AP dive bombers...

[SexyCroat]

So yes this has been brought up in Fix the Enterprise post, but this is so gamechanging that i think it deserves its own thread...

So AP bombs on USN dive bombers, fun fun, if i got it right all USN cvs get the option of choosing them? If so well be seeing alot more of USN AS decks around... And Midway will become a freaking beast with this (2-1-2)

Feel free to see for yourselves:

[WingedHussar_Adler]

Lets the crying start

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

Gogogogo

[Kehldon]

I somehow doubt that you will be oneshooting BBs and you can forget most CAs and DDs now, they will just overpen.

[Unintentional_submarine]

I'm not terribly impressed honestly.

 

The ships suffering the most appear to be the ones that are generally speaking not static bow tankers. The BBs that fare the best in that scenario take damage along the lines of what they take today with USN DBs. It is the maneuvering BBs that look like they take the most damage. Shouldn't it be the reverse?

 

The potential is there, but it seems unfulfilled as of now.

 

The amusing thing for me, is the reason why the USN BBs don't take a lot of damage. Well, my idea why that is. Their lowered citadel... The bombs penetrate their 150mm armoured deck and explodes.... above the citadel. It should be noted that had a bomb penetrated the armoured deck, the American layout wouldn't have protected the spaces below, the splinter decks simply weren't strong enough for that. So for all intents and purposes such a hit would have been a citadel hit.

Yamato appears to simply have enough armour thickness to stop the bombs outside the citadel.

[BillydSquid]

It's a start but CVs have numerous other issues. They're not exactly weak in damage potential, lets be honest here, yet a tiny fraction of the games actually have CVs in them. Why? If it was just down to damage, we'd see CVs more regularly anyway. 

 

Doesn't bother me that much to be honest I just swapped some modules on the Yamato  as the slow turret traverse was driving me nuts and replaced with the AA. Kurfurst has good AA anyway and as I tend to get close I'm often in the vicinity of CAs which at T9/10 shred planes. While all my other T10s are CAs and CLs. I don't see this affecting the game meta too much tbh, but we'll see. 

[Excavatus]

I somehow doubt that you will be oneshooting BBs and you can forget most CAs and DDs now, they will just overpen.

 

but overpenning means "Flooding" because of the shell trajectory..

[Takeda92]

So not only 1 class of CVs will get this, it works only on few BB lines too.

 

Talk about situational. This is supposed to fix BB overpopulation? Because there are so many Fusos and so few Bayerns...

[Viktor_Lima]

Only in World of Warships the CV which burned down Akagi and Kaga at Midway won't be able to start a fire.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving a little special to the Enterprise and generally rebalancing US CVs (especially the dismal loadouts from T7-9), but are anti BB bombs really the way to adress the USN weakness in high tier matchups? Their main weakness stems from imbalanced setups (Enterprise remedies that but pays with an impractical torp spread and T7 planes) and IJN cross torp scoring an early snowball on DDs.

 

What I would really like would be flexibility in arming the planes DURING the match. Meaning load to AP, load to HE and maybe even incurring a hefty fire debuff while doing it (Midway style). Flexibility is what the USN CVs need more than anything. I really like decision making on Carriers. As the main decisions about loadouts and range are redundant, as there is no fuel constraint, choosing armament would go some way to make it more interesting and challenging: Do I load up on HE to start fires or wound DDs or do I go AP to strike the enemy backline.

[Flid_Merchant]

What I would really like would be flexibility in arming the planes DURING the match. Meaning load to AP, load to HE and maybe even incurring a hefty fire debuff while doing it (Midway style). Flexibility is what the USN CVs need more than anything. I really like decision making on Carriers. As the main decisions about loadouts and range are redundant, as there is no fuel constraint, choosing armament would go some way to make it more interesting and challenging: Do I load up on HE to start fires or wound DDs or do I go AP to strike the enemy backline.

 

Definitely this. And add HE rocket loadouts to the options too.

[olmedreca]

Eh, they really should start off by getting rid of this stupid rule of having all US squadrons with 6 planes. If at least some types of squadrons were smaller then whole stuff would be far easier to balance, loadouts could be more easily adjusted, and tier progression could be more gradual. It is quite stupid that Hiryu has more separate squadrons then Midway.

[Migulaitor]

I dont see the big numbers on the AP bombs, my Lexi can deal easily 40k plus dmg+3/4 fires in 1 strike. Wont change it for AP.

[Runner357]

Ok so one shotting BBs with bombers and THEN you come in with torpedo bombers? That's [edited]messed up.

 

 

Even more camping and lemming coming up!

[ilhilh]

Removing your ability to start DoT on your own, and severely hampering your ability to deal with CAs/DDs... not sure it is a great idea.  I mean, I am yet to see how they fare against DDs, but with the super elongated ellipse I expect most bombs will miss and the 1-2 that hit will do overpen dmg... you better be confident in your ability to hit them with your 1 TB squadron...

 

Maybe I will try them, but I don't think that they will end up being the optimal loadouts.

 

Ironically, it does make Saipan potato loadout more viable.

[Adrian1914]

Only in World of Warships the CV which burned down Akagi and Kaga at Midway won't be able to start a fire.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving a little special to the Enterprise and generally rebalancing US CVs (especially the dismal loadouts from T7-9), but are anti BB bombs really the way to adress the USN weakness in high tier matchups? Their main weakness stems from imbalanced setups (Enterprise remedies that but pays with an impractical torp spread and T7 planes) and IJN cross torp scoring an early snowball on DDs.

