Proposed CV and Submarine changes discussion thread

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

There's nothing preventing you to start an attack run to gain situational awareness, acquire targets and line up your "real" subsequent attack. You can spot for yourself on demand, the claim you can no longer spot is misgiven.

So your proposal is I porpoise back and forth to make the attack runs?

That's really silly gameplay.

You sure that's an attractive solution?

Plus, this means the CV can't avoid engaging with heavy AA ships...

...no one is going to want to play CVs like that. The population loss during 0.8.5 will look like a minor blip.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[ArIskandir]

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The DD can't shoot your planes down...so you spot him, then circle round and make the 'blind' attack based on his last VERY RECENT trajectory.

This issue is easily solved by having a manual "disengage attack" key, similar to recall but obviously not a full recall.

5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That is not at all what WG is proposing. WG is preventing you from even seeing him ever UNLESS you are already in the locked attack mode.

I think we have a misunderstanding here about the nature of attack mode, nowhere I read anything about it being LOCKED attack phase (if I understood you correctly, you mean the second click when the attack animation is happening). The most logical reading implies it corresponds to the regular (first click) attack order, when you still retain control over your planes course and acceleration. As I mentioned before, there'll need be some adjustments on the different timers, but it is perfectly viable in concept.

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

With respect, your limited experience facing human captained DDs is leading you to a false assumption.

My experience might be limited but was massively focused on hunting DDs (Bearn Interceptor build) so I would consider in this very specific topic of "blind" hunting DDs I have enough experience to know what I'm talking about. 

[ArIskandir]

13 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

So your proposal is I porpoise back and forth to make the attack runs?

That's really silly gameplay.

You sure that's an attractive solution?

Plus, this means the CV can't avoid engaging with heavy AA ships...

...no one is going to want to play CVs like that. The population loss during 0.8.5 will look like a minor blip.

Do you think it is an unfair trade for being able to attack anywhere on the map, without being dependent on team spotting and without risking your HP? ... In my book you still come ahead on that deal. 

I don't know about other people, but I would definitively be more interested in playing a more challenging, less grieving version of CVs. I get no particular joy out of farming for free a poor isolated dude that presents no threat for me, that's not my idea of PvP. 

[Jakob Knight]

2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

There's nothing preventing you to start an attack run to gain situational awareness, acquire targets and line up your "real" subsequent attack. You can spot for yourself on demand, they claim you can no longer spot is misgiven.

 

Well, let's play out the hypothetical situation.

 

A Pobeda is alone on their quadrant of the map, having fled the main enemy thrust.  There is one enemy Cruiser unaccounted for that the CV player believes is someplace nearby, but has no positional information.  Sending out a squadron of attack aircraft, it selects a general heading for them.

Scenario One:

Knowing they have no chance to spot the CA on their own, the CV player initiates an attack run to enable their aircraft to get a look around.  The aircraft spot the CA 5km to their left and immediately start losing planes to AA fire and flak.  The attack run ends with only two planes left and loss of contact.  Returning the two planes to the carrier and launching skip bombers.  The bombers head in the direction of the CA and initiate the attack run, only discovering the CA changed course and is now 4km on the far right.  The squadron is again shredded and cannot line up it's run, returning a single plane to the CV.  Torpedo Bombers are launched and sent, starting their attack run a distance from the CA, which has altered course again.  Contact is made at 9km to the front/left, and the bombers line up the attack.  Taking more AAA fire, the squadron is forced to release 4km from the target in a wide pattern due to the need to turn and timeout on the attack.  Two torpedoes hit the target, and no planes survive to return.

 

Scenario Two:

 

The CV moves itself to gain contact with the CA.  Spotted first, the CV comes under sustained gunfire from the CA, quickly losing HP as it struggles to drop on the CA with enough hits to sink it.  Only managing two torpedo hits before the Carrier sinks, the CV player manages to get off one last squadron which must make a blind attack against the CA, which shreds the squadron while taking moderate damage in turn.

 

Does this seem like the situation you envision?

 

 

[ArIskandir]

4 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Does this seem like the situation you envision?

Not exactly. As I mentioned above, I think some chages need to be applied for this concept to properly work. 

First, very likely a "disengage attack" key, so you can abort your attack run at will without waiting for the full attack time. A lengthy cooldown for this function will be obviously necessary to prevent exploits. 

Second, the "preparation phase" (yellow reticle) of the attack could use a massage, as it will be your "useful time" to set up the attack proper and also allow AA to do its work.

