US CV is impractical, any suggestions for improvement?

[Thunderslap91]

The only buff the US need its accurasy for there DB nothing more, why buff already OP fighters? or nerf IJN HP planes when there are already paper? they shoud nerf AA overall and buff IJN DB not nerf them, the stats show that IJN are alot better because of the lack of accurasy on US DB if they buff it that damage will rise alot.

[meyos90]

Making manual dropped bombs more accurate would make sense, but only if they also reduce the damage.

I don't like how USN bombs currently do more damage than torpedoes. In my opinion, torpedoes should always do more damage, but they should be harder to hit.

So yes it makes sense to make bombs more accurate, but please nerf the damage!

[dillydoe]

 

I mean.... A possible solution may be to buff the dive bombers to saipan like accuracy and give a small nerf to IJN fighters HP by about 120 - 130 (cause to be honest they're not strong when one on one with US fighters, but double team, invincible and they cover more ground.....). Its a solution, but I don't want to annoy the rest of the other players where they complain about US CVs having laser like dive bombers. They complained about US CVs having 2 torpedo delete button squadrons and said they were over powered, but they were not that far off from the win rates of the IJN CV. The balance needs to change, and not a damage balance, that's gonna annoy everyone else.

 

Oh and dasCKD. Everything you have written is wrong. For example, the Lexington is not more powerful than the Shokaku. The Lexington is in fact the worst ship in its tier out of all of the ships in that tier. Shokaku is in fact the best ship in its tier than all of the ships in that tier. It's the perfect example of the win rate difference of the 2 carriers. And I mean the strike US CV don't even get fighters for some tiers.... And IJN even get more torpedo bombers.... Just running through what they have again... Fundamental carrier problem? OK, let me address that. Now youtube stars like Aeron and Flamu couldn't care less about these problems, because they will buy whatever ship is best performing. So of course they won't care. If US carriers are stronger, they'll play them more, if IJN carriers are stronger, they'll play them more... Currently they're playing IJN CV more because they're significantly better. That's the point, if IJN fighter are made practically useless (even tho they can scout, destroy catapult fighters and strafe run your bombers *cough* IJN fighters will be useless *cough*) then it would possibly shift the air dominance to the US CV. I mean IJN CV have the dpm with their bombers, they can delete any ship with torpedo bombers. US dive bombers and torpedo bombers can delete a battleship after waiting for him to put the fires out, US CVs have to wait then set more fires, IJN? Nah they just x3 squadrons full health to 0/finish off with DB replenish and repeat. It won't shift the air dominance by a massive amount either if the US CV is strike. I just want the solution to be to shift the air dominance to the US as it should be. Someone is going to say, but, but the IJN will fighters will be made useless. Remember the US CVs have the lowest win rates! Which means that they are always losing! It is not going to flip the balance, because the US CV is behind by so much! (Making the IJN planes weaker will make them more easily shot down by ships and by US bombers as well! How do IJN avoid this? don't fly their fighters over ships and use strafe, easy. But remember I already said, they can scout, they attack catapult fighters, and strafe run your bombers.)

 

[pra3y]

 

What is your definition of worse? Granted there is an big problem with load outs but if you just consider the capability of the individual squadron, Lexington will come out as strong or even stronger compared to Shokaku. The only reason why Shokaku does better than the Lexington is because it has a better load out which gives it more flexibility and therefore more options, which people will thus play more since it comes of as being easy compared to playing the Lexington. The best solution is just to give USN CVs better load outs and the problem will be solved.USN fighters are already stronger than IJN  1v1 so there is no need to alter anything regarding fighters or any planes for that matter.

 

Also I was wrong about the DB accuracy buff that I was claiming about. That being said since I guess the DBs are already pretty accurate with manual drop (especially against the larger ships. Granted IJN DBs are very accurate but their trafe off was that they do minimal damage and are more of fire starters/ breaking modules & incapacitation)  so any more buffs might make them OP since USN DBs are already pretty strong damage wise and can still hit stuff even with DF on.

The drop circle compared to a Yamato. Pretty small I would say.

[dasCKD]

 

 

Quoting appears to be broken, so I'll have you kindly explain to me how a carrier with a strike force of 4x2 (68k potential damage) torpedo bombers and 5x2 dive bombers (45k potential damage) is more powerful than a carrier with 6x1 (59 k potential damage) torpedo bombers and 7x3 dive bombers (220k potential damage). Your statements on the Shokaku being the best ship at her tier is provably wrong with a cursory glance at warships.today which shows the Amagi holding her crown as the best tier 8 ship at everything but winrate (which is symptomatic of problems with the USN carriers and not indicative of anything about the Shokaku) and XP (which means next to nothing). Being a powerful ship is not the same thing as being a useful ship and the Shokaku is excelling because she is useful and not because she is powerful.

 

What you're suggesting is inane and stupid. IJN carriers are already being forced to take fighters in every ship, and now you're suggesting that these fighters that they are forced to take should be made even worse than before where a USN fighter squad can chew through a same tiered IJN fighter squad with a 2 plane casualty max in most cases. What you are suggesting is no different than asking all IJN carriers to have their fighters removed. I might not be an educated game designer until at least the next module, but even I can see that this is a stupid idea.

 

You appear to have a-let's be kind and say romanticized-view of IJN carriers. The spreads of the IJN carriers are so wide that the enemy either has to be a complete idiot in a cruiser or a destroyer to be one shotted or they are in a battleship at which point they could have anything up to 45% torpedo damage negation. USN carriers have long had the higher alpha per torpedo, and even the Midway in her best days had problems one shotting a Yamato or a Montana. What makes you think that a Hakuryu, with her unwieldy spreads and lower alpha, could one shot a battleship of the same tier? Also, are you suggesting that the Shokaku has better DPM than the Lexington? What you are suggesting is to make IJN fighters useless to all but the best captains, something which I believe I have already said in my previous post. You are also citing the Shokaku as your main example when it comes to the dominance of the IJN carrier line. Are you not aware that the Shokaku only has two torpedo bomber squads?

