Update 0.4.1 Aircraft Carrier Changes

[Ph3lan]

 

Greetings Captains!

 

Please leave any feedback about the changes to Aircraft Carriers in the 0.4.1 update in this thread. To help us gather feedback accurately and identify any issues, keep your posts as clear and constructive as possible. Irrelevant/off-topic entries will be deleted and the comment disregarded.

 

[Lightbaron]

I researched the FCS7 mod. 3 for my Hiryuu before the patch which at that time had the 2/2/2 setup for fighters/TBs/DBs.

Now after the patch the 2/2/2 setup got moved to FCS7 mod.2 and FCS7 mod.3 became the new 3/1/2 plane setup which I never intended to research before getting to Shoukaku.

I understand that it was needed to change the setup of them but it would have been better to keep the setup that did not get removed in the same FCS spot for those who already researched it or give back the xp so the people could have decided themself which setup they would like to have.

[X0MYT]

Impossible to chain command a fighter to a 2-3 different targets. Haven't tried the spread fire yet, but at a first approach seems like a BS. Sorry for this feedback. 

Upd. Nice addition on torpedo range info. Autopilot still sucks: if it needs a turn point near a coast, be sure to find AC on the coast. 

 

[DtXpwnz]

Impossible to chain command a fighter to a 2-3 different targets. Haven't tried the spread fire yet, but at a first approach seems like a BS. Sorry for this feedback. 

 

I agree, it is utter BS. I know that it is "working as intended", but why? Making controls more annoying and CV gameplay more frustrating isn't the way to go.

[Takru]

The 'changes' to IJN carriers just feel too much in one go. Some where performing too well, I know, but right now, taking account all the nerfs and the changes to the MM, it just isn't enjoyable.

 

1) IJN fighters vs USA fighters

It seems to me that whatever I do, IJN fighters lose. There needs to be a point in having two less planes in each group now that ppl are forced to take fighters out, too. IJN fighters sometimes have a hard time defeating floatplane fighters launched by cruisers and battleships, especially when those are launched from a higher tier ship. All IJN fighters can do right now is buy time for your own attack planes to reach the target. Is that really it?

They can of course engage enemy attack aircraft, but chances are that they'll be escorted as well. Not to mention that US attack aircraft seem to be astonishing durable when attacked by IJN fighters.

 

2) Longer service time, longer time to start, longer time to land

.... really? Absolutely no need for that.

 

3) Longer arming time for IJN torps

Well, have to life with that. But it just add up with the other nerfs.

 

4) MM changes

It makes the games less interesting for me, regardless of what ship I play. When I join in with a carrier, I know that there will be at least one other carrier and both of us will either be trying to avoid each other or to sink the other guy asap. Considering the increasing effectiveness of AA at tier 6, this can make for some rather boring and frustrating gameplay.

 

 

I'll give it a few more tries over the next days, but if what I experienced so far continues this way, I don't see me playing IJN CV much if at all.

[Anarkha]

..moved to mm topic..

 

[evil_loz_0]

Fighter Bug

 

After using the alt attack with fighters, they sometimes become idle after the strafe and wont respond. Not sure if this is meant to happen?

[Last_Rites]

The torpedo change is the most stupid thing you've ever done. It basically means all you can torp are battleships, carriers and total morons. Change it because it really isn't needed ON TOP OF all the other IJN nerfs.

 

Ok, people moaned about torp bombers but now they'll all moan about something else. At the very least make the spread as narrow as US torps.

[Takru]

I tried the fighter straving run yesterday. It did zero damage to the two enemy divebomber squadrons in their path.... Granted, my own squadron was down to 2 fighters, but still... No damage at all.

[II_Nemesis_II]

Ok, so here are my 50 cents regarding CVs after the patch:

1) Fighter manual aim -  completely worthless, fighters using manual barrage has this same stupid "feature" as bombers that they go crazy and start turning around if you issue the manual aim on a different angle than they are flying, to prepare for a perfect lead. I can understand this with bombers, cause you know, bombs and torps are heavy and they are not supposed to turn on a dime, but why the hell fighters? On T10 the planes are so fast, that it makes this skill usable only in 1 in a million situation.

