Jump to content
Server Restart - 30 October, 05:00 UTC Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Sir_Sinksalot

50% Smaller Squadrons For More Acceptable CV's For Both CV + Non-CV Players?

128 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
562 posts
3,540 battles

Hi guys,

 

Just a noob suggestion here. 

 

I only have the T6 tech tree CV trio and not played them a whole lot in randoms so my experience is only limited but to me a suggestion that might satisfy both CV and non-CV players alike would to be to reduce the squadron size by 50%, 2 attack runs worth of aircraft per squadron.

 

What would the benefit be to both CV and non-CV player?

 

Well, one of the problems for DD players is getting harassed and focused by a CV while DD's also tend to be isolated, the most weak on hp and also the most weak on AA which obviously all adds up being one of the more attractive targets especially during the start of a battle when a CV player is most likely to be using spotter/attack aircraft and the first most isolated non insta-dead squadron ship they encounter is the DD and strategically it also makes sense to harass and disrupt the enemy teams DD since that is their eyes along with defending caps and such.

 

But what if the squadrons sizes of CV's were only 2 attack runs worth instead of 4? This way, a DD will be able to swat aircraft away much faster with it's typically weakest AA while also being at less risk from multiple attack runs since now there's only at most, 2 attack runs, most likely just 1. Of course, this same gain would apply to any ship that finds itself a bit isolated and down on AA and focused.

 

Fine, that works for the DD player but what does the CV player get out of the deal?

 

Faster regenerating aircraft to the tune of what would basically be like splitting the current squadrons into 2 squadrons, one goes, one stays on the carrier ready for go, although if you keep losing them quickly obviously they are still subject to restoration time so you certainly cannot spam aircraft, just have a more broadened mindset for choosing who and where to attack.

 

How would this benefit a CV player while making CV's less DD or BB focused? Well, as you know, one of the biggest problems facing CV's is AA and fighters, which also tends to, as mentioned, make DD's a bit more attractive along with BB's since they are slow and easier to hit, so with DD's its a case of attack them because they are isolated and have weaker AA while with BB's it's a case of all the aircraft are going to get killed after just one attack run so better make that an attack that actually hits the target and does damage, being the biggest and slowest ship, that's where the BB gets the love more than some fast agile cruiser. 

 

BUT, if the squadrons were reduced in sizes so that a CV effectively has what is like a split squadron into 2, then a CV player can be far less discriminating when it comes to choosing the targets to attack and also this expands targets to those furthest away from the CV such as enemy CV's for example, since now a CV would still have a squadron of the same type of aircraft to play with while those lost aircraft are recovering and restoring. So if there's an enemy CV at the back that needs a slap of torpedoes to disrupt his efforts or a flank the furthest away from the carrier is failing, the CV player can now actually decide to take this on and be less concerned about recovery time and the normally much longer time involved with attacking a vary far target. This way, the CV is happy and the non-CV players that are closer and currently more attractive targets to the CV are getting less focused and attacked by fewer aircraft runs per squadron. Is this not a case of everyone is the winner?

 

Now you could work this one of two ways. In both cases, squadrons are composed of two attacking runs worth of aircraft but to compensate for this CV aircraft either have

 

1. A second squadron back on the deck with aircraft restoration time the same as now.

2. CV's just start with one squadron same as now but to compensate for their smaller 50% less squadron size the restoration time is increased accordingly.

 

What do you guys think? Do you feel the above suggestion of smaller squadron size would be a possible solution that both CV and non-CV players would find acceptable and spread CV targeting around more while giving DD's and the more attractive targets a bit of a breather along with giving CV players the tools to encompass a less restrictive targeting mindset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,717 posts
6,864 battles

Problem with two wings is that one is usually depleted during an attack meaning you don’t have two attacks but just one.

 

So no, the change doesn’t make sense as it contradicts the core of the rework. 

 

If you want to go for one strike only you need to go back to these huge alpha strikes.

 

There are multiple reasons WG doesn’t want to (unforgiving, feeling of being Nuked, all or nothing gamble, more skill difference, a lot of transfer time doing nothing for the CV)

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
60 posts
9,984 battles

CV problem is so easy to fix..

