Bias Against US?

[Iron_Gekko]

Some of these ships are a bit of a stopgap on the way to greater things, you have to remember, the planes themselves change on the tiers. It's not just the CV's as a ship.

 

As for arguing whoever is better, on certain tiers, it's IJN on others it's USN get over it and get through it. There are quite a few level X CV's now and they didn't get there by ceaseless whining, they actually took what you can't figure out and won.

[Kedo]

I'm with Lexington now. I never used any other than stock deck at my US CVs... and it works great! Whenever I face single IJN CV, I pretty much own air space (unless he's got fighter setup, but even then I sometimes rule the air). There is clearly no bias against US CVs, unless they are played wrongly. 

[Generalisator]

US CV's UP?

WOW. Some serious pile of BS.

 

If you have a team, with each 1 nation only, the side with US will win airwar. Period.

 

Only 1V1, Jap CVs have a chance. But only in distracting enemy's fighters.

[Shadow_Raven_1]

In order to win the battle with IJN CV from my point of vew with low tiers cause I am a noob you have to be sneaky, bitchy, ninja and resourceful, now can anyone tell me what happens if you play US CV and get the level 5 captain trait and increase your squad +1 ? Come on, you cannot choose the raw mass and complain about the lack of mobility and tactical options. You clear the sky or you hunt ships that is a decent deal, further more you can employ barage strke on enemy group and guess what US fighters usually shred IJN bombing groups at the expence of 2 planes tops, sooo if you have a plan, stick with it, you can't be one ship fleet, and that's not what the game is all about. 

[Quinzer]

In order to win the battle with IJN CV from my point of vew with low tiers cause I am a noob you have to be sneaky, bitchy, ninja and resourceful, now can anyone tell me what happens if you play US CV and get the level 5 captain trait and increase your squad +1 ? Come on, you cannot choose the raw mass and complain about the lack of mobility and tactical options. You clear the sky or you hunt ships that is a decent deal, further more you can employ barage strke on enemy group and guess what US fighters usually shred IJN bombing groups at the expence of 2 planes tops, sooo if you have a plan, stick with it, you can't be one ship fleet, and that's not what the game is all about. 

 

just what?

it seems to be some kind of arugement but i don't get what you are trying to say.

[Shadow_Raven_1]

 

just what?

it seems to be some kind of arugement but i don't get what you are trying to say.

 

USN CV are too OP, people can't complain when Bougue fighter squadron shoots down monoplane fighters of IJN, so I'm saying that IJN are so nerfed that you can't even use your fighters on a low tier squadrons, and eventualy you run out of sky.

[OddityNZ]

Playing the independence as TP/DB, realized that im "supposed" to be playing fighters after getting stomped by Ryujo.

I dont want to play fighters because of the crap xp and I actually dont like playing fighters as I find it boring as hell.

Stopped playing US CV's...

Done.

GG WG

waste of my time and effort, A+ for pidgeon holing and D- for me for not checking all this beforehand.

 

[Quinzer]

Playing the independence as TP/DB, realized that im "supposed" to be playing fighters after getting stomped by Ryujo.

I dont want to play fighters because of the crap xp and I actually dont like playing fighters as I find it boring as hell.

Stopped playing US CV's...

Done.

GG WG

waste of my time and effort, A+ for pidgeon holing and D- for me for not checking all this beforehand.

 

 

independence is my favourite carrier, i just played it in balanced 1-1-1 loadout and did quite well

[OddityNZ]

Tried that as well, raped by three IJN fighter wings over and over.....

I honestly just cbf grinding through it with fighters to then play the next carrier layout stock or with fighters again.

Just crap really.

crap.

Selling my carriers and trying to forget all the wasted hours spent playing them.

Let people pick there own layouts you damn Sadists.

 

[Hawkstorm]

It smacks you in the face playing as US carriers just how borked the Airgrps really are on carriers, they are neither historic, F4F's were on bogues for instance not biplanes and seafires for the british versions.

 

The number of airgroups is key, the more you have the better you do, US carriers come of the worst against IJN carriers, their groups maybe bigger but 3 groups vs 2 always seems to win.  Things are even worse for US carriers as their bigger groups mean bigger losses, so they empty quick vs IJN superiority setups, and 12 V 12 AA power on ships smacks you in the face again after playing 8v8.

