Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Deamon93

Personal opinion on how to make the CV lines behave differently

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Supertester
3,124 posts
1,275 battles

In this patch part of the Japanese CV line was added into the game so, finally, we have a comparison between the two lines. What i personally think is wrong is how WG decided to make the two CV lines behave differently: the Japanese one is more focused on anti-ship warfare while the US one is more focused on anti-plane warfare. All fine and dandy but this makes the Japanese line overall more useful(since the US one would be useful only in case there's an enemy CV on the other side).

 

My personal opinion on how to make the two behave different is this:

-US: the US dive bombers were usually superior to the Japanese ones in terms of payload plus they were able to carry AP bombs. Ideally would be nice if the US dive bombers were able to deal more damage plus the option of using AP bombs(making them more useful against armored targets).

-Japan: Japan had, for most of the war, the superior torpedo bombers plus they had better aerial torpedoes compared to the USN counterparts. Would be nice if this gets represented ingame.

 

This is of course my personal opinion based on my knowledge on the subject and what's ingame. Would be nice to have a constructive conversation on the matter to avoid castrations like what happened to the US CV line(which became pretty much toothless after this patch).

 

Have a nice day!

Deamon93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

If you are random player the IJN CVs are the way to go for you, because playing with fighters only is boring and low rewarding compared to torpedo attack. It will be very hard to grind your ships. IMHO that can be changed only with improved DBs for the USN CVs.

They should get AP bombs from tier 7 upwards, as Ranger can have 2 fighters and 2 DBs. One of those DB squadrons should have AP bombs and the other HE bombs, because like IRL the AP bombs were limited (20 per CV I think). Also they should nerf the accuracy on auto attacks (clicking on the target) for the DBs attack and increase it with alt attack, which is as hard as TB attack with alt and should be rewarding too.

 

The IJN CVs should get better torps in such case with better speed and damage, compared to the USN carrier.

In the current configuration the USN line is only for air superiority in team/ESL/CW battles, not for having fun and grinding in the randoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,427 posts
558 battles

Japan had AP bombs too.  Lots of them.  I can drown you in documentation if you want.  Just having slower and more fragile DB planes for the Japanese would be the way to go with that, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

Japan had AP bombs too.  Lots of them.  I can drown you in documentation if you want.  Just having slower and more fragile DB planes for the Japanese would be the way to go with that, I think.

 

They had no AP bombs to be used from the Dive Bombers while diving. They were reworked from ship shells and were carried by torpedo bombers.

Only USN developed small AP bombs to be used by their Helldivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
18 posts
114 battles

So far my experience with Japanese carriers isn't too good. Maybe I play them wrong, don't know.

I spot a juicy battleship target. Send in your torpedo bombers. 1 to 3 planes get shot down while they drop torps. 1 to 3 planes get shot down while your planes leave. Repeat and you are out of bombers. To me it feels like AA is too good outside of cruisers. Why have a cruiser when a battleship can do the same job.

 

Also at least at tier 5 the plane stats are exactly the same for both, giving an edge to the US carrier. Only difference being that US carriers have more planes in the air at any time (3x6 vs 4x4). Also my fighters cannot fight US fighters unless they are 1 tier higher, giving another edge to US carriers.

 

Pre 3.1 I didn't ever run out of planes with US carriers, while now in 3.1 I've run out of planes with Japanese carriers in every battle. But that could be just playing them wrong.

Edited by Vilutin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,124 posts
1,275 battles

Japan had AP bombs too.  Lots of them.  I can drown you in documentation if you want.  Just having slower and more fragile DB planes for the Japanese would be the way to go with that, I think.

 

They had but they were too heavy for their dive bombers, at least originally. In any case it's a simplistic opinion, mainly because i don't know how much complicated the game could be(technically). Would be nice to have a complex system for them but first would be nice to see if this "simple" variant is feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,299 posts
1,085 battles

So new DBs are still not in the right place, damn I want to go home and download patch. I want to check it myself.

I agree with Sharana on the concept level. DB manual drops should be rewarding and US should excel at that. IJN should excel at torps and their TB torps should be faster than their US counterparts. Oh well, maybe they will add more to it in the next big patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,427 posts
558 battles

They had but they were too heavy for their dive bombers, at least originally.

 

True, true, they did arrive a little into the war.

 

They had no AP bombs to be used from the Dive Bombers while diving. They were reworked from ship shells and were carried by torpedo bombers.

Only USN developed small AP bombs to be used by their Helldivers.

 

They had a 300kg AP rocket bomb designed for the 250kg mounting for exactly that purpose, as of '43.  That is, of course, an extreme example, but one I'm rather fond of.  It's a hilarious weapon in many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

They had a 300kg AP rocket bomb designed for the 250kg mounting for exactly that purpose, as of '43.  That is, of course, an extreme example, but one I'm rather fond of.  It's a hilarious weapon in many ways.

 

That's the same as the reworked shells to make AP bombs (800 kg bomb with a charge of just 23 kg). From those 300kg only 3.5 kg were the actual charge.

 

Now the yankee:

AP Mark 1 (1942) - 726 kg of which 109 kg was high explosive. The Mark 1 could penetrate a 13.7cm deck from 1370m in a 300 knot 60 degree dive.

AP Mark 33 (1942) - 454kg of which 68 kg was high explosive. The Mark 33 could penetrate a 13.7cm deck from 1880m in a 300 knot 60 degree dive.

 

Mark 1 was rare (only Helldiver could use it) and there were ~ 20 in the CVs magazine. The Mark 33 was widely used and the Americans estimated that seven penetrating bomb hits would be enough to sink a battleship, while the Japanese estimated that 12 to 16 penetrating hits were required.

 

The firepower simply can't be compared, so we can fairly say only USN should get AP bombs ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,427 posts
558 battles

The firepower simply can't be compared.

 

Did I ever say that it could be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×