US CV Fighter Setups are worthless

[Syrchalis]

Why play Fighter setups? Air superiority, to be the [edited] for the team, get no XP and in truth be actually worthless.

 

Winning air superiority is only useful if you at the end of battle did more damage than the enemy carrier. Otherwise you have a ton of plane kills, but he had the bigger impact on the game, essentially beating you.

 

The US has very weak fighter setups, not because their fighters are bad, they are good - but because they can't deal any damage in their fighter setups.

 

• T4 - Essentially this is the only overperforming fighter setup. You have more fighters than Hosho and also TBs to deal more damage. Of course atm it's horribly unbalanced, but that's not the point here.
• T5 - Now the Bogue is what I call "unfixable". You can't give it 2/1/0, nor 1/1/1. It's OP or UP, nothing to be done here.
• T6 - Here it starts really. Because an Independence could actually use 2/1/0 without being OP.
• T7 - Why does the Ranger have 2/0/2? It gets beaten hands down by Hiryu 2/2/2, even by the bad 3/1/2 setup. The Ranger needs 2/1/1 like the Lexington. Hiryu und Shokaku are basically the same, just better planes. Why is Ranger so much worse than the Lexington then?
• T8 - This is the ONE balanced tier, where fighter setup is actually the prefered one for US. Why? Because it's 2/1/1.
• T9 - 3/0/2 loses everytime everyday against any Taiho setup, simply because it lacks TBs. End of the story is always the Taiho having a bigger impact because it actually dealt damage. It needs to be 3/1/1.
• T10 - 2/1/2 as well as 3/0/2 are both not viable. The first lacks fighters to actually have air superiority and the second has no damage again.

 

US CVs are too strong in high tier right now, we know that, but also too weak in mid tier. This is why. IJN CVs always had two really viable setups while US CVs always sit on a crappy fighter layout that can't win a game, because it has no damage to actually make something of the air superiority - and a crappy strike layout that is all DB.

 

Of course in a 2vs2 air superiority with no damage actually does something, because of your other CV, but we aren't balancing for that, as most games have one or no CV, not two (per side). Plus ranked battles will have only one per side too.

[Syrchalis]

If this would be fixed CVs would suddenly deal so much less damage because people would focus more on air superiority instead of pure strike layouts. I am surprised noone is jumping at this.

[DtXpwnz]

CV Fighter Setups are worthless

No sh*t

[Un1eash]

you just need a reward for plane and balance between fighter (why i have to pick fighter loadout as IJN when i will lose to USN anyways )

[Syrchalis]

you just need a reward for plane and balance between fighter

 

No, that wouldn't solve anything. While a reward for shooting planes is required, this doesn't help an Essex or Midway ever choosing the fighter setup. They don't use those because they are inferior, not because the reward is crap. They are inferior because you can't prevent enough damage of an enemy CV compared to the tiny bit of damage you can do with 2 DBs.

 

Same reason why Ranger is just worse than Hiryu hands down.

[N00b32]

If this would be fixed CVs would suddenly deal so much less damage because people would focus more on air superiority instead of pure strike layouts. I am surprised noone is jumping at this.

 

There is no fix. Fighters are an anti unit. There are always only worth what they can prevent. The only way to fix it is to give fighters abilities to attack ships. 

 

More fighters only leads to more more air air combat with less influence on the game and a complete seperation of the carriers from the actual game that is played on the battlefield. 

 

Either you accept that there has to be a population of fighter setups and strike setups that are constantly in flow, depending what is played more and you react on that by changing or there will be no solution for you. Also you have to accept, that with more fighters the population will change and it will get more and more harder for strikers to deliver damage. Resulting in an overall lower influence in the carrier gameplay, because the population will onyl change, when the striker has a possibility in xp earned against the fighter.

 

So no, it is perfectly fine, the moment fighter setups dominate strike setups, the whole carrrier concept goes nuts because it makes no sense at all. The fighter setup is for the long gameplay, the strike setup for the short damage burst. There is no way to fix it because there is nothing wrong there. 

[Syrchalis]

Fighters shouldnt dominate the CV world, but right now US Fighter setups are UNVIABLE - aka might as well be removed. And having something so bad in the game is always crap.