 

2) IJN vs USN balance - is now completely out of whack, the only thing that is somehow balanced is T8. The mid tiers IJN are way superior in every deck compared to USN, why? Cause IJN fighter decks have the same amount of fighters as USN fighter decks, but USN fighter decks have 0 torpedo bombers. Then comparing USN and IJN balanced decks, problem is that USN balanced decks are only the stock ones, so for example Ranger vs Hiryu 1/1/1 vs 2/2/2.... he has more fighters, more bombers and can cross torp DDs with them and more DBs for fire micromanagement, seems quite balanced right?
Then on the top tiers it gets even worse. Hakuryu vs Midway. So yesterday I had battle with my strike Midway against strike Hakuryu. Our fighters engaged above one of my Tirpitzes. So yes I had friendly AA accompanying me. Guess how the battle went? My fighters got shredded to pieces and I only managed to shoot 2 out of his 10 fighters. So again lets do a simple math 1/2/2 Midway vs 2/3/3 Hakuryu, 7 vs 2x5 fighters (counting captain perk as I suppose all T10s will have it) IJN wins on fighters, 12 vs 12 TB it is the same, 14 vs 15 dive dombers, IJN wins yet again. Then comes worse part the 4/2/2 Hakuryu against whatever Midways setup. Against 3/0/2 the Midway will eventually win the air game, but only cause of its plane reserves, but by that time it will be too late as Hakuryu will be able to do much more damage with its 2 TBs and 2 DBs. Then against 2/1/2 and 1/2/2 the Midway does not stand a chance in the air superiority whatsoever.

 

3) Mirror MM - good on paper, bad in practice. Yesterday I only played 1 battle in my Midway as I wasn't able to get second one as we left the queue after 11 minutes of waiting. Thing is that about 7th minute in queue, I was watching papedipupi's stream, and he just got into queue too, so I was thinking to myself, ok nice we will have a match, but guess what happened? After his (only!) 3 minutes of waiting, he got into 8v8 match against enemy Essex, and we were still stuck waiting. So yeah it seems that this mirror MM really needs some serious tweaking.

 

4) Captain perk - why the hell did the Dogfight perk survived the patch? I thought it was introduced mainly cause of issue with lower tier carriers having no chance against higher tier ones, but now after fighter rebalance, the skill is just there to throw the balance out of the window again.

 

My advices on how to "fix" these issues?

1) If it is possible, pls allow fighters to turn on a dime when executing the barrage, or just make it scalable (bigger area) with tiers, as on top tiers the plane speed is just too much and the skill is pretty useless. I would love this new feature if it would work as it should, cause right now the fighters without it are a complete point-click-nobrainer.

2) Increase the HP of USN fighters by at least 20%, maybe 25% would be better. And give Ranger 1/1/2 bomber setup to at least somewhat mitigate the ultimate 2/2/2 on Hiryu.

3) Tweak the MM to prioritize ppl by the time spent in the queue, that cannot be that hard. It shouldnt happen that someone who waits 3 minutes gets favorable match, when there is someone else waiting 10 minutes already.

4) Replace the perk completely, with something interesting and not with something that screws balance again.

[Malkavor]

1) IJN fighters vs USA fighters

It seems to me that whatever I do, IJN fighters lose. There needs to be a point in having two less planes in each group now that ppl are forced to take fighters out, too. IJN fighters sometimes have a hard time defeating floatplane fighters launched by cruisers and battleships, especially when those are launched from a higher tier ship. All IJN fighters can do right now is buy time for your own attack planes to reach the target. Is that really it?

They can of course engage enemy attack aircraft, but chances are that they'll be escorted as well. Not to mention that US attack aircraft seem to be astonishing durable when attacked by IJN fighters.

 

This!

 

Since people are now forced to take fighters in IJN, they should be more useful!

Don't get me wrong, I like the enforcement of fighters for IJN. For me it always felt kinda stupid to play any CV without fighters, but they need to be able to stand their ground!

I think one big reason why people tend to play strike layout on IJN carriers, was the fact that the fighters are basically just target dummies anyways.

 

I also really never got it why Japanese squadrons were reduced to 4 planes, especially for IJN fighters this really hurts them if they take on US fighters.

 

In my opinions all squadrons should be back to 6 planes. I guess it would also make balancing them out easier for the developers.

Most likely torpedoes & bombs for IJN attack crafts need a little tweaking to reflect the increased numbers of planes, but it shouldn't be a big deal to keep the overall damage at the same level.

 

 

[Vanhal]

2) Longer service time, longer time to start, longer time to land

.... really? Absolutely no need for that.

