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

American CV Airgroup changes - TB reduction why?

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
14 posts

JPN CVs feels ok (2 games on Hosho so far though) ... i have to adapt on smaller squads and high turn ration of US BBs, but that will be fine in some time (60k dmg doesnt feel that bad and i am not and CV ace)

US CVs as of now ... horrible ... i didnt notice the announced change of DB dmg output (is it in place?) .. its still laughable (1k dmg per hit on average against BB or CA)... so DBs are a no go ... max 1TB ... hmm, i cant even set a trap with one squad, so unless the player doesnt pay  attention, its very hard to even hit some torpedoes (oh did i mention, he can focus fire now, when i approach him with only one TB (ignoring DBs), so the number of torps in the water are actually even less?)

Edited by Siaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,119 posts
4,874 battles

CV strike power was reduced on a more general level as well.

 

Saipan for example had 1 ASF, 2 TB, 1 DB for 24 planes. Ryuujou has 20 planes in the air maximum, and only reaches 12 TB (comparable to the old Saipan) with the kamikaze loadout. Either you choose the kamikaze loadout and lose everything against fighters within 2 waves, or you choose the balanced loadout which has -33% damage.

 

Either way your damage goes down the drain compared to pre-patch.

 

The new T6 Indepence has merely 3 squadrons for 18 planes total, a global reduction of 25%.

 

The same can be said of all other tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
14 posts

You are right, i totaly missed that (no patch notes yet, no surprise of course) ... T6 CV  has now 3 squadrons only (T4 has 2 down from 3) ... and i notice that even JPN BBs turns very tightly .. is the smaller turning radius in lower speed change in place ? They are dodging like dervishes now....

What to say, i hope all BB whiners are finnaly satisfied ... oh wait, no, we can still lunch torpedoes from our CV, so more OP CV threats, more OP torpedoes comming soon :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,497 posts
9,808 battles

 

They broke the 2 lines of DDs with that "national peculiarities", it was a disaster so guess they now decided to broke the CVs too.

 

Now US CVs seems good only to cockblock the IJN CVs and getting no rewards for it.

 

At best. Realisticly (partly due to higher number of squadrons) you'll get some through, possibly by just feeding aircraft to the US fighters until they're off the board for a minute to rearm. And at that point you're affecting the battle while the US CV is not (and never will be able to do much beyond a few k damage from its single DB squadron and some scouting). Actually it'd be preferable to be able to have ONLY fighters to X fighters and Y dive bombers, as that setup could guarantee stopping 1-2 enemy cvs totally (at least if those aren't decently fighter capable, at which point it's a 1v1 trade of for the teams more or less).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailing Hamster
1,546 posts
3,274 battles

IJN CVs are tiresome to play. And I kinda did ok with them. Exhausting and unfun.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-5D4-]
[-5D4-]
Beta Tester
211 posts
3,180 battles

Well, I sold my ranger - its just pointless to play with these changes, as is the American Carrier line.

 

The Japanese carriers are entertaining, but only with complete torpedo bomber loadouts. Sadly even that is very fragile and the low number of reserve planes means that its quite possible to run out of planes completely before the battle has really begun. I saw one enemy fighter group kill 12 of my planes in almost no time at all, eating up my entire plane reserve on the very first attack I launched.

 

If this situation remains, I don't see that anyone will play carriers at all, even the Japanese ones. The class is now weak beyond belief.

Edited by Silvercat18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
106 posts
2,661 battles

I have no words. 1 TB and 3x DB for the lexington!? That is insane this ship was WONDERFUL, why would they need to take the 2/2 loadout away? A single torpedo guy doesn't work because it will be shot down by any kind of AA fire just as a single bomber does not work.

 

If I send a lone squad torpedos in maybe 3 torps are launched and maybe 1 hits of that for a net total of lets even say 10k damage. If I have 2 squads, then amp that up to lets say 40k now factoring in that it takes several minutes to strike again you are like 10k damage per minute with torp bombers which isn't super hot as you have to deduct the repair ability on at least your first strike. Now 10k + tiny chance of flooding to get repair going is not enough. If I can guarantee the flooding, then at least I could work with the debuff and start several fires afterwards, but as it is I will have to use a bomber to bait the repair, which leaves me at 2 effective bombers and 1 torper compared to 2x torps (that were attacked but also triggered flooding repair) +2x bomber so I lost an effective unit (tp) to gain nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
106 posts
2,661 battles

You played 5 games in Hosho (bugged planes for me) and you judge the whole IJN line based on 5 battles?

Not to mention that your avarage damage is 30K. This is tier 4 you know, your Myogi has less. You want 100K, rly ?! Most of the Essex captains couldn't do 100K avarage before the nerf now...

