AA vs CV: VII through X - a tidbit too effective?

[Figment]

Now don't get me wrong, I think AA should be powerful enough to ward off attacks, when I play my Pensacola, it works pretty well (I got up to 39 aircraft kills with it in a single match and my division mate also in a Pensacola shot down 29 aircraft that fight, while my record stands at 58 aircraft shot down with a Ranger with a pure interceptor deck). And that is at an AA rating of 46 (which we combined by sailing in convoy). Of course, that's with the special cruiser skill activated now and then. Similarly, love the Mogami's AA which is pretty decent and the Amagi and Nagato had decent enough AA as well (with up to 24 or more aircraft killed in a match). But the amount of aircraft and speed of aircraft that can be delivered doesn't change much (you got the captains skill to reduce turn-around by 10% and Wargaming will make return flights last shorter, but that won't be more than a few seconds either).

 

However. I've also been playing.CV's up to tier 7 and just got the Lexington at tier 8. Facing a New Orleans or Baltimore with AA captain skills and upgraded AA will make your aircraft start taking hits at 7km (and the first round tends to kill aircraft and causes panic). Obviously, at that point you are far too far away to drop torpedoes. Even if you move in in a straight line, without lingering near the target (I tried it on a stationary side showing Baltimore), you can not get any torps on target.

 

In fact, aircraft dropped at such an alarming rate that the first squadron dies at ~3km, while by then the second squadron is also halfed and can drop just three torps in a full panic spread. This was with the  Ranger's best aircraft, which is the default on the Lexington. I can't say for certain how this is for the Essex, but the stats on those aircraft seem too similar and I've seen Essex aircraft fall like flies to my Pensacola. The AA is so strong that some of the highest tier cruisers (and the Yamato it's said) become completely impervious to aircraft. I mean you lose three squadrons trying to engage one Baltimore and don't even land one torp and if lucky maybe one or two bombs that MIGHT set fire (which it'd repair immediately), or completely miss at maximum spread, after which you'll lose your dive bombers on the way out - provided you send them along with your torp bombers at the same time. Now, 18 aircraft for 0 hits is a pretty bad ratio, wouldn't you say? Especially if you only have 72 aircraft.

 

So yes, the obvious lesson would be "Do not attack an AA cruiser with aircraft" and typically you shouldn't. The problem here is that you may have, well, you will have, a situation where the carrier has to engage this cruiser, either in defense of itself or the cap zone. I would expect it to lose maybe half its aircraft on the trip in and out, but to lose all its active squadrons in a single attack, before they can even drop anything accurately on target (and then we're not even talking about trying to guarantee a hit considering the maneouvrability of such cruisers), might be considered a bit of an unfair situation. No unit should be virtually free from danger from another player, especially not when we're talking passive instant point defense weaponry (AA) vs manual long term planning (CV).

 

Add to this that there are more AA threats (fleet and enemy interceptors, especially when facing multiple carriers vs your single one with one of them having interceptor setup) causing you to lose aircraft even more rapidly and then those 72 units can be lost out very quickly. Being able to fight is IMO a minimum condition for a duel (even though it shouldn't be nearly as effective as it is against other units and the AA cruiser should have the upper hand against aircraft).

 

 

The cumulative effect of high tier captain AA ability + AA upgrades currently nets you:

 

- more AA on the ship with each upgrade on top of already excellent AA (without it costing cannons like on DDs)

- increased range from secondary AA module upgrades (+20% maximum firing range)

- increased effectiveness from captain's skill "Basic Firing Training" (+10% engagement area efficiency)

- increased effectiveness from captain's skill "Defensive Fire" (+20% defensive power, -30% skill prep time) (Limited period of at max 60s, depending on cruiser's AA prowess)

- increased range from captain's skill "Advanced Firing Training" (+20% AA engagement area)

 

This cumulative effect isn't really noticeable at lower tier fights (4-7), because:

 

1. At low tiers AA is far too poor, some ships have one Oerlikon, some don't even have any AA guns.

2. Aircraft carrier captains don't have significant upgrades affecting aircraft performance (mind,carrier captain skills (aside from secondary defense cannons that might see the occasional destroyer) only affects combat between aircraft and defense against enemy air strikes) until the extra aircraft per squadron level 5 skill "Air Supremacy". No low tier unit faces more than 5-6 aircraft. Note that I have no idea if this at all compensates even a bit to engage high tier cruisers. But if it's a minimum you need to even partake in combat, then it's not a skill choice anymore.

