CV (and possibly subs) as an auxiliary class – the Battle Group

[Murqy]

This topic is not about the CV rework (since that exists already) but rather an idea for an alternative approach of the concept of what the CV-class could be like. Ideas about CV:s in its current form is something for the General CV related discussions thread.

 

 

What if the CV was made into an auxiliary class, or maybe you could call it a “Battle Group”. The idea is for the CV to have a support role, rather than to be a damage dealer and a omni-present spotter. Not that different from the operation Raptor Rescue where there are supply ships. Here they are controlled by the CV-player to send around the board to help teammates. It would combine some RTS features to control all the units with the current way the planes are controlled (where the player controls the squadrons and flying them into combat).

 

 

The help could be in the form of repair-ships (and of course with some kind of limit, so it benefits ship with low hp).  It could also be torpedo-boats (as seen in the Dunkerque-operation) which would be an interesting option to explore and will also make builds for secondaries really useful. The CV should of course make use of its planes, but they will have a limit in numbers (low enough so it actually feels it matter to the outcome of the game when other players shoots the planes down) and also loading time between the squadrons. One could stretch it as far as having the Battle Group also controlling landing crafts, to send troops on islands to get a working bunker (as seen in operations). My point is, there is a lot of possibilities. Minelayers and minesweepers? Why not?

 

 

If the DD, BB and CA in some ways can be interpreted as thief, fighter and mage if this was a RPG, the CV would play the role as the cleric/druid. A healer that is there to buff the team, scout with spotting planes and maybe even send air drops (as seen in arms race). All the support-ships and planes can be seen as controlling your “summons”.

 

 

Submarines as far as I make of them at the moment, is that they seem a bit hard to balance without giving them cold war features. They also seem a bit boring to play and the pinging for torps really gives the BBs way too much to deal with.  If the subs were added to the Battle Group they can be realistically slow (the Battlegroup player can send them submerged on autopilot somewhere on the map, doesn’t matter if it takes time).  When they reach the destination the player can take manual control. They can have normal torps with low range and maybe only fire them from the surface (so in other words for the subs to do damage they have to expose themselves, also providing a possible counterplay). Maybe the sub even is an easy kill, but still a strategic tool for the battle group player to use in a dire moment to have a decisive outcome of the game. It could even be something as trivial to just wait for a cap claimed by the enemy to be forgotten since they move towards the next, so the sub can claim it.

 

 

The best part about this idea for WG is that it utilizes features already seen in the game and it opens up for a way to include smaller vessels (too weak to otherwise be piloted by players). The CV wont be perceived as OP because on its own its not comparable in damage output to the other BBs, CAs and DDs. AA-builds on ships should in this case really make a difference. Its with the utility of the Battle Group where the magic happens, to have an impact on the match and help your own team in critical situations. The CV should somehow be considered the mothership, and losing it will force the smaller units to retreat from the board.

 

So about the idea with the Battle Group, Yay or Nay?

[Beastofwar]

Can you imagine the situation every player DEMANDS to receive support from you, and all at the same time all over the map....reports if you fail to deliver inmidiatly !

 

( Welcome to CV fighter squadron dropping and DD and CV spotting.....)

 

The idea of true support classes is not bad, but much of the player base cannot deal with it i'm affraid.

 

In a still populair game as a healer you run behind the tank and the group and somehow are supposed to keep them from dying while running ( the most powerful heals demand you stand still ) never mind if they draw countless enemies....and if you might fail to keep up heals they kick you from the group with little delay.....i expect nothing less from many of this game's player base actually....not that there are no players that could value it....but because there are so many that cannot cooperate to achieve something.

 

 

[Axl06]

The problem would be that naval mines are something that is mostly preventative/passive, in essence you could have destroyers with mines that lay a minefield to cover a retreat. But the game is too short for such passive weapons (especially if you want to use them aggressively). My suggestion is that some maps have mines in them and that you assign a ship class the roll of minesweeping for the fleet.