[dasCKD]

IJN carriers have lower plane survivability under AA fire. They have weaker fighters. Every last one of their strike aircraft has lower alpha damage than their USN counterparts, sometimes this disparity is close to 300%. They have two advantages: higher force projection and better loadouts. Unlike some people, I am developing both carrier lines because I am interested in seeing what all lines have to offer. I don't intend to use the forum as a weapon to wage war against my fellow CV captains in lieu of improving my abilities and so I have no need of any nerfs to either class. I think that the USN carriers deserves retooling in order to make them more competitive, and I proposed a tradeoff between alpha damage and reliability that I thought most people would be willing to take. This thread was started as a suggestion thread to find ways to improve USN carriers and instead it has quickly devolved into a IJN carrier nerf thread that was never needed. This happened before, some annoying git noticed the Essex and the Midway curbstomping the Taihou and the Haky and instead of buffing the IJN line they took away a torpedo bomber squad. I am by no means a good carrier player, but the fact that I managed a 65% win rate on the Bogue of all ships shows that there is something wrong with the player base and not the ships. At time of writing, here are the two week stats:

 

Tier	USN carriers	IJN carriers
4	23k/47.38%	36k/52.09%
5	WTF->18k/47.25%	40k/53.03%
6	27k/47.77%	39k/52.10%
7	38k/47.74%	47k/52.56%
8	47k/47.83%	56k/52.00%
9	76k/48.23%	78k/52.19%
10	109k/53.39%	93k/52.48%

 

(Saipan is winning all things because reasons)

 

A Ranger losing against a Hiryu is one thing (The Ranger is the one carrier that could do with a buff, I would like a 1/1/2), but 18k average damage! I do double that in one good Bogue run! The problem here is the players and not the ship, and I intend to prove it with my climb up the USN tree. The USN could give up their dive bomber alpha for improved accuracy and I can guarantee that their win rates and damage per games will climb. Nerf the IJN carriers and all that'll happen is that the IJN carriers will fall into crap tier ships like the Ranger but the numbers on the carriers will be 50% and the nematodes that are responsible for balancing will clap their sloppy bodies in glee. If the IJN fighters are such an annoyance, then advocate for the removal of all IJN fighters to be replaced with strike aircraft. That way the USN carriers can have all the air superiority they want for all the good that'll do them.

[dasCKD]

Also I was wrong about the DB accuracy buff that I was claiming about. That being said since I guess the DBs are already pretty accurate with manual drop (especially against the larger ships. Granted IJN DBs are very accurate but their trafe off was that they do minimal damage and are more of fire starters/ breaking modules & incapacitation)  so any more buffs might make them OP since USN DBs are already pretty strong damage wise and can still hit stuff even with DF on.

 

I would prefer a accuracy buff for all USN dive bombers in exchange for lower alpha damage. If we buff the USN dive bombers too much, then you can bet your bottom buck that the Derpitz Association for incensed battleship skippers will be petitioning for the nerfing of USN dive bombers down to IJN dive bomber levels.

[Thunderslap91]

Every one is talking about the ranger is worse then the hiryu and that it shoud be nerf (Hiryu), but u forgot  that the Hiryu lost is tier 7 TB 2 or 3 patch ago, now there TB are so slow and weak that can be reck by any tier 5 ship before it even drop the torp, while the ranger still got is tier 7 fighter/TB and DB, so if u want to make the US more useful don't nerf the other line buff that, the IJN already got hard nerf because pll can't learn how to play with US CV.

In most cases in my hiryu my 2 fighters lose the vs 1 ranger fighters ( i mean come on 2vs1), i lose all my 8 planes and the ranger 2 or 3 max, and u still want to nerf is HP more.....

[pra3y]

 

I would prefer a accuracy buff for all USN dive bombers in exchange for lower alpha damage. If we buff the USN dive bombers too much, then you can bet your bottom buck that the Derpitz Association for incensed battleship skippers will be petitioning for the nerfing of USN dive bombers down to IJN dive bomber levels.

 

The problem is by how much? Too little and the Derpitz Association will start whining. If too much and it'll just become an IJN DB clone. 

 

The problem with playing the USN line is it is hard for good USN players to deal as much damage as a good IJN player. One way to solve it is as you say improve the accuracy but reduce the alpha damage. The problem is with the travel time and rearm time (of USN planes)  you'll still end up back to status quo. I think IJN CVs are as balance as they can get for now and should not be touched for the moment. That's why I feel for Ranger and Lexi the solution of adding 1 more DB squad for balance would help, subsitute the DBs for a TB squad for AS and I guess strike is ok in its current form. The problem with USN is less of the planes themselves but their damage potential as well as their ability to support the fleet. Give more damage potential and I'm pretty sure people will start playing USN CV more and win as well.

 

Hahahaha i play both CV lines as well. Tier for tier (up to 6) I perform better in my USN CV than IJN in almost all aspect from damage, win rate and exp.That's why I agree it's mostly the player not the ship (exception being Ranger and Lexi. While they can fight tier for tier its not balanced for them against their IJN counterpart since they have way too little squadrons for their tier)

[dasCKD]

The problem is by how much? Too little and the Derpitz Association will start whining. If too much and it'll just become an IJN DB clone. 

 

That's the main question isn't it? I think that the main issue with dive bomber bombs right now is that they're too effective against the wrong type of target. Destroyers are too small to be hit directly and top tier battleships can shrug off even the Midway's bombs with the ease that they'll shrug of a stiff penetrating salvo. Cruisers and carriers on the other hand are easily big enough to be targets for those bombs and they don't have the armor to withstand the explosives. I think that the ideal dive bomber squad is one that has a similar relative effectiveness against a cruiser and a battleship. I can't for the life of me think of a buff that would make dive bombers very effective weapons against battleships without making them completely overpowered against cruisers (unless they bring that annoying consumable of course).

[Poster_2015]

1) Well 

 

Quoting appears to be broken, so I'll have you kindly explain to me how a carrier with a strike force of 4x2 (68k potential damage) torpedo bombers and 5x2 dive bombers (45k potential damage) is more powerful than a carrier with 6x1 (59 k potential damage) torpedo bombers and 7x3 dive bombers (220k potential damage). Your statements on the Shokaku being the best ship at her tier is provably wrong with a cursory glance at warships.today which shows the Amagi holding her crown as the best tier 8 ship at everything but winrate (which is symptomatic of problems with the USN carriers and not indicative of anything about the Shokaku) and XP (which means next to nothing). Being a powerful ship is not the same thing as being a useful ship and the Shokaku is excelling because she is useful and not because she is powerful.

 

Well the potential damage you are quoting has nothing to do with reality. DB cap at around 22k per drop if you only drop on carriers. Its not just hitting them, but its also HE explosions that are hugely mitigated by armor. Very often majority of the damage comes from burnings/sinking , which is about the same for both carriers in terms of burning (DB set fires almost the same), and way better for IJN in terms of sinking. 

 

Still in my opinion US CVs were somewhat fine after rework to the number of torp squads and buffing of DBs. Mind it, they were still behind statistically, but they were "workable". Subsequent nerfs , which actually were not directly aimed at them were the problem:

 

- The "removal of CV" sniping - its something I still disagree with, even though i adapted. It was rather OP but only on tier 9, so the broad sweep of tiers 8-10 was completely not needed. However soon after the patch, they realised that US DB are mostly immune to the effect of AA consumable. So they nerfed that. That is one problem - since you can easily assume you dont have torp bombers when facing a IJN CV (they will get one of your strike groups, and it most likely will be torps as it makes most sense to them), it means you cant do damage when under effect of AA consumable. Thats too strong. You can easily deal dmg with jap TB under AA consumable - its reduced, and you cant nicely converge multiple torps, but hitting SOME and starting sinking is very very possible. On other hand US DB are pretty "reliable" to do 0 dmg under AA consumable to anything other then CV/BB (and if you attack high tier BB who has AA consumable CA near him you are doing something wrong). It means in multiple matches I have basically 0 viable targets. Remember , you face more fighters too, so its not like you can circle and wait out the AA consumables in many cases. My Fletcher with AA skill feels 100% safe from US CV. And i really mean 100% safe. 

