General CV related discussions.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

9 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Except for 80% who dont use that flag

Yeah for which you usually don't need a detonation to easily kek on them

[st_dasa]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Was chatbanned several times by now

Just recently finished a 10 day ban i believe it was.

 

You rookie. Git gud.

 

I was banned continuously for almost three months, with just smol pauses in between the monthly bans. Currently waiting for my newest ban <3 

 

 

 

[NobleRipper]

18 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

T1: 

 

T2: 

 

T3:

 

T4:

 

Now now, the R34 is post-war; should be at least T4, possibly 5 ;)

[DFens_666]

24 minutes ago, Zuihou_Kai said:

Yeah for which you usually don't need a detonation to easily kek on them

 

Yeah true... but still

Also would you really mount a deto flag on a CV? I dont use em on BBs either.

Normaly i wouldnt use em Cruisers too, but WG decided to auto-mount them so i often leave them on recently.

[Fliqqsy]

Here we go, first post on any wows forum and of course its the CVs that bring me here...

 

TLDR: Change CVs influence over the map with "small" changes and give surface ships better counter play. 

 

I'm gonna try to say what i think is a problem and focus on what i feel like needs some tweaking from WG to bring the game back into balance.

And i will use the statement below as my starting point, which i think summarizes the community feelings and my own without going into too much detail

 

- CVs are generally considered unbalanced and "un-fun" to play against if you're a normal surface ship.

 

I'm not gonna back up the statement with facts etc, its a statement based on following the community in various places and playing the game to a fairly great extent.

Don't bring "CVs are balanced, just look at their winrate ...blah blah just dodge" etc. But do feel free to discuss the pros and cons of having them in the game.

 

With this said however, i do think CV have a role in the game, a "necessary evil" if you may call it that.

However they do not fulfill this role in its current state, as they simply can do whatever they please and however they please.

 

So i would like to discuss some ideas regarding "rebalancing" the CVs but without diminishing the work that was put into the rework.

 

So first we have to address the role of the CV to make this happen, is the CV meant to be an all out warmonger, capable of striking whoever and wherever on the map whilst also spotting for the entire team?
Does it not that take away the roles of DDs, who were meant to spot and fight objectives?

Does it not that take away the cruiser role, who were meant to support the objective and deal damage to the enemy team while staying in moderate cover?

And does it not also take away the role of battleship who have to position them self with great time and effort to strike enemies out of position over great distances and probably had to sacrifice health and tank for the team in the process?

Even though CVs in real life can and will do most of this... does it belong in this game?

Because when there is a CV in the game right now, what can you rely do but to hope he fails?

 

So here are my "ideas" on how to help CVs find a role in becoming a strong single target support unit. Which i think would become more "fun" to both play against and with, since it should involve more player interaction and team interaction and allow for counter play in some regards.

 

• Give CVs a "STRIKE RANGE CAP"
  • Just like any ship in the game, limit the striking range of the CV, dont let them sit immobile behind their island and send squadron after squadron into combat over the ENTIRE map.

 

• New plane type "SPOTTER Aircraft"
  • A single aircraft with a single purpose, to spot FOR THE TEAM whilst not being able to deal damage itself, it can and should be fast, and should be able to spot surface ship outside of AA range just like today, with the exception on dds.
  • Balance - The spotter should be time / fuel depended. For example it should only be able to be away from the carrier for 3 minutes, but not be limited by the carriers "Strike range". And a 1-2 minute "refuel" when back on the carrier.
  • Game change - Only the Spotter aircraft can spot FOR THE TEAM, other planes can only spot for them self and/or actually rely on intel from surface ships to find their target.

 

• Buffed "Single strike"
  • Not going back to the old 1 drop 1 kill CV days, but buff the ability to hit hard for mistake in positioning and being without proper AA Defense
  • Balance - "Strike range", in return for not being able to drop halfway across the globe, give them a proper "volley" of planes as if it were compared to a big battleship volley.

 

• Nerfed "Multiple strikes"
  • Buffed "Single strike" should of course mean lower amount of strikes...

 

• Nerfed "Plane survivability"
  • In combination with a stronger "Single Strike" and "Strike Range" the carrier will be "forced" closer to the actual combat and the target they focus, thus the carrier will be quicker to send new planes to the front again after its first strike is sent back to the carrier.
  • In response to this the planes should be dropping like flies if flown into a Heavy AA fortified area or a ship with a large amount of AA.
  • The planes SHOULD NOT be able to drop a 2nd time if dropping into a fleet of ships or ships with high AA rating, ex Des Moines, Minotaur, Halland etc.
    • But if skill full flying/flak dodge saves enough planes to drop it should be rewarded for that reason... not the fact that the planes simply wont die. (Stares at Roosevelt...)

