More T6 premium CVs? (At the risk of being burned at the stake)

[Verblonde]

I'm not normally an aficionado of the Tao of CVs, but I've been having a nice time playing Ark Royal in Ops lately (not last week's obviously).

 

Whilst I accept this is Perverse and Wrong, it would still be nice to have one or two alternative options if one doesn't fancy playing the silver ones (economic reasons mainly) - is it delusional to hope that some might come along some time? There must be at least a few options.

 

That said, I have no idea how big the market for T6 premium CVs might be...

 

(An alternative might be an economically 'better' permaflage option for the silver CVs - paid for, obviously, to keep the server hamsters fed?)

[Zieten]

I think it is a good idea to put even more CVs into low-tier games so new players will learn as early as possible how fun-enhancing CVs are to the game - i absolutely agree.

[Youshanai]

Give Zuiho as prem T6 CV please. 

 

No fighter planes, no rockets only torps and DBs and DBs HE pls. 

[wot_2016_gunner]

USS Saratoga (CV-3) with biplanes and the origianl 4x2 203mm secondary turrets might be a good idea. 

 

(this is Lexington, but basically the same)

[HaachamaShipping]

Aquila with SAP DBs...

[Verblonde]

11 minutes ago, Zieten said:

put even more CVs into low-tier games

T6 isn't really low tier, surely? Mid-tier, I would think.

 

Incidentally, I still think there should be the hardest of hard caps in randoms on CVs at all levels (especially the T4s) - queue times be damned...

 

3 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

USS Saratoga (CV-3) with biplanes and the origianl 4x2 203mm secondary turrets might be a good idea.

Ooo, that sounds promising - another 'secondaries' CV would be a giggle...

[Zieten]

2 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

T6 isn't really low tier, surely? Mid-tier, I would think.

I'll admit that my knowledge is a bit blurred in that regard, but T6 CVs can meet T5 ships, right? I'd consider T1-5 low-tier but i guess thats up to personal definition :)

[MagicMooby]

Vor 3 Minuten, Bunny_Lover_Kallen sagte:

Aquila with SAP DBs...

Why not SAP carpet bombers?

 

I don't think that more premium CVs would increase the general CV playerbase, it would just cause them to 'spread out'

 

I would also like to see a CV for coal as a long term goal for CV players

[Verblonde]

3 minutes ago, Zieten said:

T6 CVs can meet T5 ships, right?

I believe so, but they can also meet T8s.

 

This is my main problem with the new CVs - the alternating tiers thing makes them a bugger to balance (quite a few on here maintain it's impossible).

 

FWIW I tend to think in terms of anything in the +1 MM bracket as being low tier; T5 or 6 to T7 as mid tier, and everything above that as high. Of course, that's entirely subjective, and you could just as easily make a case to the contrary...

[MagicMooby]

Vor 1 Minute, Verblonde sagte:

This is my main problem with the new CVs - the alternating tiers thing makes them a bugger to balance (quite a few on here maintain it's impossible).

Especially since AA increases massively around Tier 8, faster than most other stats

 

this is why AA is meaningless against top tier CVs but can sometimes deplane bottom tier ones

[elblancogringo]

USS Yorktown? And add the Midway battle as a coop scenario in the game at the same time:)

[Procrastes]

1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

I'm not normally an aficionado of the Tao of CVs, but I've been having a nice time playing Ark Royal in Ops lately (not last week's obviously).

 

Whilst I accept this is Perverse and Wrong, it would still be nice to have one or two alternative options if one doesn't fancy playing the silver ones (economic reasons mainly) - is it delusional to hope that some might come along some time? There must be at least a few options.

 

That said, I have no idea how big the market for T6 premium CVs might be...

 

Playing the Ark Royal in operations is a lot of fun! And for me personally, it also means that I can play a CV in non-coop mode without inflicting my horribly lacking CV skills on either friends or enemies in random battles. It is, in short, a great way to learn how to master the art of CV battles.

 

So I would welcome more tier 6 premium CV:s into the game. I doubt that it would add much to the numbers of CV:s present in random battles,* and as stated, it would add more options for how to conduct operations.

 

The best contender for a tier 6 CV, in my opinion, would be the Graf Zeppelin with those iconic Junkers Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers and some almost as iconic Heinkel HE-111 torpedo bombers, instead of them watchammacallits that currently serve her in those roles. Those two plane types would fit in well at tier 6, and the Messerschmitt rocket planes would be right at home too. I actually bought the Graf Zeppelin two minutes after seeing the promo pictures of the ship with a couple of cool-looking Stukas flying across the bows in a stylish formation, and what did I get? Not Stukas, that's what. Bummer me for being a plane geek, I guess.

 

But I digress. The Graf Zeppelin was dropped into tier 8, and that's not going to change. So my suggestion to Wargaming, here, is this: Let us have a "Li'l Graf", or "Baron Zeppelin", at tier 6 instead? With Stukas and Heinkels? That would be one worthwhile fantasy ship that I, for one, would buy in a jiffy!

 

 

* If this happens, I might revoke my previous welcome.

[Procrastes]

1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

Incidentally, I still think there should be the hardest of hard caps in randoms on CVs at all levels (especially the T4s) - queue times be damned...

I am inclined to agree. As long as there is at most one carrier on each team, there is only so much space that those planes can cover - but as soon as there are two or more carriers on a team, they can easily cover the entire map between them. A hard cap with a maximum of one carrier per team would solve almost all problems with carriers in their current form, or so I believe.

