New improvements to USA fighters. Terrible idea or benifit?

[Tigdam]

 

"The ammunition load of US fighters was increased by 33%. The goal of this change was to make fighter setups more powerful, as well as to encourage aircraft carriers to engage their enemy counterparts and protect allied ships"

So what are IJN carrier players suppose to do now? Just have their aircraft destroyed quicker than ever? A good USA carrier player can already deplete the squadrons of an IJN carrier completely, especially if he/she is running with a fighter set up, this is just rubbing salt in a wound. A fighter setup will already kill your squadrons, the best you can do is damage/sink as many ships as you can before you're inevitably destroyed, so why make this frustrating process worse?

How is this beneficial to anyone? This encourages carriers to try and snipe each other from the start, doesn't improve gameplay at all, reduces the experience for cv's completely and is just an all round terrible decision.

If you want to encourage aircraft carriers to fight each other and protect their respective fleets this is NOT the way to go about it: Buff the IJN fighter squadrons so they are more likely to engage USA fighters/bombers and buff IJN damage output so that American aircraft carrier players have to actively defend their fleets or loose them. With the latest updates there is already a significant increase to the AA of ships all around there was no need for this change it just unbalances IJN/USA carriers further. You could also balance the squadrons of USA carriers (Early game) by making the bogue/independence similar to the Langley adding both fighter/torpedo and dive bomber squadrons to give players more offensive options.

 

 

 

I would love to hear the opinions of other carrier players on this matter. Also can you leave your reasoning or any suggestions in the comments below =3

 

 

 

[Tyrendian89]

100% the entirely wrong direction to go...

[Henshel]

As IJN carrier player I have totally lost my will to even to play IJN carriers anymore. Well atleast I got tier 7 carrier but seems like it's better to sell it to get money and space for british cruisers.

[ShockPirat]

What tiers do you play? IJN shits all over USN at everything but tier 4. No, getting fully deplaned doesn't count as USN shitting over you because it means he effectively removed just one ship from the battle (you), and can't do much with the planes he has left.

 

This won't change much. The "defending" carrier's goal should be to intercept enemy bombers BEFORE they drop, for which USN simply doesn't have enough squadrons. It is impossible to effectively cover the whole map, and escorting fighters can lock up defending fighters to let bombers fly past.

 

WG is going the wrong way in balancing carrier nations. If anything, they should have made USN dive bombers more reliable to make them able to challenge IJN on damage. Without any doubt fighters are the least important asset of any carrier's arsenal and buffing them is almost worthless.

[ShinGetsu]

100% the entirely wrong direction to go...

 

^ This.

[lord_darth_vader_bg]

Its good in some respects but not others

 

It is good (for US captains) that figters can stay long time in the air. But may be they spend more time for rearming. 

After they shoot down all IJN fighters they still have ammo for attack enemy bombers (that bad for IJN captains).

[NoirLotus]

Terrible !!

 

US CV need a better loadout, like 1/1/2 on Ranger and Lexington that would allow them to defend their strike planes.

 

And giving a buff to the already OP Saipan is just plain stupid !!

[Smeggo]

Still won't make AS-Setups usefull. But yeah, nice for Saipan. Now can do 3 strafes.

[dasCKD]

Entirely a pointless change for anything but the Saipan, which is already performing well. The issue with the USN line wasn't that their fighters can't stay up for long enough. It seems, like always, that decisions regarding carriers are made by people who have never played a single game in one.

[dasCKD]

I voted it's terrible and should be reversed for now, but can you put up an option for it's a terrible idea and it won't change anything?

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

this only works better for high tier usa cv

[olmedreca]

It really just shows that devs have absolutely no idea how to improve US carrier gameplay in meaningful ways.

[dasCKD]

It really just shows that devs have absolutely no idea how to improve US carrier gameplay in meaningful ways.

 

In other news: water is wet, the sun is rising in the east, and WG is drafting their paper SN BB line based on 'sekret dokuments'!

[Woofbark]

I think it's a good change, US fighters can now stay up longer which saves having to rearm, before you could quickly run out of ammo which made the whole point of having stronger fighters redundant. 

[DJ_Die]

I think it's a good change, US fighters can now stay up longer which saves having to rearm, before you could quickly run out of ammo which made the whole point of having stronger fighters redundant. 

 

Which doesnt help at all because IJN CVs just have so much better loadouts......

[Unknown_Lifeform]

I've no idea whether its a good or bad change. I stopped playing the US carriers because I decided I hated the all or nothing loadouts and only addressing that would make me pick them up again. If I do take up carriers again it will be the japanese line.

[AgarwaenME]

All this change does is making USN strike loadouts even more of a gamle.

 

Which means you push ever more USN CVs into point and click fighter combat.
 

