Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
jerry0z

CV. now less point to play at. and less.

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
2 posts
3 battles

I have spend over couple of weeks to get mine own american CV essex, i dont mind really its been down graded to tier 9, its even better, but how comes the whole game play are different,

 

Right, first of all, i am totally agreed with the aspect, of that two different tech tree line for CVs, but since american's bomber should be more powerful then average, let me quote player:Deamon93> saying: 

 

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.

 

 

-> here is my thought, as well known japanese suicide bomber why not bring it with the bomber upgrade, and dive bomber with american? its more reasonable at least, japanese torpedos has further range then americans and heavier dmg, i understood you would like to make the different from bomb and torpedo, torpedo for armor piercing, bomb for high explosion, but this aspect of definition of the aircraft are effecting too much for two the game play, make the american CV useless in the battlefield. 

 

I am completely agreed with him, in order to make to tech tree lines different, you have to make the most of the point of this mechanism difference,  for this instance: CV. the point of CV are the flight it carries, to be honest i can not tell the different from two nations tech tree. this is really downfall for the game play. maybe it was asking to much and really hard work for you guys to work it out with aircraft changing mechanism, but at lest please let us chose which ammunition it carries. the bomber is useless to against armored ships, as BB. so would you tell me, in the History!. how the hell americans bring down yamato with such poor performance with the bomber?. right this is side talk. 

 

Now back to the topic, so, i am guessing because the new japanese CV has come out, so you want people to play more of it?   right... for this, i am going to leave this game and come back another time when you change this issue. refuse to play. people have free choice not lured to play or forced to play. especially when we paying for it. 

 

Disappointing at this time, hope you could improve in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
813 posts
7,289 battles

In my opinion the shouldn't force loadouts on nations, but instead empower the positive aspects of the nation.

In this case we had US dive bombers that were superior to the Japanese. - give them more damage and faster rearming time.

US fighters were better than Japanese so give them better rearming time.

Japanese CVs have better torpedoes and more squadrons but with fewer planes.

Give all nations the basic loadouts point out the strength of the perticular nation and give the player a free choice on how he wants to play the CV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
46 posts
246 battles

I certainly wouldn't mind a system where planes are treated more like ammo choices in WoT - Maybe not completely liberal, but these predefined loadouts are downright trash.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Air superiority setup for IJN CVs is just very very bad idea. Same as TBs heavy for the USN.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
813 posts
7,289 battles

Air superiority setup for IJN CVs is just very very bad idea. Same as TBs heavy for the USN.

Was there a problem with US TBs pre-patch?

Bomber heavy decks were capped to 2 TB squadrons and rest DBs.

IJN can possibly have one more squadrons than US CV and 1 or 2 more DBs. Certainly no one is thinking full fighters or TB only loadouts.

But the current situation is pretty bad when the US superiority can be summed up to 4 more planes than the IJN till tier 9.

Share this post


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

Was there a problem with US TBs pre-patch?

Bomber heavy decks were capped to 2 TB squadrons and rest DBs.

IJN can possibly have one more squadrons than US CV and 1 or 2 more DBs. Certainly no one is thinking full fighters or TB only loadouts.

But the current situation is pretty bad when the US superiority can be summed up to 4 more planes than the IJN till tier 9.

 

Taiho was removed for now, but his strike loadout was 4 TBs and the rest DBs. Essex's strike loadout now is 2 TBs and the rest DBs. That's not a match, so if we allow IJN to have more fighters we should allow USN to have more TBs too. That's how it works, because adding DBs is just buffing IJN CVs which are now far better.

 

So 3 TBs for Essex is just bad idea, also 4 or even 5 (they now have 2) fighters for IJN carriers is very bad idea. Essex will have too much strike power with all those TBs while the Taiho will be able to cover much more ground and spot better, because he will have more squadrons.

 

That's why I think it's bad idea to have all the options. The current concept is good, but they have to balance it and that's the purpose of the CBT test - stats and balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
106 posts
387 battles

I'm just not even gonna try to play CV's anymore,throw all of this preset loadouts in a mix with bugs(i just had my torp bombers fly BACK to my carrier whitout launching any torpedoes and i couldnt do anything about it because........??????????????????????????????)
 

Oh and let's not forget the very crappy XP gain for shooting down about 50 planes and getting 27 torp hits..............just no wg,just no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GN0ME]
Beta Tester
5,339 posts
1,891 battles

 

Taiho was removed for now, but his strike loadout was 4 TBs and the rest DBs. Essex's strike loadout now is 2 TBs and the rest DBs. That's not a match, so if we allow IJN to have more fighters we should allow USN to have more TBs too. That's how it works, because adding DBs is just buffing IJN CVs which are now far better.

 

USN TPs have defence but IJN TPs dont maybe this can be a plus side but i dont know

Share this post


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

would you tell me, in the History!. how the hell americans bring down yamato with such poor performance with the bomber?.

 

With 11 aircraft carriers and 386 planes? :trollface:

 

Largely I agree.  One having better TBs and one having better DBs makes sense, and the different division between squadrons also helps differentiate them.

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.

×