Rethinking CVs in general

[Delta_Leader]

Good evening everyone,

 

With the GZ drama hopefully coming to a close I recently experienced that once the iChase situation came up the discussion started to derail from the actually flawed ship to everyone going on about WG being oh-so-evil and mistreating the playerbase (which I think they are not, hell did you look at other MMOs in the past few years? Things might not be great but sure as well we're still having a great time).

So I want to take this a step back and I'm hoping to have a serious discussion about what a CV in this game is supposed to do. I don't want this to be too much about the GZ herself, I think Fara had some great ideas in his video which you should definitely watch if you're interested - this guy knows what he's talking about. This is not supposed to be some "if you don't do this I will stop playing"-nonsense but I'm fairly convinved that first, WG is actually following what's going on here and second maybe we might all learn something from each other.

I'm basing a lot of this on a post I recently made but which just got swallowed by the iChase drama.

 

So here it goes...

The main question I keep asking myself is: What is a carrier supposed to do in a match?

Right now a carrier (from the standpoint of how it gets rewarded) is essentially just another ship. CVs get rewarded first and foremost for doing damage and I just think this is like the worst idea about the whole CV thing. WoWS is supposed to be a game where you play as a team and while some ships are better at teamplay than others CVs are imo the pinnacle of teamplay because you might be able to carry a part of the match in a CV but you're certainly not gonna win it yourself. On the other hand, a really bad CV can cost you the match at the very beginning.
In one of the recent patches it was announed that shooting down enemy planes and spotting targets would be the main source of income for a carrier, but having played a number of Midway Fighter setup games I still don't see it. If you stick to defending your team against air raids and spotting targets, maybe do 50k damage at T10 you will be farming repair costs left right and center even if you take zero damage and got a Clear Skies award.

I reckon the role of a CV as a Damage Dealer is derived from what historical CVs did in the Pacific. The main difference which got overlooked there was that with a few exceptions, surface ships didn't see too much action against each other but this game is all about surface ships. So maybe we should let history be history and adapt a reward system which is better suited to the game.

You might be asking yourself at this point why I'm even going on about the reward system? First because without credits you can't play this game but far more important imo is that a lot of the issues with the GZ came up because of the way a CV is being rewarded right now. And I don't think the GZ as it was released was as bad as everyone said it was. Sure it wasn't great, it wasn't even good but in comparison to the other CVs at T8 and how the game treats them she wasn't as bad any more.

So I want to question those points:
Should a carrier be able to delete a ship other than a DD if its still at pretty much full health at the start of the match? My short answer would be: Hell no and not even a DD. And I believe the reason the GZ issue blew up so much was because people expected her to have the God-setup at 2-3-0 and I couldn't agree with many other more than saying that setup was outright awful.

So let's have a discussion, what do you think should a CV be able to do and what shouldn't it be able to do, do you think the CV system needs to be reworked and if so, how?
To give this a start and you something to tell me I'm wrong about here's my take on it: CVs are a rare breed in WoWS. I don't think that's too bad because WoWs is about combat between BBs, Cruisers and DDs. Maybe it wasn't originally inteded to be that way but the community made it. Today, a CV is a rare sight and I don't think that's bad. My suggestion would be to give CVs more of the supporter role and less of the Damage Dealer role, I read somewhere on reddit that WG thinks about planes with a Hydro-Like aura and I think that's a great idea. In theory, let's not forget the DDs who might have a say or two about that. Let CVs be ships that accelerate the pace of the game, let them support individual ship classes even more and how about actualy synergies with other ships, planes that support other ships more directly. Frankly, I don't have a clue what to do exactly so those are some thoughts but I genuinely believe that CVs don't fit into the Damage Dealer role in an game like WoWS.

 

Second point I think got overlooked too much in the GZ issue but should definitely be tackled is the following:

What do you think about the current CV matchmaking?

