Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Michey802

CV vs AA

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles

Greetings,

 

Should fighters be able to strafe ships to eliminate some (unprotected) AA mounts?

This was just a thought that randomly popped into my head while playing.

Since fighter planes were a real danger to AA gunners on ships.

 

Pros:

- A CV that lacks a large hanger for strike planes now can soften up a ship before strike, and perhaps have some left before match is over.

- Adding a small teamplay element of making a "dug in" ship less AA threat, making sure catapult planes survive longer and thus provide spotting. (ships that like to park at a safe central location where they are very hard to dislodge)

 

Con:

- Makes life a little more complex for a CV captain.

- Puts fighters more in harms way by having to get really close, thus potentially compromise ability to stop enemy strikes.

 

I think this gives a CV player more choice how they like to use fighters.

As a balance issue for tiers, since this sounds too strong for hightier CV's, hightier ships usually have AA mounts with armour/shield on it so a strafe shouln'd be able to do a lot of damage.

Where as older ships in the mid tiers have more exposed AA mounts, making CV life a little easier.

With the exception of the premiums i don't consider mid tier CV's a big threat to my bbs, cruisers imo.

 

Yes i do realise that bombs also kill AA mounts, i'm simply giving alternatives.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,158 posts
9,906 battles

Maybe not eliminate, but "suppress" for X amount of time. (e.g. per fighter plane -3% of AA power for 15s)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,538 posts
7,443 battles

has been suggested a few dozen times already... and I dont remember seeing any reactions/comments from WG on any of those? So don't hold your breath... if anything, it might be part of the fabled CV rework that is definitely coming soontm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,641 posts
13,071 battles
36 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

I think this gives a CV player more choice how they like to use fighters.

 

Aka you will make bad CV players waste all their fighters on AA ships and hand air superiority to the gleeful enemy CV who doesn't even need to do anything.

Giving people a choice isn't always a good thing.

 

Besides, AA is supposed to make your life harder as a CV. By being able to suppress it that eliminates the entire point of AA. There already exists a way to diminish AA from an enemy ship. It's called HE spam and basic teamplay. Heck, RN BBs can strip ships of their entire low and mid range AA suite with just 2-3 hits (which is really stupid but apparently WG likes it that way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles
31 minutes ago, lup3s said:

Maybe not eliminate, but "suppress" for X amount of time. (e.g. per fighter plane -3% of AA power for 15s)

Not bad suggestion either.

 

25 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

has been suggested a few dozen times already... and I dont remember seeing any reactions/comments from WG on any of those? So don't hold your breath... if anything, it might be part of the fabled CV rework that is definitely coming soontm...

"Soon" is a word open for interpretation :Smile_teethhappy:

 

6 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Aka you will make bad CV players waste all their fighters on AA ships and hand air superiority to the gleeful enemy CV who doesn't even need to do anything.

Giving people a choice isn't always a good thing.

 

Besides, AA is supposed to make your life harder as a CV. By being able to suppress it that eliminates the entire point of AA. There already exists a way to diminish AA from an enemy ship. It's called HE spam and basic teamplay. Heck, RN BBs can strip ships of their entire low and mid range AA suite with just 2-3 hits (which is really stupid but apparently WG likes it that way).

Bad Cv player will lose to a decent player anyway, nothing changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,641 posts
13,071 battles
1 minute ago, Michey802 said:

Bad Cv player will lose to a decent player anyway, nothing changes.

 

Except you have lowered the standard of play even further by introducing one more noob trap. As if we don't have enough of those already in CV play.

And it still eliminates the entire point of AA. Imagine you're captaining a DM providing air defense for your teammates (as you're supposed to), only for the enemy CV to not give a :etc_swear: because he can simply suppress it with a bunch of fighters.

Strong AA is supposed to deter strikes. Unless you have the support of your teammates you should very much be incapable of doing anything against an AA ship or a strong formation aside from spotting. They exist to counter you, thus you should not be able to counter them. This makes CVs team dependent, a desirable thing considering this is in fact a team game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
625 posts
5,113 battles
14 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

 

Bad Cv player will lose to a decent player anyway, nothing changes.



