Aircraft Carrier consumable: Defensive AA Fire (On Tier 9/10 CVs)

[DJ_Die]

Does the catapult fighter reduce accuracy of the aircraft it attacks?

 

yup it does even though it might not kill any planes it screws up a lot of airstrikes which is why CV captains hate them

[Slargmann]

Great idea. I think CV should also get unlimited aircraft since that would free them up to make support runs for their teammates without having to think about the consequences.

 

See? I'm only thinking about my teammates. Absolutely not about myself.

[GerryHYH]

This is a very stupid and dumb idea. This would make carriers indestructable versus planes. I am a carrier player myself. Carriers already have very strong anti air defense. This buff for the CVs are definetly not needed. At least not on USA/USN side... don't know about japanse... but probably there also not.

 

Think about this... if game ends up being cv vs cv... it would pretty much be a draw game. The 19 people who voted "yes" are funny enough clueless ! ;) =D

 

Says the guy with 30% win rate on his highest, tier 7 carrier. Please learn to play properly first, and then obtain a Tier 9/10 ship, then you will understand the CV rush.

 

Tier 4-Tier 8 US carriers, this is not applicable as you cant just instant kill/rush enemy CV with their 1st wave. 

 

Clearly shows you lack understanding and experience of high level content - and you should not be voting based on performing that poorly on mid-tier carriers and still learning the game before saying 'This is a very stupid and dumb idea'.  

 

And if it does end up CV vs CV in the end, just go in and capture as a CV, and not stuck, hiding off the map judging from your 0% capture rate of ALL your 272 CV games.  

[Spellfire40]

Great idea. I think CV should also get unlimited aircraft since that would free them up to make support runs for their teammates without having to think about the consequences.

 

See? I'm only thinking about my teammates. Absolutely not about myself.

 

The point is Def Fire on a high AA rated Ships dont only screws your atack run it slaughters your planes before you have a chance to retreat them. With prem def fire you usally have it up on any Atack wave you get. CAs have def fire, US DDs have def Fire BBs have float fighter CA have Float Fighter. The  AA enviroment is pretty hostile to CV as it is in the higher Tirs. A US CV with def fire would be pretty much imun to Air atacks.

[praetor_jax]

 

yup it does even though it might not kill any planes it screws up a lot of airstrikes which is why CV captains hate them

 

I actually didnt know that (played mainly US BBs lately and used only spotters) - and i never even expected them to do that... its only one plane after all. They should remove that.

[Slargmann]

 

The point is Def Fire on a high AA rated Ships dont only screws your atack run it slaughters your planes before you have a chance to retreat them. With prem def fire you usally have it up on any Atack wave you get. CAs have def fire, US DDs have def Fire BBs have float fighter CA have Float Fighter. The  AA enviroment is pretty hostile to CV as it is in the higher Tirs. A US CV with def fire would be pretty much imun to Air atacks.

 

I was being sarcastic. It's a ridiculous idea.

[Slargmann]

 

I actually didnt know that (played mainly US BBs lately and used only spotters) - and i never even expected them to do that... its only one plane after all. They should remove that.

 

As much as it's necessary to provide CVs with some form of stumbling blocks given the ridiculously high skill ceiling on them, the fact that a single catapult fighter can murder a whole squadron of carrier fighters or bombers is so nonsensical it ranks to my mind near the absolute top of ludicrous stuff in this game.

 

If you get unlucky during a dive bombing run, the slow down effect of the catapult fighter in tandem with the circling bug will absolutely positively [edited]your entire squadron up. I once lost three full squadrons that way when performing a single bombing run, and not a single bomb was dropped.

[GerryHYH]

 

As much as it's necessary to provide CVs with some form of stumbling blocks given the ridiculously high skill ceiling on them, the fact that a single catapult fighter can murder a whole squadron of carrier fighters or bombers is so nonsensical it ranks to my mind near the absolute top of ludicrous stuff in this game.