I think one of the major issues with the GZ was that as a T8 ship she gets into T9 and T10 matches. Now - all T8 carriers have that problem and while the issue for them might be not so present as it was with the GZ, I think this is the real issue and the one that could be fixed rather easily. I don't know if the numbers actually back this up but the general consensus appears to be that starting at T8, AA power of ships increases exponentially and it certainly does from T8 to T9 and even more from T9 to T10. So I think it's not at all surprising that T8 CV players, not just GZ players are annoyed every time they see a T10 cruiser or even just a T10 BB in the enemy team. Now, this MM issue might not even be one if the whole CV meta gets reworked but as it is right now my suggestion would be to make CVs always be Top or Middle tier ships in their matches, but NEVER bottom tier. Tbh, I haven't thought this through for carriers lower than T7 but it would in my opinion solve the issue of enemy AA horribly outclassing planes in the current meta. Now, I still don't think that ANY CV should come close to a Des Moines (and I'm not mentioning the Minotaur because it doesn't have the DefAA) and if you're crazy or brave enough to strike a Montana on a full AA build don't cry about losing have your strike wave. That's what these ships do. The issue my proposition here would at least temporarily fix is that this way, CVs never get totally outclassed by enemy AA. It might be better, but not ridiculously better.

 

So lemme know, what do you think?

[pra3y]

I don't think the GZ issue blew up cause people wanted a god setup. It blew up (with regards to the GZ itself and not other factors) mostly cause a) the planes are weak and there is no way the player can mitigate it like the Enterprise and b) the delay with the AP bombs. There are plenty more reasons but those 2 are the main. So you're left with a CV that can barely do anything in any of the area it is suppose to do from dealing damage to providing AA support which leads on to the next point, what is a CV suppose to do.

 

A CV is suppose to scout, provide AA and deal damage. You have to balance them I suppose in order to get the maximum reward. But it shows in your statement that you don't understand some stuff on the economics of this game. For one I may be wrong but the repair cost is fixed. Been fixed a zillion patches ago. No matter if you have full health or 2 hp left you still pay the same amount. Secondly tier 10 will not really make you money unless you buy the premium camo. For CVs it cost alot more i think cause of the planes+WG nerfed the earning income of CVs. Plus you don't earn as much purely spotting while shooting down planes I think someone mentioned somewhere that you have to shoot down a certain amount of planes in order for it to be equal to dealing damage or something.

 

Also it's not about farming damages but dealing damage where needed in order to win. Domination match? Sink the enemy DDs, failing which spot them for your team. Timer almost gone and losing by a few points? Sink the ship with the lowest health so that your team will win, even if it is a CA or DD rather than going after the easy BB that is at the map edge. 

 

CV are all rounders. People have this misconception that CV only have specific roles to play like dealing damage or providing AA when the fact of the matter is its all of the above. You don't just blindly focus on one area and forgo the other, you have to try and balance the roles as far as possible.

[Kais_S012]

Personally I dont think there are enough carriers jockeys in game and thats mainly due to the huge gulf between a 'normal' carrier players and a 'good' player puts off players from using the class in game (myself included, I only use carriers in PvE)

without skill based match making far too often one side gets a tiger for a CV player... and the other gets a sheep...

 

20 minutes ago, Delta_Leader said:

Should a carrier be able to delete a ship other than a DD if its still at pretty much full health at the start of the match? My short answer would be: Hell no and not even a DD.

 

Yet general consensus amongst the Dev team and general populace is that its perfectly acceptable in game for battlesheep to insta-delete CCs and DDs with impunity? while you never said such, it still reeks of double standards a little that you are targeting their alpha strike.

the reason the GZ issue blew up was not because the load-out was changed, we as a consumer were well aware of that having being warned about it on Facebook, in 'leaks' and on the forums. it blew up in their faces because they changed the AP bomb drop from the Enterprise's strike (the drop style they gave to the SSs and CCs to test and considered fair to middling) to the 9 second toss bombing technique that were supposed to be used when dropping nukes from fast strike aircraft without telling anyone.

