Carriers way too fast

[TinQQQ]

Hello fellow captains,

 

Now that this game is no longer a beta I suppose it is appropriate to nag a little.

 

I must say carriers in this game are way too fast compared to the rest of the ships. It is not that uncommon to find myself pursuing an enemy carrier with my destroyer. However, if the carrier (not even knowing I'm chasing him/her) happens to be autopiloting to the same direction I'm heading, my mission becomes a never-ending mission. My destroyer Minekaze/etc. sails about 38 knots and somehow it feels as if the carriers go +30 knots (Ryjo, independence etc) as it takes forever to "eat" the gap in between. Not to mention having to torpedo the carrier down, I would have to be way ahead of him since I'm not even sure which one is faster, a torpedo or a carrier.

 

So is there some specific reason why these "behemots" of naval warfare (colossal aircaft carriers) are faster and more agile than most of the other ships? A leftover from Beta? Can it be changed then?

[typhaon]

Well they used to be fast in reality as well.

Especially many earlier CVs were based on cruisers which meant that they shared they speed and manouverability.

Later carriers were especially designed to high speed because the ability to relocate quickly was essential to hide on the ocean.

In reality later CVs often were even faster than DDs, especially when in rough weather.

[JapLance]

Fast, yes, as their historical counterparts.

 

More agile than most ships, no way.

[Andreevson]

Carriers were made to be fast so they dont get intercepted by destroyers and cruisers, because in a close-range engagement guess who will win...

[Battledragon]

Langley and Bogue say hello.

[TinQQQ]

Well, those are good points. Apparently carriers were pretty fast already back in the days.

 

However, for this game I still think the carriers are unnecessary fast and agile (keeping in mind that planes fly ~60 knots in this game, which is a bit less than shells travel in the air etc). Yeah, it is not a simulator I know, but I suppose carriers should be like SPG in WOT: they hit hard from far but should be vulnerable if "found" by the enemy. Now the carriers can just flee to the other direction at the same speed the attacker is pursuing and keep launching masses of planes against the pursuing enemy. As it takes 25 seconds for a carrier to resupply bomber/torpedo squad it is therefore possible for a carrier to almost endlessly flee from the attackers and keep bombarding them with planes. The concept doesn't work, especially for a destroyer that doesn't do much damage with cannon and can only survive from 0.6 torpedo hits.

 

Either A) Torpedoes have to be "realistically" fast, not travelling the same speed as fast ships or B) Carriers would have to be travelling max 20 knots. Carriers should also have poor detection range (not planes) as now they can pretty much spot a destoryer even before the destroyer is in range with its gun...

 

[JapLance]

Well, those are good points. Apparently carriers were pretty fast already back in the days.

 

However, for this game I still think the carriers are unnecessary fast and agile (keeping in mind that planes fly ~60 knots in this game, which is a bit less than shells travel in the air etc). Yeah, it is not a simulator I know, but I suppose carriers should be like SPG in WOT: they hit hard from far but should be vulnerable if "found" by the enemy. Now the carriers can just flee to the other direction at the same speed the attacker is pursuing and keep launching masses of planes against the pursuing enemy. As it takes 25 seconds for a carrier to resupply bomber/torpedo squad it is therefore possible for a carrier to almost endlessly flee from the attackers and keep bombarding them with planes. The concept doesn't work, especially for a destroyer that doesn't do much damage with cannon and can only survive from 0.6 torpedo hits.

 

Either A) Torpedoes have to be "realistically" fast, not travelling the same speed as fast ships or B) Carriers would have to be travelling max 20 knots. Carriers should also have poor detection range (not planes) as now they can pretty much spot a destoryer even before the destroyer is in range with its gun...

 

 

If you have a brain, you will reach some conclusions from all that.

[N00b32]

As someone who fought mainly in DDs and carriers, I can feel your situation, but I don't think speed nerf will help the game at all. But why do you follow your inner voice and chase the carrier in the first place ? Yes, carriers are important targets, but there is a limit and by chasing the carrier you take yourself out of the game. Go for cap, the situations where carriers can cap are low. He will be forced to react and throw his planes at you. But you are in the advantage position. 

[Tivook]

Agree. Carriers should be like in Tanks, strong if well protected but if you find it it's pretty much GG.

 

Right now even if you manage to sneak up on a carrier in a fast DD at say 6 km range you're still far from guaranteed that kill, I'd say it's around 40% that you get him and 60% that he gets you, especially if we're talking at the higher tiers which is just outrageous because it eliminates all the skill and effort it takes to sneak behind enemy lines.

[simonmd]

Hello fellow captains,

 

Now that this game is no longer a beta I suppose it is appropriate to nag a little.