 

So revert the aiming reticle of US DB under AA consumable to what it was, if sniping appears to be a problem (it shouldnt), buff the CV defensive consumable accordingly. 

 

Second problem, is that AA buffs hit US more then japanese. Yes japs usually have somewhat weaker planes (but not much, check stats), but with the major buffs to stuff like number of 40mm Bofors on BBs, it hit US a lot more. Medium/short range auras dont really affect TB much - other then killing them AFTER they dropped. They do affect DB a lot more. In reality its US that loses more planes now, and gets to deal damage rarer due to the strong AA introduced. I would actually increase the durability of BOTH side DB by a fair margin - although to be honest - it will help US more. 

[pra3y]

 

That's the main question isn't it? I think that the main issue with dive bomber bombs right now is that they're too effective against the wrong type of target. Destroyers are too small to be hit directly and top tier battleships can shrug off even the Midway's bombs with the ease that they'll shrug of a stiff penetrating salvo. Cruisers and carriers on the other hand are easily big enough to be targets for those bombs and they don't have the armor to withstand the explosives. I think that the ideal dive bomber squad is one that has a similar relative effectiveness against a cruiser and a battleship. I can't for the life of me think of a buff that would make dive bombers very effective weapons against battleships without making them completely overpowered against cruisers (unless they bring that annoying consumable of course).

 

Well my friend I have the solution then. Rather then reducing the alpha damage of the bombs themselves, reduce the planes in a USN DB squadron from 6 to 4 like IJN's. Buff their accuracy and then give them an additional DB squadron depending on the chosen load out. That way for the CV player they have more accurate DBs as well as more flexibility with the additional DB squad. In balance to the ship getting attacked, the overall damage from a single DB squadron has been reduced and it will also be easier to shoot down planes from a squadron of 4 planes and reduce the amount of damage 1 squad can do. Fair enough right 

[orgerix]

 

That's the main question isn't it? I think that the main issue with dive bomber bombs right now is that they're too effective against the wrong type of target. Destroyers are too small to be hit directly and top tier battleships can shrug off even the Midway's bombs with the ease that they'll shrug of a stiff penetrating salvo. Cruisers and carriers on the other hand are easily big enough to be targets for those bombs and they don't have the armor to withstand the explosives. I think that the ideal dive bomber squad is one that has a similar relative effectiveness against a cruiser and a battleship. I can't for the life of me think of a buff that would make dive bombers very effective weapons against battleships without making them completely overpowered against cruisers (unless they bring that annoying consumable of course).

 

I tend to disagree. With multiple dive bomber, you can set multiple fires multiple times, which hurt a lot the battleship (as the damage scale with the HP). And DD can be hit with a manual drop (but I agree, it is not guaranteed, a require a bit of luck). But even if it was true. I don't see the problem. You have different weapon to different targets, like the ships have HE and AP depending the situation.

[dasCKD]

1) Well 

 

Well the potential damage you are quoting has nothing to do with reality. DB cap at around 22k per drop if you only drop on carriers. Its not just hitting them, but its also HE explosions that are hugely mitigated by armor. Very often majority of the damage comes from burnings/sinking , which is about the same for both carriers in terms of burning (DB set fires almost the same), and way better for IJN in terms of sinking. 

 

 

I am well aware of that. I was citing the potential damage however because those numbers are fixed as opposed to dependent on around three or four different factors at any given time. The numbers were mentioned in response to the statement that the Shokaku is less powerful than a Lexington. She's not. Torpedoes also don't have a fixed damage number, though this is a more general statement than a direct response to anything you said.

- The "removal of CV" sniping - its something I still disagree with, even though i adapted. It was rather OP but only on tier 9, so the broad sweep of tiers 8-10 was completely not needed. However soon after the patch, they realised that US DB are mostly immune to the effect of AA consumable. So they nerfed that. That is one problem - since you can easily assume you dont have torp bombers when facing a IJN CV (they will get one of your strike groups, and it most likely will be torps as it makes most sense to them), it means you cant do damage when under effect of AA consumable. Thats too strong. You can easily deal dmg with jap TB under AA consumable - its reduced, and you cant nicely converge multiple torps, but hitting SOME and starting sinking is very very possible. On other hand US DB are pretty "reliable" to do 0 dmg under AA consumable to anything other then CV/BB (and if you attack high tier BB who has AA consumable CA near him you are doing something wrong). It means in multiple matches I have basically 0 viable targets. Remember , you face more fighters too, so its not like you can circle and wait out the AA consumables in many cases. My Fletcher with AA skill feels 100% safe from US CV. And i really mean 100% safe. 

 

So revert the aiming reticle of US DB under AA consumable to what it was, if sniping appears to be a problem (it shouldnt), buff the CV defensive consumable accordingly. 

 

Well, you can do damage quite consistently under the effects of an IJN AA consumable or at least far more than the IJN carriers can do, but I see your point here. I disagree with the global nerf of USN dive bombers however. I think that the easiest fix for this would be to maintain the dive bomber dispersion underneath a carrier's AA consumable but retain it to its original state underneath the AA fire of a lone cruiser or a lone fighter squad. To fully disrupt a dive bomber squad therefore, you'll need the defensive fire abilities of two cruisers, two fighters, or one of each. USN strike aircraft at all tiers have a higher effective survivability than their IJN counterparts, so this change would give the USN carriers a smaller but still very important niche for them to occupy, namely the execution of lone high AA dps ships like high tier USN/KM cruisers or USN battleships. The rest of their effectiveness will be left mostly the same, so they should be able to maintain their current roles as well. I think that the deck armor of all high tier carriers should be improved. Torpedo belt protection is fine as it is imo.

Second problem, is that AA buffs hit US more then japanese. Yes japs usually have somewhat weaker planes (but not much, check stats), but with the major buffs to stuff like number of 40mm Bofors on BBs, it hit US a lot more. Medium/short range auras dont really affect TB much - other then killing them AFTER they dropped. They do affect DB a lot more. In reality its US that loses more planes now, and gets to deal damage rarer due to the strong AA introduced. I would actually increase the durability of BOTH side DB by a fair margin - although to be honest - it will help US more. 

 

Here's where we disagree. IJN carrier planes, almost by their nature, will have worse survivability when compared to USN carrier planes. With the current AA mechanic if the statistics of lone planes are identical, USN aircraft will have 50% more effective HP than their IJN counterparts. This disparity is one of the reasons that AA is so unbalanced. Change the AA firepower to suit IJN carriers, USN carrier planes become nigh invincible. Change it the other way round, and IJN carriers becomes useless. I will agree with the improvement of dive bomber survivability however as dive bombers needs some edge over torpedo bombers even if I would prefer if this came in the form of a speed buff instead of a health buff, though I still believe that torpedo plane speed and health for IJN carriers from tier 8 onwards needs to be increased in order to deal with the high AA dps ships that has no business being able to down nearly two whole squads before one even has a chance to drop.

