How to counter or stop an early torpedo bomber run on our aircraft carrier?

[Karrade]

Hey all I am commenting at tier V as that is where I currently play, and would like advice on.

A common tactic I see, is for the enemy aircraft carriers to circle their planes around the edge of the map, going the long route, and then come in behind the team to hit our aircraft carrier right at the start of the battle.

I saw this again a game or two ago, so as a cruiser I sat in the way this time, our carrier sent his interceptors out well in advance as he saw it coming. However the enemy torp bombers flew over my pitiful AA fire, got past his interceptors, dropped their payload and promptly flew back over me and carried on their way.

My conclusion is, Tier V aa fire for the us cruisers is crap. I did hit a few planes, the interceptors did quite a lot of damage i am sure, and it was enough to stop him dying completely, but if someone is flying directly over me, then turning around and flying directly back the tier V aa guns need to be doing more damage. I have no experience of higher tiers as I am not there yet, this is merely a tier V balance feedback.

All in all the aa fire for US cruisers seems underwhelming, I have not tried the jap cruisers yet, and only hope other countries are made available to fill that role in the mid tiers.

[Sharana]

USN cruisers get good AA from tier 6 up and they get the AA barrage which is boosting the AA. Still you can't expect to shoot down many planes, BBs have better AA. Cruisers provide the panic (their ability) that's lifesaver and timebuyer very often.

 

[seyyah]

Until tier 6 you wont get a heavy cruiser (CA) and good AA in USN line, Omaha is a light cruiser(CL) and its not built with AA purposes in mind.

Meanwhile you get an CA in IJN at tier 5 its something between CA and CL and lacks AA quite much, like the ones before it...

So if you want a ship with useful AA, Cruisers gets it from tier 6 and on. Though at tier 4 USN and at tier 5 IJN BBs gets decent AA ability...

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

Most of teams leave 1 CA with aa support , but ofc not all teams help

 

[Loran_Battle]

One of the problems is that CVs forget they actually have A SHIP.... and they just lie dead in the water. If a CV starts moving from the start and stays close behind the BBs there might be some CAs close as well. Also: a moving ship is harder to hit AND you can evade easier (which even a lot of CV players refuse to do as far as I can see).

Other problem is the CV that goes to the map edge, where none of the CAs is willing to go to help out. But this is not that big of a problem since dropping torps on the edges can be difficult (although with the recent changes: autodrop rules...)

Though at tier 4-5 the CVs are slow IIRC.

[Sharana]

One of the problems is that CVs forget they actually have A SHIP.... and they just lie dead in the water. If a CV starts moving from the start and stays close behind the BBs there might be some CAs close as well. Also: a moving ship is harder to hit AND you can evade easier (which even a lot of CV players refuse to do as far as I can see).

Other problem is the CV that goes to the map edge, where none of the CAs is willing to go to help out. But this is not that big of a problem since dropping torps on the edges can be difficult (although with the recent changes: autodrop rules...)

Though at tier 4-5 the CVs are slow IIRC.

 

I haven't played low tier CVs lately, only t8-10. After the big nerf on turning radius it's huge - 1250m for the tier X (900m on Yamato to compare) - it's impossible to survive against strike CV tier 7 up, because they have 3/3 bombers and CA escort is only delay. I kill CV pretty much almost every game and it's escorted in most of the cases. You can either be covered in smoke (so that you can't be spotted and blind shots in the smoke are lottery) or go for the border where you have good chance in surviving. It was easy to dodge the bombers even alone in open water, but the turning radius was ~600m and they were agile, now only the big top speed is left which is making the sniping so popular, because it's easy to kill CV in open waters, it's turning so much slower then the BBs and we know how fast they turn.

[Loran_Battle]

Hmmm, haven't played CVs that much lately. Because they nerfed it to crap and every time I see the carrier in my port I just feel sad.

That's a really bad nerf to the turning radius though :S Guess I've yet to come across a good CV captain in my Essex. I played only 3 games last week in it I think. Only once did I have an enemy CV against me, and he attacked me with autodrop from behind....

