How about complete overhaul for Carriers decks?

[Kenliero]

Ok guys, I think we all more or less agree that Carrier play is too boring/simple/similar/always the same opponents... even though it has improved a little in the last patch...?

 

How about if we would do a complete overhaul of all the decks, in a way, that in every tier, you actually have all 3 valid options: Fighter Deck, Balanced Deck and Full Bomber Deck.... and all of them work?

In the system we have now, we basicly have 2 options: Air Superiority or Bomber, and in most tiers only one of them is clearly the best, thus making it the only real option.... meaning you don't have real options...

So.... with this new deck system that I thought about today... we would have all 3 decks that would actually work, in their specialized way.

This model gives valid Divebomber(and Fighter) options, which brings more action and ship hits for the carrier players. You would also meet opponents with very different decksetups (6 different decks per tier that actually are usable!).

 

Decreasing Torpedo and Divebomber damage some -20% and -50% Airspotting range for all ships IMO would be good idea in this system as well.

 

Nobody wants to play AS with nothing but fighters. It is incredibly boring in the long run, and by decreasing bomberdamage + increasing divebombers.... bomberdecks can once again be used to attack ships, because attacking ships is fun.

 

Ok.... now I want to hear your feedback, and let's try to be constructive and unbiased

 

-------------------------UPDATE:----------------------

 

OK, thanks for the ideas. This is all just playing around with ideas, so here is a new version, where in tier 5, there are no fighter decks yet... Yes, I think it would be even better to get 2 fighters at tier 6, instead of 5.

 

I also changed Ryujo/Independence decks a little bit, so that they scale better. 3 Fighters is too much right away at tier 6 and by taking 1 Fighter away from Ryujo, means taking 2 Fighter setup also away from Independence, in order to maintain balance. This would improve low level gameplay, having less planes in the air, and scaling of carriers per tier is much more logical.

 

 

[Kirasa]

Forget DB only decks for IJN.

 

The IJN focus is on torps, not DB. That's USN. (No IJN CV player would choose a DB only deck, those are useless for them the same way AS decks are. The old strike decks are useful)

[ironhammer500]

Forget DB only decks for IJN.

 

The IJN focus is on torps, not DB. That's USN. (No IJN CV player would choose a DB only deck, those are useless for them the same way AS decks are. The old strike decks are useful)

 

Because having more then 3 TB squads is not in any way Overpowered? 4 squads of 4 planes all on the same target that is 12 torpedoes...that would 1 shot any ship in the game.

[Spellfire40]

Well you get plenty of bomb hits with IJN manuel drop. Too bad that it dont do any more damage than a few US hits since the lead in Torp AND bomb damage.

[viceadmiral123]

I find enough variety in the current system.

[Andreevson]

I think every carrier should have exactly one- balanced deck. Way easier to balance carriers this way.

[Azalgor]

Way easyer to balance? WG never learned to balance anything. Either they make 1 side way to OP or the other uterly useless, the CV balance on TIX-TX right now is best example, when US can use 1 TB squad to oneshot a BB, wheres IJN cant sink a BB using 3 squads, because on paper torp dmg aint that big, but in reality US dworfs IJN 3 to 1 in dmg from a single torp. Comes from my experience from recieving those hits in my Montana and Yamato...oh yeah, and shooting IJN planes with AA is somewhat easyer than US.

[AgarwaenME]

Way easyer to balance? WG never learned to balance anything. Either they make 1 side way to OP or the other uterly useless, the CV balance on TIX-TX right now is best example, when US can use 1 TB squad to oneshot a BB, wheres IJN cant sink a BB using 3 squads, because on paper torp dmg aint that big, but in reality US dworfs IJN 3 to 1 in dmg from a single torp. Comes from my experience from recieving those hits in my Montana and Yamato...oh yeah, and shooting IJN planes with AA is somewhat easyer than US.

 

There's no t9-10 BB that sinks to 6 torps from planes. Period.

 

If you're going to throw out biased crap, atleast try to make it even slightly less obvious how clueless you are.

[ironhammer500]

 

There's no t9-10 BB that sinks to 6 torps from planes. Period.

 

If you're going to throw out biased crap, atleast try to make it even slightly less obvious how clueless you are.

 

You might want to be a little less toxic towards other forum members it is against the ToS, just a little hint seen other posts you seem to be very hostile towards people. 6 torps from a planes will not sink a BB correct, they will however leave that Battleship pretty much half dead.

