Carriers are unbalanced and not fun and here is why:

[Kazomir]

If have your attention now, no, this is not a topic where I will whine about carriers and how they are OP.

I will keep it straight, short, and to the point.

 

Carriers are the least represented class in this game. That is because players dont find them fun to play.

Why? Let me tell you from my perspective, or why I shy away from carriers.

 

Fighter loadouts.

 

They are completely useless and are actually doing the game a bad favor. Every player wants to do damage. But any carrier player that opts to go for damage, has to take a risk in EVERY GAME in going up against a player who has a Fighter loadout. And naturally, they get wrecked if they come up against one.

 

Actually, the sole purpose of Figher loadouts is to screw both the carrier that uses it (severely limiting ability to cause damage to enemy ships) and the guy against him (He is basically screwed)

 

CV vs CV combat shouldnt be based on who picked a fighter loadout, it should be based on skill. The map should be like a chess board for them, where they play with (somewhat) equal pieces.

 

Carriers should have all balanced loadouts, with differences more to their TB/DB squads. Different spreads, different bombing patterns. No dedicated AA loadouts that completely shut down the guy on the opposite side. Leave the AA to the cruisers.

 

Thank you for (letting me waste) your time.

[RamirezKurita]

As a carrier player who mostly plays fighter loadouts, I'll have to disagree with you. I sacrifice damage potential against the regular enemies in exchange for greater damage against opposing carriers, it's no different to choosing to play as an AA-specced US cruiser - either way I am choosing to play the air game rather than the water game.

 

Dealing damage is only one aspect of a carrier's role anyway, their other two largest roles are scouting and limiting the enemy carriers' movements, both of which can be very easily done by using an abundance of fighters.

[Expertison]

hmm i don't think it's op

[Kazomir]

As a carrier player who mostly plays fighter loadouts, I'll have to disagree with you. I sacrifice damage potential against the regular enemies in exchange for greater damage against opposing carriers, it's no different to choosing to play as an AA-specced US cruiser - either way I am choosing to play the air game rather than the water game.

 

Dealing damage is only one aspect of a carrier's role anyway, their other two largest roles are scouting and limiting the enemy carriers' movements, both of which can be very easily done by using an abundance of fighters.

 

Damage to what? You just damage their planes and the enemy carrier's ability to deal damage while you sacrifice your ability to deal damage aswell. (And since damage is the main thing that rewards you with exp and credits, well, yeah) There is a huge and unfair disbalance between a carrier with a strike loadout and that with a fighter loadout. 

 

I am not against the idea for carriers to be able to specialize in fighters, but that shouldnt be done like that. Since you gave an AA cruiser for example, let me do it too. It should be done like how a cruisers chooses whether he wants AA or gun specialization (that is, without a major change to the cruiser's core parameters) . As it is now, if we take cruisers for example and use a hyperbole for the sake of argument,  It's like choosing whether you have 1 turret, but the ability to negate all torpedoes in a 10km radius and spot all DDs in the same radius, or having all your turrets, but no such ability. (well, its not a cruiser vs cruiser example, but you get the idea, no?)

 

How it should be like is that a carrier has only 1, balanced  loadout, but can choose to either, through modules, to:

A/ Increace his fighter squad's effectiveness/fuel/ammo/endurance/ hel, number per squad even/ whatever.

B/ Focus on bombers instead and reduce their bomb spread or whatever.

 

The change in bomb/fighter specialization shouldnt be that harsh. As it is now its like Rock/Scissors when it comes to CV gameplay.

[gr0pah]

hmm i don't think it's op

 

AS CV is not op, it's dumb and boring (in Random) 

[159Hunter]

Honestly: if a CV wants to play strike he'll:

- do less damage,

- earn less xp,

- will get outplayed in the long run: he can't keep fighter cover the entire time.

 

Conclusion: be patient and wait for that perfect moment. And if someone is so desperate to play that loadout, let him...

[Kenjiro_]

A fighter loadout CV is like a BB who doesn't have guns but instead has a device to prevent enemy BB from firing her guns...

[Babykim]

 

Carriers suffer from lack of team play most. This is because they are so different. They try to be self-sufficient (selfish) and generally are damage whores.