[mtm78]

 

I haven't played low tier CVs lately, only t8-10. After the big nerf on turning radius it'shuge - 1250m for the tier X (900m on Yamato to compare) - it's impossible to survive against strike CV tier 7 up, because they have 3/3 bombers and CA escort is only delay. I kill CV pretty much almost every game and it's escorted in most of the cases. You can either be covered in smoke (so that you can't be spotted and blind shots in the smoke are lottery) or go for the border where you have good chance in surviving. It was easy to dodge the bombers even alone in open water, but the turning radius was ~600m and they were agile, now only the big top speed is left which is making the sniping so popular, because it's easy to kill CV in open waters, it's turning so much slower then the BBs and we know how fast they turn.

 

While I fully support carriers going off fighting other carriers, it's a damn shame it last so short before one or the other is sunk as then the remaining carrier is free to click on honest sheeps the remainder of the match. 

 

If they would give carrier their turning radius back without making it to hard to hit one, maybe carriers would need some refills before sinking the other carrier giving the honest sheeps more time to play the game in an enjoyable manner before the death from above clickers come to spoil it. 

 

Warning, text above contains elevated levels of banter and sarcasm 

[Deckeru_Maiku]

If a CV starts moving from the start and stays close behind the BBs there might be some CAs close as well. Also: a moving ship is harder to hit AND you can evade easier (which even a lot of CV players refuse to do as far as I can see).

 

Even IF you follow the BBs sometimes the feces is going to hit the fan.

Battle on HotSpot today with my Lexington. I was travelling with a BB, two CAs and a DD from SE sector N. An enemy BB was moving south through those islands between the two sectors. Right when I was setting up my two bomber squads - 1 TB and DB each - the bombers from the enemy CV started their attack. With my two fighter squads and lots of AA around me, I got away with just a bomb hit, but I had to maneuver to evade some torpedoes. Nothing bad had happened yet - until I saw the BB and the CAs that had accompanied me turning east, evading the combat with the BB. I hastily set a new course - which made me hit an island *cough* -  and send my bombers after the enemy BB, damaging it..

In the end it was my luck that I had grounded, because it brought the island between the BB an me... and the DD was still by my side and stuck some torpedoes into that BB eliminating the thread..

So even if you CAN travel with allies, don't expect them to be of much help

 

While I fully support carriers going off fighting other carriers, it's a damn shame it last so short before one or the other is sunk as then the remaining carrier is free to click on honest sheeps the remainder of the match. 

 

Yeah, it's a damn shame the team can just do nothing to keep that from happening, isn't it?

[anonym_hqO9wrVAEQYQ]

They need to give carrier planes a timer to simulate range to counter this tactic. Just as scout planes have a timer . They should be able to fly to the opposite side of the map by a fairly straight route and then do a drop and then get back. None of this stupid scouting round the map with unlimited time to find a target.

[Sander93]

They need to give carrier planes a timer to simulate range to counter this tactic. Just as scout planes have a timer . They should be able to fly to the opposite side of the map by a fairly straight route and then do a drop and then get back. None of this stupid scouting round the map with unlimited time to find a target.

 

It might actually be a nice solution to give planes a fuel tank so that they can only fly a certain amount of kilometers around the map, just like all guns have a max range. It would limit CVs to engage whatever is in their range instead of endlessly flying squadrons all over the map in search for the easiest target. Instead of a lone battleship on the other side of the map they would be forced to engage the battleship that is close but is escorted by some cruisers, and CVs wouldn't be so overpowered anymore (considering most recent weird nerfs could be undone because of this). 

[Xevious_Red]

 

It might actually be a nice solution to give planes a fuel tank so that they can only fly a certain amount of kilometers around the map, just like all guns have a max range. It would limit CVs to engage whatever is in their range instead of endlessly flying squadrons all over the map in search for the easiest target. Instead of a lone battleship on the other side of the map they would be forced to engage the battleship that is close but is escorted by some cruisers, and CVs wouldn't be so overpowered anymore (considering most recent weird nerfs could be undone because of this). 

 

one thing I did consider is that you could decide in port how fueled your planes were, and this would give them a range (for easy understanding, just have it as a circle max range - they can fly around in this range all they like, but couldn't go further).

 

Your fuel determines your range, but also your speed and reload time.

More fuel means you can reach the other edge of the map, but planes are slower and take longer to rearm.

 

As a pay off (since otherwise this is simply a nerf), less fueled planes would be faster than normal, and rearm faster, so if you were feeling more brave you could have some very fast danger close planes.

