Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Figment

US carrier changes

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
1,746 posts
1,390 battles

Well, torps are significantly less dangerous when coming from the US carriers, simply because you can't crosshatch. Seems like they want you to go full bomber runs instead and hope to deal 2-5K damage + fire per round of bomber attack, while torp runs go down in efficiency and thus only the occasional 12K hit. Which is ofcourse ludicrously low per attack run at tier 8+ matches given the time it takes, the strength of AA (which is all focused on your two squadrons where before you had three squadrons).

 

I find the dive bombers do not compensate for the lost damage. Used to deal 43K on average per match (and that was tricky enough with the Lexington), now I'm really lucky to deal 38K from the looks of it, I'm expecting 25K to be more likely. Every torp run has to be exactly on target, which at increasing tiers was already pretty hard with two torp bombers that could at least crosshatch to ensure a couple hits.

 

 

Instead, you pretty much have interceptors clearing the skies before either can do anything of interest. The old extreme in kills I had was 39 air kills on the Lexington. I just faced two Rangers on my own, yet took out 75 (!) aircraft with the standard fighter/bomber config and upgraded fighters.

Edited by Figment
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2 posts
728 battles

I don't like the US CVs since the patch, the change broke them just like OP said. And unless there is going to be a massive change to the bombers i will only be playing Japanese CV's.  They look far superior atm both in the amount of torpedos planes and the speed of planes rearmament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Weekend Tester
88 posts
4,154 battles

I don't like the US CVs since the patch, the change broke them just like OP said. And unless there is going to be a massive change to the bombers i will only be playing Japanese CV's.  They look far superior atm both in the amount of torpedos planes and the speed of planes rearmament. 

 

Pffuahahahahaha, have fun.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

There's a lot of hilarity to be had playing a US CV with a fighter loadout against two lower-tier IJN CVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BORF]
Beta Tester
581 posts
1,144 battles

I don't like the US CVs since the patch, the change broke them just like OP said. And unless there is going to be a massive change to the bombers i will only be playing Japanese CV's.  They look far superior atm both in the amount of torpedos planes and the speed of planes rearmament. 

 

yeaaaaah suuuuuure they are soo superior ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Beta Tester
71 posts
7,968 battles

So, in this patch, the strenght of AA on high tiers remain high, BBs turn faster, already strange squadron setups were even screwed, we've lost 2nd TB squadron (main hit & damage dealers) and that all for ... slight increase of DB damage?

WG, seriously, do you REALLY want this game to be BB-only (with occasional cruiser)?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
85 posts
6 battles

Personally, the only thing I don't like , is the fact that the new tier 5 carrier has impossible plane loadouts, I can go with 2 fighters and 1 bomber , or 2 torps and 1 bomber ... so :

  • I will either have no attack aircraft to cover my teammates and my planes , or
  • I will have no real strike force but can give air cover, if there is an enemy carrier in the team that is ...

 

Edit : Not only tier 5 has this problem as far as I see :P

 

However, I still preffer USN carriers, as it's utterly fun to send my 2 fighter groups to tear 4 IJN carrier torp bomber groups to shreds and have ammo left for the 2 fighter groups that follow them :D played 3 games with this Bogue or whatever, had ~ 25 planes shot down per game average :D

Edited by Oldum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
Beta Tester
80 posts
11,195 battles

yes the carriers are nerfed big time in 3.1 not only the american ones due to loss of dorp squadrons

Basic problems:

  • No good all purpose setup where you have both fighters and attack aircraft.
  • Bomber does not equal torpedo planes cause you have to drive up close so the losses are hughe.
  • higher tier AA is much more effective, tier 6 battleship shot down alone both of my IJN tier 4 carrier's torpedo squadrons i only managed do to launch 2 torps
  • Vectoring planes to target should me much sipler - the planes turning cycrles should be much smaller for dorp planes
  • Dive mombers are still too inacurate - failed to hit a single pomb in 3 dive momber squardon attack on a destroyer who was changing me
    BUGS in carrier cameplay:
  • Once all my squadrons were shot down (tier 4 IJN) i set my carrier waypoint to farest cap in Domination and tryed to left the game. The client got stuck in Exit confrimation screen unable to exit the game to port or return to the game either.
  • Space bar hit while a squadron is selected does not bring the ingame camera to the squadron location but to a random location - worked so in earlier patch.
     

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,746 posts
1,390 battles

The panic spread doesn't even let me get one torpedo near a cruiser target. And I have been put in matches facing up to 8 Clevelands, so it isn't like I have a choice. One torpedo bomber cannot suffice. US CVs need the option to have two torpedo bombers. I don't care if it comes at longer reload time, just give me a chance to catch a cruiser with at least one hit.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OILUP]
Beta Tester
1,411 posts
8,599 battles

I don't care if it comes at longer reload time, just give me a chance to catch a cruiser with at least one hit.