 

I hope that this would change at least in team battles, because the the optimal composition of a competitive team is:

1 CV (leader) / whatever but fighter setup!

2 BB / whatever

3 CA / Kutuzovs

1 DD / whatever, but Lo Yang or Bensons for longer smokes.

 

The primary role of the carrier is to SPOT and command having the best overview. The AA duty comes second. This mainly involves dragging attacking planes over friendly Kutuzovs. Damage comes third, and only towards the end of the battle.

 

[tyco]

As someone who doesn't really play CVs I have to agree with the op. I don't like to play CV's because of the stupid all or nothing loadouts.

It's senseless to go without fighters, but on the other hand I find it boring to go with 2 fighters and 1 dive bomber squad. Once the other CV is dead for some reason you can fly around with 1 dive bomber squad and are literally only a spotting drone with your fighters.

[Perses_Ultra]

 it's no different to choosing to play as an AA-specced US cruiser

 

Uh, ships get XP for killing planes.  CVs do not. 

 

You just do it to be a knobhead. 

[allufewig]

Honestly: if a CV wants to play strike he'll:

- do less damage,

- earn less xp,

- will get outplayed in the long run: he can't keep fighter cover the entire time.

 

Conclusion: be patient and wait for that perfect moment. And if someone is so desperate to play that loadout, let him...

 

 

You do mean airsuperiority in your first sentence, right? Otherwise the posting would make no sense.

 

Generally I agree with OP. Your speciality as a CV is dealing damage. CVs have the highest average damage-values in hightier, even with a generous amount of potatoes trying to reach airsuperiority. AS/Fighters makes no sense because, the maximum you can achieve is a tie against the enemy player. But even if you manage to shut down most of his offensive capability, hes still likely to do the same or more amount of damage to ships than the AS player, because he WILL get some squads through. After all it is sinking the ships that  ends the games.

 

As for spotting: Every plane can spot, you dont need fighters for that. Empty divebombers are infact much better than fighters.

 

Theres just zero reason to ever play AS, besides being rather invulnerable against early sniping.

 

 

hmm i don't think it's op

 

Nice. Looks like you managed to only read OPs first sentence, but couldnt even understand that one.

[Blue_Bug]

 

Uh, ships get XP for killing planes.  CVs do not. 

 

You just do it to be a knobhead. 

CV's get also XP for killing planes.

[WebSpawn]

Whatever the case may be, the game is lesser for the lack of carriers. It adds depth and an certain tension to play

[Gefreiter_Fritz]

I think the problem with ballancing of CVs is the playerskill. In all other classes RNG equalises some of the problems. In a CV, you drop your torps and they go theire way. CVs are much team depending too, from T7 you mostly need AA support, but that is not the main influence.

 

By the way, CVs main task is dealing dmg. Sometimes it is more important to deal it at the right place then to deal as much as possible, but dealing it is cruicial.  

[Perses_Ultra]

CV's get also XP for killing planes.

 

Dude.  You get like 1 XP point per plane, whereas ships get radically more.

[vartain]

There's nothing wrong with fighter set-ups on cvs, in fact, for me, it's always a good sign when the enemy side focuses on defence, since it means they forego deleting ships and initiative in favour of being nothing more than a glorified spotting machine and mild annoyance at best.

[Azalgor]

if you want to play CV, then choose US, theyr torps cause damage and flooding, and their fighters can actually kill planes, as post tier 8 you get armour piercing HE bombs that can do more damage than anything a IJN has combined, and you will probably complain less...

[Spellfire40]

Well you dont always lose with Strike vs fighter loadouts. If you get one Strike in vs any ship you can probably lose all your planes an still have a big er impact in the game than the "wining" Fighter CV. Sure its no fun thogh.

[ezymodo]

As someone that plays CV extensively, I found that the largest problem of the CV is not the ship itself.

Rather, it is the ignorance found on an average player. I would quote below an example of this:

 

Carriers suffer from lack of team play most. This is because they are so different. They try to be self-sufficient (selfish) and generally are damage whores.

 

I hope that this would change at least in team battles, because the the optimal composition of a competitive team is:

1 CV (leader) / whatever but fighter setup!
2 BB / whatever
3 CA / Kutuzovs
1 DD / whatever, but Lo Yang or Bensons for longer smokes.

 

The primary role of the carrier is to SPOT and command having the best overview. The AA duty comes second. This mainly involves dragging attacking planes over friendly Kutuzovs. Damage comes third, and only towards the end of the battle.

 

Take a look at the top leaderboard in team battles (from Kaper kommando, NESI, and OMNI), and try to watch streams of some of their players.