 

If you get unlucky during a dive bombing run, the slow down effect of the catapult fighter in tandem with the circling bug will absolutely positively [edited]your entire squadron up. I once lost three full squadrons that way when performing a single bombing run, and not a single bomb was dropped.

 

Haha, this I agree. A single catapult fighter can pin down my 7 Jet Bomber squadron is hardly realistic is there?

 

But unfortunately for balance reasons, it is needed... :/ 

[_FTD_]

Now you re being silly.

 

Srsly, you have fighters. Also is it really a good idea to make CV impervious to the only weapon that can harm them before their own team dies?

 

On the other hand we should remember that not only every ship with dual purpose guns can increase their AA-output but also that every ship can perform emergency repairs while in action as well as lay down a smokescreen.

Just give every consumable to every ship.

 

 

So here we go a classical not really well thought out comment, you want the CV to protect himself by fighters for the first wave... sure he can but what >>> IF <<< the other CV is just going for you sailing in a BB? Then the CV player guessed wrong and will get flamed by the team that no fighter are around defending them just because he lost a dumb 50/50 in the beginning of the game. So your argument is pretty bad and won't help balancing out CV's at all.

 

This is senseless cuz if a cv can already defend himself alone he wouldnt need a completly fleet to protect him so no teamplay... where is the teamplay there......

 

I refer to my first quote in this post, how is it helpful for cruiser sitting near a CV if the other CV is ignoring it. Multiple cruiser will be behind for no reason and not able to cover BBs that are charging forward. You have to keep in mind that the defensive AA fire has a high cooldown as well as limited amount of usage so it's not like the CV is immune to air attacks.

 

 

I ve played CV in CBT and decided they re not my turf (bad at rts etc) and i dont hate CV. To completely fend of an airstrike there are currently two means in this game: use defensive fire (the consumable) or a fighter squadron.

Normal defensive fire can only really weaken the aircraft when they spend way too much time near ships - the attack still works.

Of course i know mostly the targets perspective only - the only two things that ever save me from significant damage from planes are cruiser with active AAA or fighter squadrons.

*or the CV messing up his aim of course.

 

You cant give CV both active defenses against aircraft because then they become next to immune to them.

I dont believe that defending yourself properly means to have your fighters camp your own ship. Maybe you re not using them properly.

 

Your argument is that CV's are strong already and can defend themselves already which i agree on but yet again if the CV does it, you won't be covered at all and if he doesn't and get killed you lost the game.

 

To sum up all your arguments you prefer it if the CVs and cruiser go for a 50/50 gamble. You make no sense.

 

 

This is a very stupid and dumb idea. This would make carriers indestructable versus planes. I am a carrier player myself. Carriers already have very strong anti air defense. This buff for the CVs are definetly not needed. At least not on USA/USN side... don't know about japanse... but probably there also not.

 

Think about this... if game ends up being cv vs cv... it would pretty much be a draw game. The 19 people who voted "yes" are funny enough clueless ! ;) =D

 

I don't want to be offensive or anything but I don't think you have a clue to play the game properly considering your stats, so i think the clueless one here are you man. It doesn't make CVs indestructible to airstrikes cuz the defensive AA fire has a cooldown and doesn't last forever nor is an unlimited amount of usage possible. The opponent CV could also just wait out the defensive AA fire which would make it possible for cruiser to get to the CV tho or for the CV to get back his fighters.

 

I don't understand how all of you who voted no or argue against it prefer a game that is decided by the first wave of planes instead of a longer more fair game due to both CVs being alive and NO im not a CV player at all, i despise them honestly but theres nothing worse than losing your own CV in the first airstrike wave cuz of your own CV trying to protect BBs or scouting DDs which is rly important aswell.

[Pupu_prpr]

Haha, carriers keep talking about how people should use teamplay to counter them. Meanwhile you get threads like these where they want to be able to defend themselves without said teamplay.

 

Just turn into the torps and stay next to cruisers guys, that's what you tell everyone else?