[dasCKD]

 

Well my friend I have the solution then. Rather then reducing the alpha damage of the bombs themselves, reduce the planes in a USN DB squadron from 6 to 4 like IJN's. Buff their accuracy and then give them an additional DB squadron depending on the chosen load out. That way for the CV player they have more accurate DBs as well as more flexibility with the additional DB squad. In balance to the ship getting attacked, the overall damage from a single DB squadron has been reduced and it will also be easier to shoot down planes from a squadron of 4 planes and reduce the amount of damage 1 squad can do. Fair enough right 

 

Well, that would reduce the damage per squad, but that doesn't address the fundamental gap between the dive bomber effectiveness against certain targets. I personally disagree with using AA as the balancing factor against carriers. I think that cruisers with their defensive fire and destroyers with their superior maneuverability are good mechanics as they fundamentally require at least the minimum amount of user attention and skill in order to exploit to their maximum potential. Making dive bombers more accurate will mean that targets without the armor to deal with their attacks will be utterly annihilated whilst high tier battleships (who will profit more than anyone else from the relative weakness of dive bomber squads) can sail by mostly unbothered. This is why I think that we need to balance the carriers with the minimum assumption that at least 50% of the payload will land and do damage (unless destroyer). I also think that high squad survivability, a USN carrier trait, should still be maintained especially in this age of massive AA buffs. The new mechanic will work if the ship has a mostly good AA, but they are many battleships and even cruisers which Lexingtons will run across that don't have anywhere near the base AA defense to get anything but negatives from this change. I also don't think that any more than two distinct squads of flexibility is required for any one type of strike aircraft, which is why I think that the Hiryu and Shokaku are ideal carriers. Two torpedo bombers and two dive bombers to space the damage over time as the carrier captain wishes.

[dasCKD]

 

I tend to disagree. With multiple dive bomber, you can set multiple fires multiple times, which hurt a lot the battleship (as the damage scale with the HP). And DD can be hit with a manual drop (but I agree, it is not guaranteed, a require a bit of luck). But even if it was true. I don't see the problem. You have different weapon to different targets, like the ships have HE and AP depending the situation.

 

That's true enough, but the problem is that carriers can't pick between HE and AP shells which means that they are restricted to basically only the targets that their class provides. I also don't think that fires are particularly useful against battleship captains with even the tiniest sliver of familiarity with carriers or enough credits to mount premium repairs and damage control. Here's a potential idea though.

 

In one of my carrier threads, I bought up the idea of AP bombs as the USN specialty and I would perhaps like to expand on it here. At the time, I said that the problem with AP bombs is that if they had the penetration to significantly impact battleships, they would be completely overpowered against cruisers who would be fighting against what are effectively battleships that they can't use islands to hide from. Here's an idea however:

 

AP bombs are big and do significant internal damage. Historically speaking, USN AP shells have been known to cause leaks and even listing. Rather than the dive bombers causing fire damage, they can more reliably cause flooding damage. Flooding damage is far more debilitating than fires I'm sure you'll agree as fires, unless said fire is on a carrier, doesn't significantly impact the immediate performance of the ship. Flooding does however, slowing down the target and leeching away health at the same time. If USN dive bombers can cause flooding therefore, they would have far more strategic value.

 

Many people here would likely see damage per game as the main indicator of a ship's performance. I, however, personally believe that the win rate is more important. If two ships are both equally capable of bringing their team victory then I regard them as balanced even if there was a 100k average damage difference between them. The IJN carriers, able to cause both fire and flooding, therefore can use their superior plane speed (that I think should be improved in the higher tiers) to wage a war of attrition up the enemy team's ships by using both the fires and flooding from their numerous plane squads. USN carriers can use their superior plane survivability, something that I believe should be improved for both nations, to go straight for the artery and land debilitating strikes against some of the most heavily armored and AA protected ships in the game and slow them down to force them to separate from the fleet and delay the progress of the entire fleet's advance. The nations will therefore have different but nevertheless valid ways of bringing their team victory.

[Tomasberkut]

A little on US vs IJN as far as my experience goes.

 

0.5.3, at least the first few days was the glory time for US dive bombers. The carnage! The slaughter! The whine about fires and the damage ! Truely this was a time when I loved my trollington the most.

 

If only I've been playing with a premium account I would taste the glorious feeling of using 2 US TB's coupled with DB's....

 

About US vs IJN DB's:

 

Many nerfs later I find US DB completely unreliable. RnG is what makes them completely useless. I cant count how many times ive dropped 21 bombs on a Yamato or Izumo only to have 3 of them hitting, we're talking of a perfect manual aim with the enemy filling most of the aiming elipse. I find it completely reasonable to hit an enemy DD with one or two bombs, the same thing with hitting an enemy at a 90* angle but FFS its times like this I loose my cool.

 

Then comes the damage. 3x00, 5x00 and 1xxxx seem to be the magic numbers.

 

3500 modules, 3500 modules + fire, 5000 no other dmg, 3500 fire, full hp DD oneshot with one bomb, 3500, 5500, 5500, 3x fire, 19000. The only target eating DB like a champ are CV, because of that im starting to do CV sniping again. High risk but very high reward.

 

In comparsion I find the IJN DB work exacly how I like them. The damage is a consistent 3xxx on CA and BB with and occasional hiccup lower or higher. 75% the time there is a nice fire after a run.  Its really easy to snipe a DD and cause 1500, sometimes 3xxx dmg with an occasional fire. A situation where I hit a DD for nothing but with a decap is really rare. 4500+ and fires almost every time on a CV target.

 

In summary: US DB are better than IJN but rng is screwing us

 

And one thing regarding US vs IJN CV I have found in general.

 

IJN are much better at map control and support for your allys. I find targets like DD very high priority, spotting the enemy and looking for torps too. Harrasing multiple enemys and setting them up for allys is nice. It is possible to delete an enemy in one go but most of the time a find it a waste of resources.  Its very easy to get a nice WR in IJN.

 

My US CVs are better at focusing large targets and destroing them in one run. I have seen enemys runing away at the first sight of my planes. I find making very high dmg games in US easyer than IJN but with a much lower WR.

