The Carrier Extinction and Removing AA Ships

[dasCKD]

I stayed up late a few nights back to do some work, and before I had to wake up I spent time in my dream wandering in a desolate hospital infested with some threat I can't quite ever see, trying to find a place to sleep but being unable to. I woke up later, too late to get to close to class on time. Wanting to sleep but being unable to due to a fast approaching threat. Real funny, brain. F*ck you.

 

With that completely irrelevant note out of the way, welcome to the second Bottleship Report. Not a guide.

Edited

As we are talking about carriers, here's a video of that one time a Taiho wiped 2/3 of our division using nothing but pure luck.

 

 

War Gaming has began to introduce changes to ships that are directly overperforming whilst incrementally improving ships that are underperforming. Some of these changes are nice, such as the changes to the Mogami's turret traverse. Other changes, like the changes to the Shimakaze, is reminiscent of trying to fix a flood with a dishrag. The most egregious changes however is the changes being made to the Khabarovsk. Now a very strong case can be made for nerfing the Kebab, considering that in her current iteration she is basically a cruiser without a citadel hitbox that can outrun every single ship currently in the game with a side plating that makes her immune to the largest standard size of cruiser HE in the entire game. Considering that not even the most battleships and cruisers have that distinction, a strong case could be made for nerfing her. So, they nerfed her rudder down to painful levels. Instead of changing the stupid side plating that no destroyer should be allowed to have or nerfing her 9 second turret traverse speed to make her less potent in knifefights, they nerfed her rudder shift instead. Something that basically only a carrier can exploit on a regular basis anyways. Which brings me back onto the topic, before I could wander off into another endless ranting chasm that gets trimmed from all of these released articles due to necessity if nothing else.

 

Carriers are Underpowered?

Many people have stated that carriers are underpowered. This is a statement that actually has a lot of surface appeal. Cruisers with very few exceptions are able to repel a carrier's strike for a time if not outright annihilate it. Battleships are often able to entirely repel a carrier attack on their own, pushing carriers to attack destroyers instead. Even attacking destroyers has become more difficult thanks to the defensive fire consumable that more destroyers are gaining access to. This is where I break from my expected pattern as I can say that in my mind there is no question about it: carriers aren't underpowered. Even if I'm wrong and they are underpowered, then them being underpowered isn't the problem. There is something persistently annoying about the carrier class, something that I couldn't quite put into words. With some thought however, I believe I have managed to identify the persistent underlying issue with the carrier class and their lack of players. War Gaming generally attempts to solve these issues by buffing the carriers. I am nearly certain however that buffing carriers, unless they do it to an obscene point where a Ryujo can bomb a fully AA specced North Carolina whilst losing 1-2 planes, will not fix the fundamental issue with carriers. Even then, it won't fix carriers. It'll just be a very clumsy way to cover up the problem.

 

Carriers are being shut out due to two issues: advancement and uncertainty. 

 

Team Fortress 2 and Gold Ammo

Carriers are, in my mind, simply the ones who most obviously suffers from a fundamental design decision that goes into War Gaming. A design decision that I think has been carried over from World of Tanks and persists because it's unchallenged by anyone. It is in fact used as a point of argument in the general forums persistently in defense of essentially every ship class at some point or another. In order to talk about the fundamental and persistent issue in World of Warships, let's talk about Team Fortress 2!

 

Level advancement is actually relatively rare for any type of competitive shooter, something that Warships is despite all of the cosmetics implying otherwise. Games that have an advancement mechanic usually have horizontal advancement, handing in their starter weapons or characters for different but mostly balanced items. This is done for what are quite frankly obvious reasons, as competitive games do not want to create a large gap between new and veteran players as that seals up the market and any ongoing game needs to keep bringing in new players to stay alive. Another feature of competitive shooters is their characters. I'll like to use the Heavy, the Scout, and the Sniper for this example. For those unfamiliar with the game, these characters are the tank, the high speed CQC, and the long ranged glass cannon respectively. Whilst you can access unique weapons from drops, the weapons do not significantly alter the way that a class plays.