[AgarwaenME]

 

You might want to be a little less toxic towards other forum members it is against the ToS, just a little hint seen other posts you seem to be very hostile towards people. 6 torps from a planes will not sink a BB correct, they will however leave that Battleship pretty much half dead.

 

If someone makes up things due to intentionally wanting to lie or being ignorant, then why not tell them that's what they're doing? If you don't want to be called a lier or ignorant, stop telling bad lies or "facts" anyone can easily show as wrong.

 

Also, due to torp protection you could take much less than half hp. And that assumes that someone you took all 6 hits, which would require some amazing screwups on your part, and more or less demands huge luck on the part of the CV player to not have any planes shot down (again, requiring an extremely easy time for the CV players due to very poor manouvering from whomever was in the BB). And after that, the BB will repair half the damage taken.

 

And in the end, after having used a TB squad that takes 3-4 mins to do that attack (rearm, launch, fly, attack, fly back), you'd have done no more damage than a BB easily could do in the same time frame. And that's assuming a ridiculous series of luck and bad play from whomever was in the BB. A more realistic attack would be 6 hits from two full TB squads worth, and that's against a lone BB.

[ironhammer500]

 

If someone makes up things due to intentionally wanting to lie or being ignorant, then why not tell them that's what they're doing? If you don't want to be called a lier or ignorant, stop telling bad lies or "facts" anyone can easily show as wrong.

 

Also, due to torp protection you could take much less than half hp. And that assumes that someone you took all 6 hits, which would require some amazing screwups on your part, and more or less demands huge luck on the part of the CV player to not have any planes shot down (again, requiring an extremely easy time for the CV players due to very poor manouvering from whomever was in the BB). And after that, the BB will repair half the damage taken.

 

And in the end, after having used a TB squad that takes 3-4 mins to do that attack (rearm, launch, fly, attack, fly back), you'd have done no more damage than a BB easily could do in the same time frame. And that's assuming a ridiculous series of luck and bad play from whomever was in the BB. A more realistic attack would be 6 hits from two full TB squads worth, and that's against a lone BB.

 

But its not a lie at all, a single Torpedo can 1 shot a full HP battleship, its is extremely rare but it can get a detonation, the whole squad can 1 shot a battleship again its extremely rare and relies on hitting the Ammo stores and getting a critical hit.

 

Its possible but very very hard to do.

 

Do not forget  Torpedoes can citadel to, and deal Max damage.

[Kenliero]

Forget DB only decks for IJN.

 

The IJN focus is on torps, not DB. That's USN. (No IJN CV player would choose a DB only deck, those are useless for them the same way AS decks are. The old strike decks are useful)

 

Which is why I increased the number of divebombers in the deck, to make them more attractive. In the current state no one uses them. I think it should be an option, and it would bring variety to games, making it more interesting.

[ironhammer500]

 

Which is why I increased the number of divebombers in the deck, to make them more attractive. In the current state no one uses them. I think it should be an option, and it would bring variety to games, making it more interesting.

 

This annoys me most about the decks, is that US decks the basic deck is your best deck, while IJN the Bomber deck still have the same number of fighters as  the US which sucks the US were better at air dominance so why do i have lose TB?

[AgarwaenME]

 

But its not a lie at all, a single Torpedo can 1 shot a full HP battleship, its is extremely rare but it can get a detonation, the whole squad can 1 shot a battleship again its extremely rare and relies on hitting the Ammo stores and getting a critical hit.

 

Its possible but very very hard to do.

 

Do not forget  Torpedoes can citadel to, and deal Max damage.

 

Irrelevant to his claim.

 

Also, torpedoes cannot do citadel hits.

[ironhammer500]

 

Irrelevant to his claim.

 

Also, torpedoes cannot do citadel hits.

 

No they can critically hit the full damage, how do you think they deal 17-20k damage?

[AgarwaenME]

 

No they can critically hit the full damage, how do you think they deal 17-20k damage?

 

By hitting the unprotected parts of the ship. You really need to get yourself informed about how torpedo bulges work and where they are on ships.

[ironhammer500]

 

By hitting the unprotected parts of the ship. You really need to get yourself informed about how torpedo bulges work and where they are on ships.

 

I really do not see how this even has anything to do with the topic, it is about carrier decks.

 

 

P.S Bulges only protect the sides the front and rear have no armour, so the torpedo can hit there and the explosion will deal full damage.

[Kirasa]

 

I really do not see how this even has anything to do with the topic, it is about carrier decks.

 

 

P.S Bulges only protect the sides the front and rear have no armour, so the torpedo can hit there and the explosion will deal full damage.

