General CV related discussions.

[Capra76]

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

What should that close? It closes bull - if the RTS carrier loses all strike planes he can still shut down the enemy CV entirely. 

 

If the RTS carrier loses all strike planes he almost certainly doesn't have the skills to shut down the enemy CV even slightly.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

If the RTS carrier loses all strike planes he almost certainly doesn't have the skills to shut down the enemy CV even slightly.

Pure speculation and not necessarily the case at all. 
 

Although I am happy that all three of you commented on the numbers trying to twist the obvious so it fits your narrative a little better 

 

 

[AndyHill]

40 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No - other way around: I compare TBs to TBs and DBs to DBs.

So you basically leave out a third of modern carriers' strike power to make them look less bad against RTS (or just less bad in total). 

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, AndyHill said:

So you basically leave out a third of modern carriers' strike power to make them look less bad against RTS (or just less bad in total). 

No - I compare the classes on by one.

 

And the third capability of CVs is obviously  different between RTS and Rework. One is anti-CV the other is anti-DD (for the most part but let’s not lose ourselves in details). 
 

So how do you rate this third playable component in the two models against each other? I left them out at first but made a comparison against each other afterwards as they are both the “third” squadron. However due to the different purpose the comparison isn’t exactly easy. 
 

Hence why step by step through the categories is the best approach here 

[DFens_666]

3 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So how do you rate this third playable component in the two models against each other? I left them out at first but made a comparison against each other afterwards as they are both the “third” squadron. However due to the different purpose the comparison isn’t exactly easy. 

 

There is no CV vs CV interaction anymore, thus ignoring rocket planes makes no sense.

You compare strike planes vs strike planes, and you can twist it all you want, but reworked CVs have more strike planes than RTS CVs.

 

Fighter planes have no interaction with surface ships, except for spotting them. Both old fighters and new fighter consumable can spot ships thus nothing has changed in that regard.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

 

There is no CV vs CV interaction anymore, thus ignoring rocket planes makes no sense.

You compare strike planes vs strike planes, and you can twist it all you want, but reworked CVs have more strike planes than RTS CVs.

 

Fighter planes have no interaction with surface ships, except for spotting them. Both old fighters and new fighter consumable can spot ships thus nothing has changed in that regard.

Again I am not ignoring them in the second set of numbers. 
 

And honestly I would like to take an air superiority Squadron as third squadron over these anti DD rocket fighters if I had a choice. Manual controlled Fighters can still keep DDs spotted and can on top stop the enemy CV for a good part. In essence I would rate the RTS fighters even more valuable than these stupid rocket planes - but again: a comparison isn’t straight forward. Which doesn’t mean that you can’t compare them though - both fill the function of the CV’s third capability type 

[DFens_666]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

both fill the function of the CV’s third capability type  

 

And what are fighter consumables then?

4th type?

[1MajorKoenig]

9 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

And what are fighter consumables then?

4th type?

Good question... garbage? They are for sure completely different as they are one time use only, not controllable and the results are 100% pre determined

[AndyHill]

47 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No - I compare the classes on by one.

Here's an actual comparison:

 

RTS carrier:

 - Anti-shipping -

Rocket planes: 0

Bombers: X

Torpedo planes: Y

 

- Anti-air -

Maneuverable fighters: N

 

WoWP carrier:

- Anti-shipping - 

Rocket planes: A

Bombers: B

Torpedo planes: C

 

- Anti-air -

Droppable fighters: M

 

Unless you have video clips of RTS fighters doing five figure damage on ships in one strike, in that case you might have a point.

[1MajorKoenig]

20 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Unless you have video clips of RTS fighters doing five figure damage on ships in one strike, in that case you might have a point.

Nope - and by fighter spotting you can even focus down DDs pretty good. Even without rockets. 
 

But that is not even the point - rocket fighters wont prevent strikes or spotting. 
 

Basically WG replaced the CV interaction through fighters with anti DD interaction through rockets in the third squadron slot. But we are going in circles now 

[AndyHill]

The plane to plane interaction with fighters is one thing and the plane to ship interaction is another. It is difficult to do straight comparisons in the plane to plane -department due to the difference in how fighters operate, but there is no scenario where comparing RTS fighter numbers to WoWP rocket attack plane numbers makes sense.

[1MajorKoenig]

3 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

The plane to plane interaction with fighters is one thing and the plane to ship interaction is another. It is difficult to do straight comparisons in the plane to plane -department due to the difference in how fighters operate, but there is no scenario where comparing RTS fighter numbers to WoWP rocket attack plane numbers makes sense.

Of course it isn’t. Hence why I left that part of the conplement out initially. 
 