You will find that the CV used will be a Shokaku (NEVER a Lexington), and it will be using the 2-2-2 setup (NEVER a fighter setup).

While hard to distinguish, you will also find that the leader of the team will almost NEVER be in a CV.

If you watch the gameplay closely, you will also find that the primary target of the cvs will be the DDs, then the CV, then the BB, then the CA.

Something which is less than ideal than someone who is a damage whore, and is pointless anyway since the stats are tracked separately for team battles, and only rating matters in this case. 

 

This is the reason why it is so:

1. Playing a CV in team battles is mentally taxing and takes a lot of energy. It is not unusual to rotate the carrier players during long sessions, although this might be a luxury available to team with deep talent pools.

    The CV will be focused on winning the air combat and striking the heavily defended, maneuvering targets, and it is not ideal to put the burden of command on him/her.

 

2. The fighter setup will free up the enemy to maneuver as much as they like, being able to face the enemy frontally without afraid of being broadside by TBs.

    The competitive environment is very different than randoms, with AA consumables everywhere within a single task force: a single TB have no chance to deal damage at all.

    Worse, the 1 TB setup effectively eliminates the possibility of getting early DD kills by cross-torping, which decides the match within the first 2 minutes.

    It also eliminates the possibility of carrier sniping, which although might not always be possible, will force a cruiser to stay behind as a CV bodyguard.

 

3. The Lexington is the worst CV you can use for competitive gameplay.

    It is spotted from the end of the world, and commonly killed by long-range BB gunfire.

    The fighter setup is powerless to stop the bombers, while relying on RNG to kill DDS.

    The strike setup, while fun in randoms, is useless due to shokaku having fighters that strafe it to death.

    And the stock setup combine the worst of both worlds.

    Let us not forget that since the selling feature of Lex is its dive bombers, using it as a scout eliminates most of its striking power.

 

The competitive players would also laugh at your suggestion of 2 whatever BBs and 3 Kutusovs.

This setup is so heavily focused on AA defense that it would be opened like a tin can when surface combat begins.

Only 1 Kutusov is normally used, the rest consisting of Tirpizes and Atagos.

And 2 DDs are normally more flexible than 1. 

 

The reason AS setup is not viable, not even in ranked battles, is because of simple mathematics that most people surprisingly fail to mention.

 

The primary target of a fighter, with speed of around 170 knots and detection range of 8 km, is a bomber with a speed of around 150 knots and detection range of 8 km.

This gives it the relative speed of around 20 knots if the fighter chase the bombers from behind.

 

The primary target of a bomber, with speed of around 150 knots and detection range of 8 km, is a battleship with a speed of around 30 knots and detection range of 15 km.

This gives it the relative speed of around 120 knots if the bomber chase the battleship from behind.

 

The bombers can chase and approach a ship around six times faster than a fighter can reach a bomber.

The bomber can also detect the battleship faster than the fighter can detect a bomber.

Thus, to quote a certain politician, "the bomber will always go through".

 

The only setup that is viable as an AS setup, as have been said countless times, is the Hakuryu with its 4 fighters.

Then again, CVs are not the only threat that you will face, and it is not the best pick for randoms.

Additionally,as someone have said before, the AS setup also gives security to the enemy, only have to worry of 1 torp bombers instead of 2.

[Blue_Bug]

 

Dude.  You get like 1 XP point per plane, whereas ships get radically more

 

​I don't know if ships gets more for a plane kill. But the difference will not be much. I played enough games with a CV  fighter loadout to know.

[ilhilh]

You discuss AS and strike loadouts saying the problem is that there are not balanced ones but there are balanced loadouts for all carriers are there not?  I might be misremembering tier 4 but at other tiers there are 3 loadouts.  I know this because it is always the option I pick.

 

AS loadouts

 

AS is a bad choice for randoms.  It is the wrong choice.

 

Fanboys of AS claim that they can protect the fleet but the fact is they cannot.  I have fought against enough of them to know that I can still get my attacks through because they either cannot be everywhere or they cannot be where they needed in enough strength - and once I have hit just a few torpedoes I have done more damage than them.

 

At tiers 4 and 5 it can be a bit harder due to the pitifully small hangar sizes but at 6 you are ok and at 7+ you would have to work really hard to lose all of your planes.

 

As AS you cannot do any decisive damage and as such you rely on your team.

