Jump to content
Flandre Bug Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
mein_nick_ist_besetzt

Wind speed and direction - nerfing CVs indirectly

65 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
133 posts
2,940 battles

The aircraft carriers don't have a very good press here, and the topics tend to devolve into flame wars. I acknowledge the fact, but I'll try nonetheless and ask you to bear with me.

 

The general state of affairs has been summed up pretty well in some broad topics (I'll list two for reference only) so we're probably all in the same boat. The CVs play a separate game, have been shoehorned into untouchable damage dealers with no meaningful counter-play. Low in numbers, they wield a disproportionate influence in game (provided their captains can breath and click the left mouse button simultaneously) and by design lack a well adjustable balancing mechanism. The only existing one, the AA is a binary switch that flips between "CVs are OP" and "CVs are useless and unplayable".

 

I have been thinking what other buttons could we push to tweak the balance, and I came up with something inspired with actual naval warfare history (I know - awkward in this game)

 

Lift force.

 

Historically, aircraft carriers needed to perform some more or less complex maneuvers to launch their aircraft due to the necessary lift force to get the planes with heavy payload of the deck. In reality the size of the naval theater mostly made those shenanigans irrelevant, but we don't play on that size of maps.

 

So the proposal would actually involve adding two metrics to the game and one calculation on launching of the planes:

 

  1. the weight coefficient for each plane type / loadout combination. You might also call it necessary speed to get them off the deck.
  2. the wind direction and speed, randomly generated on map load, or dynamically changing throughout the battle - again static would work too for starters.
  3. the squadron icons would then be disabled if the "speed of carrier × wind speed < min necessary speed of squad"

 

To me as a software engineer that doesn't sound incredibly complex to implement. It would give us some benefits though:

 

  1. Gameplay
    1. we get rid of the carriers camping behind an island. they need to start moving to get the birds off, thus potentially exposing themselves
    2. depending on the wind direction and speed requirement, getting a strike off might lead the carrier to venture into places where they don't want to be. This is potential counter-play option for almost everyone
    3. carriers need to start planning their next moves, while inflight, otherwise they loose time.
  2. Balancing
    1. the squadron speed requirement can be a potent tweaking tool - first because getting the carrier to speed takes time and second while it potentially renders some squads unusable in certain situations
    2. no more instant spotting at the beginning of the match. The carrier actually need to get into position to launch it's planes
  3. Money
    1. some questionable premiums (*cough* E *cough*) could be nerfed through a global mechanics change and put back to shop
    2. I could think of carrier consumable reducing the speed requirement (think steam catapults :P )

 

I can think of a few cons as well. One of them is putting complexity into CVs again. But then again, if we expect the cruiser people to know from the top of their heads if a 203mm AP shell fired from Myoko at a 7,43km away Zara angling at 47,78deg is able to score a pen or not, I think we can expect the carrier people to understand the basic angles as well.

 

I'd love to hear from the Elder Winged Ones - @El2aZeR and @Sunleader come to my mind at this early hour, but pls get here everyone competent enough to have an opinion

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,039 posts
3,819 battles

Having wind and CV's turning into the wind to land and launch squadrons would be enough.

 

But WG won't do it, as this is an arcade game not a simulation.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
133 posts
2,940 battles
23 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

But WG won't do it, as this is an arcade game not a simulation.

Well, I was just trying to help do something with the massive cluster:etc_swear: they reworked, without actually having to admit and own said  cluster:etc_swear:.

 

:Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,218 posts
9,841 battles

I think that would be more frustrating than actually helpful.

Lets look at this f.e.:

 

- Static Wind direction

If it blows in the same direction as ships face each other, one CV could start planes moving forward, while the other has to turn around but faces the map border pretty quick. Unless for some reason, wind direction changes if you cross half of the map (which would bring up many other problems)

image.png.0dffb9094259f66846010b4545d2dda2.png

 

So lets assume, wind speed always blows from side to side

image.png.229581d1b24c373e98a087fac83893b1.png

Even if surface ships couldnt see the direction of the wind, they could immediately see it based on which way their CV has to move in order to start planes. This naturally tells me, where the enemy CV must be heading too aswell.

What happens if they hit the border? Well, guess he would need to turn around and start a new run = pretty frustrating.

 

Not to mention, not being able to control your hull properly while flying is a huge problem (and autopilot working the way it does...)

