Jump to content
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Bl4ckh0g

Carrier fighter planes, What the heck....

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

This is really an open question.

 

Why are the carrier plane's progress is so absurd?

 

 

 

On the Langley the upgraded fighters only get 200 more HP and 6 knots more speed but lose 20 loadout

On the Bogue it is the same +12 knots speed,+180 Hp but -14 loadout

On the Independence the upgraded fighters have 6 more DPS and 200 more HP but lose 2 knots speed and 6 loadout

 This is a nice progression.

 

On the Ranger you get 22 knots speed, 48 DPS, 200 HP and lose 10 loadout

On the Lexington you get 42 DPS and 270 HP, and lose 1 knot speed and 7 loadout

 This is a joke.

 

And it comes back to normal with the Essex's Bearcat with +14 knots, 160 HP and -6 DPS  

 

 

Why?

Historical reasons? The hell it is. Where is the Buffalo? Where is the Hellcat? Why don't include the Wildcat with the 4 x 0.50 and 6 x .50 ? Or the Corsair with the 4 x 20 mm and the 6 x 0.50? Or the Bearcat with the 4 x .50 and 4 x 20 mm? You can easily fill a tree without this ridiculous damage scaling and the need to include freaking biplanes.

 

On the IJN side the fighters progress nicely until the Hiryu when the Zero's arrive, and I can even understand that, but you could've also added different versions of the Zero with changing speed/HP and make the IJN early tier CV's stronger than the USN until the USN get the Hellcats and Corsairs? That would be Historical and people would not complain since everyone knows that the IJN Zero's kicked the USN planes out of the sky early in the war.

Or include the Kawanishi N1K....

Instead you made this ludicrous progression so a Ranger, Lexington and Hiryu can kick the bottom half of a lower tier carrier without effort?

 

Why was this thing necessary? 

 

Edited by Bl4ckh0g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAM]
Alpha Tester
2,435 posts
7,140 battles

That would be Historical and people would not complain since everyone knows that the IJN Zero's kicked the USN planes out of the sky early in the war.

 

Just wanted to point out this is a myth since Zero fighters never managed to get consistent victories against USN fighters even at the beginning of the war. The fame of the Zero was founded on her incedible range and manouverability at medium speed which the allies didn't expect. In contrast the USN planes were more resilient and could do energy dive tactics much better which gave then the upper hand against the Zero once the japanese lost their experienced pilots and the Thatch Weave was introduced

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

Just wanted to point out this is a myth since Zero fighters never managed to get consistent victories against USN fighters even at the beginning of the war. The fame of the Zero was founded on her incedible range and manouverability at medium speed which the allies didn't expect. In contrast the USN planes were more resilient and could do energy dive tactics much better which gave then the upper hand against the Zero once the japanese lost their experienced pilots and the Thatch Weave was introduced

 

Yes, but a Zero was a way better plane than the Buffalo or the Wildcat the USN had at the time. 

I do not mean give the Zero's double the DPS and such.

Just make them stronger.

Give them better DPS, but counter that with less HP due to their fragility. So they kill faster but die faster. 

But, what the hell is the point on going from the A5M2 to the A6M2 in one tier? Plus 200% DPS in one step, really nice

 

Edit: from wikipedia

 In early combat operations, the Zero gained a legendary reputation as a dogfighter,[2] achieving the outstanding kill ratio of 12 to 1,[3] but by mid-1942 a combination of new tactics and the introduction of better equipment enabled the Allied pilots to engage the Zero on generally equal terms.[4]

 

 

Edited by Bl4ckh0g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAM]
Alpha Tester
2,435 posts
7,140 battles

Kill ratio of 12-1 achieved mainly against old US and soviet plane models over the chinese skies or against the Commonwealth and Dutch forces who mainly used the Buffalo. But by mid 1942 most USN fighters were actually Wildcats that could indeed not engage in a dogfight against the Zero but had the upper hand in boom and zoom tactics, the Thatch Weave and in it could actually take a hit and not become a fireball.