When talking about uncertainty, it's quite easy to think of the carrier problem as one that is the result of carriers being largely at the mercy of the matchmaker. Even in a tier 8 cruiser or battleship in a tier 10 match, it's entirely possible to use superior tactics, concealment, and land masses to gain the advantage or you could simply choose to move as part of a larger fleet group in order to maximize your effectiveness. A carrier is the only class in the game that fundamentally can't possibly attack without the enemy seeing it coming, they can't use landmasses because AA shells can fly straight through stone and dirt in Warships, they can't move and attack as part of the larger group because AA attacks them separately from any other ship. It is basically impossible to catch the enemy ship by surprize, because apart from destroyers any ship will have their AA constantly on. The issue with uncertainty is far larger for carriers however.

 

World of Warships is actually quite unique in being a game that has an advancement system that allows users to access obviously superior gear as they move up the research tiers. This system only works because the matchmaker is oriented around player equipment level instead of player rating that many multiplayer games have. Whilst individually segments of the team might not be balanced, the team as a whole is. Or it would be, if not for the existence of ship upgrades and captains. Secondaries and concealment is quite easy to ascertain, AA almost certainly isn't. In World of Warships, it is trivial to specialize to such an extend that a ship could either be completely at the mercy of the enemy carrier or be completely untouchable, depending on the choices of the player captain in charge. In Team Fortress II, I don't think I would have to tell many people here how utterly broken the game would be if a Scout could 'spec' to have the health pool of a Heavy or if a Pyro and a Sniper has the exact same silhouette.

 

Figure 1, Completely balanced ™

In World of Warships, it is impossible to tell at a glance what an enemy will be incapable of. This would be a problem in any other game, and is a problem in World of Warships. The general line that is touted when this is brought up is that you have to specialize your ships, sacrificing certain aspects for others. Whilst you would obviously do this in a real war with the Atlanta and Akizuki being notable examples, this does not work in the context of the game. 

 

War Gaming does not have an enviable position when it comes to balancing. Do they balance around the assumption that an Iowa has AFT, MAA, BFT, AA guns MOD2, AA guns MOD3, and the AA flag? Then when a Taiho runs across 5 Bismarks with the secondary build, they'll be lucky to shoot down a single plane. Do they balance around the assumption that most ships have a balanced setup? Then even a Midway will get torn to shreds by a single Minotaur by flying anywhere near the flank that the Minotaur is on. I brought up gold ammo in the title because that's another WG title with the exact same issue, you can play a tank and don't know whether or not the enemy will bounce shells harmlessly off your tank or whether it'll punch right through your angles front. War Gaming is stuck in an unenviable position of needing to balance ships that could potentially have triple the effective performance as the baseline.

 

It's hard to feel sympathy however, because this is a hole that War Gaming has dug for themselves. Captain skills like incoming fire alert or even the detestable RDF are good captain skills because they provide information which I need to admit is necessary even when I hate what RDF stands for. Expert marksman is likewise a small performance enhancement that doesn't fundamentally change what the ship can and can't do. The modifications and captain skills however is like a captain skill like "armor plating" that gives a +20% bonus to the thickness of all armor plates on the ship or a ship upgrade like "Shell Material MOD1" that changes the armor overmatch multiplier from around 14x to 10x. Neither captain skills nor upgrades should fundamentally alter how a ship plays and for the most part it doesn't. Having a faster rate of fire or a faster rudder shift doesn't change what you can do with or against said ship. Yet when it comes to planes, 6 whole variables past ship hulls play a massive and game altering role on whether or not something would perform or whether or not it'll be completely useless. Imagine if it were possible to mod away the ability for the enemy to land citadel hits on your cruiser, or if you could use captain skills to negate any torpedo belt protection on your destroyers. Matchmaker screws with all ships in one way or another, but only carriers know that they're being screwed with just seconds before it happens. This inconsistency in performance and the dependence on the enemy to be unprepared does not make for a healthy game.

 

Players in World of Warships can gain a fundamental advantage by being veteran players. They are able to do things that a ship with worse captain training simply won't be capable of. A newbie grinding their way up to the Bismark as their first line is completely different from a veteran competitive player with a 19 point captain on their Bismark, and not just from the purview of player skill. Being able to spec into certain things is fundamentally bad for the game because it leads to uncertainty.

