This is why nation roles don't work.

[Seinta]

 

Eneded with 5 ships sunken.

Right now IJN has fighter heavy setup only at tier 9 and 10. 

4 squadrons at tier 10 can effectively counter 50% of the stiking power of an IJN CV, but at the lower tiers it is impossible for a single US CV to counter an IJN CV.

At tier 5 the US get 2 squadrons which is perfectly balanced to counter the IJN tier 5 CV that has 4 squadrons, but as soon as tier 6 it becomes clear that US is lacking in the supremacy department.

Even tho US fighters have been buffed, nothing short of instant kill of a squadron will make them a good counter to IJN.

US CVs have acces to only 2 squadrons up to tier 8. That is 3 tiers  6-7-8 where the IJN have a gradual increase in squadron count and US have no increase in counter squadrons.

 

If the goal was to counter US CVs, well they do pretty fine job at that, however this is not the goal here.

With the addition of IJN it was clear that US fighter won't be able to keep up, and with the forced roles and decrease of fighter squadron count, it is impossible to keep your team safe as a fighter CV. The only way an IJN CV can be effectively countered is if he is alone vs 2 fighter heavy CVs, but this doesn't happen often.

 

My suggestion is give more balanced loadouts to both(and future) nation, allowing them to fufill the role that the player wants.

Starting from tier 6 IJN should have acces to 3 fighter squadron loadout and at tier 9 they should have the 4 fighter loadout giving them the ability to counter strike setups more effectively than US CVs. Given how this could make it harder for US strike CVs, increase the gunners damage for US CVs so that they can defend themselves better than IJN.

Increase the reward for shooting down planes, as soon as tier 4 we can see that CVs have very big influence over the battle and this doesn't change the higher we go.

 

Share your thoughts

I know there are changes coming but I had a derp moment and I had to get it out of my system. 

 

 

 

 

 

[gbgroger]

I agree, in my ranger stock setup vs same tier jap carrier with fighter setup I got owned, he had air supremacy and more attack aircraft to boot! Came as a shock!

[Vaderan]

I basically fully agree. However, it seems to me that WG looks at the trees as a whole, and what the USN CVs lack in Fighter power to keep their (US) fleet save, is compensated by AAA firepower of USN cruisers and high tier BBs.

Not sure if it is intended that way, or pure accidental. It doesn´t work anyway, it seems

[Scilya]

are you guys high? a single ammercian fighter squad can wipe out 2 and a half japanese squadrens

[Moree]

are you guys high? a single ammercian fighter squad can wipe out 2 and a half japanese squadrens

 

Exactly my thoughts. American squadrons are larger and they have better fighters. 1 vs 1 US fighters win 100% of the time

[Karaya1]

are you guys high? a single ammercian fighter squad can wipe out 2 and a half japanese squadrens

 

Something along those lines yes.

 

In addition the IJN fighter squads dont have enough ammo to take down more than one squadron (if RNGsus is with you that is) of any US type.

[Pesusieni]

While american fighters win IJN, if the IJN attack has a fighter protecting it, the american fighter must engage the IJN or other wise the IJN fighter will just slow down the american one and allow the rest of the IJN attack to make it through.

 

and this is the issue while the american squads are tough and dangerous, the swarm attack that comes from IJN is just more dangerous, Quantity over Quality.

 

While i have not played high tier CV ,at low tier i have a significant disadvantage compared to IJN strikes.

 

The swarm is hard to handle when you got so little to work with,The only reason im doing decent is the fact that im good at RTS and know the value of scouting, information is key to victory for the american, you need to know if the enemy is going to try and sink you or if they are just going to harass your team.

[Scilya]

While american fighters win IJN, if the IJN attack has a fighter protecting it, the american fighter must engage the IJN or other wise the IJN fighter will just slow down the american one and allow the rest of the IJN attack to make it through.

 

and this is the issue while the american squads are tough and dangerous, the swarm attack that comes from IJN is just more dangerous, Quantity over Quality.

 

While i have not played high tier CV ,at low tier i have a significant disadvantage compared to IJN strikes.

 

The swarm is hard to handle when you got so little to work with,The only reason im doing decent is the fact that im good at RTS and know the value of scouting, information is key to victory for the american, you need to know if the enemy is going to try and sink you or if they are just going to harass your team.