 

But this thread is really not about this, it's about game progression and I should have waited for people to actually say something interesting to the problem you put here. I'm new to carriers in WoWs so I have no idea how this stuff is balanced so I'll just go to the sidelines and read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

Kill ratio of 12-1 achieved mainly against old US and soviet plane models over the chinese skies or against the Commonwealth and Dutch forces who mainly used the Buffalo. But by mid 1942 most USN fighters were actually Wildcats that could indeed not engage in a dogfight against the Zero but had the upper hand in boom and zoom tactics, the Thatch Weave and in it could actually take a hit and not become a fireball.

 

But this thread is really not about this, it's about game progression and I should have waited for people to actually say something interesting to the problem you put here. I'm new to carriers in WoWs so I have no idea how this stuff is balanced so I'll just go to the sidelines and read.

 

Yeah I really meant that they should kill Buffalos. Against Wildcat's they could win a strictly one-on-one fight, but with heavy losses or make them rather equal(the early version Zero's), but they could have a lower loadout, and less HP so a prolonged fight or a fight under enemy AA would cause them to lose.

 

Well, I played in my Independence, I was completely stock. I get in a fight with a Lexington with  fighter loadout.

He killed 18 of my planes(max planes 30) in the first 3 minutes with 2 of his fighter squadrons (he killed my 2 fighters with one of his fighter and then killed the DBs with the other)

But that's a tier 7 you could say, It's obvious you'd lose

Well then

 

The Independence(tier6)'s fighters(F3F biplanes) have 36 DPS, the Ranger(tier7)'s Wildcat's have 84 

Edited by Bl4ckh0g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
299 posts
692 battles

Kill ratio of 12-1 achieved mainly against old US and soviet plane models over the chinese skies or against the Commonwealth and Dutch forces who mainly used the Buffalo. But by mid 1942 most USN fighters were actually Wildcats that could indeed not engage in a dogfight against the Zero but had the upper hand in boom and zoom tactics, the Thatch Weave and in it could actually take a hit and not become a fireball.

 

But this thread is really not about this, it's about game progression and I should have waited for people to actually say something interesting to the problem you put here. I'm new to carriers in WoWs so I have no idea how this stuff is balanced so I'll just go to the sidelines and read.

 

The Zero was good, but heavily flawed. It was too focused on attack operations and too light. US and British fighters could easily outrun it in a dive, and quickly started being far faster in straight line speed and climbing. At the start of the war it had a heavy advantage as it was faster, more manouverable and climbed faster, but very quickly it was left to just being the most manouverable - which while good, can't help you much when you have hostile fighters diving on you at 50-100 kp/h over your top speed and then outclimbing you away. Plus being so light and unarmored it didn't take much to bring them down, .50 cals shredded them like paper, and even 7,7mm MG's mounted in British planes would do a heavy number on it. 

 

The main thing you have to remember is that the Zero had enormous range, it was practically double of most early war US carrier planes, forget about the Seafire. I think the only commonly used allied carrier plane plane that could match it was the Hellcat. 

 

I think the real reason for the reign of terror of the Zero was more or less superior pilots and tactics. The Japanese were engaged in a war for a long long time before the US and Britain got involved, their pilots had a lot of experience. And at the start of the war for a long time they managed to keep their veteran crews alive while the Allies had a hard time doing he same. But after a few decisive battles where the Japanese lost a lot of their good air crews and ground crews, while the Allies just kept adding on to their veteran crew count, the Zero was totally done-in. 

Edited by chaplainDMK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
Beta Tester
149 posts
4,170 battles

This and the fact that one squad of Fighter tier n will absolutely anihilate 2 squads from tier n-1.

Share this post


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

the Thatch Weave

 

Otherwise known as "outnumber the Zero 2 to 1 or run the hell away". :P

 

I just find it weird how the US jumps from the F4F-3 straight to the F4U.  Bumping the Corsair and Bearcat each up a tier and putting the Hellcat in the new gap seems like a good idea, to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

Otherwise known as "outnumber the Zero 2 to 1 or run the hell away". :P

 

I just find it weird how the US jumps from the F4F-3 straight to the F4U.  Bumping the Corsair and Bearcat each up a tier and putting the Hellcat in the new gap seems like a good idea, to me.