 

Like that will mean anything, I seen Cruisers take 4 torpedo hits and losing only half their life.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SUOLA]
Beta Tester
60 posts
3,401 battles

I just almost hate my Essex now! 

 

First you drop Essex from X to IX, but did not give earned XP back. Essex cost 140 000 XP when it was X-tier, but now in IX-tier cost is was is about 90 000 XP. So where you lost about 50k XP? 

If the Midway is coming before open beta, this is a big problem....

 

But why WG why you too away one torpedo squad form first setup!? You could nerf damage of torpedo's, but let us keep original setup, 2 fighter, 2 torpedo and 1 bomber squad...

Who got so stupid idea, that go to battle without any fighter planes and don't have any cower your damage dealers....

Even forst option is that you take 2x fighter and see that you have only scout planes to chase because fighter planes don't have enough speed to drop scouts...

 

Best regards,

Spezct

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,746 posts
1,390 battles

From the looks of it even fewer people feel like playing CV now.

 

 

Congrats Wargaming, you broke a class completely that was reasonably balanced with everything, except for high tier AA and among itself, which was bad enough, without even adressing these issues (if not making them worse instead). :/

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

I don't like the US CVs since the patch, the change broke them just like OP said. And unless there is going to be a massive change to the bombers i will only be playing Japanese CV's.  They look far superior atm both in the amount of torpedos planes and the speed of planes rearmament. 

 

Dunno, i finally enjoy my Ranger again, many TB and DB to feed my fighters :teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
916 posts
1,191 battles

I am joining the hate on 0.3.1. considering carriers. IJN CVs are quite good (in my opinion really good with their pure bomber setups), but USN CVs got nerfed quite hard with their setups compositions, cause dive bombers are just not buffed enough to go only them, without torp bombers. Essex seems the only one being somewhat usefull with its 2TBs and 3DBs.
Second thing is that dive bombers are (at least for me) suffering with quite big RNG even on (quite hardly executable) manual drops. Happened to me a lot of times when I landed a perfect manual drop and didn't hit a single bomb or only one. This is most notable on BBs. I dont know but it looks like some kind of bug cause I can clearly see explosions from bombs on that BB but I get registered only one bomb hit. Against CVs tho this works quite wonders.
Third thing this patch are those stupidly overpowered turning rates of USN BBs (IJNs got boost too) and this is not nerf only to CVs but DDs are suffering quite hard too. And then on higher tiers, when they start loosing this drifting ability, they get massive AA which just means that if the player puts AA modules on his BB then he doesn't need an escort whatsoever. Only two of those BBs in a group will decimate one IJN TB squad when incoming and then second one after torp drop. And then there is that problem that you just cannot throw those torps from bigger distance cause those BBs will drift into them and you will hit max only 1.
 

 

Dunno, i finally enjoy my Ranger again, many TB and DB to feed my fighters :teethhappy:

 

Having fighter setups is the worst thing you can do in your CV. Cause the only thing you are good for is negating some portion of the enemy CV effectivenes, but on the other hand you are rendering yourself completely useless. And then there are those matches without enemy CV where you are only a dead weight for your team.
Edited by czNemesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AWG]
Beta Tester
608 posts
8,663 battles

I'm wondering just who among the "super testers" were the ones complaining about carriers?

Because, let's just look at the history of World of Tanks - when the unicums in WoT speak, Wargaming makes changes to the game (map redesigns, tank nerfs, etc.)...and we're seeing it already in CBT in WoWS.  Essentially, we are down to only three viable ship classes, since carriers were nerfed so hard with the loadouts, they are pretty pointless.  Good luck getting a decent average XP now in a carrier loadout that can't do damage.  AND, I'll add, if you are unlucky enough to be facing another lone enemy carrier, but that carrier is one tier higher...even your fighters are rendered useless.  Well done Wargaming....you're already screwing up this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,232 posts
7,329 battles

Having just unlocked the Essex yesterday, I will now only play a few games in her to unlock all the modules. Than it's finally bye-bye to the torture of USN CVs of post patch 0.3.1. I will stop playing them.

 

On lexington the following was happening that ruined CV gameplay for me:

- Attack loadout (3DB/1TB) --> ALWAYS against at least 1 enemy CV with fighter loadout...

- fighter loadout (2F/2DB) --> No enemy CV in sight....

Yeah, maybe a bit exaggerated, but for me it was pretty much true for past 3 days now (near all on the hotspots map as well, which is another big problem).