 

The player advancement system and the uncertainty that goes into a game. An Iowa knows not to get into a bow trade with a Yamato at close ranges. Unless you try, you'd never know if that battleship or cruiser is easy prey or if you'd get your attacking force wiped. This, combined with how you're essentially at the mercy of matchmaking, means that playing carriers long term is extremely draining. All things considered, the population of carriers at the lower tiers is quite numerous. As you go up the tiers however, the uncertainty and stress as you hope that matchmaker doesn't end your game before you even began weights on you until you're left drained and frustrated. I have seen various carrier veterans leave the class, and they often cite overpowered AA as the reason. I think that simply saying that AA is overpowered is far from the whole story however. Instead, I think that all carrier players subconsciously comes to know that what they can do is entirely left up to the whims of the matchmaker. Buffing carriers is not the correct decision here, the problem is far too convoluted right now to be fixed just by improving the health pool of the planes. 

 

Changes

To carriers

Quite frankly, the problem with carriers does not lie with anything inside of the carrier class. Nevertheless, there are things that should be done regardless.

Split the carrier tree

The thing that has gotten me to realize what a bad idea the concept of AA speccing was in fact a suggested buff to carriers, an utterly atrocious one quite frankly. The suggestion was that carriers should be allowed to change their loadout to whatever they wanted i.e. launch a full fleet of fighters for interception or a full fleet of torpedo bombers because everyone needs to die. Whilst there is nothing in real life to stop real carriers from doing this, the carrier in the game is a ship. One single ship. The caricature of the Lolgami I posted above is an extreme example but one which I stand by. Ships should not be allowed to specialize away certain strengths to put all their strength into one single thing. Balancing a single ship that can do that would be a headache. Balancing two whole ship lines that could do that would be nigh impossible.

 

I am entirely against the idea of an Air Superiority carrier. If the concept persists in the game however, then issues need to be addressed. I had mentioned the necessity for players to be able to instantly understand what the enemy would and would not be capable of. As so, the ships should be split into different ships much the same way that cruisers splits horizontally into destroyers and battleships and battleships splits into carriers. Players should not have to learn the exact aircraft rating (and variations based upon captain skills and upgrades) to identify what they can expect to encounter on their first run, especially because the before match screen takes a long time to acquire the accurate statistics. A carrier is essentially their air wings, so having a "Saipan" on the enemy team list is a bit like having a "Tier VIII Japanese destroyer" or a "Tier VII American cruiser" on the enemy team list. If AS is ever to stay a thing, a ship should be dedicated to the task. Every carrier in the game should have exactly one and only that one flight control module.

Tier	AS		Basic
IV	-		Langley
V	Stalker	<-	Bogue
VI	Bataan	<-	Independence
VII	Wanker	<-	Ranger
VIII	Saratoga	<-	Lexington
IX	Hornet	<-	Essex
V	Coral Sea	<-	Midway

I used American CVs because I suck at naming ships and I can't be bothered to invent names for the Japanese carriers without an appropriate sister ship. Apart from the Ranger, a carrier that seems to exist for the sole purpose of annoying me with every step, even when I'm outside of the game.

 

Normalize plane health

One of the issues with carriers right now is that their performance is basically entirely dictated by the enemy ships they are given. Depending on the ship I'm up against when I'm in a Hindenburg as an example, I have different tactics for dealing with them. With carriers, there's no tactics about it. There's just ships I can approach and ships that I can't. The thing with the carriers is that plane health scales to an insane level. A Shokaku struggles to scratch a North Carolina with the standard AA speccing. A Taiho will stomp an Iowa with a similar setup. Due to the dominance of carriers in WW2 in particular, there is no need to keep increasing the performance of carrier planes past a certain point. One of the main frustrations of playing carriers is that an enemy is entire insurmountable or easy prey. I am certain that the carrier experience will be far more enjoyable from both ends if there is no lone ship that can entirely squash a carrier attack whilst at the same time there should be no ships that are simply immune from any carrier except one that is 3 tiers above said ship. For this table, IJN torpedo bombers are given 3 bombers per squad like the Saipan instead of the usual 4.

