Real CV trouble, DD & Cruiser Driver Union Strike

[Charger76]

Hi All,

 

First post in World of Warships forum so hello to all.

 

After a few thousand games I have worked out a few things, though clearly I have much to yet learn.

 

I am currently serving yet another chat ban for doing nothing more than accurately describing the cowardly character of people who spend entire games in battleships pinned to the edges of the map, running away from everything and the selfish character of CV players who take no fighters.

 

Cowardly people don't make a choice to be cowards so I can almost forgive the cowards. Selfish people on the other hand chose to be selfish. So when a CV driver chooses to have an all strike loadout, they are conciously choosing to take a very large risk that the enemy CV will be just as selfish and be just as useless at providing air cover for their team. Furthermore, it is not just a choice for them, it is a choice they are inflicting on the team.

 

To allow CV drivers to choose their fighter mix in such a way that there can be no fighters is the same as allowing a Cruiser player to choose to delete all their guins in favour of extra torpedos. Only its worse: there might be 5 or 6 Cruisers on a team who can make up for the selfishness of one fool. Not so with CV's.

 

A good CV player will have some fighters and will, as I have seen all too often against selfish CV players, not only gain advantage for their team through strikes but also provide crucial air cover for both spotting of the enemy and protection from strike packages.

 

There is an expectation on DD's to cap, but when your CV has no fighters and the enemy does this is a death sentence. You will be spotted, targeted and have no way to shake the enemy eye until you return to port awash in barnacles.

 

So here is my idea:

 

1. ALL DD drivers go on strike if there is a CV in your team and that CV launches no fighters. Do not race for cap, just sit there until the CV proves that they are not complete and utter selfish used posterior wipes by launching fighters. No fighters, no capping, just play like the cowardly BB drivers and selfish CV drivers, get a few long range torpedo hits and work on your stats.

 

2. Cruisers, unless the CV launches fighters drive away from them and let the enemy strike packages through. Only protect CV's that show a willingness to protect their team. All strike packages might be good for their XP but they are terrible for the team as they gamble on being able to kill the enemy CV early.

 

But the real aim for this: Wargaming!!!

 

FIX IT SO THAT CARRIERS GET GOOD XP FROM SPOTTING & AIR SUPREMEACY

 

or

 

REMOVE VARIABLE FIGHTER COMBINATIONS

 

That way all the selfish odious types that sadly the world has far too many of will stop wanting to have all strike load outs.

 

 

 

[Ictogan]

It's not the CVs being selfish by taking loadouts without fighters, it's you being selfish by demanding that the CV has to protect you from the enemy CV.

[ShinGetsu]

Strike setup are much more helpful to their team than AS setup. Period.

 

Balanced setup are always good when used properly, but a good strike setup does wonder.

[Kittykami]

US CV strike setups are pretty crap, but I'd rather have a strike CV on my team than an all fighter one since they're just useless deadweight who serve only to prevent the enemy CV doing damage, while doing almost none themselves. I'd rather have a functional, damage dealing member of the team than a ship that can't even defend itself against a bottom tier cruiser. 

 

That said, 'balanced' load outs are always the best as they allow a CV both to deal damage and eliminate threats and to disrupt the enemy CVs strikes where possible. 

[Loran_Battle]

Can I also point out it is not the fault of the CV that USN CVs have such bad choices in loadouts? Strike: no fighters, AS: no real damage dealing. Pick one... I feel like people will whine about it either way.

[deadly_if_swallowed]

Did the simple fact cross your mind that bombers can spot as well? This is no fighter-only purpose. Once a bomber squad dropped their load it can still hover the area. USN CVs from T7 upwards have insane hangar reserves and losing a squad can sometimes lead to faster servicing cycles.

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

well if there is 2 cv per team sure u can try strike setup , but i rather have stock setup as usa cv , or as , that could def team, since most of strike setup players fails bad

[Quetak]

I agree that be DD and have CV in team without fighters who can defend you on caps is frustrating. Ofc you can smoke yourself, but when 3 bomb squads are waiting above your smoke just for smoke end there is no chance for you to escape if enemy CV is aiming good. And additional bad thing is that while you are caping in smoke (because planes above you) you will probably be torped by enemy DDs. So you can choose dead by bomb squads or torps.

It seems to me like rule that when I pick DD to play there will be CV in game in 90% cases. And those high tier CVs are mostly skilled, deadly and enjoy hunting DDs.