[_FTD_]

Haha, carriers keep talking about how people should use teamplay to counter them. Meanwhile you get threads like these where they want to be able to defend themselves without said teamplay.

 

Just turn into the torps and stay next to cruisers guys, that's what you tell everyone else?

 

Do you play CVs? Judging by your comment you don't, I play with GerryHYH alot and hes a really good CV player ( Top 15 EU ) so he knows why and what is wrong with the CVs. He has to gamble in the beginning of every game and take a 50/50 cuz most of of the times the cruiser dont bother defending him.

 

And if he gambles wrong either the other CV has free reign on our BBs or we lose Gerry with the first wave and the game is lost.

 

Yeah your comment is great.

[praetor_jax]

So if the problem is that you cant possibly cover everything and by the time you know what the enemy is up to you ve either guessed right or it is too late to react why not propose dedicated reconnaissance aircraft to fill the gap?

 

Single, unarmed spotters - similary to the ones that are currently available to other ships - but instead of circling your own ship you would send them to a specific location and they would stay around there for a minute and a half or so.

Either several that could all be deployed whenever you want or just one that goes by a cooldown like other aircraft.

 

This could however screw over destroyers.

[Pupu_prpr]

 

Do you play CVs? Judging by your comment you don't, I play with GerryHYH alot and hes a really good CV player ( Top 15 EU ) so he knows why and what is wrong with the CVs. He has to gamble in the beginning of every game and take a 50/50 cuz most of of the times the cruiser dont bother defending him.

 

And if he gambles wrong either the other CV has free reign on our BBs or we lose Gerry with the first wave and the game is lost.

 

Yeah your comment is great.

 

Yep I do play CVs. GerryHYH did 122k avg damage (62% WR) on the Essex, I do 153k avg dmg (69% WR). So based on your logic you should automatically believe in my opinion more because I clearly know better.

 

Great argument though!

[GerryHYH]

 

Yep I do play CVs. GerryHYH did 122k avg damage (62% WR) on the Essex, I do 153k avg dmg (69% WR). So based on your logic you should automatically believe in my opinion more because I clearly know better.

 

Great argument though!

 

Hey Flamu,

 

Not denying that you performed better on the Essex, but once you obtained Tier 10 Midway, it's a different story since tier 4-8 ships does not have the firepower to instant kill you in 1st wave. 

[_FTD_]

 

Yep I do play CVs. GerryHYH did 122k avg damage (62% WR) on the Essex, I do 153k avg dmg (69% WR). So based on your logic you should automatically believe in my opinion more because I clearly know better.

 

Great argument though!

 

Where did I ever say that the person with the better avg dmg is the better player, are you somewhat narrow minded to come to that conclusion? I wrote it to put focus on the fact that his opinion isnt from a 400 games 500avg dmg CV player.

 

Once again great argument though!

[_FTD_]

So if the problem is that you cant possibly cover everything and by the time you know what the enemy is up to you ve either guessed right or it is too late to react why not propose dedicated reconnaissance aircraft to fill the gap?

 

Single, unarmed spotters - similary to the ones that are currently available to other ships - but instead of circling your own ship you would send them to a specific location and they would stay around there for a minute and a half or so.

Either several that could all be deployed whenever you want or just one that goes by a cooldown like other aircraft.

 

This could however screw over destroyers.

 

This would solve the problem yes I totally agree with you but as you said yourself it would totally screw DDs so its not really a good way to solve this problem sadly.

[maestrod]

So OP plays mostly t9 and t10 US CVs, two of the most powerfull ships in the game, asks for a straight buff and doesnt understand why ppl dissagree with him, ok...

[Slargmann]

So OP plays mostly t9 and t10 US CVs, two of the most powerfull ships in the game, asks for a straight buff and doesnt understand why ppl dissagree with him, ok...

 

Some men you just can't reach.

[Pupu_prpr]

So OP plays mostly t9 and t10 US CVs, two of the most powerfull ships in the game, asks for a straight buff and doesnt understand why ppl dissagree with him, ok...