 

I must say carriers in this game are way too fast compared to the rest of the ships. It is not that uncommon to find myself pursuing an enemy carrier with my destroyer. However, if the carrier (not even knowing I'm chasing him/her) happens to be autopiloting to the same direction I'm heading, my mission becomes a never-ending mission. My destroyer Minekaze/etc. sails about 38 knots and somehow it feels as if the carriers go +30 knots (Ryjo, independence etc) as it takes forever to "eat" the gap in between. Not to mention having to torpedo the carrier down, I would have to be way ahead of him since I'm not even sure which one is faster, a torpedo or a carrier.

 

So is there some specific reason why these "behemots" of naval warfare (colossal aircaft carriers) are faster and more agile than most of the other ships? A leftover from Beta? Can it be changed then?

 

SERIOUSLY? Why not just edit you post to this- "Hi, I recently didnt plan ahead and found myself being lead half way around the map by a CV player that knew what he was doing. Can you please slow them down so I dont feel like such a pratt next time please?" 

 

The carrier speeds are realistic, as their development went on, they HAD to be fast, for a start, this allowed planes with a heavier load to take off as they could give them an extra 30 kts+ of headwind to take off into. The Independence for example was built on the SAME HULL as the Cleveland, so, er, strangly, it goes as fast as a Cleveland!! The main reason of course was the very thing that you are complaining about, their main defence was being able to outrun subs and enemy ships. 

 

Whats your next post going to be, "can you please make enemy shells not hurt as much please...." ??? 

[ColonelPete]

Not all carriers are fast.

[Ascender]

"Agile" *stares at 1250 meter turning circle* hm. Anyways.

 

I don't mind carrier speeds, the main problem is WG is giving us time limits and win conditions which occasionally make a running carrier that is proving hard to kill the difference between a draw and a victory. That is not so much the fault of the carrier's speed as the fault of the gamemode's design. Also just take a look at the Langely and Bogue. The speed feels very nice if you are attacking them - but try playing them, just to see how much such a low speed hurts. High speed on carriers is not really a luxury, particularly in low and mid-tiers. On tier 9 and 10 it does seem to get a bit excessive sometime but this is exacerbated by the relative sluggishness of destroyers and even cruisers that are simply unable to keep up, let alone catch up.

 

The only way you will kill a good carrier player with direct gunfire is to either totally catch them off guard or corner them one way or another. Usually it falls on a carrier to kill a carrier though.

[VonBroich]

Langley and Bogue can hardly be descibed as fast. The Langley was converted from a collier and the Bogue class from cargo ship hulls.

 

The RN used the Courageous class battlecruiser hulls for the carriers HMS Courageous, HMS Glorious and HMS  Furious. As a battlecruiser they could reach 32knts and in there new carrier configuration 30knts.

[kiteohatto]

Gotta love all those who say that "they were fast in real life too so your point is invalid!", but in real life they weren't dropping torps like they do in here, do they ?

 

You can't just cherry pick your arguments and only take points that align with your bias.

Apparently it's ok to defend something because it's realistic, but suddenly "it's just a game!" when someone complains about some aspect of said thing.

[ScratxNeko]

Gotta love all those who say that "they were fast in real life too so your point is invalid!", but in real life they weren't dropping torps like they do in here, do they ?

 

You can't just cherry pick your arguments and only take points that align with your bias.

Apparently it's ok to defend something because it's realistic, but suddenly "it's just a game!" when someone complains about some aspect of said thing.

 

In real life carriers would sit 100+km away from the targets and just launch their aircraft in waves until the target is dead or they decide to go do something else. At least we get a chance here of closing in enough to hammer them.

 

But I do agree that particularly in high tiers sneaking up to a carrier to torp it is almost a fool's errand. Better chances to sink one with a cruiser or a battleship, at least it can't really dodge your gunfire. And AP works surprisingly well on carriers. (though HE has the side benefit of potentially stopping aircraft from taking off)

[Historynerd]

Especially many earlier CVs were based on cruisers which meant that they shared they speed and manouverability.

 

Um... are you sure? In my experience most of the earlier carriers were conversions from incomplete battleships and battlecruisers, not cruisers...

[simonmd]

 

Um... are you sure? In my experience most of the earlier carriers were conversions from incomplete battleships and battlecruisers, not cruisers...

 

Did you not read what I just posted above, the Independence uses the SAME hull as the Cleveland so yes, some WERE based on cruisers. Look at the models in game, you can even recognize that from the gunwalls down, they are near on identical. 

 

To those that say "this is a game, not realistic" yes fair point but once caught, a CV is an EASY kill, even a Japanese DDs guns can finish one off so again, it's main defence is it's ability to run. CVs have already taken a beating player wise lately due to the recent changes making them worse to play, to unrealistically slow them down as well would be ridiculous and we would loose them altogether from the game. Any of you who say 'good' to that statement really need to look at their own abilities because if you find them such a threat, youre not a very good player. I am by no means a good player, sometimes bloody terrible in fact yet I would rather have CVs in the game then loose them. 

