Aviation Cruiser Gameplay - A Suggestion for Wargaming

[Asmodaeus]

To Whom It May Concern at Wargaming EU,

 

The planned introduction of the Tone into World of Warships as a premium vessel has,- as Jingles puts it,- rustled some jimmies. From the three threads on the forums concerning the vessel,- two English, one German,- there is certainly no small amount of dissatisfaction with the idea that the Tone will merely play as another block-standard cruiser, as shown:

 

 

Block Quote

"Tone will not come with any unique plane mechanic and they are not expected to come in near future. Tone will have to be "configured" by other means (basically, no aviation ships will come anytime soon and Tone will just have her only 1 plane just like all other cruisers)."

 

When I first read that Tone would be a premium I knew WG will ruin it. Even though I had hope they would give it a unique mechanic, everything we know about it know and the stats we've seen suggest it's just going to be a below average tier 8 cruiser with a bunch of 'meh' stats.

 

This is due to the recognition of the IJN Tone, and indeed other similar vessels in the Imperial Japanese Navy, by the community as having qualities that separate them from the existing cruiser line. This in turn has given much hope that some unique mechanic would be devised by Wargaming to reflect this in-game. Suggestions for a unique mechanic for the hybrid carrier-cruiser effectively fall within two categories: the first is to give aviation cruisers the ability to launch planes in the same way that carriers currently do in game:

 

Or just give them the carrier module which lets them control the planes but just put a distance limit to the planes. Then enable them to launch the planes at once or similar. Use the same system on BBVs and they would definitely require high skill to play and would be different. 

 

Or to give them an an increased ability to send out catapult fighter planes:

 

Honestly, my thoughts would have been that Tone would be an ideal Tier 8  cruiser.

Given the ability to chuck up more than one fighter at a time, with larger plane reserves, she would be an excellent fleet escort.

And I'm not too keen on her being a premium either. As I said in the previous thread, why WG have chosen Tone over Maya for a tier 7 premium is a little beyond me....

 

Speaking frankly, I believe that Wargaming is justified in turning down the first gameplay mechanic suggestion: it fits into the pattern seen in World of Tanks regarding SPG overhead view; it demands a great deal of time a development for a gameplay mechanic that will only see use on a very select number of ships; and it will most likely demand a significant amount of multitasking from players that will most likely be impossible to sustain in a fast-paced 20 minute game.

 

However, I also believe that Wargaming is also making a mistake in so quickly pursuing the line that the IJN Tone will be a premium T7 ship, to be implemented as it is at the moment, as: it negates a significant amount of potential for the IJN Tone to be used in a future update to the techtree; it disappoints many avid players of Japanese ships who were expecting something significantly more interesting; and it locks out the potential of gameplay to involve more than the rock-paper-scissors dynamic that currently underpins the different ship classes.

 

The following are a number of suggestions and observations, based on in-game experiences and a rather large amount of brain-storming, which may find a solution which will satisfy those hoping for a unique mechanic and also allow Wargaming to proceed with the implementation of the IJN Tone without closing off any potential avenues for future content expansion, without requiring significant changes to the gameplay mechanics as they currently stand.

 

A) The Implementation of IJN Tone as an Aviation Cruiser

 

Three main concerns must factor into the implementation of new types of ships such as IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers:

 

i) To offer a distinct form of gameplay as an incentive to grind up alternate routes up the techtree

ii) To fulfill a different but potentially rewarding role on the battlefield

iii) To maintain game balance - overall balance in World of Warships + balanced stats of individual warships in relation to their tier.

 

all with minimum changes to gameplay mechanics and minimum demands on the game developers. This final point is important as Wargaming is ultimately a game company with finite resources: it is highly unlikely, or unusual for anything to be developed unless the potential reward can justify the expense in time, energy and resources. Thus, the implementation of a ship that is able to switch from a carrier overhead view with separate air-wings and a traditional line of sight third person shooter would be both complex and in many ways unable to justify its own expense, as only the Imperial Japanese Navy developed aviation cruisers in any significant number.