 

You ever tried to nail CV that is not Langley or Bogue using IJN DD? Painful as hell, if he spots you (and he WILL, so many planes in the air), then it's constant stream of attacks while you must use guns (on IJN!) because you wont hit torps from behind him and you also won't get close because the dodging.

[Takru]

 

You ever tried to nail CV that is not Langley or Bogue using IJN DD? Painful as hell, if he spots you (and he WILL, so many planes in the air), then it's constant stream of attacks while you must use guns (on IJN!) because you wont hit torps from behind him and you also won't get close because the dodging.

 

This isn't the point, really, and could be more accurately / fittingly adressed by slowing down the IJN CVs. Hiryu has a top speed of about 35 -ish kts, which enables her to run away from persuing DDs. Don't know about top speeds of USN CVs.

[Takru]

The issue with balancing the two carrier branches lies in the different sizes of the respective squadrons. If WG would make both branches the same size, where would be the difference in those branches? However, having different things in a game creates a hell of a lot of balacing issues. It will be "interesting" to see how things evolve once more nations are introduced with their repective specials and traits. It will certainly not get any easier to balance.

 

Right now, I am still in two minds about the CV changes. It does make the USN line more attractive but only by making the IJN line less attractive, not improving the USN line itself. As someone else wrote earlier, the IJN fighters were rarely used because people felt they were at a distinct disadvantage. This was reinfoced when in one of the threads the idea behind the CV lines was postulated as USN CV being intended to achieve air superiority while the IJN line was intended to deliver hard strikes on enemy vessels. Last but not least, it is a matter of being rewarded in the game. When IJN players had the choice, the would prefer the strike setups, omitting fighters completely simply because the game rewards dealt damage and ships sunk a lot more than keeping the skies clear of enemy planes, spotting enemy ships or denying enemy planes freedom of action.

 

If the game would encourage team orientated gameplay more by rewarding players for such actions, I do believe more people would voluntarily opt for fighters in their setups even if they cuold choose a setup without fighters. Sure enough, there are people out there who don't give a damn about teamwork, but right now the game encourages them more than the team orientated players. Changing the reward system would go a long way changing the way people play the game.

[Generalisator]

I played a few matches in the "new" Jap CVs T4-6.

Matchmaking: OK, Jap fighters sucks like ever.

 

To your other changes:

What a big pile of BS.

Just roll back. And feed it to the persons who had the idea and who agreed to it.

Take responsibility and find another job. But who would hire some with these reputations?

You are right, government.

 

 

Jokes aside. It's a catastrophe.

Fighters perform even worse.

[Fobios]

I have problem with carrier MM. If i take a carrier, indipendece (tier 6 USN carrier) for example i know i will see an indipendence in enemy team aswell. Same goes with IJN carriers. This is bad and boring cause i know what the enemy has so i can counter it and dont have to worry a IJN carrier who could block me with his superior numbers of squadrons.

[Crysantos]

Ok, so here are my 50 cents regarding CVs after the patch:

1) Fighter manual aim -  completely worthless, fighters using manual barrage has this same stupid "feature" as bombers that they go crazy and start turning around if you issue the manual aim on a different angle than they are flying, to prepare for a perfect lead. I can understand this with bombers, cause you know, bombs and torps are heavy and they are not supposed to turn on a dime, but why the hell fighters? On T10 the planes are so fast, that it makes this skill usable only in 1 in a million situation.

 

2) IJN vs USN balance - is now completely out of whack, the only thing that is somehow balanced is T8. The mid tiers IJN are way superior in every deck compared to USN, why? Cause IJN fighter decks have the same amount of fighters as USN fighter decks, but USN fighter decks have 0 torpedo bombers. Then comparing USN and IJN balanced decks, problem is that USN balanced decks are only the stock ones, so for example Ranger vs Hiryu 1/1/1 vs 2/2/2.... he has more fighters, more bombers and can cross torp DDs with them and more DBs for fire micromanagement, seems quite balanced right?

Then on the top tiers it gets even worse. Hakuryu vs Midway. So yesterday I had battle with my strike Midway against strike Hakuryu. Our fighters engaged above one of my Tirpitzes. So yes I had friendly AA accompanying me. Guess how the battle went? My fighters got shredded to pieces and I only managed to shoot 2 out of his 10 fighters. So again lets do a simple math 1/2/2 Midway vs 2/3/3 Hakuryu, 7 vs 2x5 fighters (counting captain perk as I suppose all T10s will have it) IJN wins on fighters, 12 vs 12 TB it is the same, 14 vs 15 dive dombers, IJN wins yet again. Then comes worse part the 4/2/2 Hakuryu against whatever Midways setup. Against 3/0/2 the Midway will eventually win the air game, but only cause of its plane reserves, but by that time it will be too late as Hakuryu will be able to do much more damage with its 2 TBs and 2 DBs. Then against 2/1/2 and 1/2/2 the Midway does not stand a chance in the air superiority whatsoever.

