Suggestion - for CV's

[T3ddyBear]

 

OK, so here goes, some ideas for CV gameplay.

 

First let me start by saying I am not a good or even average CV player, I like the idea of CV’s, I like that they are in the game, but I don’t see very many, rarely 1 per game (especially high tiers, I know limited to 1 per team but still don’t see many in tier 8/9/10 games). That said an idea is an idea be it good or bad and ideas are there to be discussed. Even the much discussed RFP skill started as an idea……..

 

Anyhoo, so the Devs have stated that CV play is hard to get in to (the UI being different), hard to master but when mastered they are regularly dominant. The difference between a master CV captain and a not so good one is the difference between winning and losing. There is a reason the top CV captains have such high win rates after all.

 

So, how do you make the CV gameplay easier to get in to? So here is the crux of the suggestion;

 

Remove fighters from CV loadouts completely, replace them with scout planes, why do this? Well I think if you take away the fighter dimension then CV captains can focus on damage and spotting. I believe the AA afforded to CA’s and catapult fighters on most BB’s at tier6 and above is a healthy defence to torp bombers and dive bombers. If it shows that it’s too easy then the CV damage vs ship AA defence should be easier to balance.

 

This should make the CV’s easier to understand and allow the balancing of loadouts easier, as it stands right now, the Midway cannot have 12 torp bombers in the air as it is “too powerful” but the Hakuryu can have 12, not sure that makes much sense. The unevenness of fighter numbers and squadrons naturally favours the IJN CV right now. Plus having 8 squadrons in the air requires a lot of managing and not everyone is up to that.

 

So, why scout planes? They fly higher and can shadow the enemy ships without fear of being shot down, I would give the scout planes 2 options, “auto” being flying high and the ability to spot CA’s, BB’s and CV’s, with the “alt” function making them fly lower to be able to spot the “smaller” DD’s, although this makes them vulnerable to AA fire and catapult fighters. There has to be some risk/reward feature to better spotting.

 

I’d also go further and have the squadrons fly high until close to targets so they are not obliterated by AA as they fly over ships, by all means have the planes spotted as they approach, but the AA should be focused on planes attacking at lower levels. Right now, if you have a tier6 CV up against tier 8 BB’s the planes are shredded before they get close, that’s not right, some should get through.

 

In addition, I would look at a captain skill that allowed the attacking bombers to have increased agility or something in an effort to avoid incoming AA fire/catapult fighters, on a cooldown, but something that was worth having.

 

So, in essence, remove fighters from CV’s let them go full strike, balance damage output on these loadouts, balance AA vs plane survivability, as it’s effectively planes vs ships then it should be easier. If the players only have to worry about the enemy ships, then we might see more players in CV’s.

 

Just an idea after all.

 

Harrier.

 

[mcboernester]

CV Revamp is / was planned for mid 2017. 

 

Just some Additions:

- We once had full strike loadouts, didn't go well. 

- AA is getting another Buff through new Talents, as well as BBs can have 2 Fighters at once now. So it's pretty much going the other Way.

 

[FM6a]

- AA is getting another Buff through new Talents, as well as BBs can have 2 Fighters at once now. So it's pretty much going the other Way.

 

 

Mostly because of silly BB players who cannot play the game properly.

#nerfCV&BuffBB 'cuz too underpowered

[Zathras_Grimm]

Suggestion? Make their aircraft have to refuel to stop them buzzing around my DD/head towards the end of the game. Against 4 other ships they don't need a big finger pointing at me for ages; at that time it becomes a Turkey Shoot!

 

 

And I'm the Turkey!

[Dlia_Katyushi]

Fighters are necessary I think. But instead of choosing between 3 loadouts we could have something like WoTs ammo loadout system, choosing what squadrons we want to use. Also seeing Me 262s on German CVs wouldn't be bad.

[Zathras_Grimm]

Every single game today where a CV has had more fighters they have won. Just saying, it may be considered boring but it wins games.

 

[UAVStriker]

Fighters are necessary I think. But instead of choosing between 3 loadouts we could have something like WoTs ammo loadout system, choosing what squadrons we want to use. Also seeing Me 262s on German CVs wouldn't be bad.