For torpedo bombers:

	Squad count	Plane level
Hosho	2	VI
Zuiho	2	VI
Ryuujo	2	VII
Hiryu	3	VII
Shokaku	3	VIII
Taiho	4	VIII
Hakuryu	5	VIII

This setup would mean that there would be no battle where a carrier is entirely unable to do any damage except the extremely frustrating battle where a tier 6 carrier gets put in a tier 8 Standard battle. This change should be introduced alongside the changes to AA mechanics mentioned below. This new system will mean that there is still an incentive to advance up the tiers as the power of the carriers still increases, but it would mostly avoid situations where ships are just entirely helpless because an extremely high tiered carrier is picking on them.

 

Remove plane enhancing captain skills and upgrades

I don't know whose dumb idea it was to create the Air Group MOD3 upgrade. Skills like Air Supremacy, the plane health boost gained from Aircraft Servicing Expert, and Air group MOD1 and MOD2 also need to go. These are not optional upgrades in order to enhance plane performance. These skills are introduced and they need to be balanced upon, whether or not the player actually wants to pick something else. By removing all of the mandatory upgrades and allowing the carriers to perform well in their vanilla state, I believe that the game will be better for everyone. If planes were meant to have more health then they should be given that health without needing to invest in plane health boosts. The health of a fully upgraded squad should be uniform above all carriers. Warships should be a game of player skills, not of who is more willing to psychotically grind our every last captain skill in existence.

 

Nerf fighter HP, buff fighter damage

One of the main concerns that destroyers have is being spotted by fighters as fighters, thanks to the early fighter health pool mod as well as their higher base survivability in most cases, are extremely hard to kill. The fighter health pool also means that fighters take an extremely long time to kill each other and that AA, except for the AA coming from ships that have egregiously overpowered AA suites, has an extremely difficult time killing fighters even as they fly deep into the AA bubbles of other ships. The more powerful AA firepower will mean that fighters will be able to engage and kill planes in a more timely manner whilst the lower fighter health will reduce the amount of time that fighters can harass a destroyer with impunity.

To AA

Most of the problems with carriers stems from how shipborne AA functions. If the carrier population is ever to recover, the system behind AA needs to be completely overhauled.

Remove AA ships

I am fine with certain ships having better AA suites than others. What I mean when I say remove AA ships is that the idea of the AA support ship that can cover an entire fleet with their AA and use said suite to defeat any incoming carrier strike needs to be removed. No ship, except a defensive AA armed cruiser, should be able to defeat or even really deter a carrier attack by themselves even if they're uptiered. Conversely, no ship should be entirely helpless against carriers, at least any ship that routinely faces carriers. This includes ships from tiers IV and V which should either be given a measure of AA protection or have the AA protection enhanced so that if they are up-tiered, they'll be able to mitigate the incoming damage by forming up with other lower tiered ships. Much like how plane health freezes at tier 8 in the previous section, AA should also only marginally improve from tier 8 onward on surface ships. This would remove a lot of the feeling of helplessness or the feeling of being screwed that drives many carrier players from the class from the frustration. It's not exactly enjoyable to be trying to bomb a destroyer only to have an entire plane squad wiped by a hidden Minotaur two map grids away. The concept of AA ships should be removed and those ships that were previously AA ships should receive other improvements in order to make them competitive again. No ship should be helpless against carriers, and conversely no ships should be immune to carriers. This should hold regardless of the tiers of the carrier relative to the target ship. Higher tiered ships will still hold the advantage, but allowing the higher tiered ships to walk all over the lower tiered players is not good for the game especially because the lower tiered ships are move likely to belong to novice players.

 

Remove AA mods & captain skills

Any after market upgrades that improves plane health or AA performance should be removed. Like plane health, the AA performance of a certain ship should perform on the baseline level and not a single tick higher. This is an extension of the point directly above and more broadly the point of how a player should be able to understand how the engagement will go just by the ship name and ship health pool. Like how all plane health upgrades should be removed, all AA skills and AA upgrades should likewise be purged from the game. If AA performance is inadequate, then there is another thing that needs addressing.