 

ALL nation airgroups need to have the same amount and the same amount of planes in them, the planes themselves need to be different and IJN should probably have better torp planes and the US better divebombers for instance.

 

Things are way out of wack and you soon notice once you hit the bogue where your forced to run 2 fighter setups to try compete in random battles, my indepenance gets mugged by any IJN carrier of the same tier and you earn little xp.

 

Something needs to be done for the next patch, this can't continue.

 

People use the argument so many planes v so many planes but the game doesn't seem to work like that when you have multiple fighter groups in combat 2v3 groups of fighters 3 usually wins despite fewer planes in them, and then the US carrier gets hit with a massive replacement cost ontop to boot.

 

US carriers have limited flexibility because of their diminished group numbers compared to IJN and that shouldn't be the case, its pushed game balance out the window, the Devs haven't taken into account how people play them.

 Other thing that really stands out is that compared to 8v8 on the same ship the AA power of the ship seems to go up a lot, and AA power of ships in general needs toning down or the durability of aircraft needs a significant boost in random matches.

 

The game seems more balanced 8v8 than 12v12 as far as AA goes.

 

 

 

Also the Way US carriers can often be relegated to 1 or a few dive bomber setups needs looking at also unless Dive bomber damage output is increased, along with the chance to critically knockout key elements of a ship, such as a Battleships turrets with AP Bombs etc.

 

The only Us carrier that seems currently OP, that I've played is the Bogue because of its airgroup it swats planes like flies, it does better for free XP than a premium ship. lol 1700-2000 with flags nice little earner, but needs a ship speed increase as its vastly too slow to keep up with any ship of its tier and always gets left behind and just can't keep protected because of it.
 

I propose there should be 1 group per tier, with a sensible amount of fighter groups, 2-3 varying with bomber torp bomber group numbers or there abouts.

 

 

Fix it plz

[OddityNZ]

+1

Liked the Bogue as well and going from that to the Independence is like taking one step back and one step sideways......

Don't force to me to be Aircover when I dont want to play it like that way...........

Phlydaily's review and discussion about US carriers sums it up nicely.

 

[Kedo]

Playing the independence as TP/DB, realized that im "supposed" to be playing fighters after getting stomped by Ryujo.

I dont want to play fighters because of the crap xp and I actually dont like playing fighters as I find it boring as hell.

Stopped playing US CV's...

Done.

GG WG

waste of my time and effort, A+ for pidgeon holing and D- for me for not checking all this beforehand.

 

 

good you stopped, because this is a team game and your "because of the crap xp and I actually dont like playing fighters as I find it boring as hell" means you don't care about covering your team with your fighters... leave CV spot to actual teamplayers. No offense.

 

Tried that as well, raped by three IJN fighter wings over and over.....

I honestly just cbf grinding through it with fighters to then play the next carrier layout stock or with fighters again.

Just crap really.

crap.

Selling my carriers and trying to forget all the wasted hours spent playing them.

Let people pick there own layouts you damn Sadists.

 

 

3 fighter wings mean they have fighter setup... if you don't, you can't engage head on (use your imagination - lure them to AA, split them using your groups etc.)... if you also do, you'll dominate air in 80% of encounters (or you're doing it wrong)

 

 

It smacks you in the face playing as US carriers just how borked the Airgrps really are on carriers, they are neither historic, F4F's were on bogues for instance not biplanes and seafires for the british versions.

 

 

The number of airgroups is key, the more you have the better you do, US carriers come of the worst against IJN carriers, their groups maybe bigger but 3 groups vs 2 always seems to win.  Things are even worse for US carriers as their bigger groups mean bigger losses, so they empty quick vs IJN superiority setups, and 12 V 12 AA power on ships smacks you in the face again after playing 8v8.

 

 

ALL nation airgroups need to have the same amount and the same amount of planes in them, the planes themselves need to be different and IJN should probably have better torp planes and the US better divebombers for instance.

 

 

Things are way out of wack and you soon notice once you hit the bogue where your forced to run 2 fighter setups to try compete in random battles, my indepenance gets mugged by any IJN carrier of the same tier and you earn little xp.

 

 

Something needs to be done for the next patch, this can't continue.