 

I agree with this, being able to make custom air groups would make the CV play more dynamic harder to predict what your adversary is planning resulting in more intense game play especially at the start because each carrier must discover what he is up against rather than, oh I now know he has X flight control module because I can see Y number of that type of air group in game. However I do believe there should be a cap on how many you can have of each type, purely for avoiding troll builds where people select all fighters just to piss off the other carrier, or all bombers and then insta nuke a ship at the beginning and then proceed to have all the defenceless bombers shot down by enemy fighters... not fun for anyone

[Corvi]

Every single game today where a CV has had more fighters they have won. Just saying, it may be considered boring but it wins games.

 

Then you had very bad CV players on your team, thats all. Strike is MUCH more useful to the team effort and the win chances than fighters.

[Ubertron_X]

The big question is, will WG go for an air war in between carriers or just asymetric air-to-sea damage races? To be honest I am not quite convinced of the later as far as gameplay is concerned. When CVs can fully ignore each other you can as well make DDs invisible to each other and remove caps so that they dont have to fight their counterparts anymore and can start to (try to) torp or shell capital ships right away. In addition, if CVs are 'just' asymetric damage dealers (and spotters) you may very well want to play with/against 11 to 12 others, but I can imagine that 11 to 12 others most likely do not want to play with/against you (psychological aspect).

 

Also, will WG allow more skill in air group management (harder to balance) or less skill in air group management (easier to balance). For example (not promoting this idea, so this is just something to think about) WG could eliminate manual drop and strafing which would also eliminate some of the CV balancing problems in between unicum players and less gifted players as far as air-to-sea combat is concerned. Alternatively the skill based portion of CV play would then be target selection and perhaps something new like managing how you run things on your carrier, not your individual squads of planes.

[Zathras_Grimm]

 

Then you had very bad CV players on your team, thats all. Strike is MUCH more useful to the team effort and the win chances than fighters.

 

Poor reply. Played about 12 games with CVs and all of the ones with fighters happened to be good and all the ones on my team bad?

 

Very much doubt it, but if that is what you wish to believe. 

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

I have always believed and always will, CV's often ruin games

 

CV's almost certainly decide the outcome of battles frequently

 

Team 1 Poor CV player

Team 2 Good CV player

 

It's not rocket science to see which team is superior

 

Remove manual drop from CV's and solve half the problem

[cro_pwr]

Every single game today where a CV has had more fighters they have won. Just saying, it may be considered boring but it wins games.

 

Fighters don't win games.

Only scenarios where CV with more fighters can win you more games is balanced 2/2/2 Shokaku or Hiryu vs strike Lexington/Ranger, and thats if IJN carrier player is good, so he can cripple USN strike by a high margine, while simultaniously striking on his own.

Full air superiority loadout is less useful then full strike loadout in 90% of cases (if both players are skilled) because your damage output is so low, that strike setup needs to squeeze trough 1 strike to do more damage then you did in whole game. And he will squeeze it trough because you will loose your fighters anyway, or you will eventually have to call them back because they will run out of ammo. And in that time window he will straight delete one of your ships, while you will be poking things around for 10k damage whole game long (so overall score is 1:0 for strike CV, thus he was more useful)

[Kittykami]

You could have fighter squads orbiting the CV in a wide radius (say 10km) in the same manner as a catapult fighter. The player would still be responsible for manually launching/re-arming them. 

 

That way the CV could still provide an element of CAP to his team by staying somewhat close to them (while still being unspotted behind an island or some such). 

 

Either way, we'll have to wait and see how successful this UI rework is in making CV gameplay more attractive and enjoyable once it hits. 

[Ragweek]

I have always believed and always will, CV's often ruin games

 

CV's almost certainly decide the outcome of battles frequently

 

Team 1 Poor CV player

Team 2 Good CV player

 

It's not rocket science to see which team is superior

 

Remove manual drop from CV's and solve half the problem

 

I have to disagree with that to a certain point. They can have a big impact on the game but no one player can fully win the games otherwise good cv captains would have 90% win rates rater than 60-70% 

 

Your opinion to Remove manual torps is no going to help either. I for one would be pissed, having spent 100's of games to master the art. I see with your 30% win rate in Cv's your just a little salty. I'm guessing you opted for fighter load outs?

[WhoCares01]

Whatever they do or don't do about CV gameplay, you will have keep one thing in mind - the ratio of CV vs non-CV games. Last time I checked the statistics on that a few months back, almost every second random battle had a pair of CVs. From my (non-CV player) point of view, that is the highest it should be. Changes to CV gameplay that would result in a higher CV games ratio could ill-affect the overall game experience for a lot of other players...

E.g. in ranked battles, if there are two CVs in the queue, I even leave the queue because I feel I have much less influence on the battle outcome; but that's probably just me...