Which means you get more battles where there's no need to have fighters, since the enemy CV already turned itself more or less worthless by having little to no capability to attack ships.

[dasCKD]

I think it's a good change, US fighters can now stay up longer which saves having to rearm, before you could quickly run out of ammo which made the whole point of having stronger fighters redundant. 

 

Any good CV player will cost a USN fighter loadout at least 3-4 planes per engagement, meaning that the US carrier will HAVE to go back to resupply anyways unless they are up against a bad player. If anything, this will push CVs into being a more insanely elite and more novice unfriendly class than it already is. I will in fact argue that if we were to permanently remove the Bogue AS setup, we will make carriers a far more populated class than it currently is and it will have the added benefit of improving the win rate of USN carriers.

[T_H_0_R]

Mindbogglingly wrong direction to go, trying to make AS loadouts worth it - for what, no XP and no influence on game outcome whatsoever... 

 

[pra3y]

Won't it be good for USN CV players who use the 1/1/0 and 1/1/1 loadouts? Yr fighter get more air time and u get to strafe more. I dont know how it'll affect the 1/1/1 Ranger and Lexi but against tier 6 and lower it'll be slightly easier to fight against the multiple IJN squadrons.

[Woofbark]

We might be getting spotting damage rewards soon so AS loadouts would expect to get more of that.

[dasCKD]

Won't it be good for USN CV players who use the 1/1/0 and 1/1/1 loadouts? Yr fighter get more air time and u get to strafe more. I dont know how it'll affect the 1/1/1 Ranger and Lexi but against tier 6 and lower it'll be slightly easier to fight against the multiple IJN squadrons.

 

You get to strafe more, but USN fighters already have more ammo than their IJN counterparts and significantly more power per strafe. In my experience with the Langley, a single headon strafe is capable of wiping enemy attack forces. This change is redundant at best for anyone who can effectively use this mechanic and against tier 6 and lower, how many Ryujous actually play AS? I only ever actually met 2 in my combined time with my Zuihou, Ryujo, and Hiryu.

[dasCKD]

You see, if this was something like increasing the speed of USN fighters or improving the lethality of their guns then I can at least say that the change would improve the power of USN fighters. As someone who basically exclusively plays IJN and strike USN carriers I'd be incredibly annoyed, but at least I'd see the reasoning behind the change. This? This was a change made by someone who has never played carriers implementing a fix that will change nothing.

[Redcap375]

You see, if this was something like increasing the speed of USN fighters or improving the lethality of their guns then I can at least say that the change would improve the power of USN fighters. As someone who basically exclusively plays IJN and strike USN carriers I'd be incredibly annoyed, but at least I'd see the reasoning behind the change. This? This was a change made by someone who has never played carriers implementing a fix that will change nothing.

 

This and This.......Same layouts as me (Like to think all good CV captains play these too)

 

You know me, being a life long CV player this ammo increase is WORTHLESS! Doesn't change a thing.  IJN fighters will still tie up the escorting fighters and send the bombers waltzing through. ammo doesn't increase the speed of the fighters? Or the HP? Or the damage does it? Will Still be able to Strafe US fighters the same and kill them the same.  Like someone already said, they will be going back anyway after receiving casualties. 

 

Ship Updates should make people think about maybe changing their minds about playing a certain ship that has been out-of-touch in the game, i.e CV US Fighter set ups...

 

Question

Does this make me think about changing to a US fighter set ups or playing US CVs more?

 

Answer

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST, ill stick with full US strike thank you very much.  All it does is provide the US player with more strafe runs, which is the reason why WG is doing it IMHO. But that isnt going to change peoples minds, what are WG thinking?? 

 

Example (in a nut shell from yesterday)

Ess vs Tah. Me in the Tah with 2-3-2 and him with the 3-0-2. Even though he had 3 fighter plane groups in the air, i still managed to sink 3 of the enemy ships. A true CV fighter set up should NOT let this happen. Tie up 2 of his fighters with mine (skill 5) with the remaining fighter trying to chose between 5 attack planes!  No strafe possible due to me not being stupid and letting him do it. 

 

Look at the stats about average plane kills:

 

Tahio: 18.48

 

Essex 20.39

 

Lol.  That tells us two things. 1) people arnt playing fighter set up in the Essex and 2) If they are, its CRAP. That not even including AA kills from the Essex too!

 

WG need better staff.

[viceadmiral123]

You want to BUFF carriers, or to deal shadow nerf to them? I will try to explain it so simple folk can understand:

 

Buffing fighters = nerf to carriers.

There are enough bots in t10 playing fighter loadouts.

You want to have 1 ship kill and 30 plane kills for 20 minutes? Play fighter loadouts.

 

AA in this game is already ridiculous. USN CVs will never be good with diverging torpedo cone and only 1 TB. That's all there is to it.