 

I think the current CV matchmaking is necessary. games when there were only one team got a CV and the other did not were too unbalanced unless the team could co-ordinate (which never happens).

[Delta_Leader]

12 minutes ago, Mymeara said:

Yet general consensus amongst the Dev team and general populace is that its perfectly acceptable in game for battlesheep to insta-delete CCs and DDs with impunity? while you never said such, it still reeks of double standards a little that you are targeting their alpha strike.

 

Sorry, never meant it to sound that way, I wanted this to be about carriers alone and not this issue which, tbh is rather old and I doubt we will hear a lot of news about this topic any time soon from the devs.

 

12 minutes ago, Mymeara said:

I think the current CV matchmaking is necessary. games when there were only one team got a CV and the other did not were too unbalanced unless the team could co-ordinate (which never happens).

 

Sure that was bad back in Beta... although I have to admit a lot of fun. But my suggestion concerning matchmaking wasn't about giving one team a CV and the other one none but about CVs being either Top tier or Middle tier.

[lankylad11_lankylad]

the problem with CV's is that AA has become too powerful for mid tier ones and US CV's are out performed by their Japanese counterparts at EVERY TIER and have been for 18 months.  This needs to be fixed and asap.  there is NOTHING that is wrong with the game that needs fixing more urgently than this.  I would then nerf AA by 25% and we are done, or make sure tier 5-8 CV's can only see one tier up not two.  Its really very simple. They said they would sort US CV's in one or two updates, so I expect that in 6.11 or 6.12 @Sub_Octavian.  I'm holding back on sailing my Midway until this occurs

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, Delta_Leader said:

So let's have a discussion, what do you think should a CV be able to do and what shouldn't it be able to do, do you think the CV system needs to be reworked and if so, how?

 

The primary goal of CVs in the game's balancing system is to force teamplay. To do this a CV needs to be able to do massive damage to single ships while being unable to strike groups. This is currently implemented fairly well. A CV is also the hard counter to DDs, something that is a bit of a problem nowadays because WG tried to fix the absence of CVs by giving everything consumables against DDs instead of addressing the core issue, namely the lack of CVs.

A CVs role in a match therefore rests on three pillars:

- contesting air superiority

- scout

- deal damage

Now, any CV that is unable to fulfill all three of these to a reasonable degree is bad as demonstrated by tech tree USN CVs. Reworking their loadouts is therefore the obvious solution.

 

A CV's counter as well as the teamplay aspect is both basic teamwork and AA cruisers. This means a same tier CV should not be able to strike groups of 2-4 capital ships (depending on nation and class) or targets protected by an AA ship, which in turn makes a CV reliant on his teammates to either weaken the AA of said group or focus down the AA ship. This is also currently in the game and thus the basic concept requires no changing.

What is however a problem is the progression of both planes and AA. Low and mid tier cruisers are largely unable to fulfill their role as plane deterrents, relying primarily on a timed consumable instead of their base AA values. On the other hand some battleships have excessively powerful AA as a basis in these tiers that overtakes the role of cruisers as plane swatters.

Then you have AA upgrades and skills. For example, an Amagi has utterly worthless AA without any of them, yet becomes a very costly target to strike when built for it even when alone. The same applies to the T9 module for CVs which also gives them a hilarious jump in power in combination with their increased strike force. You also have noob traps like Emergency Takeoff and Evasive Maneuvers.

Therefore we need a severe buff to the AA of most low and mid-tier cruisers while nerfing BB AA, then remove most of the skills and upgrades that affect plane health and AA to balance largely around base values.

I do also believe that AA is stripped far too fast by enemy fire, putting far too much emphasis on the DP mounts. Making AA mounts more survivable and perhaps nerfing their DPS by a small amount to compensate would benefit consistency as well.

 

Then you have the obvious UI problems that everyone should know about as well as factors that have absolutely nothing to do with CVs and are problems of the game in general from which CVs merely benefit, such as AA cruisers being almost as rare as CVs themselves and the ridiculously low average player skill.