 

It must be said that the idea of aviation-cruisers is also rather deceptive in terms of gameplay as it leads people think that a hybrid like the IJN Tone should be able to fulfill the role of carrier and cruiser simultaneously. Instead, I would like to frame this as a question of cart and horse: which do you place at the forefront? With regards to the IJN Tone and other Japanese aviation cruisers, I would like to suggest that they be thought of as cruisers first and carriers a very, very distant second. This must be well-established as it underpins the following ideas regarding how these types of ships should be implemented: they are cruisers with increased aircraft capabilities, rather than carriers with cruiser guns and arrangements.

 

i) Why make the IJN Tone, and other aviation cruisers, at all different from other Japanese cruisers? The first answer that comes to mind is that it offers the players something different to play with. This is the basic appeal of having alternative lines up the techtrees of World of Tanks for example: do you choose the autoloading T57 Heavy or the T110E5? The distinct differences between the two lines is a choice that Wargaming offers its players and serves as an incentive to grind up both lines. If they were the same, there would be no reason to try the other. I would like to suggest that this is the point of making the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers different. Players will need to adapt their gameplay to suit a different style of ship,- in the same way that an IJN destroyer is different from a USN destroyer,- and it keeps the game interesting for players who might otherwise have gotten tired of essentially the same kind of gameplay.

 

ii) The difference in play style suggests that the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers should play a slightly more specialized role in comparison to the usually aggressive and mercurial gameplay of traditional cruisers. What makes aviation cruisers different is their aircraft complement: being often significantly larger than comparable regular cruisers.  What I would like to suggest is very similar to Transpite's suggestion: allow the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers to send up more than one plane at a time. However, I am not suggesting multiple fighters as that idea runs the risk of disproportionately lessening the threat of aircraft carriers. Rather, in keeping with historical realism, where such ships were used to scout rather than to dog-fight with enemy ships, I would like to suggest that aviation cruisers should be given instead 4 consumable slots rather than the usual 3.

 

Whereas most cruisers have: damage control party + defensive aa + catapult fighter or reconnaissance aircraft;

Aviation cruisers should have: damage control party + defensive aa + catapult fighter + reconnaissance aircraft.

 

All aircraft should remain consumables on these aviation cruisers,- which invites highly competitive players to use premium consumables, to the monetary benefit of Wargaming (and this must be stated as Wargaming is first and foremost a game company),- and the ability to simultaneously send up one catapult fighter and one scout, with a large reserve of aircraft to spare, is a unique enough mechanic without demanding significant changes on gameplay. The advantages of sending up both scout and fighter aircraft simultaneously means that a player need not choose between spotting capabilities and anti-air defence, as is the case with most other cruisers at the moment. Being able to do both, the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers are able to play ideal escorts for the main body of the fleet. In addition, the ability of scout aircraft to extend their range allows aviation cruisers the ability to sail as second line fighters and deal damage from afar,- highly important as their role as escorts means they need to keep closer to their own teammates and consequently farther from the enemy.

 

Like the Atlanta, whose anti-aircraft capabilities serve as a significant deterrent to enemy carrier based planes, aviation cruisers would be able to lower the threat of carriers, particularly mid-to-late game, when concentrated air attack becomes increasingly lethal due to the lower numbers of ships,- and thus aa guns,- on each team. In addition, the ability to scout also becomes more important as games progress due to one side or other needing to hunt down an enemy or spot an otherwise invisible enemy in a far off capture point. The fact that an aviation cruiser has four consumable slots, as I've suggested, means that a captain need not compromise between spotting and aa,- a significant advantage provided he is able to stay alive long enough to capitalize on potential opportunities.

