RTS revival idea - Stratosphere Gameplay

[AirSupremacy]

Disclaimer: Tried to find the right category for this and looked where the recent magnetic torpedo idea was posted.

Please move to somewhere else if this is the wrong category, thank you.

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

Some of you surely remember the "RTS" minigame, where planes had been moved in a top down

satellite view via rubberband selection.

As some people liked or preferred the RTS satellite view gameplay,

I had this idea of an additional layer above the carrier ships - The Stratosphere ( the view and layer of the former CV ships )

We used to have these layers in the game before game version 0.8.0:

> Surface

> Satellite ( RTS carrier view )

We currently have:

> Underwater ( in nearby future )

> Surface

> Surface + Air ( CV )

Additional layer suggestion:

> Satellite ( "Stratosphere" ) - The top down view layer which RTS CV was

Idea:

The former RTS Satellite layer, "Stratosphere" how I call the idea,

is a pure support gameplay layer.

It is played similar to the former CV Satellite view, with a focus on support and spotting.

The current CV spotting on surface level can be reduced, therefore 2 players in a match ( 1 green & 1 red )

can launch spy planes in the Stratosphere layer.

These spy planes can not direclty attack anything below their layer, the focus is on supporting the green team in a dedicated support role.

Spy Planes perform:

> Strong spotting in the quadrants they are flying

> Current quandrant location of the spy plane provides green team bonuses

> Throw colored smoke bombs on to the surface ( colored, not white ) to disguise surface ships

> Can throw a sonar decoy in to water which distracts any nearby topedos and distracts surface and underwater torpedo paths, changing current running torpedo paths by a few degrees

 

Scoring:

> Any sucessful performed support action for the green team could score benefit the support role player. If surface and underwater supported players cause damage, receive less damage or otherwise benefit from support role actions, then the Stratosphere player gets score.

WG could implement lots of support functions for this gameplay layer - Players tend to love receiving support in the game.

Some found the satellite RTS layer too futuristic, maybe some will find this idea too futuristic...

Maybe you have more ideas and feedback ?

Kind regards

[Beastofwar]

I like the idea....

 

But as always "support" will probabaly change in "demand to someones bidding" or else "reported"

 

I would rather have WG build an alternative RTS layer so a CV player gets to choose to fly aircraft himself, or move them by setting courses on a tactical map as before. But that will probably not please RTS fans enough as the disruptive "strafing all aircraft in front of a fighter squadron" is no longer there. Thinking of it, WG would probably make many more players - even non CV - happy with returning Air Supriority fighters relieving pressure on their AA they think "does not work."

 

But hopefully with more enjoyable combat mechanics then the strafing pass ( that could sweep all CVs squadrons flying together to a target and deplane the CV in an instant ) and counter pass ( or swoop around them attacking in their back ) to kill the strafing enemy. And CV with many more fighter squadrons then another, or with rediculous armored ones you could not even counter strafe ....very unbalanced times they were.

 

 

 

 

[Cambera_1]

InB4 Lock

As much as some people would be delighted to have RTS CVs back, WG have made it clear that it will never happen. 

Other people want the interaction with the planes that the current system gives. The two are mutually exclusive.

Others again, perhaps more than both of these groups, will only be happy when CVs are removed from the game altogether.

 

CVs need to have a complete rework afresh. Nothing else is going to work.

Sorry. 

[Pappus]

You had me until I couldn't find the ion cannon

[AirSupremacy]

1 hour ago, Pappus said:

You had me until I couldn't find the ion cannon

Warhammer 40K collaboration idea:

40K harbor dock with Ion Cannon`s

 

40K port harbor could have been a goodie for the

WoWs 40K ship sales...

 

 

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

But that will probably not please RTS fans enough as the disruptive "strafing all aircraft in front of a fighter squadron" is no longer there.

 

Strafing was a feature demanded to be implemented by primarily surface ship players due to both fighters and AA at the time being insufficient to deal with massed strikes of up to 8 strike squadrons.

Ironically we've come full circle.

[Beastofwar]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Strafing was a feature demanded to be implemented by primarily surface ship players due to both fighters and AA at the time being insufficient to deal with massed strikes of up to 8 strike squadrons.

Ironically we've come full circle.

 

There was a "panicked" mechanic too....and still not enough for those surface ship players ?

 

So these players just cannot accept there are aircraft damaging them. I imagine since it has been years those players left and went to play another game ? No ?