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

 

I have to disagree with that to a certain point. They can have a big impact on the game but no one player can fully win the games otherwise good cv captains would have 90% win rates rater than 60-70% 

 

Your opinion to Remove manual torps is no going to help either. I for one would be pissed, having spent 100's of games to master the art. I see with your 30% win rate in Cv's your just a little salty. I'm guessing you opted for fighter load outs?

 

I don't play CV's, i tried them a long time ago but preferred DD's and BB's

[Zathras_Grimm]

 

Fighters don't win games.

Only scenarios where CV with more fighters can win you more games is balanced 2/2/2 Shokaku or Hiryu vs strike Lexington/Ranger, and thats if IJN carrier player is good, so he can cripple USN strike by a high margine, while simultaniously striking on his own.

Full air superiority loadout is less useful then full strike loadout in 90% of cases (if both players are skilled) because your damage output is so low, that strike setup needs to squeeze trough 1 strike to do more damage then you did in whole game. And he will squeeze it trough because you will loose your fighters anyway, or you will eventually have to call them back because they will run out of ammo. And in that time window he will straight delete one of your ships, while you will be poking things around for 10k damage whole game long (so overall score is 1:0 for strike CV, thus he was more useful)

 

Actually fighters do win games just like I'm sure TBs and DBs could also. If you want to try and limit your answer to 'fighters don't win games' then I would have to agree; of course they don't do it all on their own, but they do influence the battle enough.

 

However, in every single game with caps where fighters were present, the enemy capped first. Why? Because their CV scouted the caps, our CV said 'don't have fighters'.

 

Once caps are gone the fighters relocate DDs. Once DDs gone, their DDs have some fun. If by chance you try to take a cap, the DDs torp and you are the main target, or the enemy DDs get them back.

 

Whether its a master strategy or not that is how 7 of the 12 games (the cap games) played out. To say the fighters didn't win those games is a little silly, but you weren't their and you can believe my experience or not.

 

Another fact was the massive difference between CVs. In 3 games we had a Ranger against a Hyru. Now I dont know about CV play but our CV was slaughtered in the air supremecy battle. Even 15+ minutes into the game the Hyru was still kicking out (I hope this is a correct recollection) about 5 different sqns.

 

The only thing I find frustrating personally is when a fighter sqn sits over my ship for what seems like forever (and I do mean minutes of the game). My use of islands, use of dodge, use of friendly AA doesn't matter. One fighter sqn takes out a DD long enough to change the battle. 

 

 

[Spellfire40]

CVs without fighters means you cant defend yourself agist a serious airatack. or you want a 20 min autoengaged pasiv def fire for ALL CVs? if you want no fighters join the US ranks but dont come crying when your low reserve Bogue get riflestomped by a Zuhio. I for my part would rather have more balaced decks like Lexis old 2/1/1 instead of the crap they force you on. Or if you want 0 fighters bring back the old IJN strike decks ,-) I bet you will have a very instant number of anti CV Topics VERY fast.

[Chaos_below]

The thing with the different sets is that as an IJN cv you always have a figther which kind of forces American cv players to use figther set up which than dominates the game. But with fighter set you can not attack enemy ships which makes you useless after the enemy cv dies or he lost all of his planes. Also bbs have such great aa at the moment and with next patch even better so you can not attack bbs anymore without losing atleast half of your planes. Attacking cruisers is also because of their aa pretty hard without losing again half or all of the planes. And so there are only dds and cvs left. You need to be a good cv player to be able to attack dds and if you aren´t or the dds have def aa than there are only cvs left where is only one or two max. in the enemy team so for an average too bad cv player fighter set is the only thing that makes pretty much sense. And than you have these cv snipes at the start of the game because IJN cvs and strike American cvs would otherwise not be able to do anything because of enemy air superiority.

[utg001]

I personally thing WG will never remove fighters. The reason being that they are forcing us to use fighters by giving us more incentives for killing planes, This strategy has obviously failed and in fact in a way t has created even more problems for CV captains. Ooccasionally you'll see gimped matches like a Strike Ranger vs AS Saipan.

 

I feel that the biggest issue with the CVs (apart from horrible rewards) is the fact that a CV captain can decide how he has to play a battle while he is selecting his load out. If I'm a Strike CV, its mostly a damage race with the enemy CV, if I'm going with AS, its going to be killing enough planes - at the right time because it does my team n good if I'm killing planes that have just killed a ship.