 

Id rather go at this from a different point:

CVs are hard to deal with, especially if only a couple of ships are alive, and the CV can kite away from you. They are as fast as all other ships, so you can hardly catch them, and they constantly make you dodge because of the attack frequency. Id rather have CVs not being able to start planes while moving fullspeed, so they can choose if they run away, or start planes. This might also decrease CV survivability, because right now, its way too high which also causes toxicity.

Sure you could look at this from the other side aswell, and say, CVs have to move in order to start planes, which would mean, CVs have to move, making island camping harder.

 

But as it stands: WG seems to be busy with subs, and changes to CVs are highly unlikely.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
42 minutes ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

The aircraft carriers don't have a very good press here, and the topics tend to devolve into flame wars. I acknowledge the fact, but I'll try nonetheless and ask you to bear with me.

 

The general state of affairs has been summed up pretty well in some broad topics (I'll list two for reference only) so we're probably all in the same boat. The CVs play a separate game, have been shoehorned into untouchable damage dealers with no meaningful counter-play. Low in numbers, they wield a disproportionate influence in game (provided their captains can breath and click the left mouse button simultaneously) and by design lack a well adjustable balancing mechanism. The only existing one, the AA is a binary switch that flips between "CVs are OP" and "CVs are useless and unplayable".

 

I have been thinking what other buttons could we push to tweak the balance, and I came up with something inspired with actual naval warfare history (I know - awkward in this game)

 

Lift force.

 

Historically, aircraft carriers needed to perform some more or less complex maneuvers to launch their aircraft due to the necessary lift force to get the planes with heavy payload of the deck. In reality the size of the naval theater mostly made those shenanigans irrelevant, but we don't play on that size of maps.

 

So the proposal would actually involve adding two metrics to the game and one calculation on launching of the planes:

 

  1. the weight coefficient for each plane type / loadout combination. You might also call it necessary speed to get them off the deck.
  2. the wind direction and speed, randomly generated on map load, or dynamically changing throughout the battle - again static would work too for starters.
  3. the squadron icons would then be disabled if the "speed of carrier × wind speed < min necessary speed of squad"

 

To me as a software engineer that doesn't sound incredibly complex to implement. It would give us some benefits though:

 

  1. Gameplay
    1. we get rid of the carriers camping behind an island. they need to start moving to get the birds off, thus potentially exposing themselves
    2. depending on the wind direction and speed requirement, getting a strike off might lead the carrier to venture into places where they don't want to be. This is potential counter-play option for almost everyone
    3. carriers need to start planning their next moves, while inflight, otherwise they loose time.
  2. Balancing
    1. the squadron speed requirement can be a potent tweaking tool - first because getting the carrier to speed takes time and second while it potentially renders some squads unusable in certain situations
    2. no more instant spotting at the beginning of the match. The carrier actually need to get into position to launch it's planes
  3. Money
    1. some questionable premiums (*cough* E *cough*) could be nerfed through a global mechanics change and put back to shop
    2. I could think of carrier consumable reducing the speed requirement (think steam catapults :P )

 

I can think of a few cons as well. One of them is putting complexity into CVs again. But then again, if we expect the cruiser people to know from the top of their heads if a 203mm AP shell fired from Myoko at a 7,43km away Zara angling at 47,78deg is able to score a pen or not, I think we can expect the carrier people to understand the basic angles as well.

 

I'd love to hear from the Elder Winged Ones - @El2aZeR and @Sunleader come to my mind at this early hour, but pls get here everyone competent enough to have an opinion

First I thought this is joke. It would be a good one. Bit it looks it was not a joke:(

 

Peoples can not handle 3 buttons and here we have complexes wind solution :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
19 minutes ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

Well, I was just trying to help do something with the massive cluster:etc_swear: they reworked, without actually having to admit and own said  cluster:etc_swear:.

 

:Smile_hiding:

They do not need help. Rework is finished. This is 100.483 whining topic hidden in "sugestion"

  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
133 posts
2,940 battles
13 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

I think that would be more frustrating than actually helpful.

In a way it's meant to be slightly frustrating. I'm willing to harm myself with that, to make the CV game less decoupled from everyone else game.

 

13 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Lets look at this f.e.:

 

- Static Wind direction

If it blows in the same direction as ships face each other, one CV could start planes moving forward, while the other has to turn around but faces the map border pretty quick. Unless for some reason, wind direction changes if you cross half of the map (which would bring up many other problems)

image.png.0dffb9094259f66846010b4545d2dda2.png

 

So lets assume, wind speed always blows from side to side

image.png.229581d1b24c373e98a087fac83893b1.png

Even if surface ships couldnt see the direction of the wind, they could immediately see it based on which way their CV has to move in order to start planes. This naturally tells me, where the enemy CV must be heading too aswell.