[Septi]

 

It might actually be a nice solution to give planes a fuel tank so that they can only fly a certain amount of kilometers around the map, just like all guns have a max range. It would limit CVs to engage whatever is in their range instead of endlessly flying squadrons all over the map in search for the easiest target. Instead of a lone battleship on the other side of the map they would be forced to engage the battleship that is close but is escorted by some cruisers, and CVs wouldn't be so overpowered anymore (considering most recent weird nerfs could be undone because of this). 

 

 

one thing I did consider is that you could decide in port how fueled your planes were, and this would give them a range (for easy understanding, just have it as a circle max range - they can fly around in this range all they like, but couldn't go further).

 

Your fuel determines your range, but also your speed and reload time.

More fuel means you can reach the other edge of the map, but planes are slower and take longer to rearm.

 

As a pay off (since otherwise this is simply a nerf), less fueled planes would be faster than normal, and rearm faster, so if you were feeling more brave you could have some very fast danger close planes.

 

Those ideas are actually not that bad! More votes on these. Use the green arrow to give some credit for those ideas

[anonym_1YeUldJS8pjx]

 

one thing I did consider is that you could decide in port how fueled your planes were, and this would give them a range (for easy understanding, just have it as a circle max range - they can fly around in this range all they like, but couldn't go further).

 

Your fuel determines your range, but also your speed and reload time.

More fuel means you can reach the other edge of the map, but planes are slower and take longer to rearm.

 

As a pay off (since otherwise this is simply a nerf), less fueled planes would be faster than normal, and rearm faster, so if you were feeling more brave you could have some very fast danger close planes.

 

Well, sounds to complex for me. Choosing fuel in harbour is same useless thing as choosing plane setup: useless until you know what map and enemys you run into. And flying around in one circle forever is unrealistic too.

 

But the fuel idea is a good one - maybe represented by time counters (as an easy approach) like scouts have. It forces CV players to go for a target with the planes. Not beeing able to launch fighters flying around looking for weeker planes forever or sending bombers around the whole map. It would also benefit those CVs that stay closer to their team instead in the farest away corner cause their planes can stay above the operational area longer.

[anonym_hqO9wrVAEQYQ]

 

Well, sounds to complex for me. Choosing fuel in harbour is same useless thing as choosing plane setup: useless until you know what map and enemys you run into. And flying around in one circle forever is unrealistic too.

 

But the fuel idea is a good one - maybe represented by time counters (as an easy approach) like scouts have. It forces CV players to go for a target with the planes. Not beeing able to launch fighters flying around looking for weeker planes forever or sending bombers around the whole map. It would also benefit those CVs that stay closer to their team instead in the farest away corner cause their planes can stay above the operational area longer.

 

​Yes it just needs a timer like the scouts. Anything else is just an added complication.  It also needs the camo working so if launching or recovering planes then you are visible to anyone in range. They should also make it they have to be moving to land or launch planes. So no hiding stopped behind islands like now. 

[Orzch]

Ask cruisers for cover.

[Liare]

Ask cruisers for cover.

 

ask cruisers to play sub-optimally you mean.

there's very little XP or credits to be gained in sitting next to a carrier, so it's clearly not a behavior that they wish to reward, and as such it cannot and should not be expected.

[Sharana]

ask cruisers to play sub-optimally you mean.

there's very little XP or credits to be gained in sitting next to a carrier, so it's clearly not a behavior that they wish to reward, and as such it cannot and should not be expected.

The high tier CV gameplay is requiring it, because if you lose your CV very early on your team will have much bigger chances of losing. That's why enough cruisers are now staying (for the first 5-6min) even without being asked.

[Orzch]

 

ask cruisers to play sub-optimally you mean.

there's very little XP or credits to be gained in sitting next to a carrier, so it's clearly not a behavior that they wish to reward, and as such it cannot and should not be expected.

 

If you cant convince 1 person in your team to help you and give them good arguments about it...well. Change game or get use to it.

[conductiv]

 

one thing I did consider is that you could decide in port how fueled your planes were, and this would give them a range (for easy understanding, just have it as a circle max range - they can fly around in this range all they like, but couldn't go further).

 

Your fuel determines your range, but also your speed and reload time.

