Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
rr1774

An addition to the IJN aircraft carrier tech tree

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
17 posts
2,527 battles

My idea for an addition to the IJN aircraft carrier tech tree, which includes some (in my eyes) sadly, left out carriers. I think the addition would enrich the carrier game play, you wouldn’t meet the same enemy again and again which is kind a boring sometimes. The numbers besides the name are the number of aircrafts, the bolt one the in game number and the other one the historical, which can diverse. Shinano is a bit a special case although only having an own air group of 47 it was planned to be a forward refuelling and rearming station for planes of other carriers (finally the marking mishmash of the planes would make sense :Smile-_tongue:) and so was able to accommodate up to 120 planes (at least some sources say that, others go with less), so you could easily bump her up to tier X but I didn’t really found another suitable tier IX, to fill the gap.

 

 

               
               
IV     21/24 Hosho      
         
 
     
V     30/30 Zuiho  
 
   
         
 
     
VI     48/48 Ryujo   Hiyo 48
         
 
   
 
 
VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu   Soryu 71
         
 
   
 
 
VIII     84/72 Shokaku   Akagi 81
         
 
   
 
 
IX     75/83 Taiho   Shinano 47/72-83
       
       
     
   
 
     
X     100 Hakuryu      
               
               

 

The addition would branch of from the Zuiho and start with the Hiyo a converted passenger liner (Kashiwara Maru) commissioned in July 1942 sunk during the battle of the Philippine Sea, June 1944.

 

Next up is the Soryu at tier VII the “sister” ship of the Hiryu, the first IJN carrier to be planed us such from the beginning, commissioned in 1937. She fought, as part of the first air fleet’s carrier division 2 (together with Hiryu) in several battles including Pearl Harbor and Midway where she was sunk, June 1942. Her air group consisted of 63 aircrafts plus 8 in reserve equalling a total of 71. With 34 kts she’s also capable to swiftly reposition, which is always nice. And she just looks great :Smile_smile:

 

On tier VIII we got the Akagi, which was converted from the battlecruiser Akagi and finished 1927 having three flight decks. In 1937-38 she was reconstructed losing to of the three flight decks and so increasing the aircraft capacity to 66 plus 15 reserve giving a total of 81. Probably being the most famous Japanese carrier of the Second World War, served as the flagship of the First Air Fleet. She led the attack on Pearl Harbor and other battles and was sunk in Midway, June 1942. The Akagi is one of the ships I had absolutely no doubt we would see in the original tech tree.

 

At tier IX sits the Shinano being the conversion of the third Yamato-class Battleship Shinano, probably the most impressive carrier during the Second World War, certainly the largest. Commissioned in 1944 she got sunk only 10 days later hit by four torpedoes of USS Archerfish will traveling from Yokosuka to Kure to finish her fitting (which also included finishing waterproofing and adding missing counter-flooding and damage-control pumps).  Not really fast but considering her Displacement (which results in HP) and Armour she should be quite a sturdy ship. As above already mentioned her air group can have a wide range, I would go with something between 72-83 aircrafts, depending how important the sturdiness factor is considered to be (in my eyes rather unimportant at this tier). From the Shinano we would get back to the main line and to the Hakuryu.

 

This addition would in my opinion not only include some interesting ships but also reduce the dullness of having the same CV as opponent again and again. Character wise there wouldn’t be a change from the already included IJN carriers.

 

thanks for reading, tell me what you think about it and don’t hesitate to point out faults.

 

After some responses I made a little Update to the tech tree:

 

 

IV     21/24 Hosho          
         
 
         
V     30/30 Zuiho   Chitose 30    
         
 
   
 
     
VI     48/48 Ryujo   Hiyo 48    
         
 
   
 
     
VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu   Soryu 71 Unryu 63
         
 
   
 
     
VIII     84/72 Shokaku   Akagi 81    
         
 
   
 
     
IX     75/83 Taiho   Taiho-Kai 75    
         
 
   
 
     
X     100 Hakuryu   Shinano 47/90-100    

 

 

It now splits of from the Hosho to the Chitose, a conversion from an auxiliary to a high-speed seaplane carrier. After Midway she was converted to a carrier and commissioned as such in January 1944. She was sunk in the battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. She would play pretty similar to the Zuiho.