 

1. CV don't spot for whole team but only for themselves

2. throw rocket sq out of the game

3. buff DD AA  by minimum double 

  • Cool 16
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
562 posts
3,540 battles
3 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Problem with two wings is that one is usually depleted during an attack meaning you don’t have two attacks but just one.

 

So no, the change doesn’t make sense as it contradicts the core of the rework. 

 

If you want to go for one strike only you need to go back to these huge alpha strikes.

 

There are multiple reasons WG doesn’t want to (unforgiving, feeling of being Nuked, all or nothing gamble, more skill difference, a lot of transfer time doing nothing for the CV)

 

Well, I'm pretty inexperienced as mentioned but I find that generally my entire squadron is lost after just 1 or 2 attacks runs against most ships other than DD's. So for me this means targeting easier ships to hit since they are the most likely to hit and get something from my lost squadron and also attacking the ships most closest to my CV since those aircraft that do not die get back to my carrier way faster than if I had targeted, lets say an enemy CV at the back of the map or a more strategically sensible target at the opposite flank to where I am roughly situated. 

 

So with a split squadron I would be less concerned about a failed attack on a faster ship like a cruiser since the losses with no damage would be less consequential while I would also be less concerned about taking on an attack run to an enemy CV at the back of the map or helping some failing flank furthest away from me.

 

So that also means a CV player will be less focused on closest targets for and not "dmg vs net time vs recovery " mindset while also ships like DD's and any isolated or weaker AA ship can't be attacked with multiple attack runs from a large squadron.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,918 posts
16,651 battles
46 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So no, the change doesn’t make sense as it contradicts the core of the rework. 

 

The hilariousness of the rework is in practice, this is what most CV captains are forced to do :cap_tea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
1,619 posts
3,585 battles
52 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So no, the change doesn’t make sense as it contradicts the core of the rework. 

 

Well ... since the rework did not achieve the stated goals either, I don't see a problem in that regard ...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,038 posts
11,833 battles

Not really, because average member of "CV OP REEE" crowd want complete immunity to carriers and their spotting, so they can make funny boat noises in peace.

 

And I doubt you can come even close to "fun and balanced" within existing CV REEEwork frame.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
562 posts
3,540 battles

I'd also like to suggest to you guys and WG the "rock, paper, scissors" balance  approach to CV's aircraft types vs the ship classes.

 

What do I mean by that?

 

For this, AA is balanced around ship class vs aircraft type, and not the current situation where you have ships with either lots of AA or weak AA.

 

So instead the balance would read as follows

 

DD - AA now very Strong against spotter/attack aircraft but weak vs all types of bombers. This gives DD players some breathing space while CV's now focus on just quick glimpses of a DD and more about spotting other ship class movements. To balance that, DD's will now damage weak to all nations and types of bombers which means they can still get attacked by CV players but with a much slower aircraft with a much easier attack to avoid and of course, trying to hit an agile ship with bombs(or torps) is generally harder than hovering a target over them and whoooshing rockets at them. 

 

BB - AA now very strong against Torpedo bombers. They kinda already are in most cases so not a whole lot really needs to change here, just a case of AA adjusted accordingly so that one attack run against a lone BB and is definitely only likely to suffer from one attack run from torp bombers. To balance that, BB's AA will be somewhat weaker to Bombers, not hopelessly weak but enough to allow at least 2 of these slow attack runs on them before the BB's AA swats away whatever's left. Also, attack aircaft will remain the same as they currently are now vs BB's AA, but will have a slight increase in their fire starting potential so they are not completely pointless to use when attacking a BB other than just spotting since they would be now very weak to DD's AA.

 

Cruisers - AA now very strong against Bombers. Much the same set of rules as the others but their AA is adjusted to deal best vs bombers. Their AA is now a little weaker vs attack aircraft and the attack aircraft are a little more hurtful vs cruisers. I know there are many types of cruisers going from ones that are almost DD like to cruisers that are almost BB like but that can be fine tuned, just loosely put, they are weaker and take more damage from attack aircraft than they do now while vs torpedo bombers they are currently strong and will remain as strong, not too strong, not too weak either but their AA is best vs bombers while weakest against attack aircraft and rockets.