[gabberworld]

1 minute ago, Beastofwar said:

Can you imagine the situation every player DEMANDS to receive support from you

 

 

yes, at some battles when i played with CV , multi users want help at same time but it just not possible todo at same time. in end battle i get -2 karma points even that we win.

[Itwastuesday]

It's a fine idea. The problem with carriers now (and subs) is that they add nothing worthwhile to the game as it is.

[Beastofwar]

9 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

It's a fine idea. The problem with carriers now (and subs) is that they add nothing worthwhile to the game as it is.

 

But when the DD have YOLOed to their deaths the BB and large (super)Cruisers in the back are blind as bats......it is possible they cannot fire for minutes as cruisers are reluctant to be 1st spotted and blown away too....

 

When you are a CV then you get reported for NOT reacting to outcries to go spot for these blinded players.....nothing worthwhile eh ? I shall inform blinded BB of that...

 

Maybe rethink your remark ?

 

 

[Please_helpme]

3 hours ago, Murqy said:

The CV should of course make use of its planes, but they will have a limit in numbers (low enough so it actually feels it matter to the outcome of the game when other players shoots the planes down) and also loading time between the squadrons.

you asking for nerfing cvs. i don't think wg would like your idea.

[Itwastuesday]

12 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

 

But when the DD have YOLOed to their deaths the BB and large (super)Cruisers in the back are blind as bats......it is possible they cannot fire for minutes as cruisers are reluctant to be 1st spotted and blown away too....

 

When you are a CV then you get reported for NOT reacting to outcries to go spot for these blinded players.....nothing worthwhile eh ? I shall inform blinded BB of that...

 

Maybe rethink your remark ?

 

 

The DD that "yoloed" into being spotted by planes?

 

There's still a bunch of no cv games fortunately. Somehow having no spotting doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Beastofwar]

15 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

The DD that "yoloed" into being spotted by planes?

 

 

YOLO into :

 

-Radar ( both Cruiser and DD carried )

-(long) range Hydro

-DD killer type DD

-Stealth DD  spotting for DD killer cruisers

-indeed running right into CV strike groups

 

WG designed all these things to blow a DD out of a cap. Who ever came up with the idea rushing a cap is a valid DD strategy ????? And why DD players do not think for themselves facing those mechanisms, that rushing a cap might not be the brightest idea too....especially if they keep getting killed within 3 minutes !

 

Instead of complaning you had better start to think how to play around these mechanisms. That is what real skilled players do. And yes plenty of them top scoring in CV matches. They do exist. On occasion even i don't do too bad at all in DD against these mechanisms ....and i'm still learning as it is pretty much to deal with.

 

 

 

[Eikkuu]

Il y a 4 heures, Murqy a dit :

 

 

 

What if the CV was made into an auxiliary class, or maybe you could call it a “Battle Group”. The idea is for the CV to have a support role, rather than to be a damage dealer and a omni-present spotter. Not that different from the operation Raptor Rescue where there are supply ships. Here they are controlled by the CV-player to send around the board to help teammates. It would combine some RTS features to control all the units with the current way the planes are controlled (where the player controls the squadrons and flying them into combat).

 

 

 

To be honest when you play warship it's for support you mate or winning by dealing a lot for damages ? People will not play this support class if they don't deal damages. I'm a CVs player and l support my team as best l can with my fighters for protect my DD and low AA ships, spotting and help my mates in bad positon/moment that the support role of a CV player not only thiking damages. 

 

Il y a 1 heure, 123789123789 a dit :

you asking for nerfing cvs. i don't think wg would like your idea.

Yeap l think CVs already took goodnerfs those last patchs, no need to hard nerd and make this class useless.

 

Il y a 4 heures, Beastofwar a dit :

Can you imagine the situation every player DEMANDS to receive support from you, and all at the same time all over the map....reports if you fail to deliver inmidiatly !