 

Improve base AA

As AA now has been diminished in effectiveness whilst plane health has not been that largely affected apart from ships of tiers 9 and 10, ships should be given better AA. The baseline AA should be modified in such a way that it is exactly as strong as it needs to be without the possibility of making it even a tick stronger. The current system is too ripe for abuse. AA probably doesn't really need a nerf except for ships of tiers 9 and 10 in order to bring them in line with the new lower health pools of tier 9 and 10 carriers. This system will mean that a Shokaku will be able to bomb a lone Montana for significant damage if she really needs to, whilst a Fuso can still shoot down her planes and reduce her damage if the Fuso captain steers and keeps the Shokaku's plane inside of her AA aura for long enough. This will make the game better for all parties involved.

 

Increase AA tracer visibility

In a ship, it's quite easy to tell how many ships are firing at you and their vague directions just by paying attention to the incoming tracers. It should be possible for a carrier captain, even on minimum graphics settings, to see the approximate location of the incoming AA, even if the incoming AA is hidden within smoke. Whilst ships in smoke probably shouldn't be lit up when they have their AA suite on like in the beta days, their approximate location should still be visible to the player and therefore open them up for manual torpedo bombing runs. As there are no distance trackers on planes, it will also be more clear who is firing at the bombers and from what direction, allowing the carrier to pull back their planes if they see tracers approaching from too many angles for their comfort.

 

My main point is about ambiguity. Playing carriers, like any other class, should still be left largely to player intention instead of feeling like you are entirely at the mercy of matchmaking and being slowly driven out of the class. Ambiguity and insurmountable odds should be removed wherever possible and replaced with hard and fast rules that you can work with and play around. There are changes I would like to see to the carrier class, especially in regards to the balance between American and Japanese carriers but I suspect that this article has grown long enough. I was actually meaning to write an article on why half of the captain skills should be axed, but this takes precedence.

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate content 

[kfa]

I would be happy if only AA cruisers with specified AA spec would be able to access to the def AA consumable.

Right now its ridiculous that every cruiser can be immune to air attacks with a press of a magic button, CVs have def AA, destroyers have def AA, a battleship has def AA my frickin mother-in-law has def AA...

[fallenkezef]

When the game was released I played around with carriers, quite enjoyed speccing for AS. Now there doesnt seem to be a point to it

[22cm]

Who gives a foch? Make carriers EvP.

[SeniLiX]

Same here. I used to play CV, but now...

[loppantorkel]

It's not like def AA is free, you need to exchange something for it. Even if your Gearing/Fletcher has def AA active, you're still lucky if you manage to bring down a plane or two. Hardly worth it.

[albinbino]

I been grinding all day low tiers french cruisers, and i can tell you, it is almost impossible to find game in low tiers battles without 1 or even 2 CVs per side. And i think i know why this is so, because i also have Zuhoi which i play rarely.

I think reason is because WG removed manual attack from low tier CVs, so game with CV is much more relaxing in low tiers then before, because now you don't need to worry someone will use manual attack with fighters and kill all your planes in one stupid attack.

And for lack of CVs in high tiers, well i think it is economy.

[fallenkezef]

It's not like def AA is free, you need to exchange something for it. Even if your Gearing/Fletcher has def AA active, you're still lucky if you manage to bring down a plane or two. Hardly worth it.

You do not even need def AS. I was chasing planes in my Leander ladt night and having fun bringing them down ( only two cruisers, a cv and 2 DDs in team, in such a BB rnviroment I went defebce)

[loppantorkel]

First game I started now - 2 cvs per side - tier 4,5.

[Azalgor]

It's not like def AA is free, you need to exchange something for it. Even if your Gearing/Fletcher has def AA active, you're still lucky if you manage to bring down a plane or two. Hardly worth it.

 

The point may not be in shooting down planes but negating the attack itself, saving yourself or defending the ally. Since everyone has it, CVs have hard time fining any target or making succesfull attacs. Loosing lots of planes in the process making them useless.

[GhostRiderMax123]

Would not at all be supprised if WG turned around oneday and just removed CV's..........

 

not that I would be sorry to see them go I'm not really a fan of them to be honest.