[Silvercat18]

There is a value to fighter setups and that is survival - if you play against IJN, then you can all but guarantee there is an incoming blob of death that will wipe you off the map in the first five minutes unless you can raise a fighter defence. When I get my Essex, I`ll be taking the three fighter, two dive loadout and having no regrets about it, especially with the new matchmaking system.

[N00b32]

Fighters shouldnt dominate the CV world, but right now US Fighter setups are UNVIABLE - aka might as well be removed. And having something so bad in the game is always crap.

 

I agree with you that something big has to be changed about carriers. All the loadout options before were about gamble, what you would expect as enemies. Now, with mirror matchmaking, a lot has changed and I get the impression, that all of the consequences of mirror matchmaking have yet to reveal themselves. Kind of strange when a launch is two weeks ahead, but Ok. 

 

There is a value to fighter setups and that is survival - if you play against IJN, then you can all but guarantee there is an incoming blob of death that will wipe you off the map in the first five minutes unless you can raise a fighter defence. 

 

No. Maybe at high tier, but not at middle tier. There is no point in killing some carriers. It is like a chicken egg problem. If you have fighter loadout, then there is no point in sinking you, even if the bombers come through, because your damage will be low. Usually I killed only IJN carriers and US carriers only, if his fighters are in a bad position. 

[2ndaryBattleTank]

 

Winning air superiority is only useful if you at the end of battle did more damage than the enemy carrier. Otherwise you have a ton of plane kills, but he had the bigger impact on the game, essentially beating you.

 

 

I am sure your team mates would not agree. For them it can actually be rather pleasant not to be attacked by aircraft all the time. In the end the value of a fighter setup is not how much damage you do, but how much damage you prevent being done to your team. This is a valuable contribution to the outcome of the match even if the rewards for doing so are currently not worthwhile.

[Syrchalis]

 

I am sure your team mates would not agree. For them it can actually be rather pleasant not to be attacked by aircraft all the time. In the end the value of a fighter setup is not how much damage you do, but how much damage you prevent being done to your team. This is a valuable contribution to the outcome of the match even if the rewards for doing so are currently not worthwhile.

 

You successfully understood the first half of the problem. Fighter setup = prevent damage. But you need to see, you usually don't prevent all damage, so the enemy CV still does some. Meanwhile you do NO DAMAGE AT ALL, because you're left with 1-2 shitty divebombers. Now draw the conclusion yourself - he still did more damage than you did. So if you had taken strike layout and sunk him that would have been million times better. But even if not, if you just killed a few BBs that would also been better already.

 

There is a value to fighter setups and that is survival - if you play against IJN, then you can all but guarantee there is an incoming blob of death that will wipe you off the map in the first five minutes unless you can raise a fighter defence. When I get my Essex, I`ll be taking the three fighter, two dive loadout and having no regrets about it, especially with the new matchmaking system.

 

When you get to your Essex you will notice how the tables are turned. 1/2/2 - you can easily oneshot a IJN carrier no problem, while your AA completely shields you.

[Hauptbahnhof]

Should be fixed when dive bombers get AP bombs and can hit Battleships.

[DaWyrm]

I think the main thing that could help this is to give Dive Bombers AP-bombs that can actually do some damage against the bigger ships. Make them more comparable to TB in damage potential. As it is now, DB does so little damage even if you set the target on fire that they are barely worth the hangar space they occupy

 

[Un1eash]

 

No, that wouldn't solve anything. While a reward for shooting planes is required, this doesn't help an Essex or Midway ever choosing the fighter setup. They don't use those because they are inferior, not because the reward is crap. They are inferior because you can't prevent enough damage of an enemy CV compared to the tiny bit of damage you can do with 2 DBs.

 

Same reason why Ranger is just worse than Hiryu hands down.

 

i got your point but balance between fighter that i meant is give IJN more air superior  as fighter loadout againts USN strike loadout.

people will do their job , seek for plane because they got rewards or maybe a thanks from teammate and something like "team support" will begun which make a better game play.