 

Oh and nothing sets the enemy team up like a sight of Taiho planes wrecking 2x DD's and perma spotting the third one only to put it out of its misery with the last squad of DB. I sure loved it, hope the Haku will be as good with strike setup, having fun with AA now

 

Or turning a full hp Yamato in to a Benson in one sweep

 

[dillydoe]

IJN carriers have lower plane survivability under AA fire. They have weaker fighters. Every last one of their strike aircraft has lower alpha damage than their USN counterparts, sometimes this disparity is close to 300%. They have two advantages: higher force projection and better loadouts. Unlike some people, I am developing both carrier lines because I am interested in seeing what all lines have to offer. I don't intend to use the forum as a weapon to wage war against my fellow CV captains in lieu of improving my abilities and so I have no need of any nerfs to either class. I think that the USN carriers deserves retooling in order to make them more competitive, and I proposed a tradeoff between alpha damage and reliability that I thought most people would be willing to take. This thread was started as a suggestion thread to find ways to improve USN carriers and instead it has quickly devolved into a IJN carrier nerf thread that was never needed. This happened before, some annoying git noticed the Essex and the Midway curbstomping the Taihou and the Haky and instead of buffing the IJN line they took away a torpedo bomber squad. I am by no means a good carrier player, but the fact that I managed a 65% win rate on the Bogue of all ships shows that there is something wrong with the player base and not the ships. At time of writing, here are the two week stats:

 

Tier	USN carriers	IJN carriers
4	23k/47.38%	36k/52.09%
5	WTF->18k/47.25%	40k/53.03%
6	27k/47.77%	39k/52.10%
7	38k/47.74%	47k/52.56%
8	47k/47.83%	56k/52.00%
9	76k/48.23%	78k/52.19%
10	109k/53.39%	93k/52.48%

 

(Saipan is winning all things because reasons)

 

A Ranger losing against a Hiryu is one thing (The Ranger is the one carrier that could do with a buff, I would like a 1/1/2), but 18k average damage! I do double that in one good Bogue run! The problem here is the players and not the ship, and I intend to prove it with my climb up the USN tree. The USN could give up their dive bomber alpha for improved accuracy and I can guarantee that their win rates and damage per games will climb. Nerf the IJN carriers and all that'll happen is that the IJN carriers will fall into crap tier ships like the Ranger but the numbers on the carriers will be 50% and the nematodes that are responsible for balancing will clap their sloppy bodies in glee. If the IJN fighters are such an annoyance, then advocate for the removal of all IJN fighters to be replaced with strike aircraft. That way the USN carriers can have all the air superiority they want for all the good that'll do them.

 

Ok you know what, let me begin by saying that I started this thread with the US CV needing an improvement. But I did not intend a simple work around with the loadouts, nor did I intend to buff the DAMAGE of a US CV. That's like fighting fire with fire! CVs already do a lot of damage! I was simply suggesting a decrease to the IJN fighters HP. That's practically harmless! I mean maybe this isn't the solution for ranger, and I agree that ranger could use a different loadout (1/1/2 because of the saipan and that would balance things!). And I think Lexington could use the 2/1/1 again without any changes to IJN fighters HP and keep its 10,000lbs bombs, explanation below. And now you're making everyone view me as the annoying git for suggesting a practical harmless nerf (a nerf to already "weak" fighters), for such a difference in performance among 2 different tech trees. I didn't suggest take away a torpedo bomber from IJN CV or give US CVs crazy powerful bombers. And you're saying to not wage war when you are the one making me out to be the villain(as this annoying git) and just dismissing a problem based on opinions instead of facts. Well you have provided a table, but it shows that all of the US CVs (besides Midway, which I know is not the case!) are inferior by at least 4% in terms of win rate. That is actually a massive difference and for all tiers? Basically what this information doesn't tell you is that Bogue, Independence, Ranger, Lexington, Essex and Midway(I haven't played Midway, but according to a site it says its the worse: https://warships.today/vehicles/eu) are all at the bottom of their respective tier for every ship in that tier for North American, EU and Asian server.

 

I'm using facts, you're using opinion.

 

So instead of just claiming facts by using opinion, I went out and did some tests. That's right, I ran some test with my Lexington and Saipan. OK, so what I found was that, Lexington appears to do 3,564 damage (Exactly that damage for some reason? May have had a weird game... (may be different against DD)) For each bomb that hits with its dive bombers. Also, the bomb can take out a module (for example x1 AA gun) and do no damage! Together with the accuracy of the bombs, you hit them x2 with 6 bombers on about average with manual drop, sometimes you hit them 1 time, sometimes you hit them 5 times, sometimes you just miss, because they're difficult to use when manual dropping and easy to avoid being hit by them. (Automatic aiming is usually one or 2 bombs or rarely 5 or not so rarely none) So that is about 3,564 x2 x3 (3 dive bombers in the air at one time) that is 21,384 damage (but usually hits a module, which brings it down to 15,000 average damage with the 3 dive bomber squadrons).  I carried the same test with my Saipan. And Oh boy. Ok so, I imagine IJN CV are more similar to this ship. So I noted that the Saipan's torpedoes do between 5,500 damage to 9,000 damage with 6,650 as the average damage regardless of the ship you hit. Now if we use 6,650 as the average damage that means that with the 3 torpedo bombers and say that 5-6 torpedoes hit on average, you are doing 33,250 damage to 39,900 damage per torpedo run. Ok. Now what I did to prevent the ranger from achieving this outcome, is simply engage his torpedo bombers, he could probably land one torpedo. This can be done with IJN CV as well. To fix tier 7 a change in US loadout will be needed (a 1/1/2 should be sufficient with possibly a buff in the ranger's planes HP, to fix the 4% difference). I can upload the Lexington result and upload my other Saipan test where I didn't kill anything, but just pure damage to show how I calculated these results. With about Idk, 5,500 damage per torpedo bomber for Japanese CVs(Ijn torpedo bombers have 1,300 less maximum damage than their US counterparts, this is an assumption and now I have just calculated it using replays and it is correct! Some replays even show 6,000 average damage)? And with that around 5,500 average damage they can do on average x6 hits reliably(Or hit a DD really hard, which US CV cannot easily do). So that is 33,000 damage (and that's instant damage) per run with a strike hiryu or shakako with torpedoes alone(instant damage), you can then set fire at will. So I've just proved that your statement on the IJN strike aircraft doing less damage than the American strike aircraft is simply incorrect. I found that the IJN strike aircraft do more damage than the US CVs. I went out, ran some tests and came out with a result. You on the other, just call people who make the effort to try and make a case to balance the ships a villain and state facts about ship characteristics based upon opinion(or what you see in the port). You pretty much called me an annoying git and well I kindof am right now, but I'm not wrong! And you're just dismissing the issue. Yes I am offended, but it doesn't matter, it's a forum, who cares? But every single US CV at the bottom? And a separation by 4% for every tier?! (Apart from saipan, but you buy that! There is no grind involved!) No, sir. Something needs to be done.

 

And the thing is, you will find out, when you get to the higher tiers with the US CVs. Tier 7,8,9 and I'm assuming 10 is a mess for US CVs. IJN always outdo them, easily too. For the next post I will post suggestions for what should be done for each tier of CVs for either US or IJN CVs to create a better balance. 4% difference for every tier is just too much. And no I am not going to suggest any damage nerfs, Just possibly different loadouts (pretty much only regarding US loadouts) and alterations to fighter and possibly plane HPs. OK? 