What happens if they hit the border? Well, guess he would need to turn around and start a new run = pretty frustrating.

This is of course a thing, that's why I'd probably prefer a dynamic wind direction/speed, but event static one could be salvaged be limiting the direction to ~ perpendicular. And you assume that the CV lays in a straight course and keeps it the entire game... why would I do that? It's an invitation for all the 20km try-hards and their torpedoes, and all the CV that have time to snipe a target all the map away. I've been working under the assumption here that even working with autopilot you keep plotting a twisted course only adjusting it for the benefit of a launch.

 

13 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Id rather go at this from a different point:

CVs are hard to deal with, especially if only a couple of ships are alive, and the CV can kite away from you. They are as fast as all other ships, so you can hardly catch them, and they constantly make you dodge because of the attack frequency. Id rather have CVs not being able to start planes while moving fullspeed, so they can choose if they run away, or start planes. This might also decrease CV survivability, because right now, its way too high which also causes toxicity.

Sure you could look at this from the other side aswell, and say, CVs have to move in order to start planes, which would mean, CVs have to move, making island camping harder.

If the carrier can't move fast while launching planes you'll introduce a lot of toxicity between BBs and CVs - we'll be competing for the same resource - island shadow :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
133 posts
2,940 battles
13 minutes ago, veslingr said:

They do not need help. Rework is finished. This is 100.483 whining sugestion hidden in "sugestion"

Oh nobody said it's not. The solution is far from perfect though.

 

And why I would be "whining" if what I propose actively sabotages my best class? I'm a CV main after all... :Smile_unsure:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
5 minutes ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

Oh nobody said it's not. The solution is far from perfect though.

 

And why I would be "whining" if what I propose actively sabotages my best class? I'm a CV main after all... :Smile_unsure:

Have no idea. Really why would you nerf them even more and you clearly show by your play how they are not OP ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,043 posts
9,333 battles
1 hour ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

I'd love to hear from the Elder Winged Ones - @El2aZeR and @Sunleader come to my mind at this early hour, but pls get here everyone competent enough to have an opinion

 

I dont mind more Realism in General. But I fear this Idea has no Chance of being Considered.

WG has the Opinion that the Average Player is Quite Challenged by using Engine Boost and Dropping Bombs at the same Time and therefore takes over Camera Control upon Drop out of Fear that they might otherwise Overload the Players Limited Intellectual Capabilities.

And the more I see CV Players in this Game the more I somehow get the Feeling that unfortunately WG is not even all that Wrong in that Assumption.....

 

Your Suggestion would Require an Situational Understanding from CVs that would be way beyond what WG is Attributing to the vast Majority of the Playerbase.

Moreover it would be quite hard to Balance actually. Because the Wind must be usable by both Teams CVs without Disadvantaging one Teams CV.

Meaning that the Random System would be out of Question right away. But even with an Set Wind on each Map it would be really hard to Balance. Maps are either Symetric or Mirrored. But some are Mirrored Diagonal or by Swapped Corners.

Which results in the Wind Favoring one Sides CV no matter from where you make it come.

 

Hence. I fear this Idea is not going to Fly Mate.

Sorry.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,147 posts
16,419 battles
56 minutes ago, veslingr said:

They do not need help. Rework is finished. This is 100.483 whining topic hidden in "sugestion"

 

No need to be rude. He was being polite while making a suggestion. You might not like it - I personally think it doesn't fit the game as it's intended to be (WG regularly discards any ideas it deems too complex, and this one easily falls into that category), but the OP wasn't whining, merely brain storming about what to do to make the situation more palatable.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
7 minutes ago, Captain_Newman said:

 

No need to be rude. He was being polite while making a suggestion. You might not like it - I personally think it doesn't fit the game as it's intended to be (WG regularly discards any ideas it deems too complex, and this one easily falls into that category), but the OP wasn't whining, merely brain storming about what to do to make the situation more palatable.

Every nerf post is whining in my book. 

 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,147 posts
16,419 battles
1 minute ago, veslingr said:

Every nerf post is whining in my book. 

