Aircraft & aircraft carriers: Too many spoil the game?

[deBanfield]

If this is a World of Warships game, with the emphasis on WARSHIPS what do AIRCRAFT carriers have to do with it? Shouldn't they be part of a World of Aircraft game?
I am at best an average player, although occasionally I get high scores and once or twice even the best score. Nevertheless, even when I am scoring well, in come the planes spoiling my fun. It's not a gunfight any more.
I have to say that playing against two aircraft carriers is too much. Shouldn't we at least limit aircraft carriers to one per game?
What are we going to do when there will also be submarines? What a mess!
Yes, I know I am exposing myself, just like I do in the game too often, and I am going to attract incoming fire. But, please, do not be 'ad hominem' and just present the facts, or your experiences.

[Panocek]

17 minutes ago, deBanfield said:

If this is a World of Warships game, with the emphasis on WARSHIPS what do AIRCRAFT carriers have to do with it?

Majority of naval engagements in Pacific theatre:

[Cambera_1]

@deBanfield

56 minutes ago, deBanfield said:

If this is a World of Warships game, with the emphasis on WARSHIPS what do AIRCRAFT carriers have to do with it?

Look at the history of your own Navy and you will see the relevance of Aircraft Carriers and land based aircraft in Naval Battles.

Taranto, Malta Convoys, supplying Axis forces in North Africa, BB Roma etc.

 

Whether the balance is right in game? A very different question.

 

57 minutes ago, deBanfield said:

What are we going to do when there will also be submarines?

Submarines, again look to the same history.

Whether they will be balanced in game? The million dollar question. But it does seem that WG have learnt from the CV Rework and are at least trying to ensure the balance is correct.

Credit where credit is due.

[Ronchabale]

1 hour ago, deBanfield said:

If this is a World of Warships game, with the emphasis on WARSHIPS what do AIRCRAFT carriers have to do with it? Shouldn't they be part of a World of Aircraft game?
I am at best an average player, although occasionally I get high scores and once or twice even the best score. Nevertheless, even when I am scoring well, in come the planes spoiling my fun. It's not a gunfight any more.
I have to say that playing against two aircraft carriers is too much. Shouldn't we at least limit aircraft carriers to one per game?
What are we going to do when there will also be submarines? What a mess!
Yes, I know I am exposing myself, just like I do in the game too often, and I am going to attract incoming fire. But, please, do not be 'ad hominem' and just present the facts, or your experiences.

Yes and..

This must be the 10:th thread about this topic in the last month, I wonder how long until some meddelator closes it

[superdeluxe]

1 hour ago, deBanfield said:

If this is a World of Warships game, with the emphasis on WARSHIPS what do AIRCRAFT carriers have to do with it? Shouldn't they be part of a World of Aircraft game?
 

 

But, an aircraft carrier is a warship...

Even the famous Washington Naval treaty was including aircraft carriers in his limitations of naval warships building...

 

Quote

 It's not a gunfight any more.

I'm not a CV player myself, and understand your frustration but here is your problem: game is called World of Warships, not World of Gunships.

Should we remove some destroyers because they use torpedoes and mostly don't use their guns?

 

It would be like saying bombers are not aircrafts because they use bombs and rockets, instead of cannons and machine guns in World of Warplanes (which i don't play, so not sure there are bombers in it, but you see what i mean).

 

 

[Nibenay78]

4 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

This must be the 10:th thread about this topic in the last month, I wonder how long until some meddelator closes it

I wonder why 

[valrond]

1 hour ago, deBanfield said:

If this is a World of Warships game, with the emphasis on WARSHIPS what do AIRCRAFT carriers have to do with it? Shouldn't they be part of a World of Aircraft game?
I am at best an average player, although occasionally I get high scores and once or twice even the best score. Nevertheless, even when I am scoring well, in come the planes spoiling my fun. It's not a gunfight any more.
I have to say that playing against two aircraft carriers is too much. Shouldn't we at least limit aircraft carriers to one per game?
What are we going to do when there will also be submarines? What a mess!
Yes, I know I am exposing myself, just like I do in the game too often, and I am going to attract incoming fire. But, please, do not be 'ad hominem' and just present the facts, or your experiences.

Hmm, let me see.

The biggest and baddest WARSHIPS ever made are... Aircraft carriers...

Even going back to when this game is supposedly taking place, 1st half of the 20th century, yep, there were Aircraft carriers too. Not only that, in the 1940s most of the armament in a warship was simply AAA.

Let's take a look at, say, the Iowa.

9 big guns of 406mm -> for shooting another warships and land targets

20 average guns of 127mm -> for shooting smaller warships AND planes.

76 guns of 40mm and 64 more of 20mm, to shoot down just planes.

 

Now that you are talking about realism (cause these are warships and have lots of guns), do you want to take out like 80% of the armament those Warships carried?

 

Another thing is how CVs are implemented and how they interact with other ships.

 

[AndyHill]

Yes they do. And one per side is way too many.

[Cambera_1]

29 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Yes they do. And one per side is way too many.

Your opinion and you are welcome to it. 

It isn't everyone's.

Personally, two is too many. One is fine.

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

I wonder why 

Because some people don't want their cosy game play of hiding behind islands disrupted. 

[AndyHill]

The interesting question is why two is not fine if one is? What is the difference?

[Nibenay78]

35 minutes ago, Cambera_1 said:

 

Because some people don't want their cosy game play of hiding behind islands disrupted. 

Or because this is a game where positioning is important?

because people like to flank?

because people like to use their stealth to their advantage?

because people who are good at angling don't like their skill to be completely negated by a class that can attack from any direction at will while said person is doing well to negate all the fire from others?