3. At low tiers AA is relatively weak due to not having the range when people upgrade other modules more often than AA

4. At low tiers AA is relatively weak in range and performance due to not having the defensive boost cruiser skill

5. At low tiers AA higher level captain skills aren't used yet since the player has to level up first

6. People don't screen each other efficiently yet in fleet-like formations

 

So basically, you won't see the cumulative effect issue pop up until you play tier VIIs in tier VII-X battles. Now. What could be done? Here's a couple alternative scenarios:

 

---

 

Alternative solution 1: Add bombing/torping run skills for the carrier captain? ...Yes.

There basically is nothing for the carrier captain to combat this aside from hoping the level 5 skill "Air Supremacy" will provide an extra aircraft in a squadron to soak damage (you still have 72 aircraft total though). All other captain skills regarding aircraft that improve combat are aimed at interceptors or reducing reloading time on the ship, neither of which helps the effectiveness of bombing runs. Note that I'm currently at tier 8 with the Lexington and I don't even have the level 4 skill yet (need one more skillpoint) and then I'm still 5 skillpoints away from Air Supremacy. I could have used 3 points less, but then I'd still need 3 more points while the issue at tier 8 stock seems massive. I would not say it's really fair nor really viable to say "just grind the Saipan, Ranger or Independence till you got a level 5 captain and see if that helps".

 

So one option would be to add captain skills for the carrier captain that improves the performance of bombers during their run. For example, one that reduces the panic effect. Another captain skill could be improving AA dodging (lowers AA performance). One of these could be a level 3 skill, so situational awareness isn't an absolute must anymore and you can make a choice between skills.

 

---

 

Alternative solution 2: Adjust aircraft endurance? ...No.

When we look at the second alternative, adjusting bomber design, things look bleaker. I'm not keen on tinkering with the stats of bombers and fighters, they're poorly enough balanced as is. The only thing bombers get as they upgrade is slightly more endurance (which seems to be at most one round of short range AA per aircraft at +130-190 hp, vs cannon upgrades providing way more dps per cannon type when upgraded), while their speed goes down, so they would be longer inside that AA radius. I very much doubt a few hp would make a difference. I do wonder if the current setup has been balanced around an organised quadruple aircraft strike going in at once. Because if it is (I HAVE seen it happen and those aircraft still get decimated by one or two cruisers, including my own...). If it is, it's not balanced right. But then, aircraft balance between tiers is also, as I've stated many times before, crap:

 

One of the big challenges here is that you can't just up the endurance of the bombers: it would throw fighter - bomber (tier) balance out of whack even further. If you would increase bomber endurance to compensate for more AA, then you have to give more firing power to the fighers, who would then pulverise lower tier aircraft even more effectively. If anything, the difference between aircraft between tiers should be reduced and more gradual, IMO, rather than be worsened. IMO the only major change for the tier 7-8 aircraft would be an increase in torp damage of the basic tier 8 bomber, which currently is at tier IV-VI level (5900), where 8500 (as the basic tier 7 torp bomber has) would be more appropriate given you don't face Kawachis (38.7K hp) and Myogis (45.7K hp) without AA like the Langley does, but Nagato's (65K hp), Amagi's (66.3K hp), Des Moines (50.6K hp) and Yamato (97.2K hp), all with excellent AA.

 

---

 

Alternative solution 3: Adjusting AA damage values? ...No.

Adjusting the AA values isn't really an option either: the dps depends on the cannon type and you can't have it where the lower tiers get (even) less AA cover due to a problem at higher tiers.

 

---

 

Alternative solution 4: Reduce effectiveness of AA captain skills and module upgrades? ...Probably.

I think the best place to make an adjustment would be the cumulative effect that throws everything out of whack.

 

Reducing the 20%+20% range bonus from the long range 127mm guns AA (rather than the short range AA) could be the simplest solution. The cumulative effect from module and captain's bonus might be better at 10%+10% for long range AA, it would still come into effect at 6.0km then, which is far enough for effective AA: that's a grid range on most maps. That would remove a total of two kilometer of damage dealing by AA (both routes to and from the aircraft would see a reduction of AA fire at the edge). Then you might be able to go in and escape with just a few aircraft remaining in the squadron if you have a perfect approach run (and that should already be unlikely if the enemy vessel turns) and not face significant AA from other ships or aircraft. Which btw, there should be, it's a team game after all. Damnit people: cover each other!