 

 

Interesting (and incorrect) position, but you knock yourself out buddy. There's plenty of constructive ways to prove the original proposition wouldn't fit. Labeling the OP as a whiner so you don't have to deal with the subject matter being presented in a very polite and civil way is just a lazy way to try and shoot someone's argument down. That's in my book. But again, knock yourself out.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
133 posts
2,940 battles
13 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

I dont mind more Realism in General. But I fear this Idea has no Chance of being Considered.

I have no emotional attachment to it. I'm trying to think around the very fixed mindset that puts CV in a rather sorry place - essentially a BB with self-propelled and guided shells.

 

13 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Your Suggestion would Require an Situational Understanding from CVs that would be way beyond what WG is Attributing to the vast Majority of the Playerbase.

Situational awareness is expected from everyone in the game, I don't feel the CVs should be an exception here. I'm not here to play Super Mario, I'm here to play tactical naval combat. Even though with the current implementation it certainly feels like Mario - when I squint my eyes the CAs behind the islands almost look like a green mushroom to stomp on.

 

13 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Moreover it would be quite hard to Balance actually. Because the Wind must be usable by both Teams CVs without Disadvantaging one Teams CV.

Meaning that the Random System would be out of Question right away. But even with an Set Wind on each Map it would be really hard to Balance. Maps are either Symetric or Mirrored. But some are Mirrored Diagonal or by Swapped Corners.

I do get this concern. And I'm not really wholeheartedly questioning it. But, for the sake of discussion only - does that really matter? I mean - the balancing is not exactly symmetrical, you don't get a Perth for every Perth, sometimes a Perth gets an Aoba. And everyone needs to plan their game accordingly. If I get a stern wind I need to work around it and the red doesn't. And with wind changes that has the potential to develop throughout the match as well... But as said - I'm not gonna die for this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles

1. Remove AP

2. Introduce range to planes

3. Use radiorange from wot 

 

And you cover alot of problems in CVs not changing 2 button mechanics of  todays CV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,043 posts
9,333 battles
5 minutes ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

I have no emotional attachment to it. I'm trying to think around the very fixed mindset that puts CV in a rather sorry place - essentially a BB with self-propelled and guided shells.

 

Situational awareness is expected from everyone in the game, I don't feel the CVs should be an exception here. I'm not here to play Super Mario, I'm here to play tactical naval combat. Even though with the current implementation it certainly feels like Mario - when I squint my eyes the CAs behind the islands almost look like a green mushroom to stomp on.

 

I do get this concern. And I'm not really wholeheartedly questioning it. But, for the sake of discussion only - does that really matter? I mean - the balancing is not exactly symmetrical, you don't get a Perth for every Perth, sometimes a Perth gets an Aoba. And everyone needs to plan their game accordingly. If I get a stern wind I need to work around it and the red doesn't. And with wind changes that has the potential to develop throughout the match as well... But as said - I'm not gonna die for this argument.

 

1.

-

2.

Tell that WG. I generally think that Intelligence can be Expected and that Failing in it Should be Punished by Loss and Failure.

But WG doesnt think that way.

3.

Problem is. Perth is not a Game Deciding Ship. Team A having a Cruiser that is lets say 20% weaker than the Cruiser Team B got on that Slot. Filters down to an 1-2% Advantage in the Team assuming no other Ships turn the Balance in the other Direction again.

But a CV being Disadvantaged by 10% can Spiral up to mean a 20% Disadvantage for the Team as a Total.

 

Just one Example. One Team at the Start of the Game gets proper Wind for the CV to Face Enemy Team upon while Starting Squadrons. Meaning the other Teams CV actually has to first Turn around his Ship before he can Launch and then has to Launch away from the Enemy.

That alone means that  this Team is without a CV for nearly 2 minutes at the Start of the Battle. But also would mean that their CV is constantly doing Extra Turns with his Squadrons due to Launching them in the Wrong Direction.

That Team would Start with an Insanely Huge Disadvantage.

 

But even if you Force Set the Wind to be Sideways at Start. You end up with one Teams CV requiring to move in a Direction of a Flank. Which means if that Team then doesnt actually Cover that Flank you again end up with a Useless CV or even a Dead CV.

And abandoning that Flank depending on Map might be Standard. Needless to say that depending on Map going that Direct might have the CV basicly Move Head First towards the Side the Enemy on that Map Pushes by Default.

 

With the Influence CVs currently Wield. This kind of Unbalance is just not something you can Afford.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,677 posts
7,760 battles
1 hour ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

In a way it's meant to be slightly frustrating. I'm willing to harm myself with that, to make the CV game less decoupled from everyone else game.