 

Auto drop as a mechanic needs to be removed. No other class has the ability to automatically target an enemy and ensuring a hit, neither should CVs. It also steepens the learning curve by teaching bad habits, therefore increasing the skill gap between average and skilled CV players.

 

How to fix CVs can finally be summed up in the following points:

- rework USN loadouts to make them competitive

- make AA more consistent by smoothing out plane and AA progression

- remove noob trap skills

- nerf low-mid tier BB AA and buff their respective cruiser counterparts' AA to put them back into their designed roles

- overhaul the UI

- remove auto drop

 

General problems that have an effect on CV performance also need to be solved:

- BB overpopulation needs to go, make cruisers the most popular class. This ensures wide AA coverage from which other classes will be able to operate from.

- implement thorough tutorials for every single class that teaches new players how to actually play the game

- remove cruiser consumables on all tech tree BB lines. Primarily to the benefit of DDs, having one hard counter in the form of CVs is more than enough

 

The basic concept of CVs is sound and doesn't require any changes. It's the implementation that needs severe reworking.

[Loran_Battle]

I think you have a few things wrong there. For one, nobody wanted the 2/3/0 setup like it was when tested. And tbh for myself, I really hate WG trying pushing CVs into an extreme specific role (cough ranger/lexington anyone, there is a reason why they are considered bad). Fara has indeed quite a few good points on that. The problem with the GZ was manifold, chief among which the stupid added delay on the AP bombs without ever testing it (this is mostly why it blew up, because it showed WG just pushing out a ship regardless of internal testing or anything).

 

Disregarding that last fact, it still has a lot of issues, mostly the fighters being plain bad (I'm talking you can beat them with divebomber rear gunners bad). And the Divebombers are quite meh as well for that matter. So it is basically a lexington (2/0/2) but with worse planes.

 

I agree with pla3y on the roles of CVs, you need all three. You CANNOT make a class that is purely support in any of the WG titles, since ultimately this is a sort of deathmatch game. Damage/kills is everything in this game. Purely scouting is boring and you would be 100% reliant on your team. And we all know how notoriously bad the playerbase is. Nobody would play CVs if they only had a support role.

 

So let us talk about damage... A CV should indeed not kill a DD outright, which is why the 2/3/0 setup (with high damage) was not a good idea. But it should be able to do damage to BBs reliably. The main problem in this game at the moment is the AA powercreep on BBs. The reason why cruisers are sometimes a better target for CVs is that the BBs often have more/better AA.

The bigger problem with AA though is that the progression is bad. Which you kinda go into with your MM suggestion. But the biggest problem is the progression through the tiers with regards to AA and also plane HP. It needs to be more flat. Low tiers should be able to at least shoot down higher tier planes and high tiers should not be able to just swat low tier planes like flies. This would solve some problems in that regard.

Doing a MM restriction (basically +1/-1) would screw a lot with divisions among other things and is therefore not a possibility for discussion imho.

 

I could type more, but I'm tired and there are people much better suited to argue than me.

 

My biggest problem with WG these past 2 years is that (as I've said before); it is almost like they never played the game themselves. And regarding CVs I'm sure they never even saw a CV match... Nothing else explains the mess CVs are in after 2 years of "the year of the CV" (and rumour has it things have been postponed to 2018, the 3rd "year of the CV").

[lankylad11_lankylad]

agree.  however, I think all battleship AA needs nerfing right across the board.   Sub Octavian has been on record as saying that they will make US CV's more flexible in one or two updates.  I doubt they will change squadron sizes as he said they would buff Ranger to Midway.  One other way to help would be to close the gap in service times between USN and IJN CV's so that USN CV's can turn their planes around faster.  You would think with more squadrons it would take longer to turn round a full deck of planes but apparently not.  This will help equalize performance.  I don't necessarily think Midway needs new loadouts unless you change squadron sizes, it just needs more alpha strike, less RNG and better servicing times

[invicta2012]

I think they should take them out of the game, really. CV play is too clunky, too unlike the rest of the game, generally unbalanced and both frustrating to play and to play against. There's nothing to recommend it.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

CV and AA mechanics lack player agency and skill. Skill in the sense that that CV mechanics are litterally point & click rather than the players having to physically control the aircraft, aiming and releasing the ordnance themselves like the artilery and torpedo firing mechanics in WOWS. The same goes for AA that is completely automated and has zero player input other than when clicking on a squadron in order to focus that.