But even with all of that it shows that there is no vastly infinite flow of planes - it is not hugely different apart from the small flight decks in low tiers. 
 

I was simply pointing out that the regeneration mechanics don’t have such a huge impact as some here try to make it look like. Certainly small decks benefit but for larger ones the difference isn’t significant. 
 

Regardless of absolute numbers it spreads the availability of planes over the match more even and prevents idiots from burning their planes immediately. It is more or less a help for players to manage their deck. 

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Good question... garbage? They are for sure completely different as they are one time use only, not controllable and the results are 100% pre determined

 

Again, they are a vital part of your spotting capabilities and as such fulfill the very same role fighters did in RTS against surface ships. You are 100% in control of where they spawn, that they are then automated is no different to simply leaving them circling somewhere to spot in RTS.

 

WG didn't replace anything. Rockets are simply a 4th squad type they added on. Just because you do not want to face facts just to further your pathetic narrative doesn't make them any less true.

[woshiC]

Hey,

how can I switch back to the ship while having planes in the air without sending the squadron back to the ship? Autopilot sucks..

[BLUB__BLUB]

5 minutes ago, woshiC said:

Hey,

how can I switch back to the ship while having planes in the air without sending the squadron back to the ship? Autopilot sucks..

Not possible. And yes autopilot suck, every update he gets worse... 

[1MajorKoenig]

22 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

WG didn't replace anything

Yes they did. They replaced balanced decks with strike decks. Fighters and AA seem to be more of an afterthought 

 

24 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

they are a vital part of your spotting capabilities

Not wrong and frankly the only use for them really. Doesn’t change though that they are not part of your deck, regeneration, control, etc 

[arquata2019_]

@El2aZeR, may you post your Hakuryu + Midway captain build and upgrade build for both cvs? i wanna see if they differ from mine, i also watched the replay "A typical day in the life on a CV main" and you only encounter stupid enemies, while i only encounter dds that always stay in smoke :(

(for anyone interested, these are my builds) ill post them later, 30mins

 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

Fail-divved, of course....  T6CV, 2x T7.

Why is it that the losses are the most fun? 

Spoiler

 

 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Doesn’t change though that they are not part of your deck, regeneration, control, etc

 

They are still in your control. You control where they spawn and what they will continue to spot after you're gone. And they are most certainly part of your reserves regardless of whether they are actually on your deck or not.

 

33 minutes ago, arquata2019 said:

may you post your Hakuryu + Midway captain build and upgrade build for both cvs?

 

Midway

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASA110&modules=12221&upgrades=121414&commander=PCW001&skills=139077672&consumables=11&pos=0

(if you do not have the UU slot plane HP or speed according to personal preference)

 

Haku

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PJSA110&modules=12221&upgrades=121312&commander=PCW001&skills=2282364936&consumables=11&pos=0

[arquata2019_]

9 minuti fa, El2aZeR ha scritto:

 

They are still in your control. You control where they spawn and what they will continue to spot after you're gone. And they are most certainly part of your reserves regardless of whether they are actually on your deck or not.

 

 

Midway

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASA110&modules=12221&upgrades=121414&commander=PCW001&skills=139077672&consumables=11&pos=0

(if you do not have the UU slot plane HP or speed according to personal preference)

 

Haku

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PJSA110&modules=12221&upgrades=121312&commander=PCW001&skills=2282364936&consumables=11&pos=0

also, wanted to ask you, why HVAR rockets????

midway

my build: https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PASA110&modules=13221&upgrades=121312&commander=PAW102&skills=139077672&consumables=11&pos=0

 

hellkuryu:

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PJSA110&modules=12211&upgrades=121312&commander=PCW001&skills=2282364984&consumables=11&pos=0

also, why j5n tenrais on hakuryu? they have +8s of regen time, so i take stock ones, is it a good choice? (i am reppus since a while, im asking this to you because yes)

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, arquata2019 said:

also, wanted to ask you, why HVAR rockets????

 

I generally use HVARs to finish off low HP targets quickly. Tims have proven to be unreliable in that regard ever since they severely nerfed their accuracy.

 

1 hour ago, arquata2019 said:

also, why j5n tenrais on hakuryu? they have +8s of regen time, so i take stock ones, is it a good choice? (i am reppus since a while, im asking this to you because yes)

 

Honestly? I tried both quite awhile ago and found little to no difference in terms of sustain. I did find however that your ability to conduct multiple attacks with a single squad did suffer a bit against some targets, so the slightly higher speed and HP does seem to make a slight difference there.

Direction Center has no effect on CVs afaik, that's a wasted skill point. Last Gasp can be situationally useful so I recommend that.