 

your single fighter squad can kill a jap fighter squad a torpedo squad then half of anouther squad before they reach you,... it realy is that simple. ammericans can completly shut down ijn carriers with fighter superioroty

[Numbah18]

your single fighter squad can kill a jap fighter squad a torpedo squad then half of anouther squad before they reach you,... it realy is that simple. ammericans can completly shut down ijn carriers with fighter superioroty

 

Yes they can, even the stock loadout's 1 FT can wreck most of an IJN CV's squads if the IJN captain is bad and the US captain is good. The vast amount of IJN squads gives them the ability to send squads from multiple directions. I have seen it plenty of times where a IJN player brought two of his TB to one side of a US CV and drew the FT away waited a few min and had the other TB squads appear on the other side of the US CV. It gets worse at higher tier where US full FT stays at 3/0/2 while IJN gets a 3/2/2 and eventually a 4/2/2.

 

OP I do agree with your suggestion and would like to see more of a balance between CV loadouts.

[Scilya]

 

Yes they can, even the stock loadout's 1 FT can wreck most of an IJN CV's squads if the IJN captain is bad and the US captain is good. The vast amount of IJN squads gives them the ability to send squads from multiple directions. I have seen it plenty of times where a IJN player brought two of his TB to one side of a US CV and drew the FT away waited a few min and had the other TB squads appear on the other side of the US CV. It gets worse at higher tier where US full FT stays at 3/0/2 while IJN gets a 3/2/2 and eventually a 4/2/2.

 

OP I do agree with your suggestion and would like to see more of a balance between CV loadouts.

 

well thats just down to stratagy and not following the first squadren you see to try and kill it.

[CactuarLOL]

If i'm not wrong we are going to be getting more nations as the development continues, we're only seeing like half of the picture at the moment, could be that once new nations come out they will add more balance to the game.

[Numbah18]

well thats just down to stratagy and not following the first squadren you see to try and kill it.

 

That's my whole point though, both sides are really down to strategy and how good you can play. IJN has more options for strategy though and can be more effective with it. 

[Santos47]

There is nation v nation mode in plans?

[MudMonkey]

What I would like to know, as the US CVs are made as a counter for the IJN CVs bombers do you get as much xp for shooting them down as for wrecking ships?

Imho it wouldnt make sense to try to fulfill this role or even to play US CVs if this wouldnt be the case.

[Spellfire40]

Dont forget one other thing:

 

For the US even if you dont shoot down all imcoming Planes with fighters your raw AA power can kill atacking squads unless they lanch at standoff disstance while the IJN dont. that might be selfdefence only but its still pretty strong.

 

cya

 

Spellfire40

 

 

[Numbah18]

What I would like to know, as the US CVs are made as a counter for the IJN CVs bombers do you get as much xp for shooting them down as for wrecking ships?

Imho it wouldnt make sense to try to fulfill this role or even to play US CVs if this wouldnt be the case.

 

The answer is no. I think you get 40% assuming you shot down 50+ planes and you won.

[mtm78]

Not sure about the numbers but I been in games where a fighter setup USN carrier was protecting the bombers from a IJN strike setup carrier, he got clear sky and had > 70 planes downed, yet the IJN CV had 50% more XP.

[Ishiro32]

Well the thing about exp reward is this. Fighter setups is designed to deal with maximum 2 enemy ships and interaction with other ships is pretty much nonexistent. Bomber CV can deal and is interacting with whole enemy fleet.
Also figher gameplay is much simpler than bomber, which should impact the rewards. 

 

Without big changes to fighters I don't see them getting higher rewards without being just unfair to others.

[knaveofengland]

would suggest from start you have so many planes you choose what at the start of battle what you want to field fighters , torpedoes ,dive bombers then it be nice to play them give us the choice

[Sharana]

What I would like to know, as the US CVs are made as a counter for the IJN CVs bombers do you get as much xp for shooting them down as for wrecking ships?

Imho it wouldnt make sense to try to fulfill this role or even to play US CVs if this wouldnt be the case.

 

It won't and it shouldn't. Air superiority in random is only as division support or trolling. This will be the only used deck in teamplay, but for random it's useless. No one is forcing them to use it, there are universal and strike decks, both of which are providing enough exp.

[delaci76]

 

It won't and it shouldn't. Air superiority in random is only as division support or trolling. This will be the only used deck in teamplay, but for random it's useless. No one is forcing them to use it, there are universal and strike decks, botwh of which are providing enough exp.