If all aircraft and AA interfaces where manual in nature like the artillery and torpedo aiming then it would be fun to play as and against CVs.

[AgarwaenME]

9 minutes ago, atomskytten said:

CV and AA mechanics lack player agency and skill. Skill in the sense that that CV mechanics are litterally point & click rather than the players having to physically control the aircraft, aiming and releasing the ordnance themselves like the artilery and torpedo firing mechanics in WOWS. The same goes for AA that is completely automated and has zero player input other than when clicking on a squadron in order to focus that.

If all aircraft and AA interfaces where manual in nature like the artillery and torpedo aiming then it would be fun to play as and against CVs.

 

So true, I mean, pointing your guns in a BB, DD or CA isn't using your mouse to point and click...

 

oh .. wait.. it is isn't it.. and to far larger an effect than in CVs,

 

and you're just using the same tired way to attempt to insult CV play as you have nothing else but that.. insults.

[lankylad11_lankylad]

1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

I think they should take them out of the game, really. CV play is too clunky, too unlike the rest of the game, generally unbalanced and both frustrating to play and to play against. There's nothing to recommend it.

will you please get that idea out of your head, it is NOT going to happen.  there have been four premium aircraft carriers so they are not going away.  If CV play isn't for you that's fine but there are people who enjoy playing CV's.   The problems have been AA power creep and the significant underperformance of ALL regular US CV's for 18 months.  We need a clear steer from WG on how they are going to fix both of these issues.  I did hear the line from @Sub_Octavian that they were going to attempt to fix US CVs in "one or two updates", but we need more details.  If cruisers, battleships or destroyers of one nation were underperforming in this way we would have an immediate response and then action in the next patch but we have had complete inactivity on CV's for 18 months.  Also, once this is done, the very next line that should come out is Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, we have got at least four lines for each other ship class so nice variety and none of them need any more for now, its carriers that need attention.  If they can fix US CV's and then bring in these, then CV's will become more popular again and many of the issues with the game will be fixed in one fell swoop

[El2aZeR]

35 minutes ago, atomskytten said:

If all aircraft and AA interfaces where manual in nature like the artillery and torpedo aiming then it would be fun to play as and against CVs.

 

Honestly? Probably not, because the nature of battles in WoWs is too hectic to provide an adequate skill-based manual AA mechanic.

Besides, the manual control element is already in the game. You use your WASD keys to either attempt to dodge the drop or to keep the planes inside your AA bubble as long as possible. In combination with making AA more consistent this should be more than enough actual player interaction.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Honestly? Probably not, because the nature of battles in WoWs is too hectic to provide an adequate skill-based manual AA mechanic.

Besides, the manual control element is already in the game. You use your WASD keys to either attempt to dodge the drop or to keep the planes inside your AA bubble as long as possible. In combination with making AA more consistent this should be more than enough actual player interaction.

Present AA mechanics not fun nor challenging.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

3 hours ago, Delta_Leader said:

Good evening everyone,

 

With the GZ drama hopefully coming to a close I recently experienced that once the iChase situation came up the discussion started to derail from the actually flawed ship to everyone going on about WG being oh-so-evil and mistreating the playerbase (which I think they are not, hell did you look at other MMOs in the past few years? Things might not be great but sure as well we're still having a great time).

So I want to take this a step back and I'm hoping to have a serious discussion about what a CV in this game is supposed to do. I don't want this to be too much about the GZ herself, I think Fara had some great ideas in his video which you should definitely watch if you're interested - this guy knows what he's talking about. This is not supposed to be some "if you don't do this I will stop playing"-nonsense but I'm fairly convinved that first, WG is actually following what's going on here and second maybe we might all learn something from each other.