Which is the crux of the CV problem, and why the class should either receive skill based MM (so only similar skill level CVs are matched vs each other), or be removed from the game alltogether.

The class is far too powerful and influential. If in a given battle one team has a good player in a CV and the other team has an absolute derp, it's almost an instalose for the 2nd team (almost because now and then the CV player is excellent but the other 11 are absolutely braindead).  Its FAR worse to have a potato in a CV against a decent player in a CV than having a braindead top tier player of any other class against an unicum - because the CV has mostly mapwide effects while every other ship has localized effects. The influence of the CV is exponentially larger than that of any other ship of any other class- and thus the effects of that skill differential is accorindgly multiplied exponentially.

The game matchmaking mechanics shouldn't condemn whole teams to an almost guaranteed loss only because they had the bad luck of being matchmaked with an absolute derp who doesn't even know how to use manual controls in a T10 CV (it DOES happen), against a team with a CV player who at the very least knows how to count beyond 5. There's no way to change the class enough to make the effects of such a huge skill gap between players smaller, not even dumbing them down to ridiculous levels because the most powerful weapon the CVs have (and that can't be removed no matter how much dumbed down they are) is their spotting ability, their eyes in the sky, and that ability just won't go away with whatever changes the class receives.


Hence, whatever changes the CV gameplay receives won't matter at all unless CVs are treated totally differently than others by the matchmaking, and takes their respective skill in account. Short of doing that the only way to "solve" the CV problem is just removing the class from the game. Not that I want that (I don't) but I certainly would prefer that than having the current random roll-of-the-dice where if you're lucky you get an almost guaranteed win if you get the good CV player, and if you're not you're pretty much effed up and condemned to lose no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles
4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Except you have lowered the standard of play even further by introducing one more noob trap. As if we don't have enough of those already in CV play.

And it still eliminates the entire point of AA. Imagine you're captaining a DM providing air defense for your teammates (as you're supposed to), only for the enemy CV to not give a :etc_swear: because he can simply suppress it with a bunch of fighters.

Strong AA is supposed to deter strikes. Unless you have the support of your teammates you should very much be incapable of doing anything against an AA ship or a strong formation aside from spotting. They exist to counter you, thus you should not be able to counter them. This makes CVs team dependent, a desirable thing considering this is in fact a team game.

A strong AA cruiser that gets 1 or 2 bofors destroyed in a strafe is still a strong AA ship that will kill your squads.

Don't forget that these fighters will have to fly over the ship to do damage to mounts, wouln'd you think they would lose planes in the process? i think a good cv player wouln'd simply strafe a strong AA ship just to have his fighters destroyed.

Unless a suppression mechanic is introduced they would only do damage to the AA, like HE would. you don't see (non RN BB) HE prevent a moskva from saving a teammate during a strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
362 posts
4,528 battles

With all due respect, this is the equivalent of a DD player asking to be able to shoot secondaries in a BB to be able to get close and instantly kill him with torps.

 

Aerial interaction is already a nightmare for almost the totality of players in random battles, with only 2 or 3 per tier being able to effectively negate aerial threats.

 

Besides, you are asking for ship straffing at lower tiers, but straffing is restricted to T6+ already, so what T6+ CV is having a hard time attacking ships? The only real threat to them is a couple of ships, the enemy CV and the odd crazy DD that neglects the objective and crosses the entire map to hunt the enemy CV.

 

CVs already are the only ship in the game that can impact the whole map almost instantly and even without fighters can get easy kills because AA is retarded and RNG mostly in the majority of ships without DefAA. Asking for CVs to be able to strafe ships with fighters when they can already destroy modules with Drop Bombers, flood ships to death with correct timing, perma spot ships with no risk because AA bubbles are always smaller than the air detection range, deny concealment of ships that require it to survive, and in some cases even be the only ship in game able to one shot kill T8+ BBs with full health, is just like a rich man begging on the streets for food.

 

CVs are already one of the game components that is the most frustrating to play againstnf with the current double CV match infestation and suggestions like this it only makes me want to stop playing until CVs are finally reworked into something that actually feels like a part of WOWs and not an almost universally hated component of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,641 posts
13,071 battles
22 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

Which is the crux of the CV problem

 

Yeah, no. There is no simple reasoning like that. There are a ton of reasons as to why CVs are doing as well as they are, almost none of them have something to do with CVs themselves.