 

[dasCKD]

It is, indeed, quite amusing that so many threads expect CV to act like Mother Teresa whilst their demands basically filter down to a " ME ME ME ME" mentality. I had always been against the dismissive attitude that my fellow carrier players displays towards those who starts these threads, but increasingly I grow sympathetic to their tone when this is the caliber of the criticism leveled towards us. Nevertheless, though I find myself repeating things I have already said, I'll reiterate what I have written here.

 

Starting from tier 5 and ending in tier 8, USN carriers aren't given balanced setups. They are given stock setups, strike setups, or instant loss setups. Trying to win a game with an air superiority loadout is difficult in a Japanese carrier and is nigh impossible with an American carrier. You don't have the area control necessary to keep enemy planes off your ships. I remember a recent battle against a AS Ranger where I managed more plane kills than she did. Those who runs AS with their carriers are effectively inflicting an enemy carrier on their team and adding little in return. They WILL lose the damage battle, and the plane kills won't matter by then. Unless you inflict more damage on the enemy TEAM than the enemy carrier can inflict on yours, you lose. Your team may carry you, but your statistics will eventually show your failures. The amount of players who can use AS loadouts to win games the same way most people can use a strike loadout numbers in the low hundreds at most out of the 20k or so total players in the game.

 

Your lack of understanding of motivation really comes out in one of your suggestion. You said that there should be proper rewards for spotting and air superiority. Spotting has rewards already: you win more battles and get more XP. You can ramp up the air superiority rewards to the point where killing just 20 planes will pay out the same way as a 130k damage game in a Bogue but it still won't matter to me. I'll still take a strike loadout because that helps my team win. Call me selfish if you must, but I find helping my team mates and division mates win is a little more important than my personal XP and credit gains.

[T_H_0_R]

2nd such thread in one day. Color me not impressed.

 

- OP you are barking at the wrong tree here. Blame WG for not giving one CV line fighters in strike loadouts.

- AS loadouts are a deception. You can not be everywhere and cover your entire fleet. A good CV will always find a hole and his strike will go through.

 

By the same logic... should CV players go on strike because some ships have such ludicrously OP AA (looking at you MK)?

[KarmaQU_EU]

Low tier CV plays sounds pretty harsh.

[Allied_Winter]

And here I am sitting in my Kamikaze R, waiting for the Bogue captain who already launched one TB squad and two DB sqaud, to launch a fighter squad before deciding to go on strike ... oh ... wait...

 

 

While it is nice to see, that we (read: some in those threads) are debating about how we could help fix the current balancing problem (between CV Nations and CVs as a whole), the frequency in which whine threads pop up is a bit irritating.

 

@OP: When you say you played a few thousand games, I assume that you played a few CVs as well? You do know that you can also protect your team while driving a CV by attacking enemy ships? And yeah spotting currently nets you 0 XP, but hopefully that'll change in the future (mechanics are allready implemented, WG is just gathering statistics...)

 

 

Greetings

[WarburtonLee]

Hi All,

 

First post in World of Warships forum so hello to all.

 

After a few thousand games I have worked out a few things, though clearly I have much to yet learn.

 

I am currently serving yet another chat ban for doing nothing more than accurately describing the cowardly character of people who spend entire games in battleships pinned to the edges of the map, running away from everything and the selfish character of CV players who take no fighters.

 

Cowardly people don't make a choice to be cowards so I can almost forgive the cowards. Selfish people on the other hand chose to be selfish. So when a CV driver chooses to have an all strike loadout, they are conciously choosing to take a very large risk that the enemy CV will be just as selfish and be just as useless at providing air cover for their team. Furthermore, it is not just a choice for them, it is a choice they are inflicting on the team.

 

To allow CV drivers to choose their fighter mix in such a way that there can be no fighters is the same as allowing a Cruiser player to choose to delete all their guins in favour of extra torpedos. Only its worse: there might be 5 or 6 Cruisers on a team who can make up for the selfishness of one fool. Not so with CV's.

 

A good CV player will have some fighters and will, as I have seen all too often against selfish CV players, not only gain advantage for their team through strikes but also provide crucial air cover for both spotting of the enemy and protection from strike packages.

 

There is an expectation on DD's to cap, but when your CV has no fighters and the enemy does this is a death sentence. You will be spotted, targeted and have no way to shake the enemy eye until you return to port awash in barnacles.

 

So here is my idea:

 

1. ALL DD drivers go on strike if there is a CV in your team and that CV launches no fighters. Do not race for cap, just sit there until the CV proves that they are not complete and utter selfish used posterior wipes by launching fighters. No fighters, no capping, just play like the cowardly BB drivers and selfish CV drivers, get a few long range torpedo hits and work on your stats.