[loppantorkel]

The point may not be in shooting down planes but negating the attack itself, saving yourself or defending the ally. Since everyone has it, CVs have hard time fining any target or making succesfull attacs. Loosing lots of planes in the process making them useless.

Cv is a problematic class. I'm not sure where it fits in. I don't find games are better with cvs in them and cvs being able to hunt down dds without a good counter is a pretty bad idea. Maybe if submarines were introduced they could have a role in tracking them. ..or it would open up another can of worms..

[Nechrom]

This is basically what I've been saying for as long as "fixing CVs" has been a topic for debate, just not quite as in depth and detailed.

 

The tl;dr is that CVs, unlike other ships, is a numbers game. Two numerical values clashing and the larger one winning.

A ship with bad AA could be sailed by the best player in the world and it still wouldn't matter unless the CV player is super bad. Just like a ship with great AA and specced for it could be sailed by a pile of potato peels and the best CV captain in the world would be able to do little, especially if he needed those planes back afterwards.

 

What still keeps CVs playable is that they have something no other ship class has, the luxury of choosing any target anywhere on the map. Somewhere there's always a decent target.

This unfortunately brings us to the one thing which truly kills CV gameplay. Other CVs. The only thing able to keep a CV from hitting those decent/good targets is the other CV.

So in the end, CVs are their own worst enemy. Not AA.

 

Death to AS.

[Molybdane]

dasCKD, in your post, you mention 2 major issues which cause carriers to be shut out, advancement and uncertainty. I can see the uncertainty part explained well enough in your post, what will MM do to the cv player? Which loadout works best? ect.

 

Can you explain what you mean by advancement as an issue? Are you refering to a lack of advancement of some sort?

 

As for plane health normalization, I can't see how T8 planes work well in a T10 battle regardless. However the wording got me thinking, what if health normalization means that to a T8 BB, T10 planes are as easily shot down as T6 and T8 planes? What if to a T10 BB, T10 planes are as easy to shoot down as T8 planes? WoWs shouldn't treat planes as something that has a health pool but as something that needs a certain number of shots to be taken down, regardless of the type of gun, exceptions maybe if one considers widely different types of AA gun, for short, medium and long range.

 

Increasing the number of squadrons on the other hand, raises the skill level required for CV captains, I'd rather go for larger squadrons in upper tier battles.

 

Finally, you suggested splitting CV lines, are you considering a separate air superiority tree versus an air strike tree?  Maybe a better short term solution would be to remove the air superiority loadouts altogether?

[fallenkezef]

Why do people hate AS so much?

[dasCKD]

Can you explain what you mean by advancement as an issue? Are you refering to a lack of advancement of some sort?

 

I suppose I didn't make that very clear, now that I read back the article to myself. That might need editing. The advancement I am referring to is the advancement of the captain and the skills they gained. The more dispensable skills a ship's captain has, the more difficulty a carrier captain will have. The problem is that whilst ship tier advancement and the improvements to AA and protection that comes with it can be balanced, the captain advancement certainly can't. A ship's AA capabilities can advance to an insane level, whilst the plane health advancements can only go so far. I don't think creating counterskills that raises plane performance to the issue either. I think the ability to make any changes whatsoever to the AA performance of the ship should just be entirely removed, flags exempted.

As for plane health normalization, I can't see how T8 planes work well in a T10 battle regardless.

 

The idea is that any nation would put the very best suites they have available on their ships, and ships like the Iowa and Alabama don't have an excessive difference in terms of technological level. Tier 8 planes in a tier 10 game sounds silly, but that is largely a product of our meta. Tier 10 carriers are powerful, so tier 10 AA is completely overpowering in order to deal with said carriers. This means that when a tier 8 carrier gets into a tier 10 game, they're useless. I think the game should be modified in such a way that, operated correctly, a tier 8 carrier can excel in tier 10 battles. I believe the best way to do this is to nerf the AA performance of tier 8, 9, and 10 ships. This can be achieved through the removal of extra AA suites. AA might still need to be reigned in, especially the AA of high tiered cruisers like the Minotaur, Des Moines, and upcoming Henrietta, but overall I think that if AA levels didn't peak to such an insane degree at the higher tiers then things should be fine.