 

So this Rock Paper Scissors approach would give CV players a more expansive selection of viable weapon choices and targets along with almost being forced to mix up the targets they chose to attack which would translate into no one ship or particular class of ship being focused all the time since that ship would get attacked once, those aircraft are destroyed most likely and since the CV player still has 2 other very viable and effective aircraft types against other classes, the CV quickly picks another type of aircraft and moves onto another target more suitable to that particular class which would be very weak and unattractive to use against the target which they just attacked last with another type of aircraft. 

 

What do you guys think about that? It's just raw and very simplified with plenty of room for fine tuning but... it would give DD players a break from attack aircraft and being perma-spotted while spreading the attack focus from CV's across the entire range of ship classes so that no one target gets focused for more than just one attack run, then will pretty much be left alone until the other 2 types of aircraft which that ship is strong against are used on some other players ships and will be a different player with every attack until the aircraft type gets replenished and the cycle comes around again full circle, but that will take so much time that the battle will look very different so most likely won't be a case of same DD gets attacked, then the same BB gets attacked, then the same cruiser... no, most likely won't happen this way.  

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,038 posts
11,833 battles
6 minutes ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

I'd also like to suggest to you guys and WG the "rock, paper, scissors" balance  approach to CV's aircraft types vs the ship classes.

if anything last year has shown us, WG have pedigree of ignoring user feedback for a reason:cap_tea:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
[CPC]
Quality Poster
2,258 posts
6,803 battles

The problem is not the size of the squadron, the problem is the constant attacks that prevent you to focus on playing the game.

 

Before the rework, once the CV attacked you, you knew that you had around 2 minutes free from planes because the squadrons had to return to the CV, rearm and then take off (which took time when they were numerous). And you could use that interval to play your ship, try to reposition, etc...

 

Now, a squadron can attack you 1, 2 or 3 times in a row and when the CV recalls it, planes are back less than 30 seconds later and the circus restarts. And it never ends ... You can't play your ship, you have to constantly care about those planes.

 

That is why people hate the CV rework. In the old version, a CV could murder you in 1 attack, but it was either a fast death or you didn't have to care for planes for 2 minutes, and you had the panick button to delay the inevitable.

 

Now, you are constatly harassed by planes, to the point that you can't try to play your ship. This is just death by a thousand cuts and masochism isn't a widespread tendency ...

 

This is why the rework is a fail, and the OP proposal is not a solution ...

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,717 posts
6,864 battles
2 hours ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

 

Well, I'm pretty inexperienced as mentioned but I find that generally my entire squadron is lost after just 1 or 2 attacks runs against most ships other than DD's. So for me this means targeting easier ships to hit since they are the most likely to hit and get something from my lost squadron and also attacking the ships most closest to my CV since those aircraft that do not die get back to my carrier way faster than if I had targeted, lets say an enemy CV at the back of the map or a more strategically sensible target at the opposite flank to where I am roughly situated. 

 

So with a split squadron I would be less concerned about a failed attack on a faster ship like a cruiser since the losses with no damage would be less consequential while I would also be less concerned about taking on an attack run to an enemy CV at the back of the map or helping some failing flank furthest away from me.

 

So that also means a CV player will be less focused on closest targets for and not "dmg vs net time vs recovery " mindset while also ships like DD's and any isolated or weaker AA ship can't be attacked with multiple attack runs from a large squadron.  

 

No you don’t lose the squadron. You can mitigate quite some incoming AA and usually you are able to get off multiple attacks. However constant DPS means you suffer from AA no matter wohat you do in an attack. Therefore your other wings have to soak up the damage to enable the strike wing to attack at all. Just try it by squad shortening in half - you will see the problem yourself. 

 

Plus :if you can only attack once the CV player would be sitting around in transit most of the game. Which is at the same time the opposite to “I feeel I am under constant air attacks”. Now of course there are numbers between 0 and 1 and service times and such could be increased to avoid consta-spamming but that leads to idle time on the CV’s side so WG is hesitant. 

 

And the only option for one-strike-attacks as you propose is absolute disgusting alpha strikes - and nobody including WG want to go back on that. And it would likely make the situation a lot worse I fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,717 posts
6,864 battles
2 hours ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

The hilariousness of the rework is in practice, this is what most CV captains are forced to do :cap_tea:

 

Shortening? Agree that it’s a beyond stupid mechanic but mostly applies to the beginning of a match so I made peace with that questionable stuff

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,925 posts
19,752 battles

Better question:

How many CV players do you think would stick around after such a huge nerf to striking capability?