Just off the top of my head:

- BB overpopulation

- CV scarcity

- the necessity to run AA skills and upgrades

- average player is abysmal

- basically non-existence of AA ships in low and mid tiers

- existence of extremely punishing noob traps in CV play

- lol RN BB HE

- lol smoke nerf

+ everything else I missed

 

Everyone with some experience in CV play can tell you that. To say that everything comes down to the skill gap between CV players just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

8 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

A strong AA cruiser that gets 1 or 2 bofors destroyed in a strafe is still a strong AA ship that will kill your squads.

 

Then it's completely pointless to introduce such a mechanic in the first place, no? It'd just be a waste of fighters, aka a noob trap.

If you want to create an ability with which you want to compete against the ability to scout and contest air control, then said ability must be sufficiently powerful to warrant such a trade. So unless you make strafing ships stupidly powerful, which would be stupidly broken, there is no reason for such a mechanic to exist other than baiting bad CV players into using it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
625 posts
5,113 battles
13 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Yeah, no. There is no simple reasoning like that. There are a ton of reasons as to why CVs are doing as well as they are, almost none of them have something to do with CVs themselves.

Just off the top of my head:

- BB overpopulation

- CV scarcity

- the necessity to run AA skills and upgrades

- average player is abysmal

- basically non-existence of AA ships in low and mid tiers

- existence of extremely punishing noob traps in CV play

- lol RN BB HE

- lol smoke nerf

+ everything else I missed

 

Everyone with some experience in CV play can tell you that. To say that everything comes down to the skill gap between CV players just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Damage wise yes - those are the reasons why CVs farm so much damage.

Battle influence wise no. The ability of CVs to put a lock down on the enemy team's destroyers by permaspotting them and keeping them handcuffed until kiilled under a constant opressive umbrella of air presence has a far wider reaching influence on the course and outcome of the battle than their ability to drop torps or bombs over some enemy ships. Even those DDs which have DFAA can't have it on all day long, and eventually will fall to the problem too.

In a battle with a good CV player vs a derp CV is obvious who's going to establish air superiority, and who's going to keep whose DDs in lockdown, and from that point onwards is pretty much obvious who will win by default 90% of the times.

And that's not exactly fair, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles
11 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Then it's completely pointless to introduce such a mechanic in the first place, no? It'd just be a waste of fighters, aka a noob trap.

If you want to create an ability with which you want to compete against the ability to scout and contest air control, then the ability must be sufficiently powerful to warrant such a trade. So unless you make strafing ships stupidly powerful, which would be stupidly broken, there is no reason for such a mechanic to exist other than baiting bad CV players into using it.

im sure there can be a middleground between effective and stupidly overpowerd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,641 posts
13,071 battles
1 minute ago, RAMJB said:

The ability of CVs to put a lock down on the enemy team's destroyers by permaspotting them and keeping them under a constant opressive umbrella of AA power has a far wider reaching influence on the course and outcome of the battle than their ability to drop torps or bombs over some enemy ships.

 

Well, that is why smoke exists.

Or rather existed.

You see, smoke was a direct counter to a CV's inherent ability to scout. By providing smoke cover for nearby allies you could easily take a cap and be completely safe from air attacks while having fire support if enemy surface ships show up to boot. Technically speaking this still works, but your allies will most likely have to silence their guns entirely less they get spotted, making the entire point of smoke cover moot.

By whining about the "smoke meta" and having WG change it people have inherently made CVs more powerful. This is exacerbated by the fact that high tier maps are usually terrible for cruisers (Sea of Fortune is the only map that comes to my mind in which AA cruisers can cover a cap without compromising their ability to exist). Hardly the fault of CVs, no?

 

3 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

im sure there can be a middleground between effective and stupidly overpowerd.