 

It's nice the DBs are a bit buffed, but I feel that is more due to the fact that HE is buffed all round. In comparison to the TBs they still suck though.

 

Also: the problem of AA on high tiers is still going on. CVs were meant to attack BBs and be a hard counter. But you often can't even damage a lone BB, he either shoots all your planes down or just steers away with his ridiculous turning circle. With only 1 TB you can't even crossfire.

 

No, the devs killed CV play. Especially for USN. The IJN I'm not sure of, but on lower tiers they can be very strong (which was the case for USN CVs before the patch as well). But I'm afraid of the higher tiers...

 

[/end-rant]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

Actually CVs weren't meant to be a hard-counter for BBs, as far as I know, because they were never part of the Rock-Paper-Scissors setup. The hard-counter to BBs was DDs. Ridiculously high turn rates have made that a little iffy too.

 

CVs on the other hand have been nerfed into obsolescence.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

Having fighter setups is the worst thing you can do in your CV. Cause the only thing you are good for is negating some portion of the enemy CV effectivenes, but on the other hand you are rendering yourself completely useless. And then there are those matches without enemy CV where you are only a dead weight for your team.

 

Not entirely, i can still set ships on fire :teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
375 posts
739 battles

 

Having fighter setups is the worst thing you can do in your CV. Cause the only thing you are good for is negating some portion of the enemy CV effectivenes, but on the other hand you are rendering yourself completely useless.

 

This in itself is a terrible flaw in the meta. Killing all of the aircraft of an enemy carrier is as good as killing the carrier itself. An enemy carrier should be a dangerous foe and neutering it with a fighter screen should be enough to earn your place on the team. Currently, carriers are not seen as enough of a threat, and dedicated fighter setups are not efficient enough, to warrant such a stance. That is wrong, and need fixing.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

 

This in itself is a terrible flaw in the meta. Killing all of the aircraft of an enemy carrier is as good as killing the carrier itself. An enemy carrier should be a dangerous foe and neutering it with a fighter screen should be enough to earn your place on the team. Currently, carriers are not seen as enough of a threat, and dedicated fighter setups are not efficient enough, to warrant such a stance. That is wrong, and need fixing.

 

Finally someone who understands me, praise the lord!

 

Maybe it will change once CVs get more interesting to the playerbase and more beeing played.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Weekend Tester
88 posts
4,154 battles

 

Finally someone who understands me, praise the lord!

 

Maybe it will change once CVs get more interesting to the playerbase and more beeing played.

 

Hen<->Egg-problem. Without making them appealing, you're not going to get people appealed to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

 

Hen<->Egg-problem. Without making them appealing, you're not going to get people appealed to them.

 

Thats what i was talking about in other CV discussions already. Most of what i heard why people do not play them is the restriction of 1 per Division and the Matchmaking as of now, wich, well, is always good for a laugh or a cry :teethhappy:
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
916 posts
1,191 battles

 

This in itself is a terrible flaw in the meta. Killing all of the aircraft of an enemy carrier is as good as killing the carrier itself. An enemy carrier should be a dangerous foe and neutering it with a fighter screen should be enough to earn your place on the team. Currently, carriers are not seen as enough of a threat, and dedicated fighter setups are not efficient enough, to warrant such a stance. That is wrong, and need fixing.

 

Ofc they are not warrant. Instead of hopelessly trying to starve enemy carrier from his planes I will rather sink him right from the start with my bomber squads. Cause let's face it, if you won't get protected by friendly cruisers, you don't have much chances against bomber setup carrier.

 

Only way how to make fighter setups viable is to give fighters some possibility to do something against ships. Like for example possibility to mount bombs on them actually in game, make them like 50% efficiency of DB bombers. So for example if you happen to be thrown into a match without enemy carrier, you will mount bombs on your fighters (which would take some time) and use them as some weak variant of DBs. I just don't see the other way of making the fighter setups more appealing, than to have it as some kind of hybrid.

Edited by czNemesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
560 posts
999 battles

Only way how to make fighter setups viable is to give fighters some possibility to do something against ships. Like for example possibility to mount bombs on them actually in game, make them like 50% efficiency of DB bombers. So for example if you happen to be thrown into a match without enemy carrier, you will mount bombs on your fighters (which would take some time) and use them as some weak variant of DBs. I just don't see the other way of making the fighter setups more appealing, than to have it as some kind of hybrid.

 

And that would still keep the Fighter loadout "useless" in the eyes of most ppl, because those DB Squads you already have, just got a bit of a buff, but well, that is not taken into consideration and the main argument will still be "Fighter loadout can not killz shipz"

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.

×