 

Instead of the Soryu or as a further addition we got the Unryu at tier VII. Being similar to the Hiryu design she was finished in August 1944, with additional AA and protection. She was planned to embark 57 aircrafts plus six in reserve totalling 63, though it’s most likely that she never had a full air group due to shortages. In war she transported aircrafts and high-priority cargo to the Philippines, till she got hit by two torpedoes from USS Redfish and sunk December 1944. Like Hiryu and Soryu she has a nice top speed of 34kts. In game I would give her around 70 planes like Hiryu.

 

At tier IX we got the Taiho-Kai (design G-15) an improved Taiho, mainly better AA and protection, carrying 53 to 75 aircrafts sources differ her. Those ships were part of the Modified 5th Naval Armaments Supplement Programme drawn up in September 1942, the first of the five planned was due to be finished in 1948. After Midway other faster to build carrier programmes got priority and the date got shifted back. In August 1943 all five ships were cancelled. Although similar to the Taiho, surly an interesting ship which allows us to place the Shinano, with a bigger air group, at tier X, were such an impressive ship belongs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by rr1774
addition
  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,785 posts
16,080 battles

Go for it WG, otherwise our CV players might get bored. :cap_like: Additional line for USN too then, eh? :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
5,387 posts
6,781 battles

Instead of putting resources into new CVs, they should rather fix problems with the existing CVs... We need more CV players - not more different CVs. And they need to be teached properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[G-S-W]
Beta Tester
153 posts
7,636 battles

But one problem that we have atm is that we have too few different CVs.

tier7 is probably the best because you have 4 different ships you can face in battle, followed with tier8 (the Zeppelin is not really played atm.)

 

On all other tiers you have 2 options what you are will face in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
17 posts
2,527 battles
25 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Go for it WG, otherwise our CV players might get bored. :cap_like: Additional line for USN too then, eh? :Smile_Default:

Yupp and the RN carriers. :Smile_Default:

6 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Instead of putting resources into new CVs, they should rather fix problems with the existing CVs... We need more CV players - not more different CVs. And they need to be teached properly.

I think adding more CVs will solve quite a bit of the existing problems, especially catching the OP carriers in game with creating a bigger pool of CVs for the MM to grab from. Also new CVs should drag in new CV players. like Seeigel sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,785 posts
16,080 battles
2 minutes ago, rr1774 said:

Yupp and the RN carriers. :Smile_Default:

Oh yeah, that too of course. Forgot. I hope it is in the works already. :Smile_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
5,387 posts
6,781 battles
49 minutes ago, rr1774 said:

I think adding more CVs will solve quite a bit of the existing problems, especially catching the OP carriers in game with creating a bigger pool of CVs for the MM to grab from. Also new CVs should drag in new CV players. like Seeigel sad.

 

How does introducing new CV fix the bugged UI? How does it let u learn Manual drops at low tier? +/-2 MM, while +/-1 MM would solve a lot of CV problems? CVs without manual attack having to play CVs WITH manual attack?

More different CVs wont fix anything... sure, u might not see an OP CV that often, when there are more around, doesnt change the fact that ppl will still play Saipan.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
17 posts
2,527 battles
22 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

How does introducing new CV fix the bugged UI? How does it let u learn Manual drops at low tier? +/-2 MM, while +/-1 MM would solve a lot of CV problems? CVs without manual attack having to play CVs WITH manual attack?

More different CVs wont fix anything... sure, u might not see an OP CV that often, when there are more around, doesnt change the fact that ppl will still play Saipan

I see were your coming from, and I do have to agree that it won’t fix the mentioned problems but it should milder them to a degree, that more people start to play CVs and so maybe WG will start to do something about those problems, cause at the moment they just seem to ignore the carriers. And if I’m not mistaken tier IV and V carriers have a -1/+1 MM to counter there disability to manual drop, although that doesn’t help a lot when you’re fighting against tier VI CVs. And if you don’t have to play against the Saipan every second game as tier VII CV, it’s already quite an improvement; it’s at least less frustrating and more versatile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
626 posts
2,063 battles
1 hour ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Go for it WG, otherwise our CV players might get bored. :cap_like: Additional line for USN too then, eh? :Smile_Default:

 

What CV players? you need a hand to eye coordination PHD to play one , Until they make them easier to play forget it WG are not going to waste resources on 3% of the player population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
3,078 posts
6,135 battles
1 hour ago, MacFergus said:

 

What CV players? you need a hand to eye coordination PHD to play one , Until they make them easier to play forget it WG are not going to waste resources on 3% of the player population.