 

The moment the ability to strafe ships gets useful for CVs is the moment it becomes broken. But if it isn't broken it is useless. There is no middle ground to be found because the entire basis of the mechanic you're trying to implement is flawed to the core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles
21 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

The moment the ability to strafe ships gets useful for CVs is the moment it becomes broken. But if it isn't broken it is useless. There is no middle ground to be found because the entire basis of the mechanic you're trying to implement is flawed to the core.

The strafing of planes is an unrealistic broken mechanic imo, 1 fighter squad being able to wreck a load of strikecraft in 1 swoop i mean.

 

I do hope the CV rework makes things better. 

 

In ww2 a cv wouln'd send out a strike and have noone return, they would however score less hits then in the game currectly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,641 posts
13,071 battles
6 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

The strafing of planes is an unrealistic broken mechanic imo, 1 fighter squad being able to wreck a load of strikecraft in 1 swoop i mean.

 

Which was implemented to make fighters actually useful. Before strafing existed fighters were utterly, completely useless against massed strikes. Fighters were basically always expended as scouts or simply to lock enemy fighters so that they cannot interfere with a strike. They were inherently incapable of doing the job they were designed to do, so strafing was introduced to address that.

No one cares if it is realistic or not. Gameplay trumps realism.

 

No one knows what the rework entails at this point considering it's still very early in development after only 2 years. If I had to make a guess strafing would indeed be on the culling board, if only to narrow down the skill gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,590 battles
12 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

The strafing of planes is an unrealistic broken mechanic imo, 1 fighter squad being able to wreck a load of strikecraft in 1 swoop i mean.

 

I do hope the CV rework makes things better. 

 

In ww2 a cv wouln'd send out a strike and have noone return, they would however score less hits then in the game currectly.

 

I'll tell you a secret.

This is a game, not a simulation.

 

In ww2:

 - a flooding ship wouldn't be able to patch up instantly the moment the commander decides to give an order along the lines of "plug floodings and put out fires, oh, and unjam the damaged turrets while you're at it"

 - most torpedoes wouldn't detonate from scraping ship's hull at extremely shallow angle

 - Radar wouldn't see through islands...

 - ...nor would it work in half-minute bursts broken by long cooldown period

 - ships wouldn't disappear after moving away from you to an arbitrary distance (determined based on the hull, modules mounted and captain's skills at being invisible)

 - battles would usually be barely beginning after the first 20 minutes from becoming aware of enemy presence in vicinity

 

Believe me or not, carriers scoring many hits and/or losing all their aircraft hardly registers as a serious break from the reality of WW2 naval combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles
34 minutes ago, eliastion said:

I'll tell you a secret.

This is a game, not a simulation.

 

In ww2:

 - a flooding ship wouldn't be able to patch up instantly the moment the commander decides to give an order along the lines of "plug floodings and put out fires, oh, and unjam the damaged turrets while you're at it"

 - most torpedoes wouldn't detonate from scraping ship's hull at extremely shallow angle

 - Radar wouldn't see through islands...

 - ...nor would it work in half-minute bursts broken by long cooldown period

 - ships wouldn't disappear after moving away from you to an arbitrary distance (determined based on the hull, modules mounted and captain's skills at being invisible)

 - battles would usually be barely beginning after the first 20 minutes from becoming aware of enemy presence in vicinity

 

Believe me or not, carriers scoring many hits and/or losing all their aircraft hardly registers as a serious break from the reality of WW2 naval combat.

Damn who would have guessed it was a simulation. u smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,590 battles
14 minutes ago, Michey802 said:

Damn who would have guessed it was a simulation. u smart

Well, smart enough to point out how ridiculous is your argument about WW2 and realism of CV gameplay mechanics.

Although not much bragging rights to be derived from that for me - ridiculous arguments are easy to make fun of, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-OAW-]
[-OAW-]
Players
69 posts
6,813 battles
5 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Well, smart enough to point out how ridiculous is your argument about WW2 and realism of CV gameplay mechanics.

Although not much bragging rights to be derived from that for me - ridiculous arguments are easy to make fun of, after all.

I'm not the first and not the last wishing for more realism in this game.

As for your sarcasm, i reply with sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[0RCA]
Players
335 posts
7,554 battles

im not so sure, strafing would get you abysmal   close to AA and you would lose whole squads , for very little damage . literaly  waste of planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×