 

iii) How balanced would an aviation cruiser be assuming it were implemented in the way outlined above? I think fairly balanced: aviation cruisers inherently sacrifice surface firepower for increased aircraft capabilities. Not only does the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers have fewer guns than other equivalent cruisers, but many also suffer heavily,- a la Izumo,- from having highly limited or awkward firing arcs, making them highly unsuited to leading a push or even conducting a running retreat. This relegates such vessels to the role of a second line fighter, close enough to support and escort first line fighters, or an fighter of opportunity, using its guns to take out unsuspecting or heavily damaged enemies. Second line cruisers can be found most recently in the German cruiser line, where poor armour and long gunnery ranges leads them to play more conservatively. In the case of the IJN Tone and aviation cruisers, the reasons for conservative gameplay are lesser firepower and poor armour.

 

Will they be overpowered, i.e. against aircraft? No, I don't believe so: carriers will have just as much chance of shooting their aircraft down as with normal cruisers, and with one catapult fighter being up at any given time, aircraft carriers will not be disproportionately disadvantaged when sending out a strike force against aviation cruisers and their escorted charges. Seeing how a single catapult fighter can still cause enough of a distraction for carrier fighters for a targeted ship's aa to knock out a few more planes, I believe that aviation cruisers should not be able to send up any more than one at a time. I do, however, suggest that aviation cruisers be given a larger complement of aircraft on board, firstly as this is in keeping with historical realism, and secondly as the ability to both spot and cover allies with a catapult fighter is the professed schtick of this rather specialized class of ships, they should only rarely be in a situation where they have run out of aircraft to send out. This, in my opinion, is more than enough of a unique mechanic to reflect the unusual qualities of such vessels.

 

B) IJN Tone: Regular vs Premium

 

I must answer the question: why should the IJN Tone be a regular ship rather than a premium one? The answer is that the option of adding a regular and complete line of aviation cruisers to the Japanese techtree should be kept open to Wargaming, rather than being closed to it by making one of its more notable members a premium vessel. MMOs rely on regular updates and content expansion to remain alive and interesting for its player base: it makes very little sense for Wargaming to essentially deny itself the opportunity to use the IJN Tone as a regular ship when it could easily be incorporated into an alternative regular cruiser line. If any one remembers the creation of the second German heavy tank line in World of Tanks, they should be able to recall how the opportunity of using the Löwe as a regular heavy tank was completely wasted as it had already been implemented into the game as a premium vehicle. If Wargaming is wholly determined to release the ship as a premium, even after implementing the features outlined above, I would at the very least recommend that it be given an Atago-style paintjob and renamed the Chikuma (1938). Yes, it may seem like a cop out, but it at the least keeps the option open for Wargaming to add more content in future based around the IJN Tone and other aviation cruisers, rather than closing it indefinitely.

 

C) Potential aviation cruiser line

 

I've spoken much about the IJN Tone and a potential aviation cruiser line; how might this look like? This must be answered as it is one of the reasons why I believe Wargaming should keep the IJN Tone as a regular ship: it fits naturally into a developmental line with other ships that could appear in-game in the future. Well, considering my knowledge is rather sub-par when it comes to earlier vessels, I'd have to say that I would imagine a split around tier V, much like the Russian heavy tree at the moment which branches off from the KV-1. Below is just how I've constructed a a potential line in my mind, with the firepower of the potential aviation cruisers written below.

 

           V                          VI                               VII                              VIII

 

      Furutaka  =====>   Aoba     =====>        Myoko      =====>      Mogami

   (6 x 203mm)        (6 x 203mm)              (10 x 203mm)             (10 x 203mm) 

           ||

           ||

        Agano    =====> Ooyodo  =====>   Mogami (1944)   =====>   Tone

  (6 x 152mm)         (6 x 155mm)               (6 x 203mm)               (8 x 203mm) 

 

I've yet to think of potential tier IX s and X s, and while people may suggest the Ise (1944), I would rather have the Ise as an alternative tier VI to the Fuso, with the aviation-battleship hull as an optional hull upgrade. This is due to the fact that the 8 x 356mm guns on what is essentially a better armoured but much slower tier VI Kongo would seem like pea-shooters in a tier IX or X match. Combined with the highly limited firing arcs of the Ise's middle two turrets, and it's not difficult to imagine how little fun playing such a ship would be in so hostile an environment. I realize that firepower is by no means the best indicator of a ship's capabilities, but I find it serves as a basic yardstick to show how the principle of an in-game aviation cruiser would compare with the existing ships in-game: lesser firepower than its fellows of the same tier, but with enhanced abilities to support its team from the second line.