I've left quite a bit of my own thoughts out of this post to keep it "short".

So hopefully someone finds it interesting so that it maybe can get some more discussion.

But i do think these points cover most of the frustration that has come from playing against and even playing a CV after the rework.

We don't wanna face hordes of planes that come from out of nowhere and just drop you without any counter play. Force the carrier to push with the team so they stay in range. And this will also make  them focus on the things they should, such as spotting the DD so THE TEAM can find and deal with it, because the DD is probably spotting the carrier in this case. And STRIKE the camping cruiser behind the island that no one can reach, because your team is spotting him and he should be dealt with. And HUNT the battleship that decided to run away because this will make it clear for the enemies that kiting away to A1 with your BB with no AA is not the best idea.

 

These points dosn't change the new core mechanics of the CVs, they are good and fun enough on their own, but its how the planes interacts with other players on the surface that matters.

 

Love this game, played it since  before release and probably will keep going for a while... but please do something about the facts that it FEELS like you can do nothing against a CV in its current state.

Bring back the days where building for "Anti Air" actually worked. 

 

//Fliqqsy

---

[AndyHill]

3 minutes ago, Fliqqsy said:

Not going back to the old 1 drop 1 kill CV days, but buff the ability to hit hard for mistake in positioning and being without proper AA Defense

What would you consider a mistake in positioning?

 

Also I'd be interested in further opening up the carrier's role and why it's a "necessary evil". You mentioned them becoming a "strong single target support unit", but isn't every ship in the game just that? The difference being that ships need to take risks, fight for positions to create crossfires etc., whereas carriers can (and still could after your modifications I think) just fly somewhere and dumpster a ship whenever needed. What does the carrier bring to the table that other ships can't?

 

The limited range on carriers is an interesting idea, but what I'm afraid of is that it would promote even more passive play. Imagine a couple of Smolensks at the back with infinite range. The best thing to do is to rush them down before they eventually kill you. This is a bit like carriers, even though they can almost never be rushed down while the game is still going, the best tactic is still to play somewhat aggressively even if it makes you a prime target, since they'll get you anyway anywhere and you're basically on a clock. If, however, those Smolensks have a finite range, people will want to stay out of that range. Especially when the first ship to enter that range would be the only one the carrier could go for and guaranteed to get attention. 

[Fliqqsy]

38 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

What would you consider a mistake in positioning?

Its easier to explain in game terms, with the mindset "The enemy is in front of me"

Because this does not rely apply to the CV because it can simply fly around and come from any direction.

So when a ship has made a mistake in positioning is in my mind when there is no way to go because the enemy is in front of you.

A turn that would result in showing broadside, or a slow reverse where you hope you get out of detection range. Classical mistakes which singles you out as an "easy target".

The problem with CV is that everyone is an easy target. Dosnt matter right now if your behind cover, close to allies or using every defensive game play know to man, the CV can and will strike you.

 

Limiting the range and lowering plane HP would force the CV to "consider" can i strike him or not without loosing my entire squadron?

And the scenario to not have "range to manouer" would also become a thing, meaning taking cover might actually help you if the carrier is not close enough, like the picuter below tries to demonstrate.

This would in my mind promtp the "i need to find the right target" mindset for a CV. Not the "i will just fly till i find someone somewhere"

38 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

What does the carrier bring to the table that other ships can't?

Abilty to strike targets within range that hides behind cover. 

Spot targets the keeps eluding your teams spotting

And other than that, should it bring something "new" to the table? For that would in my opinon push it into the spot where it is now, it does everything. Spot, dmg, and mapcontrol

 

38 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The limited range on carriers is an interesting idea, but what I'm afraid of is that it would promote even more passive play. 

More passive plays has come and gone.

Like when Slava came out, no one liked beeing on its side of the map.

Or the Conqueror, or even back in the DD meta, you hated beeing a BB on the side with 2 shimas etc...

But moving to another side of the map to try to avoid a certain ship was only relevant until people understood how to deal with it.

Angle VS Slava and he does nothing even if your in a cruiser, Conq is squishy and easy to burst while the heal is down etc radar the DD and help you crusier stay alive to do it. There is counterplay so to say, something i wish there was for CVs.

So at first, maybe people will run when they see squadron above the cap, but then they will realize, if planes are here, then the CV must be close giving rise to more aggressive playstile to counter it.