 

So are you saying it's pointless then to focus on all fighter american carrier play? Because it's trolling?

 

Sounds like complete baloney if am reading this right....

 

Sorry but I am gonna focus on fighter heavy play...why not? WG need to fix it and not descriminate against this play style.

 

If they cant fix the MM to put carriers with fighter heavy grps against fairer opposition then thats their problem not ours.

 

p.s if i have misread u sorry but what you are implying sounds to me quite shockingly wrong.

 

and when I do get to my american carrier play I am going to ask WG why there isnt reward for this playstyle. (it's tactical play and that's how you neutralised the enemy naval power, and if anything would mean teams need to work together in order to protect their bombers/torp planes).

[Sharana]

Your entire play is focused on lowering the efficiency of 1 ship - the enemy CV and you can't shut him down, he will still be able to do more damage then you will do in the next 3 games combined even if he is out of planes after 10min. And the skill element involving air superiority is exponentially lower.

 

So you want the same reward only for clicking on planes and lowering the efficiency of only 1 enemy ship - the CV. The enemy CV will still do far more damage then you and will help his team much more + it's far more complicated then clicking on the enemy squadron with your fighters. Sorry, but I really do not see how are they supposed to be rewarded equally when the pure fighter gameplay is far simpler and is not really helping the team...

[delaci76]

Your entire play is focused on lowering the efficiency of 1 ship - the enemy CV and you can't shut him down, he will still be able to do more damage then you will do in the next 3 games combined even if he is out of planes after 10min. And the skill element involving air superiority is exponentially lower.

 

So you want the same reward only for clicking on planes and lowering the efficiency of only 1 enemy ship - the CV. The enemy CV will still do far more damage then you and will help his team much more + it's far more complicated then clicking on the enemy squadron with your fighters. Sorry, but I really do not see how are they supposed to be rewarded equally when the pure fighter gameplay is far simpler and is not really helping the team...

 

It needs rebalancing by WG.

 

Ok several things wrong. If you have other carriers with torp planes etc then your point about damage over 3 games is irrelevant and am not sure why you are bringing it up. If you only play one or two games and get the 1.5 xp and WG introduce xp for planes downed you could have a perfeclty viable way of causing damage (who said damage cant be damage to planes and not just ships) and gaining enough xp.

 

And your point about the dificulty well it's hardly that much dificult to man aim torps. What's it's a few more clicks as opposed to one or two? Yes man aiming bombing n torps is more tricky but its not rocket science.

 

And your whole arguement is defeated because WG have allowed fighter squadrons in so they should be a viable tactic. Otherwise remove them.

 

You are making weak excuses for a badly implemented feature and one that actually could be redone to not only reward fighter squadron play but also introduce mechanics to make it harder to use. (off the top of my head you could give me a lower flying radious/weaker to AA/Rear gunner perks so that your bombers can shoot down more planes).

 

Pure and simple WG are missing out here.

 

p.s if the enemy CV had no planes how can he do more damage. This is nonsense. if anything your team will thank you when they arent facing inc torps. and yes have played games where i have obliterated the enemy squadrons and then my 1 bomber squadron can have free choice of whatever he wants to target...

[Sharana]

You can't get fundamental point - you are only fighters, the enemy is only bombers. After 15 min of fghting he is out of planes, but with 2 kills and 70K damage, while you are with 60 plane kills, 20K damage and 0 kills. Who was more useful for his team in this standart case? Who should get more exp in this case if it's draw (both teams have the same base exp, without x1.5 for the winners)? I beliveve the strike CV should get more exp and that's the case currently.

 

Manual drop is not rocket science, but you try to deal damage against another players who is most likely evading, you don't click one time on him and get exp for that.

 

Fighetrs only are the best and the only option for teamplay like CW,fleet battles etc in the future, strike deck have no place there. It's the opposite in the randoms - that's why all CVs have universal and strike decks, they are for grinding exp in the random. You can grind with fighters too, but it's slower if you want to play them so much. It's easy mode like PvE, you are not supposed to be rewarded as much, because you play only vs 1 enemy ship - the CV, while he is nuking your team and turning the tide of the battle which requires much more input from the player.

 

PS: There is exp for planes - 40 killed planes are as rewarding as killing the same tier ships from 100% alone.

[AnuSuaraj]

National balancing is stupid and also one of the things that ruined WoWP.

 

I support this thread.

 

Death to national balancing!