 

 

Sadly yes every player will report you because you didn't help them with any ships...

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

especially if they keep getting killed within 3 minutes !

 

CVs still stand out given that they can literally attack you within the first minute of the match and potentially kill you within another 10-20 seconds without much difficulty whereas against every other mechanic you listed you can play and win against without shafting yourself.

[Itwastuesday]

1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

 

YOLO into :

 

-Radar ( both Cruiser and DD carried )

-(long) range Hydro

-DD killer type DD

-Stealth DD  spotting for DD killer cruisers

-indeed running right into CV strike groups

 

WG designed all these things to blow a DD out of a cap. Who ever came up with the idea rushing a cap is a valid DD strategy ????? And why DD players do not think for themselves facing those mechanisms, that rushing a cap might not be the brightest idea too....especially if they keep getting killed within 3 minutes !

 

Instead of complaning you had better start to think how to play around these mechanisms. That is what real skilled players do. And yes plenty of them top scoring in CV matches. They do exist. On occasion even i don't do too bad at all in DD against these mechanisms ....and i'm still learning as it is pretty much to deal with.

 

 

 

Okay. Sure. Now, then, let's imagine DD learn to play. What does CV add to the game?

[Beastofwar]

2 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Okay. Sure. Now, then, let's imagine DD learn to play. What does CV add to the game?

 

 Spotting enemy DD for you and fire support against ( a potential superior DD killer type DD ) you would lose against in many type DD, a fighter consumable over your head that may delay an enemy CV damaging you and spotting for allied cruisers that help sink the enemy DD, plus spotting for them to attack enemy Cruisers preying on you....after which caps may lay open or the route to stalk/torpedo larger enemy ships...

 

So teamwork with a CV can achieve what you alone might not.

 

Now in randoms you can't count on that, just as sure as an enemy CV may not go for you but another DD. If you want such support for certain you will have to go with divisioning.

 

 

 

 

[Itwastuesday]

Aren't those jobs for other surface ships? How does having carrier class in the game improve anything?

 

The enemy DD can be radared out, spotted by DD, run into another ship from behind an island and so on. Other DD, BB and especially cruisers all will fire on the DD if they can.

 

The carrier brings more of the same but in the most aggravating fashion.

[Beastofwar]

1 hour ago, Itwastuesday said:

Aren't those jobs for other surface ships? How does having carrier class in the game improve anything?

 

The enemy DD can be radared out, spotted by DD, run into another ship from behind an island and so on. Other DD, BB and especially cruisers all will fire on the DD if they can.

 

The carrier brings more of the same but in the most aggravating fashion.

 

Well then the aswer you are looking for is WG did not want to leave out the extremely influential ships that started being developed between the wars and which led to BB becoming obsolete during WWII

 

Exactly the timespan in naval history WG targets.

 

What CV haters want is in a way history falsification....a fable world where CV ( or recon aircraft of any sort ) were no part of important naval battles......and then game versions of CV are not merely as powerful as the actual ones were....

 

Did you know many fleets were actually attacked by heavier land based bombers ? All major WWII powers have done that. Japan, the US, the UK, Germans, Italians....Pray WG will never incorperate that into the game ( although Operation Dynamo had HE 111's doing exactly that )

 

 

[Axl06]

Mr HE spammer will be very happy that so many lightly armoured targets are coming, let’s be real a ship that is I in need of assistance needs a battleship not some Oiler or repair ship (they will be sunk immediately).

[Itwastuesday]

10 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

 

Well then the aswer you are looking for is WG did not want to leave out the extremely influential ships that started being developed between the wars and which led to BB becoming obsolete during WWII

 

Exactly the timespan in naval history WG targets.

 

What CV haters want is in a way history falsification....a fable world where CV ( or recon aircraft of any sort ) were no part of important naval battles......and then game versions of CV are not merely as powerful as the actual ones were....