 

The other big thing for AS fanboys is the spotting ability.  But, if you are protecting the fleet (which you can't) then your ability to spot is limited and called off as soon as you have planes to shoot down.  Your real time to do proper spotting is once the air war is won and at tiers 6+ that probably won't even happen.

 

Strike loadouts

 

No fighters (or 1 small squad of IJN fighters) is risky loadout.  People can and do make it work but it is hard work against a mixed loadout and downright painful against an AS loadout.  As soon as you see the enemy has a strike loadout you know 2 things:

1. Your strike planes only need to worry about ship AA and can do as they please otherwise.  Line up your attacks perfectly.  Sit around waiting to start a fire after they repair.  Nothing will stop you.
2. Your fighters can aggressively hunt down their strike planes up to and including camping his CV (easier with AS, but doable as balanced IJN).

Now, you should still be able to get some damage in if you are competent but you make things hard for yourself - you have to be very calculating and your frequency of attacks will suffer because of this.  Also, USN strik loadouts only gain an extra DB squadron which is hardly the most useful type of plane squadron.

 

Balanced loadout

 

The best of both worlds... in my opinion.  You get a fighters that can protect your strike planes and you can do decent damage to the enemy.  I have won out in the air war Vs AS loadouts before but that is not likely... and not the point - as I have just said your fighters are there to protect your strike planes, not the fleet.  If you are facing an AS loadout then you don't need to protect the fleet - the enemy CV isn't going to be in danger.  If you are facing a strike loadout then you can make their life hard with relative impunity since they don't have any real fighter presence to stop them.  If fighting another balanced then you get to do a little dance and try and gain the upper hand.

 

Babykim comments about CVs being selfish and I will happily say damn right I am selfish in my CV but if you want me to influence the outcome then you need me to be selfish.  CVs huge damage potential and ability to swing local battles decisively can have a drastic effect on whether you win or not.  My fighters are there to a) keep me alive and b) protect my strike planes getting to their target.  Protecting allied ships and spotting are things I will do but only if I don't need my planes to be doing either a) or b).

 

[Babykim]

As someone that plays CV extensively, I found that the largest problem of the CV is not the ship itself.

Rather, it is the ignorance found on an average player. I would quote below an example of this:

 

 

Take a look at the top leaderboard in team battles (from Kaper kommando, NESI, and OMNI), and try to watch streams of some of their players.

You will find that the CV used will be a Shokaku (NEVER a Lexington), and it will be using the 2-2-2 setup (NEVER a fighter setup).

While hard to distinguish, you will also find that the leader of the team will almost NEVER be in a CV.

If you watch the gameplay closely, you will also find that the primary target of the cvs will be the DDs, then the CV, then the BB, then the CA.

Something which is less than ideal than someone who is a damage whore, and is pointless anyway since the stats are tracked separately for team battles, and only rating matters in this case. 

 

This is the reason why it is so:

1. Playing a CV in team battles is mentally taxing and takes a lot of energy. It is not unusual to rotate the carrier players during long sessions, although this might be a luxury available to team with deep talent pools.

    The CV will be focused on winning the air combat and striking the heavily defended, maneuvering targets, and it is not ideal to put the burden of command on him/her.

 

This is very true. For that reason many put their leader in a BB. But then he only sees one flank. I am not saying that my optimal setup is what people play at the moment. It is rather what I think will be in the future when teams get enough practice.

 

2. The fighter setup will free up the enemy to maneuver as much as they like, being able to face the enemy frontally without afraid of being broadside by TBs.

    The competitive environment is very different than randoms, with AA consumables everywhere within a single task force: a single TB have no chance to deal damage at all.

    Worse, the 1 TB setup effectively eliminates the possibility of getting early DD kills by cross-torping, which decides the match within the first 2 minutes.

    It also eliminates the possibility of carrier sniping, which although might not always be possible, will force a cruiser to stay behind as a CV bodyguard.

 

The key is spotting. Correct AA will minimize the attack power, so that even attack planes will only be there for spotting. Whould you rather spot with something that can also shoot down planes? Or with something that is bound to miss with bombs and torps and die fast under dedicated figher cover and AA? Again, CV currently think they are about damage. This is a dillusion again a proper defence consisting on 3 Kotusovs and 2 North Carolinas trimmed all to max AA.

 

3. The Lexington is the worst CV you can use for competitive gameplay.

    It is spotted from the end of the world, and commonly killed by long-range BB gunfire.

