + teammate AA...all about timing it the right ways. My Shima + Asashio and even from time to time my Khaba(...yes!!!) do cappings for the team. But this thread is about the carriers not about the destroyers.

 

In short: no doubt in my mind WG is realy on the right track here...hotfix #1 + hotfix #2 are very appropriate/good. Next make the re-generation of planes faster(!)...much faster(!)...so carriers can keep up better with regard to the many, very many planes they loose, so fast during attack-strikes. Is my true opinion (..i have watched yesterday the vid stream from WG, explaing things, visions, watched it in full, was actually very nice, very good vid and real informing):cap_like:<<<<<<<<<<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Beta Tester
661 posts
6,616 battles
6 hours ago, Verblonde said:

I'd like to see this, even if only as an option; at the very least, it'd making learning to aim with torp bombers a bit easier...

At least for the Japanese CVs, as they are forced to drop for much further away than americans.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,356 posts
11,267 battles
20 hours ago, OnceBittenTwiceShy said:

I think most players would appreciate more realism and historical accuracy - and not only for aircraft.  

Not really.

 

Then again, the other ideas aren't that bad. Although I'd refrain from "have not yet been discussed" clickbait title :Smile-_tongue:

 - DBs are quite fragile and their attack pattern is... strange. Not only for historical reasons. It's just strange and makes aiming problematic because the reticle also does strange things. Of course, having them fly at higher altitude would have certain ramifications and the attack would probably be faster rather than slower - that would require balancing... Personally I have a quiet suspicion that the weird attack run we have is WG trying to make AP bombers work without obliterating everything with alpha AND without being completely useless at the same time...

 - for TBs - preach. I mean, with really good sense of speed you technically CAN provide longer-range drops but then again, with the exception of one Haku loadout with 40kn torps that take ages to arrive (and still deal pitiful damage), stealth-torping is impossible. Other than that, dropping aircraft are always visible, so the "victims" that pay any attention can react. They even get a confirmation of drop: the squadron separates into two before one of the parts (both if you are a Minotaur :Smile_trollface: ) promptly disappears. Adding visual aid would also have the extra effect of letting you assess the speed and bearing of a ship other than via minimap. Currently at the point where you need to commit to a strike you don't see the smoke or wake of the ship yet, without the minimap it can be hard to assess if the thing is even moving - and if yes, then in which direction.

 

As for rockets, well, WG really wanted to get rid of the "suppress the enemy CV meta". It's not that they really wanted rocket planes. What they really wanted was to get rid of fighters. I guess they COULD let them shoot guns at ships, but having planes with guns that

 - can't engage enemy aircraft as fighters (WG explicitly wanted to get rid of the situation where CVs focus on fight for air supremacy)

 - deal noticeable damage to lightly armored ships

would probably be even more immersion-breaking than having rocket planes on IJN carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,356 posts
11,267 battles
10 hours ago, MortenTardo said:

That would be OP. Part of the "skills" you learn with CVs is to give the correct leed. If it was shown where to aim it would be to easy. 

DDs do get this aid, however - and for good reasons. Despite usually spreading more love at once (compared to the iconic 2-torp drops from IJN TBs), creating more room for error.

The part where the skill comes is in knowing that the torps will take quite some time to arrive AND that the enemy is likely to react to the drop in some way  or perform other maneuvers based on the situation. You need to predict their actions and torp accordingly.

 

Basically: calculating where your torps meet the ship with badly presented speed was deemed unnecessary extra difficulty for DDs - and I agree with that but also believe the same applies to TBs.  Let them torp with the same aid as DDs - and you'll see more long-range drops. That, incidentally, on one hand gives the CV player more options against heavy AA but also more counterplay opportunities to the ships (these torps aren't very fast and you see the moment of drop due to squadron splitting  - the one exception being Haku's 4-torp drop at max range... but that's with 40kn torps at 8km - unless you really love sailing in straight lines, you probably won't be hit by these torps launched at torping aid indicator). Currently long-range drops aren't very viable and the point-blank ones are basically bruteforcing your way through AA and dropping at ranges where the enemy usually can't really dodge unless you mess up the drop.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×