 

Which has already been answered by 0.8.5, the most balanced iteration so far, with "less than RTS". The simple fact is that as soon as the rework becomes even remotely "balanced" it automatically becomes a failure as well.

This is because the rework is entirely binary in it's fundamental design of pure damage farming. Either CVs can farm meaningful damage with impunity and are overpowered or they cannot and are (for the majority of players) useless and unfun to play.

 

Hence why any reasonable idea to balance the CV rework is automatically doomed to fail.

  • Cool 13

Share this post


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

Well ... since the rework did not achieve the stated goals either, I don't see a problem in that regard ...

 

18 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Better question:

How many CV players do you think would stick around after such a huge nerf to striking capability?

 

Which has already been answered by 0.8.5, the most balanced iteration so far, with "less than RTS". The simple fact is that as soon as the rework becomes even remotely "balanced" it automatically becomes a failure as well.

This is because the rework is entirely binary in it's fundamental design of pure damage farming. Either CVs can farm meaningful damage with impunity and are overpowered or they cannot and are (for the majority of players) useless and unfun to play.

 

Hence why any reasonable idea to balance the CV rework is automatically doomed to fail.

And when on this equation (which is true) you add our playerbase you get balance :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
582 posts
11,656 battles
3 hours ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

I find that generally my entire squadron is lost after just 1 or 2 attacks runs against most ships other than DD's.

The important bit is highlighted. With a squadron with 3 attack flights is good exactly because it CAN allow 2 attacks if you choose your target well.There's a concrete reward for playing well. 

 

If the squadron had just 2 attack flights realistically you would almost always get that 1 essentially guaranteed attack. The second attack would almost always be lost against continuous AA during the turnaround -- like we mostly lose the third attack now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,109 posts
245 battles

Best way would be to nerf every cv down to implacable's level (or indomitables) since she is ironically enough one of the more balanced cv's to exist so far.

Otherwise short of binning them and making smoll and peace upset, im not sure what else you could do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
901 posts
1,629 battles
Vor 3 Minuten, CptBarney sagte:

Best way would be to nerf every cv down to implacable's level (or indomitables) since she is ironically enough one of the more balanced cv's to exist so far.

Otherwise short of binning them and making smoll and peace upset, im not sure what else you could do.

But then there wouldn't be people to play cvs. Best way would be to focus them on bbs. So that dd's and cas remain relatively untouched. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,605 posts
11,648 battles

If I am in a tier 10 game in my t8 cvs I will dump everything as I know i'll only get one attack run. 

 

The exception to this is when hunting the destroyer at the start of the game.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not good at CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,109 posts
245 battles
Just now, Aixin said:

But then there wouldn't be people to play cvs. Best way would be to focus them on bbs. So that dd's and cas remain relatively untouched. 

True, the only way and obvious way to do that would be to lower battleship AA and ram up cruiser AA and i guess DD's too.

But that won't stop that odd haku from taking a huge chunk of your HP, thank god i don't have balancing this as my job i would go bloody mental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,873 posts
19,233 battles

Amongst the most stupid additions with the rework are the rocket squadrons. Whoever came up with those deserves a medal of goawaytnxplox

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
901 posts
1,629 battles
Vor 7 Minuten, CptBarney sagte:

True, the only way and obvious way to do that would be to lower battleship AA and ram up cruiser AA and i guess DD's too.

But that won't stop that odd haku from taking a huge chunk of your HP, thank god i don't have balancing this as my job i would go bloody mental.

DD aa can stay as it is as rockets should be removed. Skill should be rewarded. (good torpedo/ bomb drobs) therefore aa can not slaughter planes like short range Montana aa does^^. For cruisers aa strengt must be doubled (at least) for bbs halved. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,109 posts
245 battles
3 minutes ago, Aixin said:

DD aa can stay as it is as rockets should be removed. Skill should be rewarded. (good torpedo/ bomb drobs) therefore aa can not slaughter planes like short range Montana aa does^^. For cruisers aa strengt must be doubled (at least) for bbs halved. 

long range AA needs buffing, its just incredibly useless and you can't use it to deter strikes only whne you within 3-4km of another friendly ship which makes no sense but eh.

guess weegee cant be arsed to make variations in their AA system for said purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,295 posts
7,262 battles
3 hours ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

I'd also like to suggest to you guys and WG the "rock, paper, scissors" balance  approach to CV's aircraft types vs the ship classes.