Sadly probably quite true. I suspect the big carrier change will consist of removing half their abilites (so players dont have to multitask so much), and making them much easier to attack with.

 

It'll probably be popular with non-cv players. It will probably be highly unpopular with existing cv players

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
7,017 battles
16 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

Sadly probably quite true. I suspect the big carrier change will consist of removing half their abilites (so players dont have to multitask so much), and making them much easier to attack with.

 

It'll probably be popular with non-cv players. It will probably be highly unpopular with existing cv players

 

That is a very likely scenario, I agree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
3,078 posts
6,135 battles
2 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

That is a very likely scenario, I agree...

Carriers in CBT didnt have strafe (or usually even bother with fighters), didnt have DF, didnt need to use manual drop as auto drop was incredibly good. They were obscenely popular and were the go to class for potaoes.

 

Carriers now need lots of multitasking, and have an entire extra level of fighter play. They're now played by unicums and utter masochists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles
13 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

Carriers in CBT didnt have strafe (or usually even bother with fighters), didnt have DF, didnt need to use manual drop as auto drop was incredibly good. They were obscenely popular and were the go to class for potaoes.

 

Carriers now need lots of multitasking, and have an entire extra level of fighter play. They're now played by unicums and utter masochists

 

This just isn't true. First of all they did use fighters (the full strike loadouts the USN used for 2 years didn't exist). Nor were they "obscenely" popular, or really popular at all compared to other classes.

 

And manual attack was just as much better than auto that it is now. If anything auto drops are quite a bit better now.

 

The real difference is that with no strafe it was very easy to target CVs first, you just used your fighters to occupy the enemies fighters and went straight for the CV, especially if you were up against a lower tier one, or were 2v1 CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,118 posts
10,575 battles
20 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

Carriers in CBT didnt have strafe (or usually even bother with fighters), didnt have DF, didnt need to use manual drop as auto drop was incredibly good. They were obscenely popular and were the go to class for potaoes.

 

Carriers now need lots of multitasking, and have an entire extra level of fighter play. They're now played by unicums and utter masochists

exept at one short patch were they nerfed manual drop but gave out a rediculess powerfull autodrop there were never a time in cbt were CVs only autodroped and that was removed in the next uodate patch when there were competions how much damage you could do with under 30 clicks.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ESPA]
Players
1,219 posts
7,030 battles

Shinano could be a premium tier 7 carrier, the IJN equivalent of the Saipan. Few but high tier planes (makes sense, after all it was built in 1944). It would be a quite fun ship to play using secondary cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
6 hours ago, rr1774 said:

My idea for an addition to the IJN aircraft carrier tech tree, which includes some (in my eyes) sadly, left out carriers. I think the addition would enrich the carrier game play, you wouldn’t meet the same enemy again and again which is kind a boring sometimes. The numbers besides the name are the number of aircrafts, the bolt one the in game number and the other one the historical, which can diverse. Shinano is a bit a special case although only having an own air group of 47 it was planned to be a forward refuelling and rearming station for planes of other carriers (finally the marking mishmash of the planes would make sense :Smile-_tongue:) and so was able to accommodate up to 120 planes (at least some sources say that, others go with less), so you could easily bump her up to tier X but I didn’t really found another suitable tier IX, to fill the gap.

 

 

               
               
III     21/24 Hosho      
         
 
     
V     30/30 Zuiho  
 
   
         
 
     
VI     48/48 Ryujo   Hiyo 48
         
 
   
 
 
VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu   Soryu 71
         
 
   
 
 
VIII     84/72 Shokaku   Akagi 81
         
 
   
 
 
IX     75/83 Taiho   Shinano 47/72-83
       
       
     
   
 
     
X     100 Hakuryu      
               
               

 

The addition would branch of from the Zuiho and start with the Hiyo a converted passenger liner (Kashiwara Maru) commissioned in July 1942 sunk during the battle of the Philippine Sea, June 1944.

 

Next up is the Soryu at tier VII the “sister” ship of the Hiryu, the first IJN carrier to be planed us such from the beginning, commissioned in 1937. She fought, as part of the first air fleet’s carrier division 2 (together with Hiryu) in several battles including Pearl Harbor and Midway where she was sunk, June 1942. Her air group consisted of 63 aircrafts plus 8 in reserve equalling a total of 71. With 34 kts she’s also capable to swiftly reposition, which is always nice. And she just looks great :Smile_smile:

 

On tier VIII we got the Akagi, which was converted from the battlecruiser Akagi and finished 1927 having three flight decks. In 1937-38 she was reconstructed losing to of the three flight decks and so increasing the aircraft capacity to 66 plus 15 reserve giving a total of 81. Probably being the most famous Japanese carrier of the Second World War, served as the flagship of the First Air Fleet. She led the attack on Pearl Harbor and other battles and was sunk in Midway, June 1942. The Akagi is one of the ships I had absolutely no doubt we would see in the original tech tree.