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I sincerely hope that the points therein will be taken into consideration.

 

---

 

IJN Tone threads on the forums:

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/33759-ijn-tone-general-thread/

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/32514-ijn-tone-wg-logic-at-display-yet-again-gameplay-whats-that/

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/32162-tone/

 

Quotes at the top were taken from the first two sources.

 

[mk_sky]

Give this guy a Supertester, wow just wow ...

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Give this guy a Supertester, wow just wow ...

 

 

I wouldn't wish this upon my worst enemy.

[mtm78]

 

I wouldn't wish this upon my worst enemy.

 

Now now...

 

Give this guy a Supertester, wow just wow ... 

 

 

Anyway, that might have been some sarcasm ( I hope ), as if not it might give the impression that most of the OP content was new or novel and wasn't already thought of. 

 

People blame ST enough, don't let them think it's ST who decided to implement Tone as is. 

 

edit:

 

Almost forgot, +1 to OP

[mk_sky]

I wouldn't wish this upon my worst enemy.

 

Ah your only saying this cause I'm already a Supertester, don't you?

 

Anyway, that might have been some sarcasm ( I hope ), as if not it might give the impression that most of the OP content was new or novel and wasn't already thought of. 

 

People blame ST enough, don't let them think it's ST who decided to implement Tone as is. 

 

edit:

 

Almost forgot, +1 to OP

 

Well I'm not that active on the open forums anymore so to me it was new.

 

But mostly I think this was pretty well written and says everything needed to be said.

 

Most of the people are just complaining and don't give constructive feedback on how something could been done better, but this guy brought the info needed together in a single post and that's already more than impressive in this forum (besides I totally agree with the points made in the post).

 

Btw. are we even allowed to tell them that we are innocent?

[mtm78]

 

Ah your only saying this cause I'm already a Supertester, don't you?

 

 

Well I'm not that active on the open forums anymore so to me it was new.

 

But mostly I think this was pretty well written and says everything needed to be said.

 

Most of the people are just complaining and don't give constructive feedback on how something could been done better, but this guy brought the info needed together in a single post and that's already more than impressive in this forum (besides I totally agree with the points made in the post).

 

Btw. are we even allowed to tell them that we are innocent?

 

If it wasn't well written I wouldn't +1 it. Also the complete tech tree is totally new to me, haven't heard anyone propose it but I didn't follow that discussion that closely, anyway what I said in no way was meant to decrement the value of OP. 

 

I didn't disclose anything new here btw, several ST have already said they themselves wouldn't have done it this way and would have liked a special mechanism for aviation vessels. I think I'm not breaking any rules with saying what I did 

[ilhilh]

Excellent post - well constructed and I like your thoughts.  I do wonder if it will get seen by the right eyes though...

[mk_sky]

If it wasn't well written I wouldn't +1 it. Also the complete tech tree is totally new to me, haven't heard anyone propose it but I didn't follow that discussion that closely, anyway what I said in no way was meant to decrement the value of OP. 

 

I didn't disclose anything new here btw, several ST have already said they themselves wouldn't have done it this way and would have liked a special mechanism for aviation vessels. I think I'm not breaking any rules with saying what I did 

 

Ah no, I didn't meant it that way if it sound like that.

 

Btw. how many Spetsnaz can you mobilise?

We probalby have to send them over to WG so they bring this mess in order and give us "real" Aviation Cruisers and not this ill-conceived stuff.

[mtm78]

 

Ah no, I didn't meant it that way if it sound like that.

 

Btw. how many Spetsnaz can you mobilise?

We probalby have to send them over to WG so they bring this mess in order and give us "real" Aviation Curisers and not this ill-conceived stuff.