I'm basing a lot of this on a post I recently made but which just got swallowed by the iChase drama.

 

So here it goes...

The main question I keep asking myself is: What is a carrier supposed to do in a match?

Right now a carrier (from the standpoint of how it gets rewarded) is essentially just another ship. CVs get rewarded first and foremost for doing damage and I just think this is like the worst idea about the whole CV thing. WoWS is supposed to be a game where you play as a team and while some ships are better at teamplay than others CVs are imo the pinnacle of teamplay because you might be able to carry a part of the match in a CV but you're certainly not gonna win it yourself. On the other hand, a really bad CV can cost you the match at the very beginning.
In one of the recent patches it was announed that shooting down enemy planes and spotting targets would be the main source of income for a carrier, but having played a number of Midway Fighter setup games I still don't see it. If you stick to defending your team against air raids and spotting targets, maybe do 50k damage at T10 you will be farming repair costs left right and center even if you take zero damage and got a Clear Skies award.

I reckon the role of a CV as a Damage Dealer is derived from what historical CVs did in the Pacific. The main difference which got overlooked there was that with a few exceptions, surface ships didn't see too much action against each other but this game is all about surface ships. So maybe we should let history be history and adapt a reward system which is better suited to the game.

You might be asking yourself at this point why I'm even going on about the reward system? First because without credits you can't play this game but far more important imo is that a lot of the issues with the GZ came up because of the way a CV is being rewarded right now. And I don't think the GZ as it was released was as bad as everyone said it was. Sure it wasn't great, it wasn't even good but in comparison to the other CVs at T8 and how the game treats them she wasn't as bad any more.

So I want to question those points:
Should a carrier be able to delete a ship other than a DD if its still at pretty much full health at the start of the match? My short answer would be: Hell no and not even a DD. And I believe the reason the GZ issue blew up so much was because people expected her to have the God-setup at 2-3-0 and I couldn't agree with many other more than saying that setup was outright awful.

So let's have a discussion, what do you think should a CV be able to do and what shouldn't it be able to do, do you think the CV system needs to be reworked and if so, how?
To give this a start and you something to tell me I'm wrong about here's my take on it: CVs are a rare breed in WoWS. I don't think that's too bad because WoWs is about combat between BBs, Cruisers and DDs. Maybe it wasn't originally inteded to be that way but the community made it. Today, a CV is a rare sight and I don't think that's bad. My suggestion would be to give CVs more of the supporter role and less of the Damage Dealer role, I read somewhere on reddit that WG thinks about planes with a Hydro-Like aura and I think that's a great idea. In theory, let's not forget the DDs who might have a say or two about that. Let CVs be ships that accelerate the pace of the game, let them support individual ship classes even more and how about actualy synergies with other ships, planes that support other ships more directly. Frankly, I don't have a clue what to do exactly so those are some thoughts but I genuinely believe that CVs don't fit into the Damage Dealer role in an game like WoWS.

 

Second point I think got overlooked too much in the GZ issue but should definitely be tackled is the following:

What do you think about the current CV matchmaking?

I think one of the major issues with the GZ was that as a T8 ship she gets into T9 and T10 matches. Now - all T8 carriers have that problem and while the issue for them might be not so present as it was with the GZ, I think this is the real issue and the one that could be fixed rather easily. I don't know if the numbers actually back this up but the general consensus appears to be that starting at T8, AA power of ships increases exponentially and it certainly does from T8 to T9 and even more from T9 to T10. So I think it's not at all surprising that T8 CV players, not just GZ players are annoyed every time they see a T10 cruiser or even just a T10 BB in the enemy team. Now, this MM issue might not even be one if the whole CV meta gets reworked but as it is right now my suggestion would be to make CVs always be Top or Middle tier ships in their matches, but NEVER bottom tier. Tbh, I haven't thought this through for carriers lower than T7 but it would in my opinion solve the issue of enemy AA horribly outclassing planes in the current meta. Now, I still don't think that ANY CV should come close to a Des Moines (and I'm not mentioning the Minotaur because it doesn't have the DefAA) and if you're crazy or brave enough to strike a Montana on a full AA build don't cry about losing have your strike wave. That's what these ships do. The issue my proposition here would at least temporarily fix is that this way, CVs never get totally outclassed by enemy AA. It might be better, but not ridiculously better.