    The fighter setup is powerless to stop the bombers, while relying on RNG to kill DDS.

    The strike setup, while fun in randoms, is useless due to shokaku having fighters that strafe it to death.

    And the stock setup combine the worst of both worlds.

    Let us not forget that since the selling feature of Lex is its dive bombers, using it as a scout eliminates most of its striking power.

 

The choice of the carrier depends entirely on what the carrier capitan prefers and is good at. The Lexington can work too. Besides there are 4 ships with smoke in my list (3 Kutuzovs and the DD).

 

The competitive players would also laugh at your suggestion of 2 whatever BBs and 3 Kutusovs.

This setup is so heavily focused on AA defense that it would be opened like a tin can when surface combat begins.

Only 1 Kutusov is normally used, the rest consisting of Tirpizes and Atagos.

And 2 DDs are normally more flexible than 1. 

 

The reason AS setup is not viable, not even in ranked battles, is because of simple mathematics that most people surprisingly fail to mention.

 

The primary target of a fighter, with speed of around 170 knots and detection range of 8 km, is a bomber with a speed of around 150 knots and detection range of 8 km.

This gives it the relative speed of around 20 knots if the fighter chase the bombers from behind.

 

The primary target of a bomber, with speed of around 150 knots and detection range of 8 km, is a battleship with a speed of around 30 knots and detection range of 15 km.

This gives it the relative speed of around 120 knots if the bomber chase the battleship from behind.

 

The bombers can chase and approach a ship around six times faster than a fighter can reach a bomber.

The bomber can also detect the battleship faster than the fighter can detect a bomber.

Thus, to quote a certain politician, "the bomber will always go through".

 

The only setup that is viable as an AS setup, as have been said countless times, is the Hakuryu with its 4 fighters.

Then again, CVs are not the only threat that you will face, and it is not the best pick for randoms.

Additionally,as someone have said before, the AS setup also gives security to the enemy, only have to worry of 1 torp bombers instead of 2.

 

[Ishiro32]

Top cv players are laughing at As setups since day one. I still don't understand how people are  not getting this. You will just win less often, I have done it just to be sure. As setups are bad, random, ranked or team.

 

By the way, great post ezy, could not have said it better ;p.

[kawasaki2943]

totally right. i am playing no fighter mode loadout on Ranger and that's very effective for teamwork, also  most interesting and funny too. but if my enemy plays with 2 fighters i have not any chance to do something usefull. i can only try to destroy enemy cv in begining of game but it's not easy. WG must solve that and must be ballanced not only tiers, loadout mode to.

[PixelMK]

-sorry 2 long m8-

Well fok i went with US CV's im at Tier V already, been thinking of farming up the IJN but im like 'Naah 2 boring to do it again' (since i dont like BB's that much),imo i run a fighter setup at Bogue, and what i want is more squads.. Its basically a problem im encountering in US CV, im always like 'Dammit if i had 1 more squad!', but having 6 planes is more cooler i think..

 

And im afraid of running the all or nothing strike setup, simply because i cant multi task much (i will be under pressure if enemy has fighter loadout..),but imo a well balanced setup is all i need,or here's a wild idea..

 

We all know fighter setup are useless, and i find them useless too, that is in the late game after i obliterate the enemy planes (mostly, by using manual fire, thank god not many CV players know this trick).

So what if Fighters could attack ships? But for very little damage, since we are talking about bullets against metal alloy monsters,this would further be enchanced (and make CV's more fun and interesting) if we had loadout options for our planes , and not only loadout options for CV's but for other ships too (maybe).

 

Example:

Loadout option for fighter, Dive run squad, -20% stopping bullet power, all planes have little HE shells that deal small damage but set on fire ; OR AP shells. (essentially Dive bombers with guns imo). 

EDIT: Loadout option for fighter, manual fire can hit ships, +10% enemy AA dmg against them when they are striking ships.

Loadout option for Torpedo bomber im not sure of, i dont find anything lacking in them (not like US CV's focus on Torpedo bombers..)

Loadout option for Dive bombers, already said above, but an option to choose AP or HE bombs would be nice..

 

EDIT:I understand the problem with the fighter dealing dmg to ships thing, its just not real, fighters would be obliterated by AA if we are talking realism here, so a new idea, add a kamikaze fighter squad. For the motherland \o/