 

At tier IX sits the Shinano being the conversion of the third Yamato-class Battleship Shinano, probably the most impressive carrier during the Second World War, certainly the largest. Commissioned in 1944 she got sunk only 10 days later hit by four torpedoes of USS Archerfish will traveling from Yokosuka to Kure to finish her fitting (which also included finishing waterproofing and adding missing counter-flooding and damage-control pumps).  Not really fast but considering her Displacement (which results in HP) and Armour she should be quite a sturdy ship. As above already mentioned her air group can have a wide range, I would go with something between 72-83 aircrafts, depending how important the sturdiness factor is considered to be (in my eyes rather unimportant at this tier). From the Shinano we would get back to the main line and to the Hakuryu.

 

This addition would in my opinion not only include some interesting ships but also reduce the dullness of having the same CV as opponent again and again. Character wise there wouldn’t be a change from the already included IJN carriers.

 

thanks for reading, tell me what you think about it and don’t hesitate to point out faults.

Tier III CV...really?!?:cap_old: Isn't seal clubbing tier IV not easy enough, you really want to seal club tier II and III ships with zero AA?

Taking the no risk high reward class to new extremes sound fun and entertaining to you or is it just to stroke the hard ePeen?

This better be a typo..

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,169 posts
5,658 battles

No f*** Low Tier carriers!

 

I have a much better proposal: axe the damn T4 carriers and start the line at T5

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,131 posts
28,072 battles

To OP good effort , but there are lots of carriers which even can start from T4, Kaiyo and Taiyo f.e., T5 Ryuho/Chitose/Chiyoda T6 Hiyo is quite OK T7, Unryu/Amagi is an alternative, in contrast with you I find Soryus forecastle to small and the Unryu is also equipped with a slightly larger island,= more balanced, T8 =Akagi =OK, T9 could be Taihos successor 16-3.9 inch and Shinano a little changed at T10 (more planes). Are very interested in IJN and have all (real) of them as modelkits from the various waterline series manufacturers + PitRoad. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
17 posts
2,527 battles
2 hours ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

Tier III CV...really?!?:cap_old: Isn't seal clubbing tier IV not easy enough, you really want to seal club tier II and III ships with zero AA?

Taking the no risk high reward class to new extremes sound fun and entertaining to you or is it just to stroke the hard ePeen?

This better be a typo..

Yeah, sorry was a typo, changed it now.

 

1 hour ago, Gnirf said:

To OP good effort , but there are lots of carriers which even can start from T4, Kaiyo and Taiyo f.e., T5 Ryuho/Chitose/Chiyoda T6 Hiyo is quite OK T7, Unryu/Amagi is an alternative, in contrast with you I find Soryus forecastle to small and the Unryu is also equipped with a slightly larger island,= more balanced, T8 =Akagi =OK, T9 could be Taihos successor 16-3.9 inch and Shinano a little changed at T10 (more planes). Are very interested in IJN and have all (real) of them as modelkits from the various waterline series manufacturers + PitRoad.

That would work too, the choice for the Soryu mainly fell cause of here history and my licking of her look. The problem of tier four though is the planes, Kaiyo and Taiyo being finished at the beginning of the 40’s are to new for the biplanes (I mean you could ignore it, but...), one of the main reasons why I left this tier out. Wouldn’t the Tahio successor, more or less be the Hakuryu?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
10,055 posts
15,733 battles
4 hours ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

Tier III CV...really?!?

 

Actually considering the size of many low tier maps along with the maneuverability and size of low tier ships T3 CVs would be beyond worthless. You can't hit anything with auto drop (remember that manual drop won't be an option), there are no safe spots you can take around the map and I reckon launch and recovery times will rarely let you fly more than 2-3 strikes per game before you're hunted down.

 

Still funny to see how ignorant you are, tho.

 

8 hours ago, MacFergus said:

Until they make them easier to play forget it WG are not going to waste resources on 3% of the player population.