 

3) Mirror MM - good on paper, bad in practice. Yesterday I only played 1 battle in my Midway as I wasn't able to get second one as we left the queue after 11 minutes of waiting. Thing is that about 7th minute in queue, I was watching papedipupi's stream, and he just got into queue too, so I was thinking to myself, ok nice we will have a match, but guess what happened? After his (only!) 3 minutes of waiting, he got into 8v8 match against enemy Essex, and we were still stuck waiting. So yeah it seems that this mirror MM really needs some serious tweaking.

 

4) Captain perk - why the hell did the Dogfight perk survived the patch? I thought it was introduced mainly cause of issue with lower tier carriers having no chance against higher tier ones, but now after fighter rebalance, the skill is just there to throw the balance out of the window again.

 

My advices on how to "fix" these issues?

1) If it is possible, pls allow fighters to turn on a dime when executing the barrage, or just make it scalable (bigger area) with tiers, as on top tiers the plane speed is just too much and the skill is pretty useless. I would love this new feature if it would work as it should, cause right now the fighters without it are a complete point-click-nobrainer.

2) Increase the HP of USN fighters by at least 20%, maybe 25% would be better. And give Ranger 1/1/2 bomber setup to at least somewhat mitigate the ultimate 2/2/2 on Hiryu.

3) Tweak the MM to prioritize ppl by the time spent in the queue, that cannot be that hard. It shouldnt happen that someone who waits 3 minutes gets favorable match, when there is someone else waiting 10 minutes already.

4) Replace the perk completely, with something interesting and not with something that screws balance again.

 

But also buff Hosho fighters, at least HP wise to have a chance against Langleys. Totally agree with the MM, can't be that hard to solve.

 

@Fobios: Not true, you get both IJN and USN counterpart. Would you rather be placed against higher Tier CVs again?

[clash0r]

i dont understand that despite several bug reports during the test period, a completely bugged skill was introduced aka fighter barrage. The skill is working proper in 1 out of 5 cases at best, also once an enemy fighter engages those with activated skill close before the barage cone area, the result is that the fighter using the skill freezes in place and dies slow but surely unable to perform any further actions during that time.

 

Also it seems that the barrage cone can have some delayed dmg dealing result on some planes long after they are out of the area or even respawned at carrier, usually when formenetioned bug with enemy fighters has occured before.

 

Concerning the nerfs applied, why not use a straight approach and introduce different torp dmg values for the tier's. It still baffles me that a t6 torp bomber can in theory hit for as much damage as a t10 torp bomber. Instead of that approach, many other things were unnecessarily tweaked.

 

Also the general reduction of fighter dmg (by 30-50%) was way overdone. For a more dynamic gameflow i suggest to up it again, not to old values, but +15-25% of current dmg, while reducing loadout accordingly.

 

While i agree to a general need of adjusting the CV power in this case, increasing service time of ijn planes and arm time of torps will let them become more and more like US counterparts. We will reach a point where both lines have rather similar plane-characteristics, only difference is torp spread and planes per squad.

 

Each nation should have unique characteristics, make planes of different nations more distinguishable, not more identical..

 

 

[DtXpwnz]

that barrage is so useless that it is not even funny

[Takru]

that barrage is so useless that it is not even funny

 

Haven't managed to make good use of it either. I thought it was supposed to help you out when your fighters were facing overwhelming numbers of enemy fighters, but even if you manage to get the barrage thing running decently, it still does very little damage to the enemy fighters

 

[DtXpwnz]

Don't even bother using it against enemz fighters. Imo the only use is against grouped up bombers that are flying away from you (and you chasing them). But then again the skill will probably get bugged and do nothing anyway, so...

[Takru]

Fighter barrage:

Haven't seen a single instance where it worked the way it was advertised. It's also quite unwieldy to use as the fighters turn awkwardly most of the time when ordering the barrage in any direction except where they were flying to originally. Had hoped that it would somehow enable the IJN to compete with USN fighters, but it just doesn't.