And reduced range on CV would mean its more likeley the CV will strike you from "the front" and not be able to loop around and then "Force" you to make a mistake simply to dodge the CV.

[JohnMac79]

2 hours ago, Zuihou_Kai said:

Because they can't heal it like other ships in higher tiers and a fire ticks for as much as on a BB. 

Yeah because they are being shot at all game eh?

[Yosha_AtaIante]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Yeah true... but still

Also would you really mount a deto flag on a CV? I dont use em on BBs either.

Normaly i wouldnt use em Cruisers too, but WG decided to auto-mount them so i often leave them on recently.

Yes because I don't want a stray shell to detonate me and I'm swimming in credits so who cares if I use 30m credits to buy det flags every month 

 

 

for context in all my CV games I try to cap. U can imagine how close to the action I get

[Capra76]

1 hour ago, Fliqqsy said:

Here we go, first post on any wows forum and of course its the CVs that bring me here...

---

 

[AndyHill]

15 minutes ago, Fliqqsy said:

So when a ship has made a mistake in positioning is in my mind when there is no way to go because the enemy is in front of you.

A turn that would result in showing broadside, or a slow reverse where you hope you get out of detection range. Classical mistakes which singles you out as an "easy target".

This is only a mistake in positioning if you're not getting a gameplay advantage from the situation. A Bow-in Stalingrad next to an island can only disengage by reversing as can a bow in Salem, but both can be powerful tactical assets. A pushing battleship will have trouble disengaging without showing its side or slowly reversing, but pushing might still be exactly what the situation requires. In fact, a lot of good, aggressive plays can put you in basically do or die situations, where you either win or die and this is fine and part of the game. 

 

These situations are only ever mistakes if you pushed your nose into something you shouldn't have. And the problem with carriers is that whatever works against ships in such situations invariably makes you a prime target for planes, creating a screwed if you do and screwed if you don't -situation, where you have no real options. Another, perhaps even more damning thing for carriers is that because planes are something like 5x faster than ships and not bound by any obstacles they can be pretty much anywhere anytime so when you're evaluating a situation in your mind thinking if you can push and play aggressive, the answer is much more often "no" - simultaneously for every ship on every flank of the map.

25 minutes ago, Fliqqsy said:

Abilty to strike targets within range that hides behind cover. 

Spot targets the keeps eluding your teams spotting

Why should either of these exist? Using cover is one of the fundamental skills in the game, terrain is anyways much simpler than in Tanks for example, so the game design should encourage using it as much as possible to create gameplay variety. And if someone is eluding your team's spotting, well played to him, that's another fundamental aspect of the game. Your team just needs to maneuver better to get to the hiding guy or put more effort into finding the unspotted ship, that's how the game works. And if you can't, you lost to better players and that's another key aspect of basically any game.

29 minutes ago, Fliqqsy said:

And other than that, should it bring something "new" to the table? For that would in my opinon push it into the spot where it is now, it does everything. Spot, dmg, and mapcontrol

I was basically looking for justification for carriers' existence. If, for all the problems and grief they cause, they don't even bring anything unique to the table other ships can't, you have to question why have them in the first place.

32 minutes ago, Fliqqsy said:

More passive plays has come and gone.

Like when Slava came out, no one liked beeing on its side of the map.

Or the Conqueror, or even back in the DD meta, you hated beeing a BB on the side with 2 shimas etc...

But moving to another side of the map to try to avoid a certain ship was only relevant until people understood how to deal with it.

Angle VS Slava and he does nothing even if your in a cruiser, Conq is squishy and easy to burst while the heal is down etc radar the DD and help you crusier stay alive to do it. There is counterplay so to say, something i wish there was for CVs.

The existence of other things that make the game more passive does not give carriers the excuse to do the same. And kiting Thunderers and Conqs are still pretty horrible for the game as are Smolensks and the likes. When a Smol puff pops out somewhere, BBs tend to try to flee rather than push it, because pushing is inherently much harder than defending in this game and you can't just assume you're fighting a single ship. If a carrier's range is reduced significantly from what it is now that must mean there's much more of the map it can't reach at any time, leaving a lot of room for the rest of the ships to maneuver. After all, all it takes is for the little triangle ships to decide they won't go to a certain flank because carrier operates there and nobody else will either.

[Prophecy82]

50 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Thats quite accurate what will happen. 

 

Anyways, what i wanted to say (to hold on for posterity): FUCKTHISSHITTY CVs!