[Cambera_1]

34 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The interesting question is why two is not fine if one is? What is the difference?

The difference is that CVs and aircraft are in the game, but they can only be in one place at a time. They can only cover a little of the map. There is room to manoeuvre and you can keep track of where they are with the minimap.

Knowing where they are gives players options.

When there are two (or more) in game, it is far more difficult to keep track of where they are, they cover proportionately more of the map and on it goes.

The regular three per side in T4 CV matches is appalling and what a way to treat new(er) players.

 

The Regrinding of CV Lines for the Research Bureau is totally uncalled for and should start at T6 and not T4 to remove these experienced players from Seal Clubbing just so they can get more research points.

 

1 minute ago, Nibenay78 said:

Or because this is a game where positioning is important?

because people like to flank?

because people like to use their stealth to their advantage?

because people who are good at angling don't like their skill to be completely negated by a class that can attack from any direction at will while said person is doing well to negate all the fire from others?

All this is still possible - watch the good streamers if you feel that you can't.

I recommend @Mr_Gibbins

[invicta2012]

4 hours ago, Panocek said:

Majority of naval engagements in Pacific theatre:

Really? Not sure about that.

 

Perhaps WG should have a poll. Did you come here to play...?

 

a) Battle of the North Cape

b) Battle of Savo Island

c) Battle of Midway

[Panocek]

Just now, invicta2012 said:

Really? Not sure about that.

 

Perhaps WG should have a poll. Did you come here to play...?

 

a) Battle of the North Cape

b) Battle of Savo Island

c) Battle of Midway

d) make big boomy noises

[Cambera_1]

1 minute ago, invicta2012 said:

Really? Not sure about that.

 

Perhaps WG should have a poll. Did you come here to play...?

 

a) Battle of the North Cape

b) Battle of Savo Island

c) Battle of Midway

e) Taranto

f) Narvik

g) Channel Dash

h) Hunt the Bismarck

i) Sink the Tirpitz

 

How many more...

The Polls will apparently allow 20 options...

[invicta2012]

4 minutes ago, Panocek said:

d) make big boomy noises

That's a given. :)

 

The point I am trying to make - and I have no idea why I am explaining as you know this - is that the battles this game most resembles are the rather confused melees of the Guadacanal naval campaign. No carriers. 

[lovelacebeer]

I still like to beleive CVs have a place in the game, although I do beleive one per team is enough especially at tier 4. 

 

That being said ever since the rework I find games with CVs in to be noticeably less enjoyable, so I'm always grateful for games without them.

[harrybusa]

It's not historically accurate is it, lots of paper ships etc. But carriers aren't making the game better

 

[AndyHill]

26 minutes ago, Cambera_1 said:

The difference is that CVs and aircraft are in the game, but they can only be in one place at a time. They can only cover a little of the map. There is room to manoeuvre and you can keep track of where they are with the minimap.

Knowing where they are gives players options.

Except it doesn't really work that way. The planes relocate at up to about 200kts, they don't care about obstacles and the carrier doesn't even have to fly the squad back to spawn another one. With few ships capable of going much past 40, you can't maneuver far in the time it takes the carrier to fly to you. If you want to avoid getting pooped on from the air, the only way to do that is to never make a move. All of this happens when there are any carriers in game. 

 

Except again you're not really supposed to do that. You are still supposed to be aggressive if you're a good player and want to control the game. If the carrier comes for you you're out of luck and not much you can do about it except rest in the knowledge that you got pooped on for doing the right thing. That's the main reason even one carrier isn't ok.

 

32 minutes ago, Cambera_1 said:

When there are two (or more) in game, it is far more difficult to keep track of where they are, they cover proportionately more of the map and on it goes.

It's not even twice as bad. If you get spotted by two carriers you're just as spotted as if it was just one. Sure, the odds of getting pooped on are higher as the number of carriers increases, but that doesn't make having just one ok. 

 

Which brings me to another thing I was wondering; you said one carrier was ok but seem to think that two or more is bad for the game. So if having two or more carriers (per team) is bad for the game, in what way does having just one make the game better?

[AndyHill]

4 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

I still like to beleive CVs have a place in the game.

This is somewhat puzzling to me, especially since

5 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

That being said ever since the rework I find games with CVs in to be noticeably less enjoyable, so I'm always grateful for games without them.

Why should carriers have a place in the game if (and when) they make games worse? They almost never participated in surface gun battles - which WoWS is all about - so it's not even historical.

[harrybusa]

I played t4 today, four games 7 carriers. 

 

[Cambera_1]

4 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

This is somewhat puzzling to me, especially since

Why should carriers have a place in the game if (and when) they make games worse? They almost never participated in surface gun battles - which WoWS is all about - so it's not even historical.

Refer you to the 2nd Battle of Narvik

[illy]

we can moan all we like but they are here to stay, these fire/flood proof harbingers of doom that can strike anywhere on the map with impunity....bad and lazy game design and nothing else

[lovelacebeer]

8 minutes ago, Cambera_1 said:

Refer you to the 2nd Battle of Narvik

 

Are you sure that's a good example considering the failed torpedo attacks of the 12 April, the most success Furious had was damaging captured Norwegian ships on the 13th and their involvement on the 14th was also pretty negligible.

[Nibenay78]

6 minutes ago, illy said:

we can moan all we like but they are here to stay, these fire/flood proof harbingers of doom that can strike anywhere on the map with impunity....bad and lazy game design and nothing else

I see no reason to stop complaining about a game design that massively reduces the fun of an otherwise quite enjoyable game. All ships including CV play is less fun.