 

2. Cruisers, unless the CV launches fighters drive away from them and let the enemy strike packages through. Only protect CV's that show a willingness to protect their team. All strike packages might be good for their XP but they are terrible for the team as they gamble on being able to kill the enemy CV early.

 

But the real aim for this: Wargaming!!!

 

FIX IT SO THAT CARRIERS GET GOOD XP FROM SPOTTING & AIR SUPREMEACY

 

or

 

REMOVE VARIABLE FIGHTER COMBINATIONS

 

That way all the selfish odious types that sadly the world has far too many of will stop wanting to have all strike load outs.

 

 

 

 

Are you turning on your DDs AA to target enemy fighters to help out your CV then? Hmm, no? Selfish?

Its not the CVs job to protect you, his job is doing more damage than the enemy CV. And you dont do dmg with fighters

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

It's not the CVs being selfish by taking loadouts without fighters, it's you being selfish by demanding that the CV has to protect you from the enemy CV.

 

But that is not a selfish request given both IRL duties of aircraft carriers and that victory demands team play so non CV players actually have a reasonable claim to being protected by their CVs CAP.

However the blame falls on Wargaming by allowing different deck setups without fighters in them instead of making 1 fixed setup per CV which would be easier to balance against each other and AA in general.

[KaraMon]

Fighter load is C.R.A.P

 

Fighter decks can't defend anything , especially when USN FD meet IJN 2/2/2 , fighters fight fighters and IJN cv is doing damage without any troubles .

 

There are only 2 ships that can do something , Bogue because its fighters are much stronger than anything on its tier, and Saipan because it has t9 planes and they are much faster than t7 ones .

 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

I am in no union. I will continue playing DDs.

[dasCKD]

Your comparison with a cruiser trading all her guns for more torpedoes is also flawed. It's like arguing that a Des Moinnes is selfish for not trading in 2 of her 3 turrets for more AA to "protect the team". Some cruiser captain might also want to trade their guns for more torpedoes. Why is that a problem? Maybe they're developing a play style that could become the meta in the future. It probably won't work, but why is it selfish for a player to want to try to play the game in the way they think they could do well in? Why should all players be restricted to playing the roles that you think they should play? Should we remove the guns from all Japanese DDs because they are 'meant' to be torpedo boats?

 

Your statements are also quite interesting. Don't DDs have a consumable that makes them completely invisible to a plane squad? What do they call that consumable again?

 

For point 1, you are willfully sabotaging your team's chances of victory. You may see it as justified as you are ruining 1 carrier's game, but you are also ruining the game of 10 innocent players who have done nothing to deserve to be punished for your decisions. You are, therefore, griefing the innocent to an extent I have yet to see any carrier manage.

 

For point 2, carriers at the bottom tiers can't be defended by the cruisers, whilst carriers in the higher tiers are basically immune to air strikes anyways. You are only hurting carriers from tier 6 to 7 with this suggestion, a total of 5 carriers. I also have my doubts that many cruisers will go along with your decision to throw basically every game you play. Don't USN CVs spec for ship borne AA anyways? Trying to hit a Ranger is difficult in the best of situations.

[WarburtonLee]

 

But that is not a selfish request given both IRL duties of aircraft carriers and that victory demands team play so non CV players actually have a reasonable claim to being protected by their CVs CAP.

However the blame falls on Wargaming by allowing different deck setups without fighters in them instead of making 1 fixed setup per CV which would be easier to balance against each other and AA in general.

 

If we are talking IRL, no DD would ever turn off AA either. It was their job to escort and provide AA and anti-submarine duties. But yes, i agree with you when it comes to flight decks. It should be one fixed deck for each CV, then we wont have all those AS idiots ruining the game for both his own team wich would probably loose, and the enemy CV (who will still get dmg done if he is good)

[dasCKD]

 

But that is not a selfish request given both IRL duties of aircraft carriers and that victory demands team play so non CV players actually have a reasonable claim to being protected by their CVs CAP.

However the blame falls on Wargaming by allowing different deck setups without fighters in them instead of making 1 fixed setup per CV which would be easier to balance against each other and AA in general.