 

This is of course a thing, that's why I'd probably prefer a dynamic wind direction/speed, but event static one could be salvaged be limiting the direction to ~ perpendicular. And you assume that the CV lays in a straight course and keeps it the entire game... why would I do that? It's an invitation for all the 20km try-hards and their torpedoes, and all the CV that have time to snipe a target all the map away. I've been working under the assumption here that even working with autopilot you keep plotting a twisted course only adjusting it for the benefit of a launch.

 

If the carrier can't move fast while launching planes you'll introduce a lot of toxicity between BBs and CVs - we'll be competing for the same resource - island shadow :Smile_trollface:

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

I think that would be more frustrating than actually helpful.

Lets look at this f.e.:

 

- Static Wind direction

If it blows in the same direction as ships face each other, one CV could start planes moving forward, while the other has to turn around but faces the map border pretty quick. Unless for some reason, wind direction changes if you cross half of the map (which would bring up many other problems)

image.png.0dffb9094259f66846010b4545d2dda2.png

 

So lets assume, wind speed always blows from side to side

image.png.229581d1b24c373e98a087fac83893b1.png

Even if surface ships couldnt see the direction of the wind, they could immediately see it based on which way their CV has to move in order to start planes. This naturally tells me, where the enemy CV must be heading too aswell.

What happens if they hit the border? Well, guess he would need to turn around and start a new run = pretty frustrating.

 

Not to mention, not being able to control your hull properly while flying is a huge problem (and autopilot working the way it does...)

 

Id rather go at this from a different point:

CVs are hard to deal with, especially if only a couple of ships are alive, and the CV can kite away from you. They are as fast as all other ships, so you can hardly catch them, and they constantly make you dodge because of the attack frequency. Id rather have CVs not being able to start planes while moving fullspeed, so they can choose if they run away, or start planes. This might also decrease CV survivability, because right now, its way too high which also causes toxicity.

Sure you could look at this from the other side aswell, and say, CVs have to move in order to start planes, which would mean, CVs have to move, making island camping harder.

 

But as it stands: WG seems to be busy with subs, and changes to CVs are highly unlikely.

 

As far as I know carriers preferably start their planes into the wind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,147 posts
16,419 battles

What I think would improve the situation massively would be the outright removal of rocket planes, coupled with a slight buff to dd air spotting ranges from air. Rocket planes are just too ridiculous - fast, they remove all stealth, and deal lots of damage to strategically most important targets with ease. Using bombs to hit dd's can be devastating to a dd (if HE, ofc), but does require more skill than hitting them with rockets - so at least, make them work for it. A complete potato shouldn't be able to easily damage anything - aiming skill should be rewarded, and if you don't have it, well, then you don't perform.


They also over nerfed the AA. Combine that with slingshots and AA is basically decorative at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,897 posts
20,476 battles

While I appreciate the effort of OPs suggestions, I do not think that WG wants to add a mechanic that requires thinking to CVs. 

 

Also, i like my suggestion way more then any other.

 

Put CVs in a separate game mode. Allow up to three CVs per game in all tiers. Players can choose whether the want to get farmed or not by three Hakus/ Midways. 

 

If if not enough players want to get farmed, replace missing players with bots, as it doesn’t make any difference for the CV player at all. 

 

Name me the new mode something shiny and fancy. 

My WIP/ Codename for this glorious new mode: Mordors Cestpool.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,147 posts
16,419 battles
18 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Name me the new mode something shiny and fancy. 

My WIP/ Codename for this glorious new mode: Mordors Cestpool.

 

The Home of Balans comes to mind. I do like your suggestion, problem is they are highly unlikely to do it as it would effectively be quite similar to locking CV's in coop only; regardless of the "learn to counterplay, we don't like whining while we farm you" attitude of the CV apologists this is the least liked class in the game by a wide margin. If you give players an option to never see CV's, I'd wager the vast majority of the player base would do it. Most games in that special mode would be 3 human CV's on each team, the rest are bots.

 

Ofc, WG could always try to incentivise playing this mode (offering rewards that require you to play it and are too juicy to pass up).. but then we're just back at square one. But don't worry, after souring their relation to the player base in 2019 with the glorious reeework, NTC and the PR nonsense, they're now in the process of chasing away the more stubborn of us with their homing TORPEDOES that ignore TORPEDO PROTECTION and citadel you. Everyone and their grandmother is telling them it's a terrible idea, so ofc they will shove this down our throats regardless. What they don't get is that there is a point of no return where even the relative non-existent state of the competition won't save them. They'll turn this into wowp with most teams being populated by bots if they stay on this course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ASEET]
[ASEET]
Alpha Tester
289 posts
18,858 battles

Realism would of course be nice, but it just doesn't work here.