 

Did you know many fleets were actually attacked by heavier land based bombers ? All major WWII powers have done that. Japan, the US, the UK, Germans, Italians....Pray WG will never incorperate that into the game ( although Operation Dynamo had HE 111's doing exactly that )

 

 

 

Yes, but what has been left out is mines, torpedo boats, coastal defence artillery, land-based naval bombers (like you said), port strikes... The most significant naval warfare happened by and against submarines so in that way they should be immediately added and made highly important.

[Murqy]

15 hours ago, Az_Akagi said:

To be honest when you play warship it's for support you mate or winning by dealing a lot for damages ? People will not play this support class if they don't deal damages. I'm a CVs player and l support my team as best l can with my fighters for protect my DD and low AA ships, spotting and help my mates in bad positon/moment that the support role of a CV player not only thiking damages. 

 

Yeap l think CVs already took goodnerfs those last patchs, no need to hard nerd and make this class useless.

 

Sadly yes every player will report you because you didn't help them with any ships...

When I said that the CV won't be comparable in damage output with the rest of the classes, I'm not saying that the Battle Group shouldn't be. The damage should just be distributed between the subs, mines, torpedo boats and planes (depending of the approach WG picks) so it equals the other ship types. In that way, the planes won't be perceived as OP because they are part of something bigger.

 

Also the repair ships, they are slow and its pretty obvious where they go. You can't expect them to warp on the other side of the map. They players have to go to them instead, for better or worse.

[El2aZeR]

13 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

Spotting enemy DD for you and fire support against ( a potential superior DD killer type DD ) you would lose against in many type DD, a fighter consumable over your head that may delay an enemy CV damaging you and spotting for allied cruisers that help sink the enemy DD, plus spotting for them to attack enemy Cruisers preying on you....after which caps may lay open or the route to stalk/torpedo larger enemy ships

 

So in essence:
- something that can also happen to you, whereas the engagement would be much more fair without the CV in play
- something that is only necessitated by the presence of the enemy CV and is worthless anyway given how easy it is to despawn fighters
- something that can be done without the CV and would in fact be more fair that way
- something that again does not necessitate the presence of a CV and would be more fair that way
- fire support of your own team does the exact same thing in a more fair manner

 

I'm sorry, weren't you supposed to provide positive aspects of CV impact on gameplay?

 

11 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

What CV haters want is in a way history falsification....a fable world where CV ( or recon aircraft of any sort ) were no part of important naval battles

 

There are exactly 2 battles in which CVs participated in a surface engagement. In one the CV got sunk before ever even launching aircraft.

[Beastofwar]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

So in essence:
- something that can also happen to you, whereas the engagement would be much more fair without the CV in play
- something that is only necessitated by the presence of the enemy CV and is worthless anyway given how easy it is to despawn fighters
- something that can be done without the CV and would in fact be more fair that way
- something that again does not necessitate the presence of a CV and would be more fair that way
- fire support of your own team does the exact same thing in a more fair manner

 

I'm sorry, weren't you supposed to provide positive aspects of CV impact on gameplay?

 

 

There are exactly 2 battles in which CVs participated in a surface engagement. In one the CV got sunk before ever even launching aircraft.

The Japanese attacked allied fleets with land based bombers countless times. The US did the same. Germany did that. Italy did that. The UK did that. 

 

And for recon flying boats, converted long range bombers, water planes, catapult planes and before that period even zeppelins and balloons were used.  

 

So all air spotting and bombing of fleets is historically well justifed. 

 

Only bad weather could enable fleets to move unnoticed from the air....

 

For DD the situation could be much worse....all warplanes with forward firing mg or cannons could strafe and often sink them. When playing WT one is very aware what range of planes were actually navalized and used against ships. Not all of them against warships  but DD were certainly on their menu....

 

 

 

[El2aZeR]

2 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

The Japanese attacked allied fleets with land based bombers countless times. The US did the same. Germany did that. Italy did that. The UK did that. 