[DFens_666]

3 hours ago, st_dasa said:

 

You rookie. Git gud.

 

I was banned continuously for almost three months, with just smol pauses in between the monthly bans. Currently waiting for my newest ban <3

 

Well, i usually can handle a couple of games. But after 4-5 seeing [edited] after [edited], one moron will get the whole package Especially if they throw the game.

[Fliqqsy]

53 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

A Bow-in Stalingrad next to an island can only disengage by reversing as can a bow in Salem, but both can be powerful tactical assets.

"..but both can be powerful tactical assets." Very true and a very good point!

This exact point is however why i deem the carriers a "neccisary evil". For there are certain points on almost every map which can be totaly dominated by the right ship that gets to "bunker down".

Just look at how Clan Battles at hight tier clans in hurricane (before CVs) plays out, 1 flank with "few" defending ships contesting a single cap from strong points while other ships try to push another part either to cap on the other side, or to "force" sometimes a single ship out from hiding.

This is what CVs can prevent in random battles, but they shouldnt be able to do it "for free" so to say.

If you're bunkerd in in a stalin or a Salem with support from a BB, the carrier should atleast consider twice before dropping you, and if comitting to it, lose planes.

There would be more strategy around "a good bunker" vs CV and how to stack your ships etc to hold a key tactical position on the map, and if enough resources (ships) commit to the strategy you will have forced the CV to go elsewhere etc, just like a DD would run away from a cap when he sees a Des Moins defending it.

 

53 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

 A pushing battleship will have trouble disengaging without showing its side or slowly reversing, but pushing might still be exactly what the situation requires. In fact, a lot of good, aggressive plays can put you in basically do or die situations, where you either win or die and this is fine and part of the game. 

As the battleship player that usally does this and dies for it i can easily say that this is true. Winning games can be at the cost of your own ship sometimes. The problem is when CV either forces you to do a "stupid" play because "just dodge" or for some reason can just AP bomb u multiple times even when sitting next to a AA cruiser...

Thus i would rather have the 1 drop 1 kill squad back, because, if they miss, and you live, you get atleast a few minutes of room to do whatever you need to.

And in my recomendation i think it would be down to balance in combination with the "range cap" on how this would work out.

 

54 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Another, perhaps even more damning thing for carriers is that because planes are something like 5x faster than ships and not bound by any obstacles they can be pretty much anywhere anytime so when you're evaluating a situation in your mind thinking if you can push and play aggressive, the answer is much more often "no" - simultaneously for every ship on every flank of the map.

This is the #1 cause of passive play today i think. If you see a CV in the game, you dont wanna go for the flank plays, because the CV can be there in seconds... even if you just spotted the planes across the map.

So just another reason for the range cap.

 

56 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

 

Why should either of these exist? Using cover is one of the fundamental skills in the game, terrain is anyways much simpler than in Tanks for example, so the game design should encourage using it as much as possible to create gameplay variety. And if someone is eluding your team's spotting, well played to him, that's another fundamental aspect of the game. 

 

I was basically looking for justification for carriers' existence.

"I was basically looking for justification for carriers' existence." - Like the artillary in WoT, to get rid of the campers. Which might sound wierd regarding the "passive" play, but i think you have to consider the whole team for this to work.

But if you go for a cap with a normal setup of BB for tank/long range support, CA for close range support to DD, and DD to spot, how does one win this fight if you're for example 2 bbs and 1 CA?

Then the CV could and should fulfill the roll of supporting with spotting etc. 

But likewise it could support with damage if you had no CA, and god forbid actually play bait since they are supposed to be closer now like a BB?
I think there is reason for their existence, but i dont want it to be "a must pick" in CW because it does everything. 

 

57 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The existence of other things that make the game more passive does not give carriers the excuse to do the same. And kiting Thunderers and Conqs are still pretty horrible for the game as are Smolensks and the likes. When a Smol puff pops out somewhere, BBs tend to try to flee rather than push it, because pushing is inherently much harder than defending in this game and you can't just assume you're fighting a single ship. 

Assuming the BBs are kiting on a lost flank i would say, fall off and let them come back ;)

"The existence of other things that make the game more passive does not give carriers the excuse to do the same." - Perhaps the passiveness would go away if the threat of CV also went down? I for one would gladly push more and takes bigger risk if there was a way to deal with the CV. Now its just bunch up and pray that he dosnt shot you...

[Deckeru_Maiku]

5 hours ago, NobleSauvage said:

Suggestion to improve the Tier 4 Sky Police situation and give newbies a bit of a break: replace the T4 CVs with airships.