 

---

 

 

Alternative solution 5: Reduce bomber panic spread? ...Yes.

The last thing one could consider is reducing the default panic spread effect by 10-15 degrees total and the dive bomber spread in panic by 20%. If this were a skill 3 or 4 for the captain, then it'd be an obligatory thing to get, so I would say this should be a default reduction. Without ridiculous spread you could attempt to drop torpedoes from a little bit further away at least without losing all your aircraft. Right now you're forced to fly all the way up to the ship well into the optimal range of the 2.1-3.0km range AA, which with upgrades are currently at 2.5-3.6km.

 

A captain's skill that reduces the panic spread further would still be worth considering, but shouldn't be required (IMO at most reduce it by say 5-10%). There should definitely still be a spread from panicking, where even a captain's skill on top shouldn't be enough to remove it from being noticeable, it just shouldn't be ridiculously large as it is now (two times the ship's length). Note that even if there's no spread, most (higher tier) cruisers that pay attention and thus corrects their course in time can sail in between or otherwise avoid even two crossing volleys of torps anyway due to their agility.

 

---

AA panic bug

On another note: Another thing I've noticed throughout the beta is that in some cases torpedo and dive bomber squadrons bug out after having been in panic mode, leaving them permanently in panic mode (even if they just launched from the carrier and the nearest enemy is 35km away). This happened way more often facing higher tier units though, since they are more prone to causing AA panic. Of course once a torp bomber remains in AA panic constantly, it becomes virtually useless. Especially at just 5.9K max damage per torp in higher tiers: you really need everything you can to at least go towards the target.

[J_Fuller]

Agreed, the CV players have almost stopped in the high tiers... Not only is this a problem regarding the CV but in the game overall.

the thing is, planes where really effectiv against enemy ships, at this point one would almost think that the Yamato never were in any danger from those planes

[Islacrusez]

Personally I feel an overhaul of the entire group of flight mechanics is necessary, from the flight model to a/c-a/c balance, to AA-a/c interaction, to carrier upgrade progression to loadout selection, to a/c-ship damage.

 

I would put torpedo and bomb damage up, significantly. I would create discrete but overlapping zones of AA per gun on a ship (or where gun arcs overlap exactly, merge those). Implement a 3D flight model, as opposed to a 2D one. Rebalance fighters entirely. Balance from there, making successful runs more difficult, but increasing the damage done when a hit is scored.

 

With AA zoning, skill would be required to get guns on target (as opposed to just getting the ship within 7km of the aircraft), and judgement would be required to determine when to present more guns and when to present less target. After all, as with the main battery, the most firepower for the secondary and AA battery will be on the broadsides, which will also expose the full length of the ship to torpedo bombers. More importantly, with each gun now being at least partially simulated, we can then have the player choose between firing at aircraft or surface targets with their DP/secondary battery, further improving the chances of aircraft getting through intact - especially if they coordinate an attack with a surface ship.

 

 

[Loran_Battle]

Totally agree.

 

I've been in a few games in my lexington where I was unable to do anything, because every time I came near a BB my TBs were panicking. Why? Because there was a cruiser sailing along so far away I couldn't even see it on my screen fully zoomed out... I feel it is too easy to counter a CV, just press a button and he is f'd.

 

Trying to attack 2 amagi's that sail near eachother is also near impossible and you will lose all you planes even when going straight at them and dropping ASAP. So it's not only cruisers.

 

Problem is: at low tiers you can do well, because there are more people that have no clue and won't evade nor stick together. On higher tiers players tend to stay together and will evade.

 

That being said: I do have quite a high damage per game with my lexington, so it's not that bad. But I know exactly how I get that damage... It's by attacking tier 6 ships and completely ignoring my own tier ships.

 

It just really feels imbalanced.

[Hauptbahnhof]

What I would like to see is AA shooting down a bit fewer aircraft but also having a chance of causing torpedo bombers to drop early ( think of it as level 2 panic ). This means instead of getting 3 of 12 torpedoes in the water and 12/12 bombers lost you would have perhaps 10/12 torpedoes in the water but have them dropped so early that they will be easier to evade, and perhaps 6/12 bombers shot down.

 

 

Another option that would be good is to re-balance it so that you normally don't start losing aircraft that far out, but only when approaching the close range AA, that way you can as a CV captain choose to drop early and at least deny area / score perhaps 1 hit, but lose very few aircraft.