 

Matchmaking:

Had to fight in a Tier 6 carrier in a Tier 8 match. Needless to say, I was next to useless. Even ships which have relatively little in the way of AA shoot down plenty of planes when they're two tiers lower. In my case, a Tirpitz managed to shoot down all 6 of my torpedo bombers before any torps were released. The next enemy vessel was a Pensacola about 4-5 km away from the Tirpitz.

 

CV vs CV:

Similariy to the issue mentioned above, carrier vs carrier is frustrating when you are teamed up with a carrier two tiers higher. Obviously, the other team also has a hightier and a lowtier carrier, but the point is that your own fighters (which you now are forced to take with you) are basically useless against higher tier fighters and often enough even useless against their (dive)bombers. The patch notes mentioned a normalization of fighter power across the board, but I have yet to see it materialze.

 

Fighter planes vs fighter float planes (from BB and CA/CL):

There is still a lot of randomness involved there. Sometimes a fighter squadron just smashes the single floatplane out of the skies, sometimes the single plane can keep them occupied what feels like a minute or two. Needless to say, the longer the single floatplane manages to amuse the fighters the longer they usually are within AA range of the ship which started the floatplane in the first place. If that happens to be i.e. the pile of AA guns crammed on a hull that is the Cleveland, you can only hope your pilots are good at swimming.

In the other hand, it would seem that the ship launching the floatplane does not have any control about the plane as such, i.e. it can not direct it to attack an individual enemy squadron if several are within it's attack range.
 

All in all, it feels like the IJN CV nerf was too much compared to the more durable and usually more successful fighter squadrons of their USN counterparts.

- Lack of choice of setups (choosing between 1/2/2 and 2/2/2 isn't really a choice at all)

- Smaller squadrons

- wider torpedo spreads

- usually inferior air combat ability

- very vulnerable (dive)bombers

 

As much as I understand that IJN carriers in particular were somewhat over the top performance wise, especially from the point of view of the other ship classes, I feel that the IJN line in particular now is rather uninteresting and not fun to play. I do hope that IJN CVs will become more interesting again and will try them again when another patch indicates that they will.

[Fobios]

 

Haven't managed to make good use of it either. I thought it was supposed to help you out when your fighters were facing overwhelming numbers of enemy fighters, but even if you manage to get the barrage thing running decently, it still does very little damage to the enemy fighters

 

 

Same here. I also though the barrage ability is good for hit a run attack when you are outnumbered but it backfired. Instead of "hit and run" i did minor damage and ended up in the middle of the planes i was attacking with my barrage.

[fratus]

Fighter barrage:

Haven't seen a single instance where it worked the way it was advertised. It's also quite unwieldy to use as the fighters turn awkwardly most of the time when ordering the barrage in any direction except where they were flying to originally. Had hoped that it would somehow enable the IJN to compete with USN fighters, but it just doesn't.

 

Matchmaking:

Had to fight in a Tier 6 carrier in a Tier 8 match. Needless to say, I was next to useless. Even ships which have relatively little in the way of AA shoot down plenty of planes when they're two tiers lower. In my case, a Tirpitz managed to shoot down all 6 of my torpedo bombers before any torps were released. The next enemy vessel was a Pensacola about 4-5 km away from the Tirpitz.

 

CV vs CV:

Similariy to the issue mentioned above, carrier vs carrier is frustrating when you are teamed up with a carrier two tiers higher. Obviously, the other team also has a hightier and a lowtier carrier, but the point is that your own fighters (which you now are forced to take with you) are basically useless against higher tier fighters and often enough even useless against their (dive)bombers. The patch notes mentioned a normalization of fighter power across the board, but I have yet to see it materialze.

 

Fighter planes vs fighter float planes (from BB and CA/CL):

There is still a lot of randomness involved there. Sometimes a fighter squadron just smashes the single floatplane out of the skies, sometimes the single plane can keep them occupied what feels like a minute or two. Needless to say, the longer the single floatplane manages to amuse the fighters the longer they usually are within AA range of the ship which started the floatplane in the first place. If that happens to be i.e. the pile of AA guns crammed on a hull that is the Cleveland, you can only hope your pilots are good at swimming.

In the other hand, it would seem that the ship launching the floatplane does not have any control about the plane as such, i.e. it can not direct it to attack an individual enemy squadron if several are within it's attack range.

 

All in all, it feels like the IJN CV nerf was too much compared to the more durable and usually more successful fighter squadrons of their USN counterparts.