 

To show that I'm an alright CV captain, I Jumped into my Saipan and just wrecked it:

http://wowreplays.com/Replay/10860-Christopher_Dilworth-Land-of-Fire 

 

Easily outdid the Ranger, 111k damage.

 

[dillydoe]

 

Quoting appears to be broken, so I'll have you kindly explain to me how a carrier with a strike force of 4x2 (68k potential damage) torpedo bombers and 5x2 dive bombers (45k potential damage) is more powerful than a carrier with 6x1 (59 k potential damage) torpedo bombers and 7x3 dive bombers (220k potential damage). Your statements on the Shokaku being the best ship at her tier is provably wrong with a cursory glance at warships.today which shows the Amagi holding her crown as the best tier 8 ship at everything but winrate (which is symptomatic of problems with the USN carriers and not indicative of anything about the Shokaku) and XP (which means next to nothing). Being a powerful ship is not the same thing as being a useful ship and the Shokaku is excelling because she is useful and not because she is powerful.

 

What you're suggesting is inane and stupid. IJN carriers are already being forced to take fighters in every ship, and now you're suggesting that these fighters that they are forced to take should be made even worse than before where a USN fighter squad can chew through a same tiered IJN fighter squad with a 2 plane casualty max in most cases. What you are suggesting is no different than asking all IJN carriers to have their fighters removed. I might not be an educated game designer until at least the next module, but even I can see that this is a stupid idea.

 

You appear to have a-let's be kind and say romanticized-view of IJN carriers. The spreads of the IJN carriers are so wide that the enemy either has to be a complete idiot in a cruiser or a destroyer to be one shotted or they are in a battleship at which point they could have anything up to 45% torpedo damage negation. USN carriers have long had the higher alpha per torpedo, and even the Midway in her best days had problems one shotting a Yamato or a Montana. What makes you think that a Hakuryu, with her unwieldy spreads and lower alpha, could one shot a battleship of the same tier? Also, are you suggesting that the Shokaku has better DPM than the Lexington? What you are suggesting is to make IJN fighters useless to all but the best captains, something which I believe I have already said in my previous post. You are also citing the Shokaku as your main example when it comes to the dominance of the IJN carrier line. Are you not aware that the Shokaku only has two torpedo bomber squads?

 

​Haha! I didn't even see this! Before I go into this, just letting everyone know that US dive bomb can hit a x1 AA gun and DO NO DAMAGE!

I'm really starting to learn even more about this. I learned from replays from a youtuber called Flamu. And when I watched his videos I noticed that on average, in his Midway he does about 12,000 damage per x7 dive bomber drop.  With his Hakuryu, he does 14,000 to 18,000 damage per torpedo squadron. In the first Hakryu strike he does, he gets x6 hits and gets 39K damage right off the bat and he barely even aimed it! With the Midway video he does 43K damage, but notice how carefull he aims the planes cause its very easy to miss! Also take note on the Midway's torpedo "runway" the green aiming bit, the circle around the green aiming bit shows when the planes will commit to the run. That green "runway" is about 3-4km away from the commitment circle. This causes a delay and makes the torpedo run inaccurate. You're so called romanticized-view of IJN CV torpedo accuracy of which you claim of as inaccurate, actually commits to the run much sooner than the US CVs torpedo (That green carpet is closer to the commit circle with IJN CV). They can also cross drop for if the enemy ship tries to dodge. A US CV cannot do that (Now...). To top it all off they are faster! Which means they can get the broadside quicker, they can strike faster, return faster and go back out faster, not to mention they reload their planes faster! I was about to say that you can argue that the planes have to que, but for what like... 5 seconds? For each que? And then x12 out again? And besides US CV actually have to que as well... and longer take off times too! With less damage from their dive bombers too (which is US main stab)! The difference between the two is looking is worse and worse! And I have noticed the Boffors 40mm buff which shoots down DB better...

where u get this 45% torpedo negation stat from? Idk? IJN maximum torp damage is like 8,500. I saw from Flamu's taiho video that he does 7,834 to a kagero, which is the highest I've seen... And then I saw a x4 torpedo strike at a yamato doing 22,754 which is 5,688 average damage and even then that's 33% from maximum torp damage potential. Whilst USN "220K of potential damage (so OP)" only does 12k on average of damage with its 7 dive bombers... Now its maximum potential damage is 10800, times that by 7 and that's 75600, Now 12,000/75,600 (x100) is 15.9% that means that the massive romanticized view you have of the US CV's dive bombers of 220K potential is in fact losing 84% of its efficiency! I mean the 220k argument, that's absurd why would even bring that up as an argument?

 

Well back to the real thing. Long story short, from the breakdown of these two videos provided by flamu: US dive bombers do 12k average damage, there are 3 of them, they are slower and take longer to reload. IJN torpedo bombers do 19.5k average damage per squadron (if about 3 hit), they are faster, reload faster and can cross torp any opponent, oh and are more accurate (that green runway closeness to the circle thing).

 

Other advantages Hakuryu has based on videos and the port stats over Midway:

Fighters cover more ground when compared to the US strike counterpart.

better concealment (What? they do?)

More maneuverable CV (better for relocation, barely relevant, when talking about how the planes massively outperform the other CV)

Fighters that can double team a US fighter squadron reliably and continue to take out other US planes that have a lower dpm anyway

The torpedoes do the same average damage, That's right! They do the same average damage! Regardless what it says in the port! I have hit a fletcher in my Saipan (most recent screenshot) and done 6,664 damage. (All US CVs have same alpha damage torps) Flamu's videos? Midway using torps on enemy midway, he gets from 25k to 38k with x2 US torpedoes. Calculate that and its 13K with the 2 torpedoes. 13K/2 = 6.5K average damage. With his Hakuryu. 39K with 6 torpedoes. What is 39k/6? That's right 6,500 average damage! THEY HAVE THE SAME TORPEDO DAMAGE! The port stats lie to you. Next point.

IJN carry dive bombers that can then set fires and do even more damage.

IJN torpedo planes don't get shot down as much (don't have to go in as close, whilst US CV have a tough time with Iowas and Montana is a no no...)

And then finally, IJN CVs can hit almost anything. Strike from an unexpected angle and IJN can hit those fire spitting NC, Iowa and Montana AA mountains. Cross torp any DD, and cruiser given that you wait until his AA cooldown is off. US can barely hit DD, have to dive bomb the fire spitting Mountains and yeah cruisers, well there hard to hit too!

 

Cons:

weaker AA

fighters die when one on one vs US fighters

less HP for the CV

Less planes in reserve

US fighter set ups can get clear sky easier, but will still do more damage if you just strike from random directions.

Cannot CV snipe as effectively, However US CVs are not really that good at it anyway.

And Des Moines I imagine are a bigger pain? Again not much of a different story there...