 

So lemme know, what do you think?

CV is in this order

- dmg dealer

- spoter

- defender

 

CV should be able to one shot any ship same as DD cruiser and BBs can one shot others

 

CV need better UI, USA CV need some love, BBs need their AAA nerfed, defensive AAA need to be removed from anything from Cruisers

 

 

 

 

[jss78]

As far as you first first question, "what should CV's do in the game", I think pretty much what they're doing now.

 

I really like CV's in this game -- in the most general sense -- because they strengthen the team play aspects.

- They punish lone wolf BB's, encourage working with team mates

- They scout for their team mates

- With deny the above to the enemy by fighting their CV.

 

Overall I think they enrich the game, and it's just details that need looking at.

 

I'd agree with nerfing BB AA because it'd make teams more reliant on their AA cruisers and thus reward team work.

 

However to be realistic I doubt we'll see such changes from WG's, as it'd punish bad BB play. Not trying to be snarky, just an observation, but what I see from WG is a consistent effort to bring down the skill floor with BB's. It seems to me they want to make BB's a forgiving and accessible for new players and casuals, while being less concerned with the skill floor of other classes.

[El2aZeR]

22 minutes ago, atomskytten said:

Present AA mechanics not fun nor challenging.

 

I don't think it will ever truly be fun tbh without a severe redesign of the game. Giving manual control of AA to the player means that you will actually need to have time to use it. The hectic nature of battles in WoWs currently means that unless you have literally nothing else to do you will never be able to use your AA weapons against an air strike without risking to neglect surface combat.

 

Let's examine the old NavyField for a second. That game put AA pretty much completely in the hands of the player in the form of DP guns (machine cannons were automated but largely worthless). You had to judge everything from lead to angle yourself, aside from plane shadows, which you'd actually aim for, the game provided you with no further target information. In return, CVs could change the altitude of their planes to try to spoof your targeting. This worked because the number of surface vessels actually engaged in surface combat was relatively small, cruisers and DDs had basically no other job than to swat planes and hunt down nearby submarines to provide cover for the BBs and CVs which will actually engage the enemy. Combat was also largely fought out at long ranges with usually well over 40 players total participating, making it a lot less hectic and ensuring sufficient role distribution.

 

Now, while a similar system could be implemented in WoWs you'd have to ask yourself if that is really what you want. You would have to rework not only the specific roles of the different classes but some of the very fundamentals of the game itself. It simply cannot be implemented without such steps, as every class aside from CVs in WoWs is focused solely on surface combat with no capacity left for another layer of mechanics which require the complete attention of the player.

For example, imagine if you're sailing into a brawl and you see an incoming air strike. Would it truly be fun for you to give up control of your primary weapons and let your enemy get in free shots so that you can focus your attention on only the planes?

This is an arcade game through and through. Giving it simulation-esque mechanics would hardly be well received.

 

It is also against the design philosophy of CVs themselves. A CV's attack is supposed to be easy to shut down to contrast their alpha strike potential and overall flexibility. Throw in manual AA and you'll simply pick groups of targets that you know will be too busy to shoot your planes, basically becoming unstoppable as your enemy will get wedged between a rock (disengaging from surface combat to focus on AA) and a hard place (continuing to fight surface action but eating an air strike instead).

[Lord_WC]

CVs already deal damage very easily, they really don't need the excessive buffs you request as 'balance'.

Just because you cannot beat the enemy CV it doesn't mean that your ship is bad. Maybe the problem area is between your screen and the chair?