- Lack of choice of setups (choosing between 1/2/2 and 2/2/2 isn't really a choice at all)

- Smaller squadrons

- wider torpedo spreads

- usually inferior air combat ability

- very vulnerable (dive)bombers

 

As much as I understand that IJN carriers in particular were somewhat over the top performance wise, especially from the point of view of the other ship classes, I feel that the IJN line in particular now is rather uninteresting and not fun to play. I do hope that IJN CVs will become more interesting again and will try them again when another patch indicates that they will.

 

This posts summarizes my own experience very well (IJN CV player here - currently in Taiho).

Bottom line with 0.4.1 :

1. Yes CVs needed to be tuned down, especially IJN strike setups
2. The tune down clearly appears to be overnerfing, not necessarily vs other ship classes (no uncontested sealclubbing anymore - for the better), but more specifically vs USN CVs (as stated above)
3. As most other players have indicated, Fighter Barrage is useless at the moment.

 

I believe that a slight change to torp spread (a bit tighter, but not as tight as USN TBs) and slight overall IJN planes survivability increase would put the balance right where USN and IJN CVs are more or less on par, and neither no longer roflstomp the rest of the game

[Haamre]

Ok, I've got back to the Carriers after a short break with the DDs, and my first impression was - what the f.... happened to those ships?!

Then, after spending 1.5 day of tormenting myself with them, I kind of started to - maybe not "enjoy", but tolerate them. Guess the masochist in me (or Stockholm syndrome?) kicked in...

 

Allright, to keep it as clean as possible:

- (bug) Fighters seem to be suffering from the "stuck when starting/being attacked/cancelling the move in the middle" of the strafing run ability. Seems like there is a problem when switching from one mode to another.

- (bug) When attacked on the way by a enemy Flating plane (cruiser or battleship launched) - my fighter and dive bomber squadrons seemed to be "stuck in combat". Not sure if the "owner-ship" wasn't sunk in the meantime, but still - the squads managed to:

- land and rearm (replenishment of losses didn't happen, as the fighters launched off with 5, with 2 more fighters left in hangars)

- got blinking as in combat, while all the way up to the next target - no enemies were around

- When they did come to the target, I saw my fighter squad being down to 2.

Oh, Wargaming, ye ol' bugger - why didn't you tell us you've mounted phasers and blaster cannons on the silly float planes?

No? Range of 15-20 km not intended? Hm...a bug then.

 

- (idea) Maybe instead of throwing us into air groups setups we might be not comfortable with, allow us to decide what exact setup we want to have manually - limited only by the total Air-groups available on said carrier AND some "cap point", to avoid ridiculous 7-torpedo bombers setups? For example - if an US carrier has 3 AG (Bogue), let it choose if he wants 2 fighters, 1 TB - or 1 TB, 1F, 1 DB. Same goes with the Japanese - if someone feels like 2-3 fighter squads are not enought, let him add another one - sacrificing some of his surface attacking power. Would surely make for a much interesting game, as now when you spot the enemy is sporting 2 fighters on a US T5-6 carrier, you know you don't have to worry about any torpedoes comming from him

 

- (idea) To balance off the differences in numbers - unless you would like it to equalize both sides, of course - maybe go into the differences between each nation's specs? Like - the Japanese had more agile planes, that were much harder to hit, but if someone finally scored a hit - they went down, burning, rather easy.

So, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to split the "survivalability" into:

- "Agility" (decreases the chance to be hit)

- "Endurance" (so the more "sturdy" fighters can still "tank" the fight)

and then - try to play with them to both - differentiate the sides and have it easier to balance them out.

 

- (idea) Provide different payload to the squadrons - maybe unlockable, or switchable during the battle? By giving the opportunity to switch between "HE" and "AP" bombs, maybe the DB wouldn't be as useless against heavier targets (yeah, yeah - I know about the fires...) as they are seen now by many players. Also, that mechanic would also allow to choose from between "faster, but doing less damage" torpedoes, or those which are slower, but hit hard. Changing it would require to get back to the carrier, so it would open up new tactical situations as well as make the game overall more interesting (and, also - provide another way of setting each nation's CV line appart - the more stats you have, the less likely it'll become a "game of clones".

In terms of WoT - imagine what would happen if there would be only one type of shell, with different amount of damage and firing speed - but no difference in the firing arc, spread, explosion range etc. - would be pretty boring, right?)