 

Or put the Buffalo in play instead of having Biplanes 

or putting different versions of the same plane into the game

like the Wildcat with 4 and 6 .50 cals or upgraded Corsairs and Bearcats with 20 mms 

But why friggin biplanes? 

neutral-whyyyyy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
299 posts
692 battles

 

Otherwise known as "outnumber the Zero 2 to 1 or run the hell away". :P

 

I just find it weird how the US jumps from the F4F-3 straight to the F4U.  Bumping the Corsair and Bearcat each up a tier and putting the Hellcat in the new gap seems like a good idea, to me.

 

Actually the Thatch Weave was used at Midway with a heavy numerical disadvantage. And the early training runs were done in a 4v4 situation with Thatch's defending fighters gimped on throttle. 

 

The problem is that you need heavy coordination to counter it while limited coordination to execute it. Especially since the enemy first needed to even find out what the hell was going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

I still have no idea why the hell do we have biplanes on ships like the Independence, USN had easily enough aircraft to fill that tree. Same with other navies.

Why is it impossible to put multiple versions of the same aircraft into the game? Like A6M2-3-4-5

 

and It's not like they won't put completely out of place aircraft into CVs...J7W much?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
142 posts
344 battles

As a non CV operator I was wondering, are fighters restricted to air to air combat or can they, or should they, be used for strafing enemy ships, I know a fighter wouldn't be able to do much against a BB or a CA but they could probably inflict a fair bit of damage to a DD, since most late war fighters carried either .50's or 20mm guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
Beta Tester
149 posts
4,170 battles

As a non CV operator I was wondering, are fighters restricted to air to air combat or can they, or should they, be used for strafing enemy ships, I know a fighter wouldn't be able to do much against a BB or a CA but they could probably inflict a fair bit of damage to a DD, since most late war fighters carried either .50's or 20mm guns.

 

Air to Air only.

If you sail a US CV with 2 fighter squad and 1 bomber squadron, you won't be very usefull if there are no hostile CV.

And even if there are, you'll be making minimal points anyway because shooting down planes give terrible XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,280 battles

 

The Independence(tier6)'s fighters(F3F biplanes) have 36 DPS, the Ranger(tier7)'s Wildcat's have 84 

 

On the Japanese side it's an even bigger step. The A5 with 30 dps is the best you get all the way up until the second fighter at Hiryu (tier7) when you get the A6 (Zero) with 90 dps...

 

I mean common, 3 times more damage in one upgrade, and you wonder why people complain that they have no chance against CVs one tier higher?

 

 

I also agree that it's also quite strange to have biplanes even on tier 7 CVs until you upgrade them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

On the Japanese side it's an even bigger step. The A5 with 30 dps is the best you get all the way up until the second fighter at Hiryu (tier7) when you get the A6 (Zero) with 90 dps...

 

I mean common, 3 times more damage in one upgrade, and you wonder why people complain that they have no chance against CVs one tier higher?

 

Oh yeah that's because the A5M had 2x7.7 mm machine guns, while the A6M had 2x20 mm and 2x7.7 mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Beta Tester
1,182 posts
1,430 battles

 

Just wanted to point out this is a myth since Zero fighters never managed to get consistent victories against USN fighters even at the beginning of the war. The fame of the Zero was founded on her incedible range and manouverability at medium speed which the allies didn't expect. In contrast the USN planes were more resilient and could do energy dive tactics much better which gave then the upper hand against the Zero once the japanese lost their experienced pilots and the Thatch Weave was introduced

 

The Zero was vastly superior the Buffalo in ever way, and still much superior to the Wildcat, though the Wildcat could use energy tactics, but the Zero was still faster, climbed better, turned better etc. 

 

Then the Hellcat appeared, being faster than the Zero and way better at high speeds, plus the US had their tactics nailed down and by mid war probably better pilots, the Corsair then appeared and was even faster and the Bearcat, well Japan had nothing to counter that even the A7M2 would have been lagging behind a Bearcat, that thing was a pinnacle design of prop technology even top German designs would struggle to match a Bearcat. 

 

It seems a bit odd to me that the carriers are still using bi-planes on tier 6 when most of the ships there are either WW2 designs or designs heavily upgraded during the war and the carriers only start tier 4 anyway.