 

In real life, 'team play' amounted to battleships and cruisers forming a huge AA wall around the friendly carrier to stop the enemy from getting through because AA guns were crap (even for the Americans, the ones with the best AA back then) and there was no magic ability for cruisers or carriers to spread the enemy strike aircraft's squads. Also, you can look at the list of almost any carrier captain in Warships, protecting their team probably won't even rank in the top 10. Spotting enemy destroyers, denying eyes on allied positions, killing enemy ships, and the rest of a carrier's repertoire will eventually protect the allied team far better than swatting down a few planes. Having one deck would make them easier to balanced, but it would also mean that carriers will be made more boring. Certain decks, like the AS decks from the Independence up all the way to the Lexington could be confiscated to raise the standard of play for those carriers, but the fact remains that removing different decks from a carrier will turn one of the few only selling points of the class into the same thing as every other class and I have frankly had enough of WG removing every alternate ship speccing to make way for their vision of how the game NEEDS to be. I don't think anyone has forgiven them for what they have done to the Mogami.

[Ictogan]

 

But that is not a selfish request given both IRL duties of aircraft carriers and that victory demands team play so non CV players actually have a reasonable claim to being protected by their CVs CAP.

However the blame falls on Wargaming by allowing different deck setups without fighters in them instead of making 1 fixed setup per CV which would be easier to balance against each other and AA in general.

 

IRL ships were usually sticking closely together to give each other AA cover. Oh, that's something you can do in game as well and it can make you practically immune to CV attacks! Who would have though that!

[Charger76]

 

"But the real aim for this: Wargaming!!!

 

FIX IT SO THAT CARRIERS GET GOOD XP FROM SPOTTING & AIR SUPREMEACY

 

or

 

REMOVE VARIABLE FIGHTER COMBINATIONS"

 

There should be ONE balanced load out for CV's that includes fighters, bombers & torpedos.

 

An AS set up is useless, I never said otherwise. But so is a strike only set up if against a balanced set up. A VERY skilled strike CV proves me wrong, but very few are all that skilled. A VERY skilled player can make a bad ship or tank look good anyway. Most are not even close to that good and the consequence is that their strike load outs are useless for their team.

 

[AgarwaenME]

CVs are so selfish because they don't enter a game to be my [edited]and do my bidding so I get an ideal game, and if they don't I'll throw a temper tantrum and screw over my team.

 

 

FTFY.

[AnotherDuck]

Are you turning on your DDs AA to target enemy fighters to help out your CV then? Hmm, no? Selfish?

 

I've once or twice turned off AA in my DD while I was capping and the CV was leading planes to me. Sabotaging your own DDs attempt to cap isn't what a CV should do.

 

But other than expecting CV players to not actively harm your team, don't tell them to only do what you think they should do. "My way or the highway" isn't a mentality that's constructive in this game, especially if you don't actually know what's best for the team.

[Entilzha66]

I cannot form a union because they are forbidden in the state where I live thanks to Gov. Walker and his ACT10 Law, but besides that.

 

At this moment, sailing a CVA is a balancing act at best. You need to be very careful with what you do, or half of the team hates you while the other half loves you.

 

I play AS, because I like my skies to be clear so my teammates can be going places without the fear of getting torp'ed or bombed or spotted. Of course this is not good enough for the folks that decide to go yolo on their own, and they complain that you did not help them because they ran into 2 squadrons who are protected by fighters and 2 or 3 ships with good AA.

 

We cannot be everywhere folks, we have to make choices, since our planes are not F-18's who can be on the other side of the map in 3 seconds, blow all that stuff up and then go back to the other side.

 

(Unless WG decides to give us more flexibility in our fighter wings.)

 

 

 

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

 

IRL ships were usually sticking closely together to give each other AA cover. Oh, that's something you can do in game as well and it can make you practically immune to CV attacks! Who would have though that!

 

Ictogan you know as well as everbody that team play is the exception rather than the rule in this game and that your argument therefore is invalid. Carriers are balanced to teamplay based teams but only a very minute minority does that meaning that every argument calling for players to 'just teamplay' are pointless and stupid for it will never ever happen in this game. You know that so why do keep sticking to an obvious invalid response?

The same lack of teamplay is also why carriers are so hard for WG to balance because they will always be OP in random due to carriers are balanced against AA power of ships teamplaying but as that doesn't happen in randoms the carriers are too strong there however if they were balanced against AA power of single ships then carriers will be UP in team battles. The best thing Wargaming can do now with regards to carrier, but also in part to its autistic playstyle that favour and appeal to a minority of players that are very good at multitasking rather than having a broader appeal, is to remove carriers from random battles until the class fits random battles to the point where the impact on a game by CVs is equivalent to any other type of ship with the same level of risk/reward as any other type of ship.