 

My Spetznas are on special mission, but coordination for our attack on Minsk should not be carried out in open forum 

[mk_sky]

My Spetznas are on special mission, but coordination for our attack on Minsk should not be carried out in open forum 

 

Ah you're right of course, lets meet somewhere safe in disguise ... (wheres my false beard again?)

[Drycon]

@OP: Your topic is being derailed a bit by some folks that should get a room but...

Aviation cruisers would bring a whole new dimension of tactics to this game, would love it!

Thanks for spending your time on this subject and the well written post. +1

 

[EaSyCoMpAnY1970]

To OP very well written,and i hope WG look at this and think about it,, +1 from me..

[Ishiro32]

Have a +1.

 

Overall releasing Tone as a normal crusier without anything "special" that would fit the theme of aviation crusier would be a waste. Simple as that. 

Releasing Ise on normal hull would be much better because it would not mess with the possibility of getting Ise with aviation hull in the future.

If you will not like tone when she will be released, don't buy it. Tone has potential to sell probably much better than Atago, but without anything to drive that I dont see it happening.

[OVanBruce]

Excellent post - well constructed and I like your thoughts.  I do wonder if it will get seen by the right eyes though...

 

 

This is not the RU forum so I doubt it. Yeah, cry with me

 

I hope it will not sell at all.

 

I'll probably be a complete idiot and buy it anyway, I just love the Tone that much.

 

[Andreevson]

Well a simple fix is just to make the tone be able to launch two fighters at once. Or a fighter and a spotter plane, as two different modules  in addition to the Hydrophone/Defensive AA, and the Tone should have a bigger pool of spare planes available .

[OVanBruce]

For reference

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/32514-ijn-tone-wg-logic-at-display-yet-again-gameplay-whats-that/

[RamirezKurita]

I'd agree with making a completely separate IJN aviation cruiser tree, although the Ise-class I'd say could probably just be a T6 dead-end offshoot of either it or the Fuso as there aren't any other aviation battleships. For gameplay, either the twin aircraft option (including the option for twin spotters or twin fighters), or simply making it launch catapult aircraft in squadrons rather than singles could work. They could even make a new set of catapult dive bombers that simply fly towards the current target, drop bombs and return

 

For the topic of the Tone being a premium and locking it out, the premium could simply be renamed to the second Tone-class, the Chikuma, while the Tone becomes the standard one.

[ColonelPete]

...Aviation cruisers should have: damage control party + defensive aa + catapult fighter + reconnaissance aircraft....

 

 

I think that is a good idea.

One could go one or two steps further.

Instead of launching one catapult fighter, certain ships should be able to launch two fighters for one activation of the ability.

The reconnaissance plane of aviation cruisers could also provide buffs für nearby allies (spread reduction of main guns by 5% or range increase for main guns of 10%...)

[Drycon]

Would love to play a support class like this.

[bismark121]

even though this a fantastic post that does need to be really noticed by everyone we all know this is going to be moved to the development part of this forum

[fnord_disc]

It doesn't sit well with me that you call Tone a CAV. She really isn't.

 

I entirely agree that she should get a special mechanic, but neither Tone nor Ooyodo or Agano is a CAV. The only CAV ever converted was Mogami, and the only BBV ever converted were the two Ises. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the architectural differences between true CAVs and Tone's large floatplane facilities is too great, even if Tone used the same planes as Mogami.

 

As for your suggestion: I think it's very good.

[CountOfTuscany]

+1 for the well written suggestion.

 

I'm really interested if WG could work out something like that.

[Takeda92]

Unfortunately, we all know RU devs don't read anything from here and that our EU devs don't send any real feedback and suggestions (or it is ignored) back to devs.