 

Serious. They still fly, they're still faster and handle mostly like aircraft so are decent training for higher tiers, but they're about as ponderous in turning as ships and they have to physically go to the place they want to do damage (am assuming it would be by bombs, on cooldown/reloading between attacks in the same way as ships' guns, could even give the same choice between AP and HE if we're feeling fancy). Ships would damage them with AA guns, then it would just be a matter of balancing their HP appropriately. They'd have on-board machineguns to shoot at each other with.

 

I really think this would be a splendid thing. Really.

Lets check some facts. Seems the Hindenburg managed a speed of about 100 to 125 km/h, putting her at.. about... 50 to 60 (or so?) knots. I guess them smaller WW1 airships might have been a bit slower, while the larger versions reached about the same speed. And the bigger ones managed to carry quite a nice load (up to around 20 tons?) which would quite a lot nice small bombs...

 

So...

 

As WG already has managed the 3D movement on and under water - hello submarines - they could be easily adapt this into movement above the water in different heights. But maybe with a slightly slower climb/dive speeds - - for the airships to go to the attack - bomb drop - altitude and back to their travel altitude.

 

So... yeah, way more fitting to the lower tiers of the game these air SHIPS...

 

I want them... really...

 

Except for WG not being able to manage to balance them of course

[Bear__Necessities]

9 minutes ago, Deckeru_Maiku said:

 

I really think this would be a splendid thing. Really.

Lets check some facts. Seems the Hindenburg managed a speed of about 100 to 125 km/h, putting her at.. about... 50 to 60 (or so?) knots. I guess them smaller WW1 airships might have been a bit slower, while the larger versions reached about the same speed. And the bigger ones managed to carry quite a nice load (up to around 20 tons?) which would quite a lot nice small bombs...

 

So...

 

As WG already has managed the 3D movement on and under water - hello submarines - they could be easily adapt this into movement above the water in different heights. But maybe with a slightly slower climb/dive speeds - - for the airships to go to the attack - bomb drop - altitude and back to their travel altitude.

 

So... yeah, way more fitting to the lower tiers of the game these air SHIPS...

 

I want them... really...

 

Except for WG not being able to manage to balance them of course

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DON'T SAY THAT!! Don't give them ideas!! It'll be Russian.... it'll be like this

 

[AndyHill]

1 hour ago, Fliqqsy said:

"..but both can be powerful tactical assets." Very true and a very good point!

This exact point is however why i deem the carriers a "neccisary evil". For there are certain points on almost every map which can be totaly dominated by the right ship that gets to "bunker down".

Just look at how Clan Battles at hight tier clans in hurricane (before CVs) plays out, 1 flank with "few" defending ships contesting a single cap from strong points while other ships try to push another part either to cap on the other side, or to "force" sometimes a single ship out from hiding.

I haven't played Hurricane battles, I've only seen some of them and some KOTS and the likes. To me it seems that in Hurri as well as the lower leagues I have much more experience in, ships still go into bunkering locations, hug islands etc. - and it's kind of logical, since the carrier is just one ship and it's more important to not get blabbed by the other 6-11. In that kind of a case the carrier is basically just a hitpoint tax that steadily chunks down ships on both teams. Also wouldn't the alternative to useful locations be extremely bland maps where terrain matters little?

 

For me bunkering ships are if anything a challenge or even an opportunity, since they won't get away if your team manages to pull one off. Spammers like Henris and Hindens or basically any mobile thing that can use all of its turrets all the time will simply beat a bunker in a one or one fight, so everything depends on the teams. And I really don't think that there should be a simple solution to every tactical problem, they're supposed to be challenging.

 

More importantly, not every time you point your nose at the reds and press W will you be in a bunkering position. Carriers punish you in bunkers as well as open water if you make the mistake of pointing your nose towards the enemy and press W. 

1 hour ago, Fliqqsy said:

Like the artillary in WoT, to get rid of the campers. Which might sound wierd regarding the "passive" play, but i think you have to consider the whole team for this to work.

Yeah it does sound a bit weird to me, but I admit it is a somewhat complicated issue. The definition of camping is extremely important here. Generally in WoWS, someone sitting in the base far away from everything isn't much of an issue to begin with and in my books someone who is closer to the action and found himself a spot where he is hard to dig out has earned it and that kind of gameplay should be encouraged rather than punished.

1 hour ago, Fliqqsy said:

But if you go for a cap with a normal setup of BB for tank/long range support, CA for close range support to DD, and DD to spot, how does one win this fight if you're for example 2 bbs and 1 CA?