 

I think it's more hilarious how many people have voted yes. T9/T10 CVs have long dominated the game and enjoyed complete godmode, yet apparently 75% of the people in this forum think they need even more buffs. I have never seen people so out of touch with the other classes in the game.

[Ascender]

Something people fail to understand and probably should is that giving carriers a defensive fire ability would be a DIRECT nerf to strike carriers because it means that they CAN'T snipe the other carrier immediately (or at least not cheaply). This would, as was previously said, free up the fighters to do something else, this being shooting down enemy aircraft. This in turn means attrition (though fighters are still far too weak on tier 10 to achieve this properly) and generally going for the enemy planes will have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, whereas the current situation means that unless you know exactly where the enemy planes are (which you usually don't) you have to keep your fighters within arm's reach from your own carrier in case they turn up from the back of the map, simultaneously this means that the other ships on your team, which are likely to be far away because carriers have really bad stealth in high tiers, are equally exposed since they won't spot planes coming in quickly enough to warrant effective interception if the carrier player is also covering himself.

 

Currently the "fighter" setup only half solves this, you can have some fighters near-ish to your carrier while you can use some fighters to cover your team's ships. This means any interception over your team's ships will be less effective than it should (also because of the general ineffectiveness of fighters, particularly against torpedo bombers, on tier 10, combined with the high speed of all planes on this tier), but you can at least guarantee not dying immediately which would have far more dire consequences for your team. The AA barrage ability on a carrier would not directly protect it from attack, but it would protect it from getting sniped. Even if the enemy carrier thinks to be clever and pulls back till the ability wears off this will give the fighters time to get back over the carrier. The result is that carriers will be able to cover both themselves and their teams more effectively with fighters, less strike planes will come through successfully, people get torpedoed less by carriers and carriers themselves feel less cheated when a Midway turns up with 12 torpedoes to instagib them which would almost guarantee defeat for their team. It's a win/win for everyone.

[Eternus_Damnatio]

This is senseless cuz if a cv can already defend himself alone he wouldnt need a completly fleet to protect him so no teamplay... where is the teamplay there......

 

Montana AA rating 99 planes still get through Des Moines supposedly great AA planes get through the point is that when a CV gets rushed by everything the other CV has defensive fire alone will not save him and teamwork is still needed.

Maybe give CV just 1 charge it makes sense and imho would make a more strategic game.

[GerryHYH]

 

Maybe give CV just 1 charge it makes sense and imho would make a more strategic game.

 

 

This I like, sounds fair and balanced, just 1 charge - and 2 if CV decides to take superintendent. 

[Slargmann]

Something people fail to understand and probably should is that giving carriers a defensive fire ability would be a DIRECT nerf to strike carriers because it means that they CAN'T snipe the other carrier immediately (or at least not cheaply). This would, as was previously said, free up the fighters to do something else, this being shooting down enemy aircraft. This in turn means attrition (though fighters are still far too weak on tier 10 to achieve this properly) and generally going for the enemy planes will have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, whereas the current situation means that unless you know exactly where the enemy planes are (which you usually don't) you have to keep your fighters within arm's reach from your own carrier in case they turn up from the back of the map, simultaneously this means that the other ships on your team, which are likely to be far away because carriers have really bad stealth in high tiers, are equally exposed since they won't spot planes coming in quickly enough to warrant effective interception if the carrier player is also covering himself.

 

Currently the "fighter" setup only half solves this, you can have some fighters near-ish to your carrier while you can use some fighters to cover your team's ships. This means any interception over your team's ships will be less effective than it should (also because of the general ineffectiveness of fighters, particularly against torpedo bombers, on tier 10, combined with the high speed of all planes on this tier), but you can at least guarantee not dying immediately which would have far more dire consequences for your team. The AA barrage ability on a carrier would not directly protect it from attack, but it would protect it from getting sniped. Even if the enemy carrier thinks to be clever and pulls back till the ability wears off this will give the fighters time to get back over the carrier. The result is that carriers will be able to cover both themselves and their teams more effectively with fighters, less strike planes will come through successfully, people get torpedoed less by carriers and carriers themselves feel less cheated when a Midway turns up with 12 torpedoes to instagib them which would almost guarantee defeat for their team. It's a win/win for everyone.