I can't think of anything else...

 

Oh and ignore what Flamu is saying about Midway not being under powered in anyway, I think he knows that there's a massive difference, just wants the IJN CV tech tree untouched as WG are aweful at nerfing.... That's why when I write a ticket, I'm going to be specific and say that this is exactly what are the problems and how to solve them. And I am going to write a ticket cause after doing all of these calculations I can now see the gimmike effect that the US CV DB "buff" had. They're not powerful in the slightest when compared to IJN torpedo bombers. An IJN CV nerf may actually be an option, but I feel like they are going to do something really stupid. Like lower accuracy or buff AA on ships, bigger dispersion on IJN torpedoes, torpedo delay/ reduced accuracy, slower planes something stupid like that. Its wargamming logic, take the most fun aspect of a ship and remove it completely or fill it with garbage that make it a pain to play. This is why a fighter nerf, is best bet! Let US control the skies. Maybe remove a fighter squadron, from all tiers except 7 and nerf their HP by like 50-70? (Except Hiryu, give ranger a fighter squadron instead) But I'm definitely not happy about how unbalanced this is and pretty much proven why its 4% difference between the CVs!

YouTube videos of Flamu:

Midway(244K):

The forum is not letting me copy and paste, so type into youtube: Flamu Midway 244K and it's the first result.

Hakuyru(358K):

Type in: Flamu Hakuryu into youtube, and its the first result.

Taiho:

Flamu Taiho into youtube and first result again...

 

 

[Thunderslap91]

So because you can't work with the US cv's u want to nerf even more the IJN ones... Plz the US cv's already have the biggest TB damage and DB damage, the only adavantage that IJN have its more paper planes in the sky, the figters are realy bad already, i got the hiruy and even crapy kongos can kill my fighters realy easy, not talking about the nerf that hiruy get in losing is Tier 7 TB because ranger as "bad" stats. now he get a damm slow tier 6 TB that even the molotov with almost no AA can kill easily. so plz before start asking for a nerf to IJN (fighters or anyone planes like some in post before) how about nerf the US TB damage (since they are more DB carriers especialist) and maybe buff the DB accurassy/lower damage so u can hit more easily those OP DB.

[Aotearas]

Just rage-sold my Bogue.

 

Ship is a floating POS. Zuiho probably goes faster in reverse than the Bogue full steam ahead, AS loadout is boring as hell to play and you hardly get to do damage, Strike loadout just gets you screwed over if the enemy CV has even a single fighter squadron and more often than not you run into enemy Bogues running AS loadout. This ship is inferiour to the Langley at tier IV!

 

A Zuiho just shits all over it (been there, done that and just now was on the recieving end again).

 

And looking through the US CV techtree, this seems to be a common trait for all US CVs with the exception of tier IX and X who get decent damage loadouts whilst retaining some fighters. I've tried to bludgeon my way through the Bogue, but my patience finally wore out. IJN CVs are fun to play, challenging at times but always feel rewarding, the Zuiho was a joy on water and the Ryuujou I'm at right now is just as much enjoyable. But the Bogue is 100% frustration.

[pra3y]

Just rage-sold my Bogue.

 

Ship is a floating POS. Zuiho probably goes faster in reverse than the Bogue full steam ahead, AS loadout is boring as hell to play and you hardly get to do damage, Strike loadout just gets you screwed over if the enemy CV has even a single fighter squadron and more often than not you run into enemy Bogues running AS loadout. This ship is inferiour to the Langley at tier IV!

 

A Zuiho just shits all over it (been there, done that and just now was on the recieving end again).

 

And looking through the US CV techtree, this seems to be a common trait for all US CVs with the exception of tier IX and X who get decent damage loadouts whilst retaining some fighters. I've tried to bludgeon my way through the Bogue, but my patience finally wore out. IJN CVs are fun to play, challenging at times but always feel rewarding, the Zuiho was a joy on water and the Ryuujou I'm at right now is just as much enjoyable. But the Bogue is 100% frustration.

 

I can understand how underwhelming USN CVs get  from tier 7 onwards but how is the Bogue a bad ship? Its pretty much the strongest CV in ther low tier(4/5) catagory. Also how could you forget that awesome 1/1/0 loadout? You get a fighter squad that destroys everything the IJN has and a TB squad that just wreck ships. I actually enjoy the Bogue so much I kept it and play it pretty often I never understand why ppl can't accept and play the stock loadout, at least for Bogue and Inde. They're pretty OP compared to their IJN counterpart.

[Aotearas]

 

I can understand how underwhelming USN CVs get  from tier 7 onwards but how is the Bogue a bad ship? Its pretty much the strongest CV in ther low tier(4/5) catagory. Also how could you forget that awesome 1/1/0 loadout? You get a fighter squad that destroys everything the IJN has and a TB squad that just wreck ships. I actually enjoy the Bogue so much I kept it and play it pretty often I never understand why ppl can't accept and play the stock loadout, at least for Bogue and Inde. They're pretty OP compared to their IJN counterpart.

 

Bogue is certainly not the strongest Cv for its tier, not by a long shot.

 

Langley has the much superiour 1/1/1, Hosho has 1/2/0, both can dish out more raw damage and still retain a fighter to intercept or tie down yours.

Stock loadout Bogue with 1/1/0 holds no candle to a Zuiho with its 1/2/1 and the ubiquitious AS Bogues with their 2/0/1 will just wreck your planes (whilst hardly doing any damage on their own, which makes the AS loadout boring as hell to play).

 

Nevermind if you get into a 2vs2 CV game with a t6 CV, both the Independence with its 1/1/1 (not even talking about its AS loadout) and the Ryuujou with its 1/2/2 will roll you over just by sheer numbers of attack aircraft they can throw the enemy.

 

Only way to get a good game in the Bogue damage wise is if you run into an incapable newbie, another strike US CV so he doesn't have fighters to intercept or if the enemy CV is AFK/bot.

But anything that isn't a Bogue can just steamroll it if you don't play AS.

 

At later tiers the US CVs can somehow deal with due to the damage potential of the higher tier DBs and the sheer survivability of their planes, but any Strike loadout below tier VIII is just food for any enemy CV with fighters provided they are even remotely competent.

 

 

If shooting down airplanes was more rewarding with XP and credits, maybe US CVs might have their niche with AS loadouts, but as it stands right now, IJN Cvs are superiour due to the added versatility and strike capacities.

[dillydoe]

So because you can't work with the US cv's u want to nerf even more the IJN ones... Plz the US cv's already have the biggest TB damage and DB damage, the only adavantage that IJN have its more paper planes in the sky, the figters are realy bad already, i got the hiruy and even crapy kongos can kill my fighters realy easy, not talking about the nerf that hiruy get in losing is Tier 7 TB because ranger as "bad" stats. now he get a damm slow tier 6 TB that even the molotov with almost no AA can kill easily. so plz before start asking for a nerf to IJN (fighters or anyone planes like some in post before) how about nerf the US TB damage (since they are more DB carriers especialist) and maybe buff the DB accurassy/lower damage so u can hit more easily those OP DB.