[Excavatus]

8 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

So these players just cannot accept there are aircraft damaging them

During RTS, A good CV player only needed about 30 seconds to delete a full HP tier 10 BB... 

Yes they didn't accept that and asked for a counter... hence.. strafing..

 

[Yedwy]

Guys I have a radical new counter suggestion, how about we add some more you know naval stuff and stratospheric and other flyer stuff gets to be implemented in WOWP where it belongs?

 

Its radical I know but imagine we actually stick to naval stuff in the naval game...

[El2aZeR]

8 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

So these players just cannot accept there are aircraft damaging them.

 

It was during a time when when massed strikes could not delete only one but multiple ships, thus complaints were thoroughly justified.

How about you educate yourself on what you're talking about before making wild assumptions from time to time?

[Beastofwar]

21 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

During RTS, A good CV player only needed about 30 seconds to delete a full HP tier 10 BB... 

Yes they didn't accept that and asked for a counter... hence.. strafing..

 

 

I was playing CV then...i know....and playing BB myself i hated inescapable crosslaunched torpedo salvo's so i felt/recognized that pain too.

 

There are no CV that can kill (almost) full HP ships anymore ( save a RNG magazine detonation ) while surface ships certainly can. Those playing Cruisers that are caught broadside, or see 3 Benham torpedo waves incoming know all about that....So other then the greater enjoyment of seeying my planes in action i do enjoy the rework because it is far more balanced then it was. And indeed, i hated the strafing mechanics ( while understanding it mechanics and being able to counter it in multiple ways ) and fact there were unfair balanced CV with more or stronger fighter squadrons. A choice of hurting the enemy fleet less ( less bombers ) but shut down it's CV which could acomplish the same ofcourse. Didn't have premiums back then, that were MUCH more powerful compared to tech tree CV. I "dreamed" of owning a GZ then...

 

 

[TeaAndTorps]

15 hours ago, AirSupremacy said:

> Can throw a sonar decoy in to water which distracts any nearby topedos and distracts surface and underwater torpedo paths, changing current running torpedo paths by a few degrees

I have to say this strikes me as a dreadful idea. Maybe it makes sense as a counter to subs' acoustic torpedoes if they make it into the game, but current 'dumb' torpedoes don't need more counters than they have – especially not one to which there is no counter-play.

 

The idea of stratospheric planes is ahistorical too. U-2s came along later and as far as I'm aware have never been ship-borne planes. Fw-200s, Sunderlands and Catalinas were very different beasts and not capable of those altitudes. From a gameplay perspective, I just don't see the need for this. Yes, players love receiving support, but there are so many ways to support your teammates already implemented that fit more comfortably with the game environment. Pure support classes are likely to be shouted at by teammates (as CVs and DDs already experience with spotting and smoke...) and so probably wouldn't be much fun to play.

 

And yes, it is a naval game. Planes have their place, but only if launched from ships.*

 

* Exceptions apply to operations.

 

TL;DR it's a 'no' from me, and I don't understand the idea that 'dumb' torps need more counters than they already have.

[Excavatus]

24 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I was playing CV then...i know

mate, you didn't have any premiums in RTS (or at least any meaningful battle numbers in them) 

and your highest CV was a tier 7 ranger with 34 battles played in it.. 

 

Just please... don't say.. you know.. by experience.. 

 

Just please mate.. hiding your stats, does not hide your played ships.. 

 

[Beastofwar]

21 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

mate, you didn't have any premiums in RTS (or at least any meaningful battle numbers in them) 

 

GZ and Saipan were rediculoulsy overpowered back then. They were there and they made me suffer enough that i can remember it.

Quote

and your highest CV was a tier 7 ranger with 34 battles played in it.. 

 

Just please... don't say.. you know.. by experience.. 

 

Just please mate.. hiding your stats, does not hide your played ships.. 

 

 

And playing tier 7 CV does not count....in what perspective ? It was high enough to experience strafing mechanics ( and unbalanced odds ) and crosslaunching torpedo's.

 

Or is this about elitsm ? Sorry...never been into that.

[AirSupremacy]

42 minutes ago, TeaAndTorps said:

And yes, it is a naval game. Planes have their place, but only if launched from ships.*

* Exceptions apply to operations.

 

Maybe WG could go someday go down the route to provide a pure support ship ( without direct player damage systems on board ),

which can support the green team with various team support functions and which can distract the red team.

Having a pure support ship would IMHO support a full Theater of War Feeling, with a wider spectrum of ship classes.