 

 

People use the argument so many planes v so many planes but the game doesn't seem to work like that when you have multiple fighter groups in combat 2v3 groups of fighters 3 usually wins despite fewer planes in them, and then the US carrier gets hit with a massive replacement cost ontop to boot.

 

 

US carriers have limited flexibility because of their diminished group numbers compared to IJN and that shouldn't be the case, its pushed game balance out the window, the Devs haven't taken into account how people play them.

 

 Other thing that really stands out is that compared to 8v8 on the same ship the AA power of the ship seems to go up a lot, and AA power of ships in general needs toning down or the durability of aircraft needs a significant boost in random matches.

 

 

The game seems more balanced 8v8 than 12v12 as far as AA goes.

 

 

 

 

Also the Way US carriers can often be relegated to 1 or a few dive bomber setups needs looking at also unless Dive bomber damage output is increased, along with the chance to critically knockout key elements of a ship, such as a Battleships turrets with AP Bombs etc.

 

 

The only Us carrier that seems currently OP, that I've played is the Bogue because of its airgroup it swats planes like flies, it does better for free XP than a premium ship. lol 1700-2000 with flags nice little earner, but needs a ship speed increase as its vastly too slow to keep up with any ship of its tier and always gets left behind and just can't keep protected because of it.

 

I propose there should be 1 group per tier, with a sensible amount of fighter groups, 2-3 varying with bomber torp bomber group numbers or there abouts.

 

 

 

Fix it plz

 

no... just no... once again, in this game, US CVs are SUPERIOR to IJN CVs in terms of air domination

 

seriously, people, I NEVER used any other deck than stock deck on my US CVs and I rarely lose air to IJN CV... and there are also others telling you US>IJN in terms of air domination when played properly... you might wanna experiment with your play-style a bit before crying "bloody bias"...

[Jaeger_Bomb_Meister]

Not happy with the Tier 7/8 Cruisers...To old....better ships out there

BB gun dispersion inferior to IJN

IJN Atago 790m turn circle........terrible...especially compared to sister ship

Not seeing any advantage in USN DD Line Compared to IJN DD's

IJN Cruiser line to alike  after Tier 6....Branch offs needed on all branches me thinks

[ShockPirat]

 

no... just no... once again, in this game, US CVs are SUPERIOR to IJN CVs in terms of air domination

 

seriously, people, I NEVER used any other deck than stock deck on my US CVs and I rarely lose air to IJN CV... and there are also others telling you US>IJN in terms of air domination when played properly... you might wanna experiment with your play-style a bit before crying "bloody bias"...

 

No, USN are NOT superior to IJN in terms of air domination. Stop living in the past. 4.1 happened weeks ago.

 

Here are the plane stats, except tiers 4 and 5 where USN are superior (because of the number of fighters).

 

Independence vs Ryujo

Grumman F3F                   Mitsubishi A5M2

1140 hp                               1150 hp (+1%)

42 dps                                  41 dps (-2.5%)

 

Ranger vs Hiryu

Grumman F4F3                Mitsubishi A6M2

1400hp                             1360 hp (-3%)

53 dps                               55 dps (+3.5%)

 

Lexington vs Shokaku

Vought F4U                     Mitsubishi A7M1

1670 hp                           1620 hp (-3%)

63 dps                            63 dps (same)

 

Essex vs Taiho

Grumman F8F                 Kyushu J7W1

1830 hp                         1820 hp (-0.5%)

73 dps                           80 dps (+9.5% holy shiet. And you say IJN planes are worse?)

 

Midway vs Hakuryu

McDonnell F2H               Nakajima J8N1

2150 hp                        1970 hp (-9.1%)

80 dps                          87 dps (+8.8%)

 

 

What can we see here? On most tiers, fighters are almost the same. USN are slightly better at tiers 6 and 8, IJN are slightly better at tier 7 and MUCH better at tier 9, and tier 10 is pretty much the same (actually, I would call IJN planes better as they will kill bombers faster because they have higher dps).

 

So what decides the outcome of an air battle (if captain skills and plane upgrades are equal)? In most cases, simply said, the number of fighters. That is why USN tier 4 and 5 walk over IJN. They simply get 2 fighters more (with stock loadout). USN will have more fighters ONLY if they run air superiority, and only on some tiers (on tiers 6 and 7 it is the same if both run air superiority = 12 vs 12). Tier 8 Lexington can contest air superiority Shokaku in the air with its stock loadout, but that is the only such case in the game. Tier 9 Essex stock loadout CAN NOT contest an air superiority Taiho because Taiho's fighters get  ridiculously more dps. Besides, 90% of Essexes and Midways will run strike loadout so they won't win in the air anyway.