 

Others have commented on balance already. It would be hard to achieve.

 

 

If we compare historical reality to the game:

 

1. Historically planes were launched 100-200km from enemy. Launch would take something like 15 minutes and then recovering planes few hours later. There is plenty of sea to maneuver and lot of time to get in position compared to wind.

 

2. In game carriers are 15-30km from enemy in limited map. Planes are launched around every 30-60s. This would be massive strain and just turning around and moving out from map edge would mean end of flight operations for several strikes (note balance).

 

 

This would not work because time and area are so much compressed in the game.

 

 

If something along these lines would be introduced it would have to just speed of ship with no regards to direction (that is hardest to balance). Like demanding that carrier has to move 3/4 or full speed to launch. Even this would get funny results as autopilot would wreack havoc with stopping or sailing to islands (might need change of autopilot and/or how carriers are sailed). 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
867 posts

I think its an interesting  idea and could also be used, for gunfire smoke, because heavy guns firing generate a fair amount of smoke, and that should hinder their spotting and aim, so yeah if we're taking weather into consideration it should be for all ships not just one class, and who would want to be in a dd in gale force winds and high seas

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,652 posts
14,315 battles
3 hours ago, mein_nick_ist_besetzt said:

The aircraft carriers don't have a very good press here, and the topics tend to devolve into flame wars. I acknowledge the fact, but I'll try nonetheless and ask you to bear with me.

 

The general state of affairs has been summed up pretty well in some broad topics (I'll list two for reference only) so we're probably all in the same boat. The CVs play a separate game, have been shoehorned into untouchable damage dealers with no meaningful counter-play. Low in numbers, they wield a disproportionate influence in game (provided their captains can breath and click the left mouse button simultaneously) and by design lack a well adjustable balancing mechanism. The only existing one, the AA is a binary switch that flips between "CVs are OP" and "CVs are useless and unplayable".

 

I have been thinking what other buttons could we push to tweak the balance, and I came up with something inspired with actual naval warfare history (I know - awkward in this game)

 

Lift force.

 

Historically, aircraft carriers needed to perform some more or less complex maneuvers to launch their aircraft due to the necessary lift force to get the planes with heavy payload of the deck. In reality the size of the naval theater mostly made those shenanigans irrelevant, but we don't play on that size of maps.

 

So the proposal would actually involve adding two metrics to the game and one calculation on launching of the planes:

 

  1. the weight coefficient for each plane type / loadout combination. You might also call it necessary speed to get them off the deck.
  2. the wind direction and speed, randomly generated on map load, or dynamically changing throughout the battle - again static would work too for starters.
  3. the squadron icons would then be disabled if the "speed of carrier × wind speed < min necessary speed of squad"

 

To me as a software engineer that doesn't sound incredibly complex to implement. It would give us some benefits though:

 

  1. Gameplay
    1. we get rid of the carriers camping behind an island. they need to start moving to get the birds off, thus potentially exposing themselves
    2. depending on the wind direction and speed requirement, getting a strike off might lead the carrier to venture into places where they don't want to be. This is potential counter-play option for almost everyone
    3. carriers need to start planning their next moves, while inflight, otherwise they loose time.
  2. Balancing
    1. the squadron speed requirement can be a potent tweaking tool - first because getting the carrier to speed takes time and second while it potentially renders some squads unusable in certain situations
    2. no more instant spotting at the beginning of the match. The carrier actually need to get into position to launch it's planes
  3. Money
    1. some questionable premiums (*cough* E *cough*) could be nerfed through a global mechanics change and put back to shop
    2. I could think of carrier consumable reducing the speed requirement (think steam catapults :P )

 

I can think of a few cons as well. One of them is putting complexity into CVs again. But then again, if we expect the cruiser people to know from the top of their heads if a 203mm AP shell fired from Myoko at a 7,43km away Zara angling at 47,78deg is able to score a pen or not, I think we can expect the carrier people to understand the basic angles as well.

 

I'd love to hear from the Elder Winged Ones - @El2aZeR and @Sunleader come to my mind at this early hour, but pls get here everyone competent enough to have an opinion

They can't fix auto pilot never mind a complicated mechanic like this. And how long till BB's suggest that wave height should affect torpedos from DD's ect....

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×