 

What I would really like would be flexibility in arming the planes DURING the match. Meaning load to AP, load to HE and maybe even incurring a hefty fire debuff while doing it (Midway style). Flexibility is what the USN CVs need more than anything. I really like decision making on Carriers. As the main decisions about loadouts and range are redundant, as there is no fuel constraint, choosing armament would go some way to make it more interesting and challenging: Do I load up on HE to start fires or wound DDs or do I go AP to strike the enemy backline.

 

I fully support a feature that would allow you to chose ingame if you want to load your DBs with HE/AP, it would definitely improve the CV gameplay and offer more choice during your battles. But I think if they were to add this, it would be with the "CV rework" they say they are planning.

[SexyCroat]

Optimal mever, but they will add unique style to usn cvs and raise popularity of AS decks which have been useless sofar

[Spellfire40]

I dont see the big numbers on the AP bombs, my Lexi can deal easily 40k plus dmg+3/4 fires in 1 strike. Wont change it for AP.

 

​Just that Lexi probably wont have  1000lb but 1600 lb ones ....and no BB can really reduce  a masiv Drop by 21 DB before they drop efectivly (maymhaps Hood)

[ilhilh]

 

I fully support a feature that would allow you to chose ingame if you want to load your DBs with HE/AP, it would definitely improve the CV gameplay and offer more choice during your battles. But I think if they were to add this, it would be with the "CV rework" they say they are planning.

 

It would have to be a serious re-balance - being able to decide in a match on the fly would be far too overpowered.  Perhaps if they put +1min rearm time every time you swapped it could work.  But, as it stands they have said it will be a module, like the flight decks are currently.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

I dont see the big numbers on the AP bombs, my Lexi can deal easily 40k plus dmg+3/4 fires in 1 strike. Wont change it for AP.

That 40 k happens 1 in a year

[Adrian1914]

 

It would have to be a serious re-balance - being able to decide in a match on the fly would be far too overpowered.  Perhaps if they put +1min rearm time every time you swapped it could work.  But, as it stands they have said it will be a module, like the flight decks are currently.

 

Yeah that's what I meant. Like you set your DB to launch with AP bombs, start scouting with them and see a few destroyers and a cruiser. Now you have a choice - waste your AP bombs on them, potentially dealing pitifull damage, or you look for a battleship or something more armored in general that would be a more suitable target. And if u want to switch to HE, you have to recall your planes and reservice them. I think this adds much more gameplay value, becasue now your choice has an consequence on how potent will your next strike be if you face the right/wrong enemy ship or have the right/wrong bombs equiped.

[Migulaitor]

That 40 k happens 1 in a year

 

Not against Yamis or Grosses   Still being useless against DDs and cruisers... Doesnt look like a good idea.

 

 

​Just that Lexi probably wont have  1000lb but 1600 lb ones ....and no BB can really reduce  a masiv Drop by 21 DB before they drop efectivly (maymhaps Hood)

 

Thats sounds impressive and enough to make them cry, a lot, will give them a try. But the only AP bomb I want is the 12k lbs.

[fumtu]

Still being useless against DDs and cruisers... Doesnt look like a good idea.

 

Not always

 

 

 10k damage to Edinburgh with just 2 bombs. I wouldn't call that useless

[Kais_S012]

this is actually a pretty good step forwards to me. if AP-DBs are successful they could potentially balance out the current carrier meta and they wont make both ship lines play the exact same

 

though I dont think we will know for certain until we see some testing to see whether incoming USN tech tree "balanced" carrier load-outs will be as competitive as the IJN tech tree Balanced load-outs

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Fail IMO

 

I'm no pro CV but surely your business is sinking DDs over BBs who will just tank your bombs anyway and whittle away your planes. 

 

This will only encourage bad CV play as the average kid will be tempted to bomb BBs whilst enemy DDs get through to torp the team.

[avenger121]

Fail IMO

 

I'm no pro CV but surely your business is sinking DDs over BBs who will just tank your bombs anyway and whittle away your planes. 

 

This will only encourage bad CV play as the average kid will be tempted to bomb BBs whilst enemy DDs get through to torp the team.

 

Wait what, are you telling me making CVs even more OP will not make them attacking the baBBies camping at the blue line? Are you telling me they are not exclusively attacking BBs?  Other ppl are telling me CVs are not OP and high dmg numbers are only natural because they only attack high HP targets.

 

I would have never thought that simply making CVs even more OP cant solve the BB camper meta.

 

 

 

 

When will Lesta wake up and buff cruisers and DDs? Then make CVs not outcarry equally skilled players in non CV ships and the meta will be healty.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

Wait what, are you telling me making CVs even more OP will not make them attacking the baBBies camping at the blue line? Are you telling me they are not exclusively attacking BBs?  Other ppl are telling me CVs are not OP and high dmg numbers are only natural because they only attack high HP targets.

 

I would have never thought that simply making CVs even more OP cant solve the BB camper meta.

 

 

 

 

When will Lesta wake up and buff cruisers and DDs? Then make CVs not outcarry equally skilled players in non CV ships and the meta will be healty.

 

 

Well I personally think the CV issue is with the players and not the ship class. IJN at least are pretty effective...

 

I haven't seen Notser and iChase fail at CV so can't comment on what they're doing to community perception.

 

AP DB will just confuse a lot of folk.