 

https://www.cia.gov/news -information/featured-story-archive/2018-featured-story-archive/project-whale-tale-u-2-flights-off-aircraft-carriers.html

 

 

 

[El2aZeR]

7 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

GZ and Saipan were rediculoulsy overpowered back then. They were there and they made me suffer enough that i can remember it.

 

A well played Hiryu could contest a Saipan while providing more damage potential.

GZ failed against all T8 CVs but Lexington as her fighter capabilities were worthless.

 

So much for your experience.

[TeaAndTorps]

42 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

 

Maybe WG could go someday go down the route to provide a pure support ship ( without direct player damage systems on board ),

which can support the green team with various team support functions and which can distract the red team.

Having a pure support ship would IMHO support a full Theater of War Feeling, with a wider spectrum of ship classes.

 

https://www.cia.gov/news -information/featured-story-archive/2018-featured-story-archive/project-whale-tale-u-2-flights-off-aircraft-carriers.html

 

  

 

 

Fair do's on the U-2 off an aircraft carrier. Still, it seems to far outside the era of this game for my feeling.

 

A pure support ship would be an interesting concept and more in keeping with the current feel of the game 

[Beastofwar]

37 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

A well played Hiryu could contest a Saipan while providing more damage potential.

GZ failed against all T8 CVs but Lexington as her fighter capabilities were worthless.

 

So much for your experience.

 

Your opinion is worthless to me unless you say something that i did not know and actually works in game.

 

Sometimes you actually do. But more often it's just self glorification or anti-CV makebelief, which is rediculous enough from a CV player that capatilises on griefing surface players instead of playing the class according to how it was designed to function. ( and does to the vast bandwith of average players )

 

 

[El2aZeR]

5 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Your opinion is worthless to me unless you say something that i did not know and actually works in game.

 

So you knew then that Saipan could be fought off and GZ was actually terrible against CV players that could actually fighter micro?

 

What you think about me does not concern me and it certainly doesn't prevent me from correcting ignorant statements such as your previous ones with the truth.

[Excavatus]

13 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

instead of playing the class according to how it was designed to function.

and I really wonder 

how do you think the CVs designed to function? 

 

and how can it be better than almost %80 WR over 8000+ battles... 

[AirSupremacy]

Random pick

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/3760076080,Friesland/?order=win_rate__desc#leaderboard

Random pick

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/3762206160,Mikhail-Kutuzov/?order=win_rate__desc#leaderboard

 

IMHO its up to the 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% players how long and often they play their ships.

One can argument with the % WR ship of class or with the %WR of a specific player.

 

This is no judgement of mine towards pro or contra of personal players %WR,

I tend to look at the average %WR of entire ship classes - But thats my personal opinion.

 

CV

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/tree/type,air_carrier/

BB

https://wows-numbers.com/ships/tree/type,battleship/

 

...as examples.

This does not mean Im for or against anybody on a personal level.

 

Good % WR players are good % WR players.

 

Perhaps we could have a pinned %WR player thread where personal winrates or CV RTS fandom

can be discussed over the next few years ?

Perhaps there could be some new permanent (pinned) forum topics, some updated forum structure ?

 

@Excavatus

 

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, AirSupremacy said:

Good % WR players are good % WR players.

 

And there are ships in which even the best of players perform better in. And if they perform too well compared to others these ships are overpowered.

CVs are such ships in the current iteration. Being the best CV player of all time will grant you far better performance than being the best cruiser/DD/BB player of all time.

 

Your narrative is thus heavily flawed.

[AirSupremacy]

Your opinion if you decide to compare personal winrates or ship class winrates.

 

One could bombard every thread with an (Anti) CV Crusade - I wouldnt find it constructive.

Its the same record over and over again and surely will be played for years in this forum.

 

[El2aZeR]

3 minutes ago, AirSupremacy said:

Your opinion if you decide to compare personal winrates or ship class winrates.

 

Ship class WRs are worthless because ship classes are mirrored by MM, thus always normalizing towards 50%. This is especially true with CVs which are guaranteed to be mirrored unlike surface ships where sometimes MM makes an exception when queue is overextended.

This is not an opinion, this is fact. Your opinion that it can be dismissed is an opinion and, in the face of facts, a wrong one.

[AirSupremacy]

Hence my suggestion to have a dedicated % WR thread where people can discuss

personal or ship winrates. I find it would declutter the forum.

 

I find that looking at a ship and ship class % WR on a website provides a good overview and makes it possible to compare. If one acceptes a players, ship or ship class winrate % comparison list on a website, it could be assumed to be "Facts".