 

P.S high tier USN is OP now and game mechanism create a  "DMG is  Everything" cultural , IDK why WG swap their characteristic between IJN and USN which change a dream goal that player grind to high tier into a nightmare that they doesn't choose at the start

[Syrchalis]

USN at high tier would be less of a problem if they could play something other than full strike. But they can't. Not if they want to win or not lose 200k credits every game. At high tier USN's fighter layout is 3/0/2, which means they got equal air power to IJN, but no damage whatsoever. IJN meanwhile has always 2 torpedo squads, even in fighter layout, meaning they always win against US. So US has to play 1/2/2. They need to change it to 3/1/1 so you don't automatically lose the damage battle.

 

The reward for shooting planes is relevant, but it's not the MAIN reason noone plays fighter layout at higher tiers, it's simply that you lose with it. All the fighters in the world don't help if you deal no damage, because for one, you are left unprotected and we all know teamwork is not exactly the main thing happening in random battles. Secondly, if the enemy CV only ever hits a single torpedo or bomb, he already did more than you - because "the damage you prevented" is not a relevant stat. Only damage caused is relevant.

Basically - let's put it this way. He killed one ship and you none, but prevented him from killing 3 more ships. So you saved 3 ships, he killed 1. Still he beats you. Why? Because at the end, he took out a ship and you did not. It's not like you added 3 ships to your team.

 

Only if you killed 2 ships and he only 1, because you prevented him from getting any more, only then you would have beaten him in terms of contribution. But for that you need damage. 3/0/2 has no damage to do that.

 

For CVs damage done is the only really relevant stat. Other ships have two very important other stats - they can cap properly (CV only if nothing is close) and soak up damage - they can also push, though that's not really a stat.

 

And since BBs will whine to the end of days about CVs, with more viable fighter layouts CVs would focus more on that and less on pure strike.

[Kenliero]

In my mind view how it SHOULD work,  (assuming ALL fighters engage each other):

 

if both select bomber setups, no fighters in low tier, USN wins in high tierThis is why there should be FULL Divebomber setup for IJN CV, like 0,1,3 and 0,1,4)

if both select medium setups: USN fighters wins, IJN has 1 more torpedofleet

if both select max fighter setup, USN fighters wins, IJN has 1 more torpedofleet

 

if USN selects FULL bomber setup, IJN selects medium/fighter setup, IJN wins airfights

if USN selects medium setup, IJN wins only if full fighter setup

if USN selects full fighter setup, USN always wins airfights. IJN has more bombers in full fighter setup.

 

Both teams should have:

Low tiers 4-7:

Bombersetup (only bombers in both nations)

Medium (balanced fighters and bombers, Both teams 1 fighter per fleet)

Full fighters (2 fighter fleets)

 

High tiers 8-10:

Bombersetup (1 fighter fleet in both nations)

Medium (balanced fighters and bombers, Both teams 2 fighters per fleet)

Full fighters (No torpedobombers, at least 3 fighterfleets)

 

[Un1eash]

USN at high tier would be less of a problem if they could play something other than full strike. But they can't. Not if they want to win or not lose 200k credits every game. At high tier USN's fighter layout is 3/0/2, which means they got equal air power to IJN, but no damage whatsoever. IJN meanwhile has always 2 torpedo squads, even in fighter layout, meaning they always win against US. So US has to play 1/2/2. They need to change it to 3/1/1 so you don't automatically lose the damage battle.

 

The reward for shooting planes is relevant, but it's not the MAIN reason noone plays fighter layout at higher tiers, it's simply that you lose with it. All the fighters in the world don't help if you deal no damage, because for one, you are left unprotected and we all know teamwork is not exactly the main thing happening in random battles. Secondly, if the enemy CV only ever hits a single torpedo or bomb, he already did more than you - because "the damage you prevented" is not a relevant stat. Only damage caused is relevant. And if the enemy CV did 50.000 damage, because you did your job really good and you did 10.000 damage, because you only have crappy DBs, then he still helped his team more than you did, even though you prevented 200k damage and he prevented nothing. Because at the end, your team suffered 50k damage from their CV and their team 10k damage from you.

 

If you had taken strike layout instead you maybe had ended up doing 220k damage and he 170k. In this case, you would have done more. For CVs damage done is the only really relevant stat. Other ships have two very important other stats - they can cap properly (CV only if nothing is close) and soak up damage - they can also push, though that's not really a stat.

 

And since BBs will whine to the end of days about CVs, with more viable fighter layouts CVs would focus more on that and less on pure strike.