 

And for recon flying boats, converted long range bombers, water planes, catapult planes and before that period even zeppelins and balloons were used.  

 

So all air spotting and bombing of fleets is historically well justifed. 

 

Only bad weather could enable fleets to move unnoticed from the air....

 

For DD the situation could be much worse....all warplanes with forward firing mg or cannons could strafe and often sink them. When playing WT one is very aware what range of planes were actually navalized and used against ships. Not all of them against warships  but DD were certainly on their menu....

 

Nothing of which points towards the presence of an aircraft carrier in a surface engagement being the historical norm. You are moving the goalpost. Your initial statement was

16 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

What CV haters want is in a way history falsification....a fable world where CV ( or recon aircraft of any sort ) were no part of important naval battles

 

So do please tell me. How is it "history falsification" if in reality there are only two battles on record in which CVs were present in a surface engagement?

And while we're at it, to my knowledge there are no engagements on record in which land-based bombers provided support during a surface engagement either. And there has certainly not been a case where a DD was sunk by mere strafing. So much for "history falsification" huh?

[Itwastuesday]

The point was, though, that OP suggested changing the CV role significantly and it raises the question of what exactly do CV add to the gameplay as they are. I don't know what history has to do with any of that and on historical basis you might as well add a fuel mechanic so you could only drive your Yamato once a year.

[COPlUM]

If it was up to me I would remove CVs from random battles but give CV players full random battle rewards in co-op, everyone would be happy, we don't have to deal with plane spam, they still get to farm silver and they'll never even notice they're dropping rockets on bots instead of human players, both require an equal amount of effort and interaction with your teammates (none whatsoever)

[WWDragon]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

So do please tell me. How is it "history falsification" if in reality there are only two battles on record in which CVs were present in a surface engagement?

Since you want to play this stupid game ...

 

Battle of Midway.

09:06 12 torpedo bombers, 17 dive bombers, 6 Wildcats take off (Yorktown)

10:00 12 torpedo bombers (Yorktown) attack

 

Yes, maps in the game are much smaller and plane speeds are all screwed up but then again, Yamato secondary battery had a maximum range of 27,4 km so in the game to make it "fair" CVs have to fight on much closer distances that they should just like all ships guns are neutered from their real world stats so you dont have battleships with 20+ km secondary ranges, I suspect this is more because the engine was created for land battles with tanks and not naval battles so everything is scaled down in range, not just CVs that are forced into ranges they would historically not need to be within.

 

Also there wasnt many surface engagements or rather major engagements in WW2 were carriers werent present, this is the history falsification as trying to pretend carriers didnt really participate in WW2, that only the REAL engagements were ones were CVs were present and the age of the battleship never ended, it did and the lack of engagements can also be attributed by the IJN rather timid response (we need all those ships for that decisive battle), Germany strategic decision on focusing on U-Boats and not surface ships (the whole gracious dying) and Italy lack of fuel. Not that the previous war was much better in that regard.

 

[WWDragon]

1 hour ago, Itwastuesday said:

The point was, though, that OP suggested changing the CV role significantly and it raises the question of what exactly do CV add to the gameplay as they are. I don't know what history has to do with any of that and on historical basis you might as well add a fuel mechanic so you could only drive your Yamato once a year.

 

CVs were neutered from their strike capabilities to the point they work mostly as spotters allowing the rest of the time to have a better picture of the enemy team location, they can limited strike isolated/low health targets.

 

Turning then into "support" doesnt really changes that much outside making even more people stop playing then leading not to a dead class but rather a even bigger skill gap because that would be turning then into healers, a class that in order to be popular as its part of the Holy Trinity is often easy to play (AoE heals because targeting on ARPG is hard, this is not a slight) or having enough utility on damage they can actually do (solo) stuff, if you just turn CVs into ships that can support other classes and do nothing on their own, not only that is incredible historical inaccurate (entering fantasy land) but also incredible player unfriendly as well nerfing the class into further irrelevance.