 

​Yeah, Hiryu should be given their torpedo bombers back. That was a terrible nerf. 129knots, yeah that's aweful, and that's WG's solution to how to nerf things. This solution I'm suggesting only applies for tier 7, is that the Ranger, because it is behind (by so much) should get a buff in plane HP and receive loadout reconfiguration of 1/1/2. Why does it need a buff in plane HP(I'm talking about like 120 HP for the bombers and 200 HP for the fighters), because the other two CV can cross torp and demolish any enemy. Double teaming the fighter squadron and then wrecking the ranger's torpedo bombers, is like kicking puppies... Again this is because Ranger is at the bottom for its tier. I agree your hiryu has terrible torpedo bombers, but it is no where near as bad as the ranger....

 

And you know what, I wouldn't agree with that nerf on the hiryu, but it appears that is doing..... pretty good?! Hiryu is doing 53.35% WR on EU and 53.30% on NA server from the past 2 weeks. Ranger? 48%, that is because the Hiryu's and Saipan's fighters can double team ranger's torpedo bombers/fighters... I have Saipan, easy way to shut down a ranger. It's funny! So again Ranger 1/1/2 and buffs in plane HP (so double teaming is negated...)

 

And second point, I've said this. THE TORPEDO DAMAGE, IS ACTUALLY THE SAME! The bombs do 10k average damage, whilst x3 torpedoes do 19.5K average damage. On top of that the US have terrible accuracy torpedoes, and you cannot cross torp.

 

For this:  ​THE TORPEDO DAMAGE IS ACTUALLY THE SAME..... Go on, count the damage(Top left hand corner, there is a number that counts the damage). I ran some tests too, found the same result and watched other's replays for IJN CV results. The port numbers are misleading!

 

Flamu's Midway (244K):

First torpedo hits: 13,191 with 2 torpedoes.

13,191/2 = 6,595.5

 

Flamu's Hakryu (388K)

First torpedo hits: 39,227 with 6 torpedoes.

39227/6 = 6,537

 

On top of that, back to the average 10k dive bomber situation with Lexington, Essex and Midway. The reason why its average is 10k is because it get's 7.2K quite often meaning a bomb hits a module and does NO DAMAGE! On top of that, they are very difficult to use! And RNG with these often make you hit only 1 with perfectly aimed manual drops.

 

So to me, it looks like the Japanese CVs have no other competition other than the other Japanese CV (or Saipan). And boom, we have a WT auf E100 that can only be defeated by another WT auf E100. I reckon I have a good solution, but involves removing the autoloader.... So with that I will go through the tiers and offer the suggestions.

 

tier 4: leave it, its tier 4.

tier 5: ??? Zuiho is a nasty seal clubber tho...

tier 6: remove a fighter from all of ryujo's load outs.

tier 7: Hiryu looks fine where its at, They nerfed the torpedo bomber speed, but still it looks like its performing well! So give ranger 1/1/2, increase the HP of all of ranger's planes by about 120, 200 for fighters (Saipan should not be able to double team..... Or hiryu for that matter!!!). Saipan could use a rearm nerf? Where the fighter and torpedo planes take 10 more seconds to reload, considering how fast they are.

tier 8: Oh boy.... An eye for an eye. remove a torpedo bomber and a fighter from every load out from Shokaku except for the fighter set up! For the shokaku fighter set up, remove a fighter squadron and a dive bomber squadron(with this the Shokaku can still double team a US torpedo bomber, or a US torpedo bomber and a US DB, do damage with its torpedoes(they're faster and more accurate too!) and set fires with a single DB). And let the US dive bombers actually do damage when they hit a x1 AA gun.

tier 9: Again an eye for an eye. Remove a torpedo bomber and a fighter from EVERY load out from Taiho!

tier 10: Same as tier 9.

 

The US CVs should also get 500 more average damage with its torpedo bombers (BOTH CVs HAVE SAME AVERAGE DAMAGE TORPS!!!!) . Because US torpedo bombers are slower, very inaccurate anyway and take longer to reload!

 

What would be cool, would be to let IJN have faster torpedo bombers (by 7 knots) with 50 more HP, more accurate, but with a longer rearm time as the penalty (by 12 seconds).

 

This would be the same effect as replacing the WT auf E100 with the grille, but stop the problems before they arise, which is that blistering reload rate of the grille (its pretty strong at the minute) - get rid of the blistering reload rate of the Japanese torpedo bombers (and Saipan for that matter). Cause right now after calculating how much damage Japanese CVs do vs US CVs do, its looking like the Japanese CV have no competition in terms of the damage they deal and the only thing that can out do the damage it can do, is another Japanese CV. Just like how a WT auf E100 can only be taken out or outdone by the enemy WT auf E100. The CVs should be better balanced.

 

If you do the calculations and play US CVs to try and win, you will see it. It's like an E100 vs WT auf E100, they will kill you in one clip, Japanese CV? 3 torpedo bombers (2 for tier 5 to 8), and delete any ship in a single salvo, just like how Midway and Essex deleted ships... The amount of times I've seen a Taiho do this!

 

 

 

 

 

[NoirLotus]

 

tier 4: leave it, its tier 4.

tier 5: ??? Zuiho is a nasty seal clubber tho...

tier 6: remove a fighter from all of ryujo's load outs.

tier 7: Hiryu looks fine where its at, They nerfed the torpedo bomber speed, but still it looks like its performing well! So give ranger 1/1/2, increase the HP of all of ranger's planes by about 120, 200 for fighters (Saipan should not be able to double team..... Or hiryu for that matter!!!). Saipan could use a rearm nerf? Where the fighter and torpedo planes take 10 more seconds to reload, considering how fast they are.

tier 8: Oh boy.... An eye for an eye. remove a torpedo bomber and a fighter from every load out from Shokaku except for the fighter set up! For the shokaku fighter set up, remove a fighter squadron and a dive bomber squadron(with this the Shokaku can still double team a US torpedo bomber, or a US torpedo bomber and a US DB, do damage with its torpedoes(they're faster and more accurate too!) and set fires with a single DB). And let the US dive bombers actually do damage when they hit a x1 AA gun.

tier 9: Again an eye for an eye. Remove a torpedo bomber and a fighter from EVERY load out from Taiho!

tier 10: Same as tier 9.

 

 

T5 : Zuiho sealclubber at T5 ? With the bazillion of AS bogues running around ??

T6 : No !!

T7 : 1/1/2 on Ranger could do the trick, rest is stupid.

T8 : No !!

T9 : No !!

T10 : No of course !!

 

If you want to remove squadrons from japanese CV, give them 6 planes per squad !!

 

IJN CV are all about management of lots of weaker squads, USN CV are easier to play and have fewer stronger squads. If you remove between 1/4 and 1/3 of their squads you break the balance.