 

The US had the Buffalo, Wildcat, Corsair, Bearcat which pretty much covered their Navy fighter evolution from 1939-1945, plus there are several versions of those planes that seems enough to cover 6 tiers of carriers to me

 

And the Japanese had umteen versions of the Zero and you could finish with the A7M.

 

Bi-planes at best should finish as top planes on the ier 4 carriers IMO, tier 5 - 10 should be monoplane progression Buffalo to Bearcat for US, Zero variants to A7M for Japan. 

Edited by tajj7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,280 battles

 

The Zero was vastly superior the Buffalo in ever way, and still much superior to the Wildcat, though the Wildcat could use energy tactics, but the Zero was still faster, climbed better, turned better etc. 

 

The Zero was not faster then the Wildcat, they had pretty much equal speed but the Wildcat was faster in the dive while the Zero was faster in the climb ( due to differences in airframe and weight ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

The Zero was vastly superior the Buffalo in ever way, and still much superior to the Wildcat, though the Wildcat could use energy tactics, but the Zero was still faster, climbed better, turned better etc. 

 

Then the Hellcat appeared, being faster than the Zero and way better at high speeds, plus the US had their tactics nailed down and by mid war probably better pilots, the Corsair then appeared and was even faster and the Bearcat, well Japan had nothing to counter that even the A7M2 would have been lagging behind a Bearcat, that thing was a pinnacle design of prop technology even top German designs would struggle to match a Bearcat. 

 

It seems a bit odd to me that the carriers are still using bi-planes on tier 6 when most of the ships there are either WW2 designs or designs heavily upgraded during the war and the carriers only start tier 4 anyway.

 

The US had the Buffalo, Wildcat, Corsair, Bearcat which pretty much covered their Navy fighter evolution from 1939-1945, plus there are several versions of those planes that seems enough to cover 6 tiers of carriers to me

 

And the Japanese had umteen versions of the Zero and you could finish with the A7M.

 

Bi-planes at best should finish as top planes on the ier 4 carriers IMO, tier 5 - 10 should be monoplane progression Buffalo to Bearcat for US, Zero variants to A7M for Japan. 

 

You missed the Hellcat :D

And yeah If you put 2 or 3 versions of the A6M in the game with each subsequent one having better speed and/or HP and giving the IJN  the N1K they could make a tree for them just as easily

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

The Zero was not faster then the Wildcat, they had pretty much equal speed but the Wildcat was faster in the dive while the Zero was faster in the climb ( due to differences in airframe and weight ).

 

I think the later model Zeros (A6M4/M5) were faster 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Beta Tester
1,182 posts
1,430 battles

 

The Zero was not faster then the Wildcat, they had pretty much equal speed but the Wildcat was faster in the dive while the Zero was faster in the climb ( due to differences in airframe and weight ).

 

A6M2 was slightly faster - http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf  & http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html

 

Specially at lower altitude, captured Zero as well which probably wasn't in great nick. 

 

View Posttajj7, on 15 May 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

The Zero was vastly superior the Buffalo in ever way, and still much superior to the Wildcat, though the Wildcat could use energy tactics, but the Zero was still faster, climbed better, turned better etc. 

 

Then the Hellcat appeared, being faster than the Zero and way better at high speeds, plus the US had their tactics nailed down and by mid war probably better pilots, the Corsair then appeared and was even faster and the Bearcat, well Japan had nothing to counter that even the A7M2 would have been lagging behind a Bearcat, that thing was a pinnacle design of prop technology even top German designs would struggle to match a Bearcat. 

 

It seems a bit odd to me that the carriers are still using bi-planes on tier 6 when most of the ships there are either WW2 designs or designs heavily upgraded during the war and the carriers only start tier 4 anyway.

 

The US had the Buffalo, Wildcat, Corsair, Bearcat which pretty much covered their Navy fighter evolution from 1939-1945, plus there are several versions of those planes that seems enough to cover 6 tiers of carriers to me

 

And the Japanese had umteen versions of the Zero and you could finish with the A7M.

 

Bi-planes at best should finish as top planes on the ier 4 carriers IMO, tier 5 - 10 should be monoplane progression Buffalo to Bearcat for US, Zero variants to A7M for Japan. 