[Figment]

@Hauptbahnhof: The way damage currently seems to work is that most if not all damage is taken by one aircraft at a time, as they tend to die one by one. Though sometimes they seem to almost instantly dissolve. Possibly if the damage was spread better, there might be a better chance of them surviving long enough to drop torps, though they might be lost soon afterwards (depending on how long the AA keeps firing, the ship might have sunk).

 

This might also help with interceptor balance: if the high tiers spread their damage more than the low tiers, the lower tiers stand a better chance of downing higher tier interceptors through concentration of fire. Currently they frequently have both numerical and dps issues while fighting the higher tiers, but if the lower tiers get to share damage dealt more equally, then they may be in the fight long enough to keep dealing damage against the higher tier aircraft to down a few. Currently the situation frequently exists where fighters decimate enemy fighters while only losing one.

 

This skewing too seems to be extreme through captain skills and modules that provide both extra hitting power and endurance.

[Sharana]

The next big patche will bring fundamental changes to the CVs and their planes. Let us comment after the 0.3.1 so we can help the devs balance it.

[Baron432]

100% agreed - I just stopped to play my lady Lex, becouse MM keeps sending me into rooms with a lot of tier VIII / IX / X ships, frequently being commanded by able players, which for me means to loose half of my TBs/DBs well before they close for an attack, sending 0-2 torps from long distance & panicking and loosing 2-3 more planes from each squadron just before they leave the AA area (yes, thats with first attack made, long distance torpedo launch, commander plane endurance bonus). On low tiers, CVs could be considered as a bit OP. No problem on med tiers, where attack & defence seem to be balanced. But on high tiers .... theres no challenge and no fun for a CV commander.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

I dont think AA is "to" effective, but I feel like there is no real difference in Tier 7 to 10 CV. Most CV Players I talked to told me they stopped playing CV at tier 8 since there is no real benefit to playing the tier 10 one and the matchmaking would be way better for the tier 8 CV.

 

 

Anyway, I dont think the current system would be sufficient to compensate for the AA; simply increasing one stat would be the wrong idea.

 

I would like to propose the idea of some sort evasive stat for planes. High end single wing planes are way better at avoiding AA and still hit their target then the old ones in low tier games. This way high tier planes can reduce incoming damage without making them flying tanks. The CA skill could then improve accuracy to counter this thus making BB weak to air attacks despite their insane ammounts of AA.

 

You then could implement modules to modify your planes for either heavier weaponry or better evasion of AA, as well as implement multiple captain skills o improve this. For example, at tier 5 you could still keep the +1 plane skill and implement another one for +20% evasion (without increasing plane numbers) thus giving you either larger squadrons with better damage wich need tons of replacements or more reliable Squadrons that do less damage but survive into the endgame.

[Stugga]

New player here and having played carrier up to tier 5 (on my way to tier 6) I kinda noticed all the things you say.

 

I also notice though that if you just rush in with your bombers, expect to be anihhiliated. I now think of my carrier shorta like my batchat in World of Tanks (WoT). At first, you kinda spot, kinda flank a little, kinda attack opportunist targets, (mostly defend with your fighter(s)), but play it careful and conservative. It's after middle game and to late game that batchat begins to shine. When there are fewer tanks in game weaknesses are exposed, when players make mistakes, find themselves alone (or their teammates died and nobody to support them etc) that I can now take advantage of those gaps and weaknesses. Say, even if you have to go against a cruiser but it's half dead, you can make a torp run and maybe you lose some of your planes, but since even if 2 tops hit will kill it, he won't be alive to kill your other half on your way out.

 

Furthermore to the above (regarding your comment about when you "have" to go against a cruiser), well, cruisers are the hard counter of carriers. Consider an arty "having" to go against a medium in WoT = gg (unless you get pretty darn lucky).

 

Anyway, I can imagine late game being a AA nightmare and I noted all the things you post to look for as I go up the tiers with my own carrier.

 

Kind regards,

Stugga

 

edit: Isn't it kinda the same with US Destroyers? You just can't rush in and gunboat at start of the game. Everybody and their mother will shoot at you. You must kinda play it conservative, defend and wait till some enemy DD makes a mistake (esp. if it's Japan DD) and you can now engage them alone outside of line of fire or support of his buddies. This is not WoT that you can peek out of the rock or hill, fire and go back in. You exposed yourself, you pay the price. Every risk must be calculated. You got to play smart.