Then the CV could and should fulfill the roll of supporting with spotting etc. 

But likewise it could support with damage if you had no CA, and god forbid actually play bait since they are supposed to be closer now like a BB?
I think there is reason for their existence, but i dont want it to be "a must pick" in CW because it does everything. 

The question is of course should the less optimal setup win (skills being equal)? If your setup for a given situation is not optimal, you need to play better than the reds to overcome the odds. I really don't see how this is a bad thing. I actually see carriers more as a problem than a solution in a case like this, since every time everyone thinks of pushing they have to calculate that greens have this many this kind of ships and the reds have that many ships plus a carrier - on every flank all the time.

 

Now the answer to this specific problem can be (at least partly) the limited range. At this point it would actually be very interesting to hear your opinion on what the range should actually be. So where do we put the limit for for example T10 carriers? How far can Haku, Manfred, Midway and Audi fly their planes? It would of course be much easier to try to figure out what the effect would be if I have some kind of a number to work with.

 

As a bit of a sidenote and since you wrote about clan battles; as I mentioned I haven't played Hurricane, instead I have for quite a few seasons now been a shot caller for a pretty mixed bunch of players, I think our best season ever ended somewhere just short of Typhoon promotion battles. We don't get a lot of battles usually, so we're not very practiced in any specific tactics and we don't know beforehand who plays what, so we're never going to win slow grinds against much better trained and prepared teams. At some point in the season we're also constantly having to punch above our weight to progress.

 

One thing we were pretty good at was making rapid moves, spotting openings and then punching through and hopefully catching something (actually often a nose-in ship in a bunker position). Of course not a sure win, our players aren't super unicum and our shot caller is useless, but we managed to win some very unlikely battles because we showed something unexpected to a team that was prepared for a different game.

 

With carrier spotting that is just gone. You're very limited in tactical options since the reds will know exactly what's coming minutes in advance and they will be fully prepared for anything you try. Thus, the battles become basically shooting contests where the one who makes fewer small mistakes in angling and positioning wins. Basically the only time we managed to beat the odds was when the opponent was kind enough to bring two BBs. Even then it was a bit depressing, because those matches reminded us rather painfully of the good old times.

[Fliqqsy]

14 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

 In that kind of a case the carrier is basically just a hitpoint tax that steadily chunks down ships on both teams.

In high tier or versus a "good" CV player these "chunks" are abnormal. We played the CV season but didnt wanna go for the meta 6 venzia + 1 CV from the start. But oh boy, not even trippel stacking double stalin and kremlin together would stop a good CV player from chunking any of those ships for 30k per run. Wich meant that we were always 1 ship down after 3-5 minutes. Which is the time for the other ships to get into position. Fun times.

 

16 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

For me bunkering ships are if anything a challenge or even an opportunity, since they won't get away if your team manages to pull one off. Spammers like Henris and Hindens or basically any mobile thing that can use all of its turrets all the time will simply beat a bunker in a one or one fight, so everything depends on the teams. And I really don't think that there should be a simple solution to every tactical problem, they're supposed to be challenging.

Exaclty, there is pros and cons to every strategy and the tactical problems that comes with them. Problem is when you just thorw this tactic out the window and just let the CV go AP bomb the DM sitting behind the cap.

There is a reason why we see less cruisers in the game right now... the punishment CV deals just insnt reasonable, unless there is counter play! Thus why i would rather have a CV able to hit harder (if that now even is possible) but at the cost of more skill from the CV player.

19 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Yeah it does sound a bit weird to me, but I admit it is a somewhat complicated issue. The definition of camping is extremely important here. Generally in WoWS, someone sitting in the base far away from everything isn't much of an issue to begin with and in my books someone who is closer to the action and found himself a spot where he is hard to dig out has earned it and that kind of gameplay should be encouraged rather than punished.

Yeah camping was perhaps the wrong word for it. But as i said before i think its more bunkerd down ship that fit this description. And even tho bunkering down is the correct way to play many ship on many maps and modes... perhaps if the CV couldn't reach the entire map one side could in fact "bunker" and try to hold / push a cap while the other side, reasling the CV beeing present either group up for a tactical advansement or start kiting to make the range of CV squadron a thing.

 

23 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The question is of course should the less optimal setup win (skills being equal)? If your setup for a given situation is not optimal, you need to play better than the reds to overcome the odds. I really don't see how this is a bad thing. I actually see carriers more as a problem than a solution in a case like this, since every time everyone thinks of pushing they have to calculate that greens have this many this kind of ships and the reds have that many ships plus a carrier - on every flank all the time.