 

You missed the Hellcat :D

And yeah If you put 2 or 3 versions of the A6M in the game with each subsequent one having better speed and/or HP and giving the IJN  the N1K they could make a tree for them just as easily

 

 

Yeh whoops :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,280 battles

 

A6M2 was slightly faster - http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf  & http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html

 

Specially at lower altitude, captured Zero as well which probably wasn't in great nick. 

 

 

Looking at those numbers the Wildcat fly at 278mph sealevel and the Zero at 277mph. Zero goes 5% faster at high altitude, but for all intent and purposes that is a negligible advantage that minor things like loadout, engine/oil heat and maintenance or level of fuel remaining can have a bigger impact on...

 

And if the A6M4/M5 was faster thanks to more powerful engines it's not really relevant since they arrived too late ( after USN had replaced their Wildcats with later models for frontline service ).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

Looking at those numbers the Wildcat fly at 278mph sealevel and the Zero at 277mph. Zero goes 5% faster at high altitude, but for all intent and purposes that is a negligible advantage that minor things like loadout, engine/oil heat and maintenance or level of fuel remaining can have a bigger impact on...

 

And if the A6M4/M5 was faster thanks to more powerful engines it's not really relevant since they arrived too late ( after USN had replaced their Wildcats with later models for frontline service ).

 

 

 

Yeah, they can be in a same tier quite easily 

And You could put the A6M2, A6M3 and/or A6M5 as different aircraft in the tree, and voila you don't need biplanes

Also having the A7M, N1K you really can make a nice progression for the IJN

 

why am I saying the same thing in three different posts?:D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Beta Tester
1,182 posts
1,430 battles

 

Looking at those numbers the Wildcat fly at 278mph sealevel and the Zero at 277mph. Zero goes 5% faster at high altitude, but for all intent and purposes that is a negligible advantage that minor things like loadout, engine/oil heat and maintenance or level of fuel remaining can have a bigger impact on...

 

And if the A6M4/M5 was faster thanks to more powerful engines it's not really relevant since they arrived too late ( after USN had replaced their Wildcats with later models for frontline service ).

 

 

 

 

as I said the Zero was faster and superior in pretty much ever way to the Wildcat, it was completely outclassed as a fighter aircraft.

 

This is also to an aircraft (A6M2)  that appeared about a year earlier than the Wildcat in service, the real contemporary to the Wildcat is the A6M3 which was slightly faster than the M2 variant.

 

Tag line from wiki - 

 With a top speed of 318 mph (512 km/h), the Wildcat was still outperformed by the faster 331 mph (533 km/h), more maneuverable, and longer ranged Mitsubishi A6M Zero

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,280 battles

 

as I said the Zero was faster and superior in pretty much ever way to the Wildcat, it was completely outclassed as a fighter aircraft.

 

And as I said that is wrong. Their speed is identical at sea level and comparable at high altitude ( within 5% ).

 

The wildcat has far far superior armor, and can survive and fly home after absorbing machinegun fire that long ago would see a Zero in flames. The wildcat also more guns and ammo, and could dive alot faster.

 

Once the Americans started using their wildcats properly ( Zoom and Boom ) even Novice US pilots in wildcats had a chance against experienced Zero pilots.

 

The Zeros total dominance is mostly a myth to overstate the danger of the enemy.

 

 

Your also wrong about the main contemporary Zero model being the A6M3. The A6M2 was the main Carrier fighter in use from Pearl harbour to Midway ( all the glory days of the Japanese Carrier aviation ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
1,668 posts
32 battles

 

And as I said that is wrong. Their speed is identical at sea level and comparable at high altitude ( within 5% ).

 

The wildcat has far far superior armor, and can survive and fly home after absorbing machinegun fire that long ago would see a Zero in flames. The wildcat also more guns and ammo, and could dive alot faster.

 

Once the Americans started using their wildcats properly ( Zoom and Boom ) even Novice US pilots in wildcats had a chance against experienced Zero pilots.

 

The Zeros total dominance is mostly a myth to overstate the danger of the enemy.

 

Yeaaahh, problem is the Zeros not just fired machineguns at the Wildcats...

And having nearly the same top speed isn't mean that much, Zero's outperformed the Wildcat in nearly every aspect...They were just simply a better aircraft Edit: with better pilots as well(in 1941)

Edited by Bl4ckh0g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×