 

95% to be true, but that's beside the point.

 

And Kenliero, no one would use IJN DB Decks if they had 5DB... It's just not worth it as IJN. IJN CV are all about torps. Heck, the whole IJN is all about torps.

[Reyte]

@kenliero

 

Some of those "new" loadoutd wouls be very pointless or OP. It will just wreck the balance...even tough i ve to admit some loadouts should be changed.

 

3-1-1 Ryujo to 2-1-2 

 

Maybe Ranger coould get a 1-1-2 loadout, same for Lexington

 

Remove 2-0-1 bogue (toxic to cv gameplay, makes zuhio next to useless)

 

Overall ijn cv can adapt quite well to most situations, also they can actually achieve wither-damage more easly than their usn counterparts.

[Kenliero]

@kenliero

 

Some of those "new" loadoutd wouls be very pointless or OP. It will just wreck the balance...even tough i ve to admit some loadouts should be changed.

 

3-1-1 Ryujo to 2-1-2 

 

Maybe Ranger coould get a 1-1-2 loadout, same for Lexington

 

Remove 2-0-1 bogue (toxic to cv gameplay, makes zuhio next to useless)

 

Overall ijn cv can adapt quite well to most situations, also they can actually achieve wither-damage more easly than their usn counterparts.

 

Yeah, I agree that those are the worst. Specially that original Bogue 2-0-1 doesn't make any sense at all. I gave Zuiho fighter deck to compensate it, but it might be even better to not have fighter deck in that tier. In general the idea here is to reduce pure fighterdecks a little and give more options. I also agree that the carriers would be too powerful, simply by increasing bombers, which is why I suggested decreasing damage and spottingranges.

[Psychocouac]

offttopic but: I would like to see Strafe run for fighters on ships. Very low damage potential with some chance to damage AA mounts but when you have nothing else to do it's still something. And rewards xp for fighter hunt a lot more too. A spotting xp bonus would also be great too. The actual system just for damage and cap is pretty stupid when you compared to wot where there is plenty of way to get xp. (shielding/tracking/spotting)

 

[/offtopic]

 

I don't play carrier but if they improve the gameplay to be more dynamic and balanced within their roles (fighter/bombing) and tiers then i'll go for it.

[Zathras_Grimm]

Ok, I don't play CVs so please don't turn guns on me, but I think all the OPs suggestions are positive ones and although areas such as the IJN DB loadout may not be the optimum choice at least it is a choice. The only other things I'd throw into the mix is:

1. Better AAA for CVs and/or a fighter cap consumable (where they can launch a standby fighter group for protection).

2. Limit to 2 aircraft types: fighters and multi role. Multi role having the ability to change their loadout torps/DBs during game with a time penalty. Of course they stay with their first choice of loadout throughout the game.

 

Last point (question really): If a BB has the ability to kill practically any ship in a one shot salvo, why is it so bad that a CV can do similar damage with a torpedo run using all its TB aircraft? 

[Steel1nvader]

Guys there is something wrong with the current CV balance.Lets focus on Ranger.Most useful setup is 1-1-1, meanwhile  majority of people use 2-2-2 on Hiryu.As i know US CVs were focused on better fighters and bombs.This set makes ranger absolutely UP to hiryu. It has 8 worse fighters but still they wreck my one 6 planes squadron, 8 TB vs 6, 8 DB vs 6 ....

I dont count fighter setups, because i think they are useless,boring "clicking" mini game that takes no skill in my opinion.

 

[Andreevson]

Guys there is something wrong with the current CV balance.Lets focus on Ranger.Most useful setup is 1-1-1, meanwhile  majority of people use 2-2-2 on Hiryu.As i know US CVs were focused on better fighters and bombs.This set makes ranger absolutely UP to hiryu. It has 8 worse fighters but still they wreck my one 6 planes squadron, 8 TB vs 6, 8 DB vs 6 ....

I dont count fighter setups, because i think they are useless,boring "clicking" mini game that takes no skill in my opinion.

 

 

This is why I think all carriers need to have just one deck configuration to be easier to balance. Full fighter-focused decks need to be thrown out completely, since they do not contribute with anything to the game. IF there are two carriers and one runs a fighter setup, they just cancel eachother out and from there on the fighter CV just does some scouting. Each CV should have some fighters, some DBs and some TBs with different nations being good at different things but still there would be a chance that IJN can beat an US cv and vice versa.

[Krogort]

I think that carriers would be much easier to balance between themselves and other ships if every carrier only had one balanced plane loadout.