Yes they are  the reason is USN fighter is lesser group and if you fight against good IJN player your fighter will be busy with IJN fighter and left your team unprotected so it need more fighter which  i call balance. and (50k) means 8 torp hit which is reasonable if your enemy  IJN manage to do that if your completely got air superior.

 

"we all know teamwork is not exactly the main thing happening in random battles"  At this point shud we blame WG for "DMG is  Everything" cultural they created? which make people yolo even in high tier (Noob at tier Vlll premium ship also included ) and it is common fact that you lose because your team suck at being team...

 

P.S. i accept your point that USN fighter is lack of DMG out put. 

 

and again "IDK why WG swap their characteristic between IJN and USN which change a dream goal that player grind to high tier into a nightmare that they doesn't choose at the start" 

[Syrchalis]

Both teams should have:

Low tiers 4-7:

Bombersetup (only bombers in both nations)

Medium (balanced fighters and bombers, Both teams 1 fighter per fleet)

Full fighters (2 fighter fleets)

 

High tiers 8-10:

Bombersetup (1 fighter fleet in both nations)

Medium (balanced fighters and bombers, Both teams 2 fighters per fleet)

Full fighters (No torpedobombers, at least 3 fighterfleets)

 

Ehm, that's EXACTLY how it was before the last patch. And no, high tier needs torpedo bombers on BOTH sides in fighter setup, so your air superiority actually gains you something - as I have explained 3 times already, if you win air superiority you gained nothing, until you dealt damage. If the enemy CV somehow manages to sneak attack anything and deal more damage than you (which is likely, given that he has so many more and better bombers) then you lost within one attack of the enemy CV, because you will never catch up in damage again.

At this point shud we blame WG for "DMG is  Everything" cultural they created?

 

and again "IDK why WG swap their characteristic between IJN and USN which change a dream goal that player grind to high tier into a nightmare that they doesn't choose at the start" 

 

1. Yes - it's the game designers fault. I am a game designer myself and if you design a game to punish teamwork and reward "YOLO DMG IS KING" play then don't expect players to teamwork. The current state of WoWs is sadly not rewarding for teamwork. Look at League Of Legends for example. There teamwork is rewarded a lot. It's not insanely rewarded, but reasonably. And does it happen? All the time. Even the biggest jerks teamwork in LoL, simply because it works and is fun! The two important criteria.

 

2. I agree. It's why I play Essex now. I went for IJN CVs because I wanted to play a bomber-heavy carrier. Even before the patch at T9 and T10 USN was already better at strike, but now after the patch, the roles are flipped even more. I doubt WG will actually go through with their intended design philosophy at any point.

[Kenliero]

The setup I suggested, is NOT the way it was. First of all. The problem in the previous patch was 3 IJN torpedobombers in tiers 6-8 It should be 2. Not 3. Also, by selecting full fighter setup, you MUST have penalty. By not having torpedoes, otherwise everyone would just autoselect fighters only. The whole idea, is to find balance between XP from bombing vs air superiority. You can not have both. The idea is, that when you choose full bomber, you take RISK. You hope enemy has also full bomber, or balanced setup, so that you can do some bombing at least, but if enemy has full fighter, he can completely suppress you, but he MUST pay the price of EASY air superiority, to negate your game, in terms of XP. This why full fighter setup can not have torpedoes. Also, usn should have extra DB in low tiers, but absolutely not more torpedoes.

[Syrchalis]

But then taking fighter setup is insanely risky too. In higher tiers even completely inefficient. Let me explain it with an example:

 

Hakuryu 2/3/3 vs. Midway 3/0/2

 

Hakuryu is strike setup, Midway is fighter setup. If the Hakuryu gets even one proper torpedo attack off, the Midway already lost the damage fight, because it's DBs can never outweigh it.

The Hakuryu WILL definitely get a good strike off - because 2 fighters can lock up 2 fighters of the midway and 1 fighter can't fend off 6 bomber squads. With 3/1/1 the Midway at least could threaten the Hakuryu, and eventually sink it, as the Hakuryu can't defend itself. And even if Midway wouldn't go for the Hakuryu, it could deal some serious damage too.