 

To remedy this, I present a different solution. WG should make CVs as a purely RTS game because that is what CV game play really is. Instead of telling me I can have this many fighters and this many TBs/DBs etc, just give me raw numbers of planes I have. Let me choose in each battle which type of squadron I want to use.

 

eg: I start off the battle and launch my fighters to see what enemy CV is doing. If he is bringing many fighters, I can launch more fighters because the battle demands it. If however I see him trying to strike, I'l try to stop him with my only fighter and launch my own strike aircrafts. Later if the enemy sees that I'm winning the damage race, he can recover his strike aircrafts and then launch only fighters in hopes of saving his remaining ships from my strikes,

 

This allows CV captains to be flexible. Regardless of what opponent I face I can always answer him back. Currently If I meet a slightly better player than me and I'm in strike while he is in AS, its pretty much GG for me. Allow me to answer him back by changing my setup on the fly - as battle demands it.

[cro_pwr]

while you are using your 2 fighters to float above the caps, so your DD can cap, I'll gladly say thank you and kill your precious CV.

Or, if you somehow manage to not get sniped, I'll gladly delete one of other ships on map, while you are using your fighters for scouting, and rely on your teammates not to be braindead and actually shoot the target your are scouting (happens 1 in 20 matches, sadly).

As I said, it will happen if you are balanced Hiryu vs full strike Ranger, or Shokaku vs Lexington (said it in my first post), but going for AS build on USN CV is a bad decision. Today I've played against AS Lexington, while still having t7 planes (didn't upgrade them yet), and after I've sunk 3rd enemy ship, I've asked him does he feel useful as a AS loadout...

He did end the game with 50 plane kills, I ended the game with 3 ships sank... You tell me what is more useful.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

The only thing I would want to see in game is a maximum in flight time for all types of planes. In reality, planes have limited fuel capacity. In the game, planes can stay in the air indefinitely, either to creep some bomber squads along the map edge or to molest DDs for a prolonged time or to seal an area from enemy planes.

 

If planes had a limited time in flight, CV players would have to decide how to get somewhere fast, to either have more time to look for a target or to secure a region.

 

But as this would resemble reality, I do not think it will ever be implemented in the game.

 

[steviln]

 

If planes had a limited time in flight, CV players would have to decide how to get somewhere fast, to either have more time to look for a target or to secure a region.

 

But as this would resemble reality, I do not think it will ever be implemented in the game.

 

 

That was also a mayor concern for real CV commanders and also a concern for players that implement CV gameplay properly. The spotting was unsure so they were often unsure which enemy ships had really been spotted, if their attack aircraft would be able to find them on their limited fuel and so on. They seem to have more or less based the game on the rather strange battle of Leyte, so it is really a mess. Surface actions and carrier battles should be different games or game modes. 

[Zathras_Grimm]

while you are using your 2 fighters to float above the caps, so your DD can cap, I'll gladly say thank you and kill your precious CV.

Or, if you somehow manage to not get sniped, I'll gladly delete one of other ships on map, while you are using your fighters for scouting, and rely on your teammates not to be braindead and actually shoot the target your are scouting (happens 1 in 20 matches, sadly).

As I said, it will happen if you are balanced Hiryu vs full strike Ranger, or Shokaku vs Lexington (said it in my first post), but going for AS build on USN CV is a bad decision. Today I've played against AS Lexington, while still having t7 planes (didn't upgrade them yet), and after I've sunk 3rd enemy ship, I've asked him does he feel useful as a AS loadout...

He did end the game with 50 plane kills, I ended the game with 3 ships sank... You tell me what is more useful.

 

What game do you play where your TP and DBs fly through good AA and have you ever thought as soon as he sees your TB and Db he gets his fighter to kill them. In addition take one juicy ship, you will lose a fair amount of aircraft doing so and when the enemy DDs have free reign they will take that ship back with interest and maybe come looking for you.

 

 

 

But fair enough if you have never had fighter squadrons beat other CV set ups I guess you're very lucky. I have seen it many times, in fact another 4 games tonight and in only one did the fighter set up not win but as they were down to 8 ship after the first 5 mins I believe the fighters didn't have time to do anything lol (I think the CV got one ship though).

[dasCKD]

But as this would resemble reality, I do not think it will ever be implemented in the game.

 

I'm no aviation expert, I spend most of my time in online games and writing things no one with half a working brain would want to read. But even so I am pretty sure that even with the bad technology of World War II their war planes would still be able to maintain flight for a little longer than 20 minutes. Just saying.