 

Average Damage Caused 81,469.46 that is the number for my lexington after 100 battles and I am still a new guy around. So if the Essex could not top a beginners number in the lexington, then that doesn't speak for them.
Edited by Pappus
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Community Contributor
1,838 posts
7,503 battles

You played 5 games in Hosho (bugged planes for me) and you judge the whole IJN line based on 5 battles?

Not to mention that your avarage damage is 30K. This is tier 4 you know, your Myogi has less. You want 100K, rly ?! Most of the Essex captains couldn't do 100K avarage before the nerf now...

 

I got ~100k on Essex on average. The problem the new changes make is that all this stuff so far is against complete noobs. More than half the people I have torped after the patch might as well have been AFK or asleep. Playing battleships I just don't see how you're going to hit more than 1 torpedo from each torpedo squadron against people who actually decide to evade. And now you have less torpedo squadrons too. AA is still as [edited] as it was prepatch as well.

 

On the bright side, at least there is no question about which plane layout to take: just pick the full bomber approach since you'll go unopposed anyway. And if you don't just roll up and do nothing. It's not like the guy who went full air superiority is going to have any more effect on the game than you since all he has is fighters.

 

 

Average Damage Caused 81,469.46 that is the number for my lexington after 100 battles and I am still a new guy around. So if the Essex could not top a beginners number in the lexington, then that doesn't speak for them.

 

The reason it won't fluctuate that wildly is because you're mostly shooting people who won't be dodging, since they just don't know how to. And hitting a target that moves exactly how you know won't differ that much between players - you still have the same number of torpedo launches in a game and that's what will limit the amount of damage you do.

 

Sharana talks about how it's good that you can't now 1 hit kill battleships, but why is this good? Often times that one hit kill is something up to half of your entire match's damage, because you won't be getting them that often. If you can't 1 hit kill a Nagato in an Essex then that means you're doing less than 50k damage in a blow and your first strike takes something like 5-6 minutes on average. By 10 minutes you will have dropped twice. And are you really saying that with optimal strikes you shouldn't be able to do 100k damage in 10 minutes? A decent number of my games end at that amount of time/torpedo strikes.

 

Check out my average damage done in an Amagi - this was BEFORE the patch. And now battleships are even stronger since you're way less afraid of torpedos now. The trouble is that a CV is very focused on certain targets - there is no way you're going to get anywhere close to that kind of damage potential vs CAs or DDs, yet a BB performs relatively similar vs BBs and CAs. It'll do fine vs DDs too, but DDs just tend to not want to fight the BB. (This is also part of the reason why my stats with the IJN line are most likely inflated - everyone's sailing around in low tier BBs that are super easy to kill. When they start being in stronger stuff my stats are most likely going to plummet.)

Edited by Aerroon
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
112 posts
599 battles

Pre patch i found the tier X US CV pointless to play given the AA at tier 10.

 

Tier 8 CVs was the sweetspot.

 

Now carriers are pointless.


 

Micromanaging of IJN CVs is retarded given how much you need to coordinate to attack a single US fighters Squad.

TB reductiion was a shock.


 

Wargaming spent a long time developing the carrier Dimension of gameplay and they have been taking big steamy dumps on it, ever since. NOT ONCE have wargaming listened to the CV players for feedback and opinions. Always, they seem to base their work on the feedback of People who don`t play CVs and who really don`t want CVs in the game at all.


 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1 post
132 battles

Well, it is weird, that WG took this approach. I know they had to differentiate the two CV nations, but this way??? Why should IJN squads be weaker in numbers?

 

Let's have a look at navy warfare in WWII. In the Pacific, there were different stages:

1) Pre-war - almost equal

2) Early war - IJN was clearly superior - mostly because of training, but also technically to some extent

3) Middle war - USN gained technical advantages, won atrocity war

4) Late war - there it is confusing - technically - both sides were equal (considering the best planes which fought), IJN didn't have trained pilots, so it was clearly outclassed.

 

 

Anyway, to have this arcade game "historical" to certain extent:

 

1) Squadrons should be of the same size.

2) IJN planes should be more fragile (as they were historically) and probably in greater numbers of reserves (if needed), player skill, setup should be decisive.

3) There should be some "skill" - CAG commander (attached to captain) with fighter/DB/TB focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
147 posts
4,091 battles

Have not played Carriers yesterday as it was quite useless with 8 and more Battleships on each side. (was much more fun driving a Destroyer and spam Torpedoes :D)

 

But I looked at the new plane layouts and was a bit surprised.

My issue is that if you want to run a balanced setup you often get penalized by having one squadron less then if you are running the fighter DB or full bomber layout.

 

But what I noticed is that the DB have been buffed significantly. before the patch they were not even a danger to Destroyers as you would maybe receive 1k damage if event hat much.

Yesterday I hunted down a Carrier with some help and he got 2 DB squadrons up before he went down, and both of them were sent on an autocourse to me, from previous experiences I was not too concerned, but a few seconds later I was down 7k hitpoints and on fire, so Db are now a valid option against destroyers and probably light cruisers, especially if they ahve been damaged a bit before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
118 posts
5,421 battles

 

TL;DR

Reducing TB waves from 2 to 1 on American Carriers, why?