Before you say USN benefit from dogfighting expertise more. Again, it is not true for all tiers. Cba getting the plane speed info now, you got another thread for that; and, dogfighting expertise was designed to help lower tier carriers compete vs higher tiers they got matched against. Lexi fighters could easily destroy Midway fighters 1v1, because the speed difference was huge. If the speed difference is ~5 knots as it is on most tiers, it does next to nothing. Even though Taiho fighters are 2 kn faster than Essex fighters, Essex still loses.

 

Now, do I seriously have to answer why  USN carriers DO NOT want to run air superiority?

They do not get torpedo bombers.

If enemy IJN manages JUST ONE successful torpedo run, he will do more damage that game than opposing USN and "beat" him, as he will be more useful to his team. Even if USN shoots down all of IJNs planes, he can't do much else that game but spot destroyers (which rarely survive to late game) and divebomb ships for crap damage. That is why Essex and Midway go strike, because ultimately damage you do is what counts the most and what helps your team to win the most. You spare fighters to defend your team if you can, and stock USN simply can't spare them on most tiers.

For USN, fighter loadout suck by default. And last but not least, shooting planes down is not rewarded enough in terms of xp and credits.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt you never lost air as a stock USN. You're on Ranger now, which is considered the worst CV at its tier in the game. Hiryu is superior in every single way. Loadout is better, planes are better, the ship hull itself is better. Perhaps you were playing vs incompetent IJN captains.

[OddityNZ]

Exactly what Pirate said.

Well said sir.

[Doolio]

I find it more interesting that the ancient "anti-us bias" tinfoilery still goes on in WoT, after US perpetually getting insane tanks in the past 2-3 YEARS

 

[RapscallionDK]

 

 

In mid tiers for US (I am on Independence tier 6) you generally get:

 

1/1/1  chance to get xp but IJN from what I have read never fly stock so there will always be IJN fighter group to engage US fighters and then rape bombers and torps

 

2/0/1 for air means anti ship sucks, so no xp, I've read you get rock all for shooting down aircaraft, if this was different it might help

 

0/1/2 dive bombers which are not that good, no change torps, but get raped by IJN fighters

 

IJN gets:

 

1/1/2  1 group to engage US fighters, 1 torps and 2 bombers so chance of xp on enemy

 

3/1/1 so this loadout has 3 fighter groups 2 to engage US fighters and 1 to rape US torps or bombers, if US is stock then 1 group to engage fighters and 2 to rape torps and bombers. It does not matter how many fighters in US group as they are all in 1 group unless you go for 2/0/2.

 

1/2/2 so 1 group to engage US fighters and 2 torps and 2 bombers to score xp on enemy.

 

If the US could get 2/1/0 that would give it a chance to at least get xp on enemy ships and have a chance to survive the multiple IJN fighter groups.

It is NOT the total amout of fighters in the air it is the GROUPINGS that decide the issue.

The more groupings you can put in the air, the more flexibilty you have. Simple as.....

 

With US using 1 fighter group I can only try to defend my strike groups, the IJN strike groups get free reign, or I can try to attack IJN strike groups and my strike groups get raped.

If I put up 2 fighter groups then my xp is minimal at best.

If I put 0 fighters up, then I will get raped quicker

 

 

This guy gets it.

 

The inherent problem lies not only with IJN having more squadrons but also the fact that US fighter layouts are so handicapped in terms of flexibility.

 

Add further to the cause is that killing planes gives almost no xp and divebombers do little dmg compared to torp bombers (while also dying more easily), which ends up setting the US Carrier tree as a disaster.

 

Only at T9 and T10 do US carriers start getting flexible (T8 gets a little better but not much) and i understand very well why many players dont want to grind through the disaster before stuff gets fun.

 

Please look into this soon WG, no need to nerf the japs but make US carriers actually fun to play.