[Ksionc]

Hello fellow captains,

 

Now that this game is no longer a beta I suppose it is appropriate to nag a little.

 

I must say carriers in this game are way too fast compared to the rest of the ships. It is not that uncommon to find myself pursuing an enemy carrier with my destroyer. However, if the carrier (not even knowing I'm chasing him/her) happens to be autopiloting to the same direction I'm heading, my mission becomes a never-ending mission. My destroyer Minekaze/etc. sails about 38 knots and somehow it feels as if the carriers go +30 knots (Ryjo, independence etc) as it takes forever to "eat" the gap in between. Not to mention having to torpedo the carrier down, I would have to be way ahead of him since I'm not even sure which one is faster, a torpedo or a carrier.

 

So is there some specific reason why these "behemots" of naval warfare (colossal aircaft carriers) are faster and more agile than most of the other ships? A leftover from Beta? Can it be changed then?

 

N E R F

[TinQQQ]

Well, to answer some of the questions dedicated to me above: I do not usually go for the carriers with my destroyer, but I do find that at higher tiers (VI to be specific at the moment) the life expectancy of a destroyer is even lower than at lower tiers. Whenever I get spotted, there are 5-10 enemy high tier ships within their max firing range (that circle has greatly expanded from tier III to tier VII). Within few seconds, there's a shitload of shells raining at my deck. This has got me to change my way of approach from "lucky frontliner" to finding open doors from the enemy lines to sneak into their side and do surprise attacks from there. That is usually when I find their carrier(s) sailing somewhere and sometimes even non-escorted. However, my evil plans go down the drain once I realize that I'm not fast enough to ever catch them. 

 

Sure, one could say I should just be better, but I was just making reference to WOT, where SPG is kind-of like the carrier, except that it doesn't drive like a light tank. That being the case, the carrier is perhaps a bit too OP as it stands. Sure, "in real life" the carrier would indeed be sailing on another ocean than the destroyer and they would never meet. It would be the planes that would bomb the destoryer down. Anyway, this is not a simulator in any way.

 

 

 

[Needy_Game]

DD players......

[DtXpwnz]

Gotta love all those who say that "they were fast in real life too so your point is invalid!", but in real life they weren't dropping torps like they do in here, do they ?

 

You can't just cherry pick your arguments and only take points that align with your bias.

Apparently it's ok to defend something because it's realistic, but suddenly "it's just a game!" when someone complains about some aspect of said thing.

 

what you are reffering to is usually known as "BB logic", "dem carriers drop torpedoes unrealisticaly" while forgets to mention BB turn rates, accuracy, time to accelerate and so on...

[aboomination]

 

what you are reffering to is usually known as "BB logic", "dem carriers drop torpedoes unrealisticaly" while forgets to mention BB turn rates, accuracy, time to accelerate and so on...

 

Had a CV drop his load on the beach (literally) next to and killing me. That's where I'd draw the line 

[ShockPirat]

You don't deal with carriers in a DD by trying to catch them. You sneak upon them (I know, not easy with all the planes) and you torp them outside spotting range, or if your torps are short ranged you approach to your spotting range (or even closer, CV player might not notice you) and only then start firing. Then even if he starts running away you will be able to keep up for long enough.
To say it simply, if you start shooting at them the moment you get into gun range you are doing it very wrong.

With the highest rudder shift times and turn radios in the game, carriers are not agile at all. And when sailing, they lose A LOT of speed if forced to turn.

If a CV player has noticed you from 10km away or is simply by chance sailing ahead flank away from you, most of the time it is a mistake to chase him.

 

Edit: also, people really undervalue DD guns. Even a jap destroyer packs a lot of punch in his guns, given enough time to use them. And fires are a nice bonus. Had a game in Minekaze not too long ago with 30k dmg done by HE alone... I sank one enemy CV with torpedos and the other one with guns. Using tactics I described above

 

 

[Historynerd]

 

Did you not read what I just posted above, the Independence uses the SAME hull as the Cleveland so yes, some WERE based on cruisers. Look at the models in game, you can even recognize that from the gunwalls down, they are near on identical. 

 

I didn't say that none of them was based on cruisers; I am just questioning your statement that MOST of them were based on cruisers. The Independence is one class, ok, how many more there are?

 

Carriers that IRL were derived from battleships or battlecruisers: Eagle, Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Akagi, Kaga, Lexington, Saratoga, Beàrn.

 

See what I mean?

[simonmd]

Well they used to be fast in reality as well.

Especially many earlier CVs were based on cruisers which meant that they shared they speed and manouverability.

..........

Care to show me exactly where ANY of us said MOST CVs were based on cruisers??? It's clear that Typheon didnt, he simply said 'many were based on cruisers', and I certainly didnt say MOST were,  simply backing that up with an example of the Cleveland. So, please, when youre tyiong to make a point, dont put words into other people mouths. Thanks you.