 

 

this. DB still mostly sucks, TB was the main source of dealt damage. Dont like saying this, but this kinda broke the US CV line. Not to mention I never used two fighters once, and i managed without them. This way, /me not likes the sexy-lexy no more. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
146 posts

ever considered that cv dealt abnormal damage before?

 

Hey  a hundred thousand damage regularly from the safety of the backseat. . .

Is that what you got used too?

To get those numbers in another classs you would need to go into the thick. . . . and get shot. 

 

 

But sure. lets design our game in a way that would give one class the ability to insta gib another and send a player packing. snap like that.

lets not make em like the other classes and deal gradual damage in volleys (waves).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,198 posts
5,454 battles

 

In my opinion a carrier should have equivalent damage output to a battleship or there's no reason to play them, which means a game should end with ~100k damage dealt. This is completely impossible now.

 

I frequently deal such numbers when playing Japanese CVs, so I don't think it's impossible, US ones can have the same amount of bombers in the air ( even if not same amount of squads ).

 

I feel that it would be balanced if you can solo kill ~1 enemy BB if your opposed by the enemy CV or they have good Cruiser/AA support, and around ~2 BB if you are unopposed. That is ~50-100k damage inflicted around tier 5-6.

 

My average damage on the IJN Ryujo ( tier 6 ) is 86k and my record score is 189k.

 

Of course I tried, and I had to hit not random players, but STs who know how to evade. Now it's very rare to 1shot a BB with your first strike, but it's hardly a bad thing and doesn't mean they became useless.

 

I agree. When you cooperate with 2nd Carrier or a Cruiser /DD or just don't reveal your other TB/DB squad until they already blown the repair you can really cause some misery for the though by flooding / fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,119 posts
4,874 battles

Like I said, I overreacted when I wrote that post. I was very irritated by American battleships and their turning circle and it affected my judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1 post
55 battles

 

 

I do not know what to think of carier warfare yet.


 

Running mainly IJN carriers so far, I am undecided whether to go full attack setup or include a fighter squad. Still testing both setups with varying results. I am leaning towards including that single fighter squadron though, because I have noticed that fighter squads (especially the american ones) simply chew through my attack plane squads so fast it is not funny. They are also quite fast so they tend to catch you, especially on the way back home. So I do like to use that fighter squad to simply temporarily tie down that fighter group so that my attack planes can focus on their attack runs while only being troubled by murdurous aa fire if it is really a juicy target(s) or everything is covered.


 

But on the other hand, I quite miss having that 3rd torp squad. I find it very hard to hit the USA battleships at tier 6-7 with my tier 5 carrier. Not just because of their sharp turning but also in combination with their AA so too few of my planes get their torps in. 2-3 torps per strike are easy to avoid. I am really envious of that nice 5-6 torp spread strike USN carriers have. And when heavily fighter blocked, there is not much you can do. Proper attack runs simply are time consuming. Before you know it a battleship is showing its rear or front instead of the side you want. (or otherway around)


 

So I do not know. Sure my aim and target selection in general does need a lot of improvement, but I also waste a lot of time dodging cruisers in the way back and forth, and trying to figure out where their fighters are (usually at prime juicy targets) and avoid them if possible.


 

I am always happy facing usn carriers that focus not on their fighters. Especially when it is a tier higher.


 

OTOH, with the tier 6/7 carriers I think I may gain enough spare planes that are fast enough to help overcome the target issues I am having now.


 

Apparantly I did cause 106K damage with a Zuiho at least once, but it is a rare occurance and my average is much lower. But I have had only 17 battles with that one so far.


 


 

Edited by Kotare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
797 posts

ever considered that cv dealt abnormal damage before?

 

Beside rare exceptions, they barely had any impact in the games. Even an unopposed  Essex with a full bomber setup wasn't gamebreaking. CVs were more in the UP side of the balance, not a lot tho.

 

But sure. lets design our game in a way that would give one class the ability to insta gib another and send a player packing. snap like that.

lets not make em like the other classes and deal gradual damage in volleys.

 

Yeah, BBs are BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
43 posts
1,067 battles

 

They broke the 2 lines of DDs with that "national peculiarities", it was a disaster so guess they now decided to broke the CVs too.

 

Now US CVs seems good only to cockblock the IJN CVs and getting no rewards for it.

 

Yeah.

 

My lex ran a game with 100 air-to-air kills (a record for me) and a nice sum of torp and DB hits. XP: 1300 (loss). Means a plane kill is worth <10 xp. Which is 'nothing'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
184 posts

Well, it is weird, that WG took this approach. I know they had to differentiate the two CV nations, but this way??? Why should IJN squads be weaker in numbers?

 

Can't we call squad size or stats enough of a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×