[callumwaw]

Lo and behold, our pleas have been listened to!  Wargaming has seen the 244 pages of this thread (and dozens of other threads) and though to itself: "Hundreds of players are complaining about CVs! Let's do something about it!" 

 

Well...

What players said: "It's no fun being blapped for 40% of your health by a single rocket plane or bomber strike!"

 

What WG understood: "Wait a minute, they're not complaining about getting blapped for 40% by torpedo planes! This won't do! We must buff torpedo planes!"

 

If flamu's correct, torpedo planes will partly ignore the ship's torpedo protection bulge. Yay! 

 

 

 

 

 

Wargaming, just three words:  LOL

 

 

[guy_incognito79]

At this point I think it may help if someone took Lesta round the back of the WG offices and kicked his [edited]while letting Dasha have a go at balancing all this crap. 

 

I highly doubt she could do any worse.

[Nibenay78]

6 hours ago, woshiC said:

Hey,

how can I switch back to the ship while having planes in the air without sending the squadron back to the ship? Autopilot sucks..

Clearly autopilot is the punishment WG implemented for playing this shiptype. People who are smart enought to control TWO - 2 - entities creates too much skillgap.

[1MajorKoenig]

15 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

And they are most certainly part of your reserves regardless of whether they are actually on your deck or not.

What a nonsense.

 

But regardless - let’s briefly summarize as I have something more interesting I want to discuss. 
 

The facts are:
 

1) Torpedobombers are almost identical in numbers pre/post rework given an estimated average 15min match time. Exceptions are CVs with very small RTS deck complements 

 

2) Dive bombers likewise 

 

3) for the rest there is no agreement on how to compare it. Essentially the rest ist: RTS manually controlled fighter squadrons VS. rework Rocket fighters plus the fighter consumable. Some here rate the rework complement higher - I am inclined to find the RTS part for this third section both more useful and worthy. But I am afraid we won’t find an agreement. 
 

Nevertheless the old “infinite” plane fairytale can be put to rest. 
 

———————————————————

 

NOW:

 

on to more interesting questions! That other thread on three potential CV improvements got me thinking about fighters in general.

 

I absolutely hate the current consumable model and find it lame, sloppy and it looks - just as AA - like a complete afterthought in the rework (which seems to be mostl built around the strike component more or less). 
I always thought that fighters would need to be manually controlled but I am curious now to your opinions - is that really a viable option?
 

Let’s assume two scenarios:

 

1) fighters would become a manually played squad

 

- pro: CV vs CV interaction 

- pro: possible to defend own fleet

 

- con: own team will constantly complain in case they are not defended. Put that together with controlling only one flight (which would be either fighter OR strike) and you will inevitably have a constant whine fest 

- con: the better fighter player would have a disproportionate advantage and could potentially even lock down the enemy CV. Now let’s imagine - one CV active, the other “as good as AFK” - sounds bad.

 

After all: are manual fighters too powerful of a tool to give to the players?

 

 

2) let’s assume we try to make fighter more part of the flight deck like other planes - would that work? Eg.:

 

- give the CV one fighter squadron at their disposal just like strike planes with a flight size, number of spots on deck, regeneration time 

 

- instead of directly controlling these in 1st person we would keep the current consent of placing a patrol area for them. But rather than dropping it from a squadron we place it directly from the CV hull controls - I think El2azer brought this idea up - proposal: similar to the birds eye view for spotter planes or the ASW flight view

 

- make these squadron more like RTS fighters that they dog fight anything in their patrol area. Not this “cancel each other out” but RNG supported dog fighting with circling, ammo, etc.
 

- this would probably require some much quicker aggro time to make these a tool of area defense 

 

- this said area should be larger than the consumable area 

 

- returning fighters would be put back into the deck as any other planes as well and use regeneration in case of losss exactly as any other squadron 

 

- once ammo is consumed or patrol time is up send fighters back. Alternatively recall them manually

 

- potentially let them fly high - same as German DBs - and make them very resilient or even immune against AA. As a compensation they shouldn’t spot ships (or just minimal) - would need to be tested but you get the general idea 
 

- once the fighter attack they should dive down to the bombers flight level to start the AI controlled dogfighting. Once they leave their high altitude they should become vulnerable to AA as any other plane (so still open a way for bombers to let them seek cover over friendly AA)

 

- bombers would need rear gunners for rudimentary defense (AI)

 

Now I am curious - what would you think about different options for fighters? Any opinions? @El2aZeR / @Bear__Necessities / @Zuihou_Kai / @BLUB__BLUB / @Pikkozoikum ?