 

Now the answer to this specific problem can be (at least partly) the limited range. At this point it would actually be very interesting to hear your opinion on what the range should actually be. So where do we put the limit for for example T10 carriers? How far can Haku, Manfred, Midway and Audi fly their planes? It would of course be much easier to try to figure out what the effect would be if I have some kind of a number to work with.

Yes thats why i would like to have some way of knowing, which is a kind of counterplay, where the CV might operate. Now the could just sit middle of the map at the furthes line back and reach all caps within reasonable time.

 

And for the range, there would be a few "balance" things to consider i suppose.

- They should have range to reach as far as any battleship but not so far that they can keep staying out.

- Also consider that CV dont have to care much for terrain like normal ships, they can just fly over them

- Spotting range for CVs is for some reason also relativly low.

 

So a fair take in my opinon would be around 25 km Strike range for a T10 CV

20 km for T8 perhaps and around 16-18 km for T6.

Using North as an example, having a CV with 25 km range which is more than enough to reach multiple caps would however put him within 15km from the center cap, a distance which he at least "risks" beeing spotted from.

Having a CV with 30 km+ range would because of the fly over terrain advantage nullify that putting them safe and sound 20 km behind the caps and so on.

 

This would also lead to the interesting scenario where the CV AA might be usefull while "escorting" it into a key position.

Now the CV could eventually go for a strat to "bunker" to get a good reach over the map, which is "fine" this time, because if there are not looking and risk loosing a flank, they might actually be in gunrange of the red team! 

In its current state its always at the last minute they get spotted and you can never guess where, so its "whoever is lucky" to find it and fast enough to kill it before it kills you that gets the reward.

So for once maybe CVs wont be the last ship alive all the time with a change like this.

And being closer to the action would in fact probably lead to more dmg for the Average CV player, but taking into account the other "nerfs" i mentioned there would actually be a chancse or atleast a tactic to deal with it.

40 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

As a bit of a sidenote and since you wrote about clan battles; as I mentioned I haven't played Hurricane, instead I have for quite a few seasons now been a shot caller for a pretty mixed bunch of players, I think our best season ever ended somewhere just short of Typhoon promotion battles. We don't get a lot of battles usually, so we're not very practiced in any specific tactics and we don't know beforehand who plays what, so we're never going to win slow grinds against much better trained and prepared teams. At some point in the season we're also constantly having to punch above our weight to progress.

 

One thing we were pretty good at was making rapid moves, spotting openings and then punching through and hopefully catching something (actually often a nose-in ship in a bunker position). Of course not a sure win, our players aren't super unicum and our shot caller is useless, but we managed to win some very unlikely battles because we showed something unexpected to a team that was prepared for a different game.

 

With carrier spotting that is just gone. You're very limited in tactical options since the reds will know exactly what's coming minutes in advance and they will be fully prepared for anything you try. Thus, the battles become basically shooting contests where the one who makes fewer small mistakes in angling and positioning wins. Basically the only time we managed to beat the odds was when the opponent was kind enough to bring two BBs. Even then it was a bit depressing, because those matches reminded us rather painfully of the good old times.

All things regarding Clan Battles in Hurricane is that people make less mistakes and if the "meta" allows it the team that can coordinate a push to score kills/ objectives with the least amount of HP wins.  Openings and such comes with the pushes that require counter actions from the other team and so on which of course is why no two battles play out the same.

However, and you said the CV introduced to Clan Battles just threw that away. Everyone were "forced" to play to the "meta" or die to the CV. there was only one strategy for all teams, and RNG decided the rest. And the biggest game winning factor, who had the better CV player. So even in a team full of unicum players, if the enemy team had a "CV main" with 70% WR over our CV with 65% the battles weren't close. And as i said before, we tried different things to avoid CV, but in the end we just wanted the steel and went for it, and oh boy, half the clan just didnt wanna play Clan Battles any more.

[AndyHill]

56 minutes ago, Fliqqsy said:

Yeah camping was perhaps the wrong word for it. But as i said before i think its more bunkerd down ship that fit this description. And even tho bunkering down is the correct way to play many ship on many maps and modes... perhaps if the CV couldn't reach the entire map one side could in fact "bunker" and try to hold / push a cap while the other side, reasling the CV beeing present either group up for a tactical advansement or start kiting to make the range of CV squadron a thing.