 

On the contrary, it's a buff to the strike CV compared to the rest of the ships even if it's potentially a nerf to its ability to strike the AA CV.

 

Giving the CV defensive fire means that the opposing CV will be less likely to do a CV-strike meaning that both carriers can be relatively sure about their safety and focus on BB strikes.

 

[Ascender]

On the contrary, it's a buff to the strike CV compared to the rest of the ships even if it's potentially a nerf to its ability to strike the AA CV.

 

Giving the CV defensive fire means that the opposing CV will be less likely to do a CV-strike meaning that both carriers can be relatively sure about their safety and focus on BB strikes.

 

Said safety, though, would primarily imply that they keep what fighters they have near their own carrier, leaving only their strike planes "exposed" which are in turn unlikely to be intercepted by enemy fighters because he would be more or less doing the same. Something like this would have be to tested in practice but I still believe it would make fighters interact more frequently with strike planes (or other fighters) which, if it was the result of this, would be beneficial to everyone.

 

Honestly though I still think they should just make the relative power of fighters compared to strike planes on tier 9 and particularly tier 10 be more like the balance of power as it is on tiers 5 through 7. As it is right now 1 group of 5 fighters on a Hakuryu does not have enough ammunition to shoot down 6 torpedo bombers from a Midway. 10 Haku fighters BARELY have enough to shoot down 6 Midway fighters. The result is that fighters enjoy a large downtime and take a long time to actually shoot down strike planes. The old fighter balance I managed to wipe out other Taiho's and Essexes with ease doing a 3-2-2 setup, but a Haku's 4-2-2 setup can hardly hope to shoot down more than ~60 planes from a Midway over the course of a 15-20 minute game, which in turn represents less than half of the planes a Midway has (and even threatens to increase his damage output as they are making one-way trips). The problem is that while every tier torpedo bombers normally get about a 20% increase in durability, but on tier 9 and 10 there is a module that gives them an additional 15%, combined with a 5% health boost to all planes, this stacks straight into a +40% boost in strike plane durability while fighters can never get more than a 10% boost to their DPS, the result is that a single fighter hasn't got enough ammunition or damage capacity to shoot down 1 torpedo bomber of the same tier, and the bomber always comes through a la 1930s prediction. The problem is also compounded by the fact that the total damage capability of fighters (if we multiply DPS by Loadout) they stay pretty much the same throughout, so as the tiers go up, fighters become that much weaker relative to their bombers, or even their own fighters which do get a 15-20% increase in durability with each tier.

 

Though this could also be just me complaining about the current state of tier 10 carriers. As for the anti-air solution I guess I'll adjust my opinion to say ON TIER 9 AND 10. I would quite agree I don't see the point in a Langely or Ryujo getting this anywhere near as much as an Essex or Hakuryu. Then again the OP already hinted at this being a thing for tier 7+, i.e. Tier 8, 9 and 10, which is in-line with my opinion on the matter.

[Slargmann]

Frankly, I'd rather just remove fighters entirely.

 

Yes, yes, I'll wait while you scream obscenities.

 

The fact of the matter is that fighters are a noob trap most of the time. I'll grant that I haven't played high tier CVs so I don't know the situation there, but all the way up to Ranger the situation is the same: A single strike getting past an unwary opponent with AA setup means that you've done more damage than he will with his divebombers all match. Given that his fighters can't be everywhere at once, that one strike will ALWAYS get through. What's that saying? Bombers always get through. Someone famous said it. 

 

In a two v two situation that does change to some degree, but not by a lot. Twice the amount of fighters still can't effectively cover the whole map.

 

Thus, removing fighters would obviate the need for this discussion entirely.