[TycBrum]

To be honest I couldn't care if it was standard or not. I think there is many more pressing issues to address first

[Asmodaeus]

To everyone who has been so kind as to reply or like the post, I must say: thank you all most kindly I am glad to see that, at the very least, people are considering the ideas in the post with an open mind. As Mtm78 and Mk_sky have both pointed out, very little of this is actually novel, and much of it is actually drawn from the three sources given in the original post. However, I find that compiling the relevant points that people make and thinking about what people have said on the level of overall gameplay helps significantly when presenting such ideas,- from bug fixes to gameplay mechanic suggestions,- to the EU community as a whole and to Wargaming.

 

I'd agree with making a completely separate IJN aviation cruiser tree, although the Ise-class I'd say could probably just be a T6 dead-end offshoot of either it or the Fuso as there aren't any other aviation battleships. For gameplay, either the twin aircraft option (including the option for twin spotters or twin fighters), or simply making it launch catapult aircraft in squadrons rather than singles could work. They could even make a new set of catapult dive bombers that simply fly towards the current target, drop bombs and return

 

ColonelPete, on 16 October 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

Instead of launching one catapult fighter, certain ships should be able to launch two fighters for one activation of the ability.

The reconnaissance plane of aviation cruisers could also provide buffs für nearby allies (spread reduction of main guns by 5% or range increase for main guns of 10%...)

 

I do completely agree with RamirezKurita on the point of the Ise: as a brief offshoot from the Kongo, it would be an alternative to the Fuso at tier VI, with its unique quality being the ability to mount an aviation hull, before branching back into the Nagato. If this were to happen, the Ise's unique hull upgrade,- much like an alternative aviation cruiser route,- offers battleship players an incentive into researching and playing both ships at tier VI. I must say though, I'm not altogether keen on the idea of catapult squadrons, catapult dive bombers, or planes that provide passive buffs to allied ships, which both RamirezKurita and ColonelPete have suggested,- not because they are bad ideas (in fact I actually like the idea), but because we have no precedent for either mechanic in the game. As I've stated before, I've gone the way that should,- as far as I know,- involve the least work in development and gameplay mechanic changes, as I believe that makes the proposal more attractive for a company like Wargaming, which seems extremely eager to release more premium ships as quickly as possible. Fewer changes are likely to be easier to implement, and consequently, have less reason for Wargaming to reject them as serious proposals.

 

It doesn't sit well with me that you call Tone a CAV. She really isn't.

 

I entirely agree that she should get a special mechanic, but neither Tone nor Ooyodo or Agano is a CAV. The only CAV ever converted was Mogami, and the only BBV ever converted were the two Ises. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the architectural differences between true CAVs and Tone's large floatplane facilities is too great, even if Tone used the same planes as Mogami.

 

As for your suggestion: I think it's very good.

 

Thank you! I'm glad to hear you like the proposal. I do agree that the IJN Tone is certainly a very different kind of ship to the Mogami or the Ises, and particularly with the latter being redesigned very much to ship carrier-style attack aircraft rather than reconnaissance float planes or interceptors. However, when translating this into gameplay terms, I suspect that Wargaming,- like most companies,- would prefer a slightly simplified approach both in what is being proposed to it and what it wants to give its players, many of whom are more interested in gameplay than the specifics of each class of ship. As I'm writing this in the hopes that it will be taken into serious consideration by someone at Wargaming,- however minuscule that chance may be,- I've chosen to simply categorize all potentially relevant ships under the heading of 'aviation cruiser' even if they only fit the categorization poorly at best.

 

To be honest I couldn't care if it was standard or not. I think there is many more pressing issues to address first

 

I quite agree there are many other issues that need to be fixed, but I rather also hope that any serious contribution to addressing any issue,- big or small,- may be welcomed on these forums. I'm thinking very much in the long-term,- so perhaps a year or two down the line, once the major nations have been added and Wargaming is thinking of adding new lines to the existing techtrees,- and I merely thought, as I'm sure many who are interested in Japanese cruisers are as well, that it would be a shame for Wargaming to deny itself the opportunity in future to add a line of aviation cruisers to the Japanese techtree, especially when it has little reason to deny itself any opportunity to add more content to tthe game in the future

 

Again, thank you all for your patience in reading and your kind comments