More fuel means you can reach the other edge of the map, but planes are slower and take longer to rearm.

 

As a pay off (since otherwise this is simply a nerf), less fueled planes would be faster than normal, and rearm faster, so if you were feeling more brave you could have some very fast danger close planes.

if you really want to demote the "crawling around the map edge to torp the carrier" strategy by using feul, it might be better to use a timer rather then range, as range should force the carrier to attack everything in a straight line..or still gain "indefinite flight" within a certain zone (somewhat weird when you use fuel).

 

..the idea of a feul gauge would be to have a limited time/miles past to engage targets...not range per-se (even though the distance a plane can fly on a feul tank, drop ordinance and return is called "operational range", or "combat radius"...this assumes the aircraft takes the shortest route to the target and back)...you just can't "waste" 5-6 extra minutes of flight time to get all the way around the map avoiding all hazards, or search for targets non stop....but you can fly all the way across and back in a straight line if you so wish. 

 

from the buff suggestions, remove the rearm faster...as the nerf, even when implementing range..isn't severe enough to warrant +travel time and +rearm rate. on top of that having less fuel doesn't suddenly mean that strapping a bomb under the plane is any easier.

[Liare]

The high tier CV gameplay is requiring it, because if you lose your CV very early on your team will have much bigger chances of losing. That's why enough cruisers are now staying (for the first 5-6min) even without being asked.

 

you're still asking people to play sub-optimally per game mechanics, and that cannot reasonably be expected.

to put it on the edge, you're asking people that have cruisers to compromise their income and XP earnings (and possibly also fun, some like shooting the main battery after all) so that you may get a better game-play experience than playing "bum-rush the carrier" for the first five minutes of a match.

 

it's basically how things are put together right now, so obviously cruisers acting as escorts is not considered desirable from a gameplay perspective.

[mtm78]

 

you're still asking people to play sub-optimally per game mechanics, and that cannot reasonably be expected.

to put it on the edge, you're asking people that have cruisers to compromise their income and XP earnings (and possibly also fun, some like shooting the main battery after all) so that you may get a better game-play experience than playing "bum-rush the carrier" for the first five minutes of a match.

 

it's basically how things are put together right now, so obviously cruisers acting as escorts is not considered desirable from a gameplay perspective.

 

How is playing to win sub-optimal? Or do you mean WG's experience system is flawed atm as it doesn't reward game critical play? It's usually only required the first minutes when your carrier has not sunk the enemy carrier, once he has been sunk you can go for surface engagements. WG just needs to reward shooting down planes more.

[Liare]

 

How is playing to win sub-optimal? Or do you mean WG's experience system is flawed atm as it doesn't reward game critical play? It's usually only required the first minutes when your carrier has not sunk the enemy carrier, once he has been sunk you can go for surface engagements. WG just needs to reward shooting down planes more.

 

that's essentially what i am trying to convey, but expecting people to play "escort" for either battleships or carriers with the current mechanics is just not going to happen, it doesn't actually reward the person in question and it's a complete snoozefest due to lack of interactivity and ability to get to where you need to be.

[mtm78]

 

that's essentially what i am trying to convey, but expecting people to play "escort" for either battleships or carriers with the current mechanics is just not going to happen, it doesn't actually reward the person in question and it's a complete snoozefest due to lack of interactivity and ability to get to where you need to be.

 

Huh, a CA needs to be giving AAA support at the start for his carrier, and trust me IJN carriers doing a mass attack do require quite some apm with putting manual focus on the right squadrons, using the panic button at the right time and staying in close proximity to the carrier you need to help while giving it enough space to dodge attacks.

 

Like I said, WG needs to increase the reward for killing planes.

[Liare]

 

Huh, a CA needs to be giving AAA support at the start for his carrier, and trust me IJN carriers doing a mass attack do require quite some apm with putting manual focus on the right squadrons, using the panic button at the right time and staying in close proximity to the carrier you need to help while giving it enough space to dodge attacks.

 

Like I said, WG needs to increase the reward for killing planes.

 

and running the risk of sitting waterfowl doing excactly nothing for five minutes while your DPM could have made a difference elsewhere ?

nope, not happening for the vast majority of players myself included.

 

besides, as the current incentive structure ingame clearly indicate, wargaming doesn't agree with you.