[Figment]

See, when you make a good point, I can totally agree with you Wischmob. ;)

 

There's only a small endurance difference between tier 8 and tier 10 aircraft, but some fly at 5% slower speeds, so you're in the AA area a bit longer and it's harder to evade interceptors (funnily, the lower tier interceptors will catch up much faster and the dps difference is barely noticeable). The matchmaking makes tier 8 carriers more attractive, but I would say the sweetspot for carriers is tier 4-7 due to the aforementioned lacking AA on the ships and the relative low experience of the players, plus probably also something to mention, their relatively lower HP in contrast to the torp damage (which is the same up to tier 7).

 

Interestingly, the AA rating of the Lexington (upgraded) is 85, while the Essex has an upgraded AA rating of 80. So that's actually a downgrade. There are some reasons to get an Essex though. The main reasons to get an Essex though are the slightly higher endurance of aircraft (massive boost to interceptor damage actually, from 63 dps to 100 dps (+58.7% dps), even if the loadout is reduced by approximately 23%), combined with getting 18 extra aircraft (90 total) and the better flight deck with an extra interceptor squadron. Lastly, the Essex gets spotted harder, with a spotting reduction of almost 15% (from 17,5 to 14.9km, though by air there's only a 4% reduction in spotting range, so really, who cares? :p).

 

 

Evasion skills would be good to have. I would keep these as optional modules, rather than captain skills. Reason is otherwise you make low tier AA less effective where there already is barely any by bringing a good cap'n at lower tiers.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

 Evasion skills would be good to have. I would keep these as optional modules, rather than captain skills. Reason is otherwise you make low tier AA less effective where there already is barely any by bringing a good cap'n at lower tiers.

 

You could compensate that by making it an percentage based skill.

 

+20% of basicaly nothing is still nothing, it would be the same as +20% Secondary and AA Armament range on Kongo or additional smoke grenades on low tier DD etc.

 

Right now you also get the +1 plane skill on low tier CV if you use a high level captain, wich is a strong buff itself.

[Aerroon]

 

You could compensate that by making it an percentage based skill.

 

+20% of basicaly nothing is still nothing, it would be the same as +20% Secondary and AA Armament range on Kongo or additional smoke grenades on low tier DD etc.

 

Right now you also get the +1 plane skill on low tier CV if you use a high level captain, wich is a strong buff itself.

 

It doesn't affect torpedo bombers though.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

What does not affect torpedo bombers?

 

The +1 plane skill?

[Figment]

It doesn't affect torpedo bombers though.

 

Doesn't it?

 

Air Supremacy:

Changes number of aircraft in squadrons

__________________________

+1 Fighter

+1 Bomber

 

Doesn't state which kind of bomber, so I would assume both Dive Bomber and Torpedo Bomber get +1 per squadron.

[Sharana]

Of course not. Only DBs, you can never have more then 6 TBs in the squadron.

[Figment]

Of course not. Only DBs, you can never have more then 6 TBs in the squadron.

 

Then the description needs to change to be more clear.

 

I don't see why you would not get 7 torp bombers, yet would get 7 fighters and 7 dive bombers.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

Still, +1 Fighter is an insane buff, especialy when you look at threads like this:

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/12969-independence-vs-saipans-fighters-totally-imbalanced/

[Figment]

It is a very big endurance buff (+16.667% basically) + quite a potential damage output buff (also +16.667%).

[Hauptbahnhof]

Still, +1 Fighter is an insane buff, especialy when you look at threads like this:

 

 

And it will be even bigger for the Japanese Carriers that have smaller airgroups.

[Islacrusez]

 

Japanese Carriers that have smaller airgroups.

 

Source please?

[Sharana]

 

Source please?

 

like all over the forum?

[Islacrusez]

 

like all over the forum?

 

Found it, thanks. Serves me right for never leaving the CBT section.

[Aerroon]

 

Doesn't it?

 

 

Doesn't state which kind of bomber, so I would assume both Dive Bomber and Torpedo Bomber get +1 per squadron.

 

Yup, many moons ago I thought the same. My disappointment was pretty big when I found out. But then I stopped caring, a 7th torpedo bomber in a squadron would make the drop even wider and that 7th torpedo would be pretty hard to hit with anyway. I was hoping that I could one hit kill Amagis though, but oh well.

[Figment]

Provided all 7 survive. The extra width also translates if units are shot, and it might just give that edge to get the last torp to hit (though if you miss with 6, you probably miss 7 too because they sailed in between or launched too far away, off target or too close).