T6 and T8 planes? What if to a T10 BB, T10 planes are as easy to shoot down as T8 planes? WoWs shouldn't treat planes as something that has a health pool but as something that needs a certain number of shots to be taken down, regardless of the type of gun, exceptions maybe if one considers widely different types of AA gun, for short, medium and long range.

 

It could be a good change actually, especially as it would stop complete immunity from either side. It will probably need some proper justification in game though, especially as higher tiered ships tend to be larger and therefore easier targets for carriers.

Increasing the number of squadrons on the other hand, raises the skill level required for CV captains, I'd rather go for larger squadrons in upper tier battles.

 

I really don't think that having any more than 2 plane squads is needed for anything, especially as most carrier captains, me included, generally treats even the two smaller squadrons as one lone larger squadron. War Gaming insists on maintaining squad side however, and so having a squad size of 3 would mean that you can get more squads more often whereas in the current system you only get the extra torpedo bomber squad at tier 9. The smaller squad will also weaken lower tiered carriers which could be argued is needed.

Finally, you suggested splitting CV lines, are you considering a separate air superiority tree versus an air strike tree?  Maybe a better short term solution would be to remove the air superiority loadouts altogether?

 

I would obviously prefer that AS didn't exist and that balanced is the only thing available. WG seems to want to keep the AS idea however, and so I think the next best thing to do is to make sure that players can tell, just by the ship's name, what is expected of the carrier. I'm not suggesting a second tree per se, more like a specialized carrier as a sidegrade. Not the most elegant of solutions admittedly, but I still believe it is better than the current arrangement.

[cro_pwr]

Why do people hate AS so much?

 

Because its useless 99% of the time, and serves for no other purpose but to annoy your opponent. You cripple your damage output so much that you have zero influence on the outcome of the match. And strike CV will be more useful in 99% matches since you need one good strike (and you CAN NOT stop all the strikes even with AS, the maps are just too big and fighters are limited by planes / ammo, and can not be in the air all the time) to do more then AS CV did in that match. Just think of it. You need 1 good strike, and you allready did more then enemy CV...

[fallenkezef]

Then why do I see so many AS cvs?

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

Why do people hate AS so much?

 

Because they want to strike with absolute impunity.

[Tungstonid]

Then why do I see so many AS cvs?

 

A friend of mine uses his AS Independence to "farm" Clear Sky. For things like this the AS setup is good.

But he is still able to keep a ~67% WR, so he might not represent the average CV player.

 

I for myself, as rarely as I use my carriers, hate to play against AS carriers up to a point that I simply don't start any planes anymore when my fighters are down and I know that the enemy CV besieges me with his fighters. There is just no point other than giving him some free exp which I am not willing to do.

 

 

[fallenkezef]

So basicly the AS hate is just strike players who dont like being shot down?

[Skyllon]

I stayed up late a few night (...)

 

Have to admit, I like your WG character. His tie is very nice touch.

[kfa]

So basicly the AS hate is just strike players who dont like being shot down?

 

Are you mentally challanged or just doesnt like to read the replies to your questions?

cro_pwr already answered, reply 17 in this thread.

 

As Air Superioirity Carrier you will add exactly zero to the winning chances of your team. You cant lock down a whole map all the time, the enemy strike carrier will deal at least 1 or 2 strikes, dealing 10 time smore damage than you could ever do with your randomdivebombers in 20 minutes.

[fallenkezef]

 

Are you mentally challanged or just doesnt like to read the replies to your questions?

cro_pwr already answered, reply 17 in this thread.

 

As Air Superioirity Carrier you will add exactly zero to the winning chances of your team. You cant lock down a whole map all the time, the enemy strike carrier will deal at least 1 or 2 strikes, dealing 10 time smore damage than you could ever do with your randomdivebombers in 20 minutes.

Hmm childish insults, interesting. How is that supposed to help make your case?

[robihr]

Then why do I see so many AS cvs?

 

cause people dont know how to CV.

 

AS CV is only effective vs 1-2 ships

strike CV is effective against 12 ships