 

You do realize that WoWs is a f2p game? That 3% can represent a huge part of WG's revenue.

Also making ships easier to play is not the answer. BBs have been made easier and easier to play over the course of the game's development and look where it got us to. It is the most likely way WG is gonna go with, though, I give you that.

 

Instead the correct path to take would ironically be to make CV play harder by, for example, removing auto drop. While it is likely that this will cut down CV player numbers even further initially it will ensure a natural learning curve for any new players to come and that the remaining CV players will actually git gud. It also removes the entry barrier of T4-5 CVs being locked to auto drop only and relieve the boredom of early CV play.

Game mechanics need to be fun and leave players with a feeling of accomplishment when they're used correctly. Auto drop does neither as it is an automated process. There is nothing accomplishing nor exciting about watching everything just play out with a single click. It removes any player input, and thus skill, out of the equation, precisely what a primary game mechanic should not do.

 

I mean really, would you want to start grinding BBs if you knew that you are limited to using your primary guns like secondaries until T6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Actually considering the size of many low tier maps along with the maneuverability and size of low tier ships T3 CVs would be beyond worthless. You can't hit anything with auto drop (remember that manual drop won't be an option), there are no safe spots you can take around the map and I reckon launch and recovery times will rarely let you fly more than 2-3 strikes per game before you're hunted down.

 

Still funny to see how ignorant you are, tho.

 

 

You do realize that WoWs is a f2p game? That 3% can represent a huge part of WG's revenue.

Also making ships easier to play is not the answer. BBs have been made easier and easier to play over the course of the game's development and look where it got us to. It is the most likely way WG is gonna go with, though, I give you that.

 

Instead the correct path to take would ironically be to make CV play harder by, for example, removing auto drop. While it is likely that this will cut down CV player numbers even further initially it will ensure a natural learning curve for any new players to come and that the remaining CV players will actually git gud. It also removes the entry barrier of T4-5 CVs being locked to auto drop only and relieve the boredom of early CV play.

Game mechanics need to be fun and leave players with a feeling of accomplishment when they're used correctly. Auto drop does neither as it is an automated process. There is nothing accomplishing nor exciting about watching everything just play out with a single click. It removes any player input, and thus skill, out of the equation, precisely what a primary game mechanic should not do.

 

I mean really, would you want to start grinding BBs if you knew that you are limited to using your primary guns like secondaries until T6?

As per usual I have to prove you wrong.

Here is an example of your deliberately lying statement of [..."You can't hit anything with auto drop "...]

shot-17_06.05_20.53_06-0194.thumb.jpg.50e4639106cc38f2757c9078a2dcff97.jpg

But ok we all know your motive for attacking anyone that mentions carriers in a negative way.:cap_tea:

*Drops mic...* :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
10,055 posts
15,733 battles
1 minute ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

As per usual I have to prove you wrong.

 

As usual your ignorance is amusing.

You do realize T2-3 ships are quite a bit smaller than T4-6 ones?

In fact, let me show you:

Spoiler

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

 

So with auto drop on stationary targets you can at most expect 2 hits on the bigger ships, 1 hit on smaller ones and you will outright miss against DDs.

Against maneuvering ships I reckon you will either get 1 hit or none at all.

 

Besides, low tier CVs being as successful as they are only tells me (and anyone with half a brain) how utterly braindead the playerbase is. You can hardly tell me auto drop is hard to dodge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

As usual your ignorance is amusing.

You do realize T2-3 ships are quite a bit smaller than T4-6 ones?

In fact, let me show you:

  Reveal hidden contents

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

World_of_Warships_Screenshot_2018.02.03_

 

So with auto drop on stationary targets you can at most expect 2 hits on the bigger ships, 1 hit on smaller ones and you will outright miss against DDs.

Against maneuvering ships I reckon you will either get 1 hit or none at all.

 

Besides, low tier CVs being as successful as they are only tells me (and anyone with half a brain) how utterly braindead the playerbase is. You can hardly tell me auto drop is hard to dodge.

Let us just get this clear once and for all: I'm right and you're wrong.

Let me reiterate what you have so hard accepting is the truth:

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/95921-an-addition-to-the-ijn-aircraft-carrier-tech-tree/?do=findComment&comment=2297044

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
10,055 posts
15,733 battles
14 minutes ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

Let us just get this clear once and for all: I'm right and you're wrong.

 

I see irrefutable scientific data is lost on you as usual.

Which is why you're so amusing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×