[DJ_Die]

The smaller number of squadrons wouldnt have been such a problem if US CVs had some sensible loadouts but.....they dont until tier 8...

and no 3 IJN FP squads are perfectly capable of beating or at least negating 2 US FP squads while still allowing IJN to retain a half decent striking force at the same time the problem is that many IJN CVs dont have the FP upgrades while most US CVs do....US can either go strike all the way for a minimal strike force increase because those extra DBs are simply not worth losing your fighters or go full fighter losing almost all your strike capability while still not gaining enough FP squads to entirely negate IJN carriers strikes....

which means the most sensible setup is the stock one which means you have less planes in the air again gimping your capability

and dont get me even started on the Hyriu vs Ranger imbalance where the Hyriu gets the same loadouts as the T8 Shokaku while the Ranger gets the same setup as the T6 Independence meaning ANYTHING Ranger can do Hyriu does better without completely losing out in another area and thats the problem....a Hyriu with air superiority loadout WILL beat a Ranger with the same loadout unless the Hyriu driver is stupid

 

all thats needed are a couple tweaks to mid tier US CV loadouts nothing major because at T8+ the situations is reversed but not even remotely this bad

[OddityNZ]

E

 

 

This guy gets it.

 

The inherent problem lies not only with IJN having more squadrons but also the fact that US fighter layouts are so handicapped in terms of flexibility.

 

Add further to the cause is that killing planes gives almost no xp and divebombers do little dmg compared to torp bombers (while also dying more easily), which ends up setting the US Carrier tree as a disaster.

 

Only at T9 and T10 do US carriers start getting flexible (T8 gets a little better but not much) and i understand very well why many players dont want to grind through the disaster before stuff gets fun.

 

Please look into this soon WG, no need to nerf the japs but make US carriers actually fun to play.

 

This Exactly, its like pulling teeth to play from 6-8 atm...

[Hawkstorm]

Try the battleships and you soon think their is a imbalance never mind the CV's.

[Takeda92]

All these buff that mostly USN ships are getting and you guys still think there's bias against US ships?

 

 

 

[DJ_Die]

All these buff that mostly USN ships are getting and you guys still think there's bias against US ships?

 

 

 

No i think they are balancing the game because quite a few USN ships are simply underperforming... Have you even played any US ships? I play both nations and therecate bad ships on both sides like Furutaka used to be before the buff or Myogi or mid-tier US DDs which are getting a buff for a good reason...

 

And same goes for CVs...Ryujo and Hiryu just outclass their US counterparts, T8 and 9 are supposedly balanced but T10 is better for US Midway.... But i heard IJN T10 is getting a buff too

[Takeda92]

No i think they are balancing the game because quite a few USN ships are simply underperforming... Have you even played any US ships? I play both nations and therecate bad ships on both sides like Furutaka used to be before the buff or Myogi or mid-tier US DDs which are getting a buff for a good reason...

 

And same goes for CVs...Ryujo and Hiryu just outclass their US counterparts, T8 and 9 are supposedly balanced but T10 is better for US Midway.... But i heard IJN T10 is getting a buff too

 

That's just balancing then. It's fine when people are talking about balancing and what ships needs buffs, but to call it "bias" (like the title of this thread) is BS. People really need to chose better title for threads.

If the OP is concerned about underperforming midtier US CVs.. then he should've name it just that. 

[DJ_Die]

 

That's just balancing then. It's fine when people are talking about balancing and what ships needs buffs, but to call it "bias" (like the title of this thread) is BS. People really need to chose better title for threads.

If the OP is concerned about underperforming midtier US CVs.. then he should've name it just that. 

 

Well if you look at it this way....most US CVs are underperforming Especially now when IJN CVs get air superiority loadouts too and unlike the USN ones they actually make sense while still beating or at least negating US CVs with the same setup

Then we have the horrible mid tier DDs and until recently horrible Colorado... and of course the Pensacola.... thats why people see some kind of anti-US bias... I dont really share that opinion because Pensacola has the same problems as Furutaka.... the abrupt change in gamestyle... and after the buff Furutaka is actually a decent ship

[jonasnee]

well atleast American destroyers are more fun to play than japan, also Cleveland not to mention midway etc.

 

at tier 5 and 8-10 American carriers are superior to japanese ones and on the other ones they are rarely anything other than equal or slightly worse.

 

seriusly in terms of aircraft Americans have better fighters, better torp squad in mutliple ways and their dive bombers are far superior being actually able to hit destroyers a thing that is a rarity for japanese DB.