 

Let's take another example at a lower tier:

Ranger 2/0/2 vs. Hiryu 3/1/2

 

Both are fighter setup. The 3 fighters of the Hiryu not only lock the Rangers up, but likely beat them as well. Which gives the Hiryu 4 torpedos and 8 bombs, the ranger just 12 bombs to deal damage. Air superiority is a draw, Hiryu wins in damage. If the Ranger was 2/1/1 it would be a lot more balanced.

[II_Nemesis_II]

I agree with Kenliero. Until fighters will be more about skill, like for example polish/fix manual barrage and completely remove point-click attacks (or nerf them to oblivion so that they are usefull as auto-drops) then I don't want to see fighter configurations with torpedo bombers. Worst one is Hakuryu 4/2/2. I cannot count how many players (those who did not properly grasp bomber play) switched to this crap, which gives them too easy way to negate opposing carrier while still having some punch with 8TBs and 8DBs. Fighters are here only to give bad players some easy way to be usefull in the match if they cannot do it through bombers.

[Syrchalis]

I just want the US CVs to have some useful options. Right now there is exactly ONE layout per US CV that is even remotely useable.

 

And I agree that fighters need some skill and interaction involved. The barrage is a step in the right direction, but not while it's so buggy.

[Un1eash]

well shud i looking for trade Essex with my Hakuryuu?

 

[Kenliero]

But then taking fighter setup is insanely risky too. In higher tiers even completely inefficient. Let me explain it with an example:

 

Hakuryu 2/3/3 vs. Midway 3/0/2

 

Hakuryu is strike setup, Midway is fighter setup. If the Hakuryu gets even one proper torpedo attack off, the Midway already lost the damage fight, because it's DBs can never outweigh it.

The Hakuryu WILL definitely get a good strike off - because 2 fighters can lock up 2 fighters of the midway and 1 fighter can't fend off 6 bomber squads. With 3/1/1 the Midway at least could threaten the Hakuryu, and eventually sink it, as the Hakuryu can't defend itself. And even if Midway wouldn't go for the Hakuryu, it could deal some serious damage too.

 

Let's take another example at a lower tier:

Ranger 2/0/2 vs. Hiryu 3/1/2

 

Both are fighter setup. The 3 fighters of the Hiryu not only lock the Rangers up, but likely beat them as well. Which gives the Hiryu 4 torpedos and 8 bombs, the ranger just 12 bombs to deal damage. Air superiority is a draw, Hiryu wins in damage. If the Ranger was 2/1/1 it would be a lot more balanced.

 

I agree. The rewards are too small in that setup. Adding extra Divebomber fleet to USN fleets would be improvement, so that USN XP is similar to IJN ones.

 

My ideal flight decks for tiers 9-10:

 

Haku vs Midway and Taiho vs Essex:

 

4/1/4 vs 4/0/4 (USN initially wins airfights)

3/2/3 vs 3/1/4 (USN initially wins airfights)

2/3/3 vs 2/2/4 (USN initially wins airfights)

 

Tier 8

 

Shokaku vs Lexington

 

3/1/4 vs 3/0/4 

2/2/3 vs 2/0/5 

1/3/3 vs 1/1/4 

 

Tier 7 Hiryo vs Ranger'

 

2/0/4 vs 2/0/3 

1/1/4 vs 1/0/3 

0/2/3 vs 0/1/4

 

Tier 6 Ryujo vs Independence'

 

2/0/3 vs 2/0/2 

1/1/3 vs 1/0/3 

0/2/3 vs 0/1/3

 

My idea here is that we would have more focus on Divebombing in the setups.

This is pretty QUICK setup, that I thought about

Any thoughts about this approach? what do you think? What would you change?

 

[captain_sam]

Let s be honest, all those changes back and forth, here and there, only shows that they have no idea how to balance the CVs or what to do with them. The old goal of IJN CV=torps and USN=fighters is gone and now it is just about calming down the whining captains who can t anticipate a torp drop and dodge...

 

Pre-0.4.1. CVs were still enjoyable. Now it is reaaalllly boring. I used to play a few battles with my Shokaku, I will now only play the *1,5 bonus and then switch to somethingelse. Better I spam HE with the looooong time OP Cleveland for which WG STILL did not do any kind of nerf.

 

Only 10% of CVs players pre-0.4.1, curious to know what are the stats now. It is not the USN fighters decks that are useless, all CVs are funless. I do not recommend anyone to start grinding a CV line right now.