 

I don't question Wargaming when they say that a hard cap will severely affect carrier queuing times, but that must be weighed against the impact of carriers on the overall gameplay, for all ship classes. (Which is no doubt what Wargaming has done, so that is that for the moment, obviously! )

[K82J]

Maybe  the Béarn could fit into T6 ? And the French had an escort carrier between 1945 and 1949. This could be the T4 french CV, so France could have T4-6, and i am sure WG could come up with something for T8 and T10.

[MagicMooby]

Vor 1 Minute, K82J sagte:

Maybe  the Béarn could fit into T6 ? And the French had an escort carrier between 1945 and 1949. This could be the T4 french CV, so France could have T4-6, and i am sure WG could come up with something for T8 and T10.

I am almsot certain that WG is reluctant to put them in as premiums as they could be used to construct a techtree line

 

afterall, since the reeework CV lines only need 4 ships to be complete

this makes Russian, German, French and maybe even Italian CV lines possible

we just need a little bit of paper magic

 

but I doubt that WG is putting much work into carriers

the Georgia alone has propably made as much money as all non-GZ premium CVs combined

[Procrastes]

1 hour ago, elblancogringo said:

USS Yorktown? And add the Midway battle as a coop scenario in the game at the same time:)

A great idea! Carriers - and I could speculate that the same might prove true with submarines - generally fit in better in specially designed scenarios, than they do in random battles.

[invicta2012]

Lots of potential candidates but what would they offer in items of interesting gameplay? No need for more of the same. 

 

[Major_Damage225]

For a lower tier CV you can use Kaga when she still had multiple decks, give her a naming scheem like VW. 1941.

Would be a interesting model to have ingame no? 

 

[lovelacebeer]

I would be all for increasing the breadth of ships at the mid tiers even CVs, I for one would like to see USS Yorktown (CV 5) of the Lexington class added that would fit at tier 6 with early war planes, I would like to see HMS Unicorn added but not sure if she would be a tier 6 or 8.

[peoplescavalry]

A tier 7 CV might ease the problems like an Illustrious or Wasp but the idea of a Saratoga and it’s bi planes at tier 6 would have my money thrown at it!

[Procrastes]

One point that has been brought up many times before, but which I think deserves further consideration, is to maybe buff the AA power of the Yubari?

 

I get that Wargaming wants tier 4 carrier players to get a somewhat cushy start, but I can't see why they should be coddled more than newbies in other ship types. Give Yubari a seriously extended range on her AA bubble, and maybe a bit of a buff to her AA damage numbers as well, and see what happens? They could even have a trial period before they commit to a such a change - in fact, they should absolutely have a trial period before buffing a premium - but I can hardly see how having one or two AA-capable ships around, would cripple such an inherently powerful class as CV:s, even at tier 4. But maybe there is something I don't see, in this picture?

[Panocek]

3 hours ago, Verblonde said:

Ooo, that sounds promising - another 'secondaries' CV would be a giggle...

And with some GZ grade buffs to them, would be actually viable in Operations.

 

Though I have odd feeling removed CVs might return as premiums, not as "support tech tree".

coal tier 10 Taiho, FXP tier 10 Essex when

[invicta2012]

1 hour ago, Procrastes said:

I get that Wargaming wants tier 4 carrier players to get a somewhat cushy start

They have no idea what they're doing at that tier and I don't think they really care. There seems to be a lack of interest (and what can you expect from people who see "game lore" rather than "history"). There are many ships they could add to make life harder for CVs but they don't want to... the warning for the implemenation of Submarines is that that WG no longer has any interest in providing an adequate counter to their newest inventions. Rock-paper-scissors is gone, it's about cashing in on pay-to-farm ships and classes. 

[1MajorKoenig]

3 hours ago, Yoshanai said:

Give Zuiho as prem T6 CV please. 

 

No fighter planes, no rockets only torps and DBs and DBs HE pls. 

 

This 

[Procrastes]

3 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

They have no idea what they're doing at that tier and I don't think they really care. There seems to be a lack of interest (and what can you expect from people who see "game lore" rather than "history"). There are many ships they could add to make life harder for CVs but they don't want to... the warning for the implemenation of Submarines is that that WG no longer has any interest in providing an adequate counter to their newest inventions. Rock-paper-scissors is gone, it's about cashing in on pay-to-farm ships and classes. 

It is obviously true that Wargaming's main driving goal is to make money. They are a private business venture, not a public charity, so it could hardly be otherwise. But I would like to think that there is also, at some level, an ambition to create something of artistic value, and to provide good entertainment. I'm sure this sounds naïve, but I can't look at something as gorgeous as the designs of, say, the German premiums, and not believe that the people who created those are not only blessed with artistic talent and ambition, but also at least as interested in 20th century naval history as I am. I also like to think that many of those at Wargaming enjoy playing their own game.

 

Furthermore, I got the impression that Wargaming learned enough of the CV rework circus to work towards something a bit more, well, smooth in the landing, when they introduce the new submarines. At least I hope so. They have been talking of starting subs off on selected battle modes only, and not in random battles, and they also seem inclined to take their time a bit more when trying out new ideas (I hope the scrap the latest one about not giving submarines the ability to travel on the surface, by the way). So there is that.

 

I'm not saying there haven't been danger signs. The recent Puerto Rico debacle, where Wargaming used marketing strategies that came across as nothing less than unethical, comes to mind. But it is important to realize that Wargaming is not one single person. Someone made a bad call, and the player community reacted. Let us hope that there are others with Wargaming who make better calls in the future. It is up to us, as the customers, to give feed-back on the way. We can always get off the boat if it starts sinking - but for now, I remain on board.