 

What do I mean by that?

 

For this, AA is balanced around ship class vs aircraft type, and not the current situation where you have ships with either lots of AA or weak AA.

 

So instead the balance would read as follows

 

DD - AA now very Strong against spotter/attack aircraft but weak vs all types of bombers. This gives DD players some breathing space while CV's now focus on just quick glimpses of a DD and more about spotting other ship class movements. To balance that, DD's will now damage weak to all nations and types of bombers which means they can still get attacked by CV players but with a much slower aircraft with a much easier attack to avoid and of course, trying to hit an agile ship with bombs(or torps) is generally harder than hovering a target over them and whoooshing rockets at them. 

 

BB - AA now very strong against Torpedo bombers. They kinda already are in most cases so not a whole lot really needs to change here, just a case of AA adjusted accordingly so that one attack run against a lone BB and is definitely only likely to suffer from one attack run from torp bombers. To balance that, BB's AA will be somewhat weaker to Bombers, not hopelessly weak but enough to allow at least 2 of these slow attack runs on them before the BB's AA swats away whatever's left. Also, attack aircaft will remain the same as they currently are now vs BB's AA, but will have a slight increase in their fire starting potential so they are not completely pointless to use when attacking a BB other than just spotting since they would be now very weak to DD's AA.

 

Cruisers - AA now very strong against Bombers. Much the same set of rules as the others but their AA is adjusted to deal best vs bombers. Their AA is now a little weaker vs attack aircraft and the attack aircraft are a little more hurtful vs cruisers. I know there are many types of cruisers going from ones that are almost DD like to cruisers that are almost BB like but that can be fine tuned, just loosely put, they are weaker and take more damage from attack aircraft than they do now while vs torpedo bombers they are currently strong and will remain as strong, not too strong, not too weak either but their AA is best vs bombers while weakest against attack aircraft and rockets.

 

So this Rock Paper Scissors approach would give CV players a more expansive selection of viable weapon choices and targets along with almost being forced to mix up the targets they chose to attack which would translate into no one ship or particular class of ship being focused all the time since that ship would get attacked once, those aircraft are destroyed most likely and since the CV player still has 2 other very viable and effective aircraft types against other classes, the CV quickly picks another type of aircraft and moves onto another target more suitable to that particular class which would be very weak and unattractive to use against the target which they just attacked last with another type of aircraft. 

 

What do you guys think about that? It's just raw and very simplified with plenty of room for fine tuning but... it would give DD players a break from attack aircraft and being perma-spotted while spreading the attack focus from CV's across the entire range of ship classes so that no one target gets focused for more than just one attack run, then will pretty much be left alone until the other 2 types of aircraft which that ship is strong against are used on some other players ships and will be a different player with every attack until the aircraft type gets replenished and the cycle comes around again full circle, but that will take so much time that the battle will look very different so most likely won't be a case of same DD gets attacked, then the same BB gets attacked, then the same cruiser... no, most likely won't happen this way.  

 

 

Well something needs to be done coz you are lucky if u get away with 50% hp on your DD after the first  2-3  rocket attacks

Dont know how many of my DD games have ended in the first few minutes due to CV 

Yeah some DD:s have better AA but does it help much ?

So what is the point of playing DD:s ? 

Dont see many in high tier games (and if you spawn in the middle as a lone DD you aint so hard to find)

 

Imo they need to nerf DD detectability from air (a lot) or remove rocket strikes altogether

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[0KILL]
[0KILL]
Beta Tester
39 posts
3,025 battles

nope, just remove the bloody things, they're cancerous, heck even paedos are barely more hated than CV players

 

30 minutes ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

75% health Budyonny vs. 25% health Furious, 20 Km distance... guess who won?

 

this is not fun.

Spreadsheet say's you're having fun

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×