[lankylad11_lankylad]

go and look at the stats.  at every single tier, the Japanese aircraft carrier outperforms the American one in terms of damage and win rate by 5% or more. its not one tier one nation, one tier the other nation.  nope. EVERY SINGLE TIER the Japanese CV beats the American one.  something therefore has to be done about that

 

Midway and Essex broke that mould and then they destroyed both of them when they took away the second torpedo bomber but obviously twelve torpedo bombers is ok for Japanese carriers that had a combined three month service record and not for American carriers with a combined seventy odd years service.  one or two tiers would be one thing, but this is every tier its not just a series of coincidences.  Sub Octavian has said on the record that they are working on fixing it but they need to get on with it

 

8 hours ago, Lord_WC said:

CVs already deal damage very easily, they really don't need the excessive buffs you request as 'balance'.

Just because you cannot beat the enemy CV it doesn't mean that your ship is bad. Maybe the problem area is between your screen and the chair?

 

there is also something wrong when a BB on his own can decimate the attack from a same tier CV as currently happens instead of AA being a strength of cruisers and not battleships.  Frankly you aren't in a position to comment on AA on high tier ships until you have sailed a tier 8 and above regular aircraft carrier because you have never been the CV, just the victim

[Hawg]

10 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

I think they should take them out of the game, really. CV play is too clunky, too unlike the rest of the game, generally unbalanced and both frustrating to play and to play against. There's nothing to recommend it.

 

This.... A battle without CV's can still be a fun and engaging battle, there is no need for them.   Let them fight eachother with bot fleets supporting them.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

7 hours ago, lankylad11_lankylad said:

go and look at the stats.  at every single tier, the Japanese aircraft carrier outperforms the American one in terms of damage and win rate by 5% or more. its not one tier one nation, one tier the other nation.  nope. EVERY SINGLE TIER the Japanese CV beats the American one.  something therefore has to be done about that

IJN get nerfs next patch in plane reload after wipe. 

[WingedHussar_Adler]

11 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

I think they should take them out of the game, really. CV play is too clunky, too unlike the rest of the game, generally unbalanced and both frustrating to play and to play against. There's nothing to recommend it.

I see @Hawg and you have so much in common. We all like good strong opinion of a player with vast wows knowlage. 

*edited*

 

[pra3y]

7 hours ago, lankylad11_lankylad said:

Midway and Essex broke that mould and then they destroyed both of them when they took away the second torpedo bomber but obviously twelve torpedo bombers is ok for Japanese carriers that had a combined three month service record and not for American carriers with a combined seventy odd years service.  one or two tiers would be one thing, but this is every tier its not just a series of coincidences.  Sub Octavian has said on the record that they are working on fixing it but they need to get on with it

 

Because 2 squadron of 6 bombers when stacked is extremely difficult shoot down due to their health pool. On the other hand, 3 squadron of 4 bombers is much easier to shoot down and thus more balanced which is why Haku and Taiho have a strong alpha strike but in exchange weaker planes than the USN CVs.

[WingedHussar_Adler]

13 minutes ago, pra3y said:

 

Because 2 squadron of 6 bombers when stacked is extremely difficult shoot down due to their health pool. On the other hand, 3 squadron of 4 bombers is much easier to shoot down and thus more balanced which is why Haku and Taiho have a strong alpha strike but in exchange weaker planes than the USN CVs.

You are right in one part USA 2xTB were op......health, narrow spread. 

 

P.s.

Having 2x6 TB grouped doesn not double their "health" against nonbraindeadmonkeys who "click" on planes to focusfire and gain jucy dps boost. 

 

But one thing is not fair. 3xTB from Haku reloads faster than 1TB from midway....

[Hawg]

19 minutes ago, 15JG52Adler said:

I see @Hawg and you have so much in common. We all like good strong opinion of a player with vast wows knowlage. 

 

 

The weakest form of argument -- attack the speaker rather than focus on the item being debated.    Pathetic.