I think that the risk/reward balance is largely pretty good in this game. You have to take a lot of risks to get into good positions and being within effective range of the reds usually puts you into a relatively precarious position yourself. Being effective and safe at the same time is really hard (except for a very special class of ships and maybe some outliers from other classes). Compared to WoT there aren't tanks with impenetrable turrets in dominant locations, which kind of justifies the existence of artillery. I just don't see the need for a silver bullet that could just dig out a bunkered ship, on the contrary. Not that I wouldn't want to just auto-detonate a pesky enemy every now and then, but I don't really think I should be able to.

 

Imagine a Thunderer that can go into WoT arty view, click to spot anything within that range and then dump a 10-20k volleys on it ignoring any kind of obstacles. If WG ever even thought about something like that, people would be up in arms, but aren't carriers exactly like that (well if they had 25km max range)? I don't know if you've ever done the match on plane losses, but for a comparison my Yamato fires on average about 160 shells per game. A T10 carrier can fly what, 80 or 60 planes per match before it starts to seriously run out of planes? With those numbers, getting dumped on by a CV for 20k+ while shooting down 4 planes is about the equivalent of taking a 20k+ volley from a Yamato that loses all of its 9 shells in your citadel and the ocean around you - while spotting you for his team and not being in danger of getting shot at or spotted himself.

 

That kind of doesn't feel like a whole lot of counterplay to me. Of course it's even less than that, unless everyone else on your team kills enough planes to actually make him run out.

1 hour ago, Fliqqsy said:

So a fair take in my opinon would be around 25 km Strike range for a T10 CV

20 km for T8 perhaps and around 16-18 km for T6.

The map is really useful, so thanks for that. Basically if you look at the 25km circle from that position it kind of looks a lot like I imagined. In general I wouldn't mind limiting the CV's abilities in any imaginable way, but the picture kind of demonstrates pretty well what I fear might happen with this specific limitation.

 

Imagine people figuring out that you're safe from carriers if you stay far enough back. A carrier from that position could create a no ship zone that covers most of the actually useful locations anyone would actually want to be in. All of the area outside the red circle would be left alone. With the current limitless flight distance carriers would look for juicy target especially to the east and to the west and possibly north, since (at least in randoms) people tend to split up on this map, which leaves the middle wide open. If the range was limited, the carrier would have no choice but to focus on targets near the caps - which is basically anyone to go forward and push the tempo of the game.

 

Actually when I'm looking at that map, I kind of see Stalingrads, Venezias, battleships and maybe Hallands. Anything that can spam effectively from outside of the carrier's effective range (or use the unduckmenow-smoke). Hallands spot stuff and everything else shoots at said stuff from long range. I really think that if people can stay out of the carrier's range, they will want to. Note that if the carrier goes for a safer location, it will leave large parts of the map safe from air operations, which of course is good in a way, but it would also mean that if you know where the carrier is, there's a simple way to not get bombed and I believe people would want to use that.

 

That's of course just my own imagination as this is impossible to test right now, but that's at least what happens with Smolensks and the likes at the moment. The difference of course is that Smolensks have so little range that it's usually fairly easy to escape their area of influence. For a 25km carrier it might be more like a Slava that basically just sits there and there's not much to do about it - except that Slavas and Thunderers can usually bring their hulls closer to the action, thus trapping people deep within their range.

 

The idea of a carrier being more vulnerable is of course enticing, but in general the idea of simply rushing down Smolensks and the likes just doesn't work as well as you might want to, since you're usually not rushing down one ship, usually it's most of the red team you need to get through to get to the spammers. Especially one that can basically ignore islands as any kind of obstacles.

 

As far as clan wars and other coordinated play is concerned, the biggest difference between setups with carriers is the amount of information planes give you. The firepower deficiency agains two BBs for example is more than made up for by the ability to predict exactly what's coming, where and when and always being prepared for it. And of course the carrier's own firepower. Do you think the 25km limitation to range would reduce the spotting significantly enough make a real difference?

[geschlittert]

9 hours ago, Zuihou_Kai said:

Because they can't heal it like other ships in higher tiers and a fire ticks for as much as on a BB. 

Even DDs take nearly double as much damage from as CVs. Come...

[geschlittert]

Oh, and: I hate CVs

[st_dasa]

Since our quirky moderator that goes by the certain digging name closed yet another CV thread that picked up some heat, I'll just post a screenshot that shows how ppl felt about the OP's very pro-CV first post.

 

 

 

Big oof, WG, big oof.

[Nov_A]

[Yosha_AtaIante]

3 minutes ago, Nov_A said:

no

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, Nov_A said:

said no one ever!