Third, the "attack phase" (green reticle) might require adjustments in case by case scenarios. Imo most TBs have enough time to fine tune attacks but DBs will require a rework, maybe a longer than usual "preparation phase"?

Lastly, the attack cooldown will also probably require some tampering. At this point I'm not sure if a quicker re-engagement time is a positive or a negative. 

so my example would be something like:

15 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Knowing they have no chance to spot the CA on their own, the CV player initiates an attack run to enable their aircraft to get a look around.  The aircraft spot the CA 5km to their left and immediately start losing planes to AA fire and flak.

Then they quickly recall the attack and line up to an appropiate attack vector, knowing they don't need to worry about AA they don't waste time avoiding AA sectors or taking detours. Once in the estimated location they start the "real" attack run at a prudent range and proceed to line up the attack, from here on is business as usual.

or something like: 

Drop fighter at the "suspect" location, proceed to attack as usual using the intel by the spotter.

or maybe: 

Use the proposed Hydro-like consumable to gain situational awareness, setup your attack according to the intel acquired, perform your attack. 

 

25 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Scenario Two:

 

The CV moves itself to gain contact with the CA.  Spotted first, the CV comes under sustained gunfire from the CA, quickly losing HP as it struggles to drop on the CA with enough hits to sink it. 

Could also use their now manually controlled secondary guns, massive HP advantage and virtual immunity to DoT to extract a significant HP tax out of the attacking vessel in a fight it should be losing anyway by design. You can't expect a "Ranged" specialist unit to also be a competent CQC combatant and preserve balanced interactions. 

[Gillhunter]

8 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I believe most non-CV/non-Sub players want Jutland and not modern warfare that began in WWII.  Subs and CVs are units that inherently fight in different manners than DDs, CAs, and BBs, and operate in a different medium.  That means they will have advantages and disadvantages different from surface units, and those differences are too much for those players.  We saw the same thing directed at DDs by BB and CA players who couldn't accept their concealment because it was a 'Romulan Cloaking Device'.  Some players don't know how to do anything but point and shoot, and get upset if they have to do more.  Note also that the vast majority of commanders skills for surface ships and CVs are completely buffs, so I don't see why Sub skills should not be as well (but are not currently).  This seems to be also going to be reworked, but in what direction and form we don't know.

 

It -is- going to be interesting to see the CVs being the ones sending out calls for intelligence and reporting their teams for not giving it to them.

 

I'm willing to give these changes a chance, even when I see glaring issues possible, but so many at once is asking for trouble in what the Devs aren't seeing.  And in what none of us will see until they are all put in place and interact together with themselves and the rest of the game.

 

I don't believe that non-CV/non-Sub players want Jutland. They just want a much better integration of Subs and CVs into the game. Neither is a tank, which is what the surface warships were modeled after and they have struggled with that.  

[Hugh_Ruka]

23 hours ago, Aragathor said:

PS: I'll add a Discord statement by a WG mod as to why minimap spotting is not being implemented:

It's been pointed to me why minimap spotting is a terrible idea. The server needs to send the ship position, even approximate, to the client, so people with aimbot cheats  could shoot the location with higher accuracy than people eyeballing the blindshot using the map.

But the same in cyclone and radar is fine ? Interesting thinking ...

[Hugh_Ruka]

The whole problem here is much more basic:

Both CVs and subs add a new dimension to the game to which the other classes are not adjusted to. Until these interactions are properly reworked, nothing amount of balancing other parts of the game will work.

F.e. in the RTS CV times, the flight control of the squadrons was rather crude, so the crude AA mechanics were not an issue. With the rework, the flight control got much more interactive and precise while the AA mechanics stayed the same.

 

Same for submarines. The detection game got changed massively with subs however there was nothing done for the other classes to compensate. ASW ? yeah all nice and fine but you have to FIND the bugger first.

[Jakob Knight]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Not exactly. As I mentioned above, I think some chages need to be applied for this concept to properly work. 

First, very likely a "disengage attack" key, so you can abort your attack run at will without waiting for the full attack time. A lengthy cooldown for this function will be obviously necessary to prevent exploits. 

Second, the "preparation phase" (yellow reticle) of the attack could use a massage, as it will be your "useful time" to set up the attack proper and also allow AA to do its work.

Third, the "attack phase" (green reticle) might require adjustments in case by case scenarios. Imo most TBs have enough time to fine tune attacks but DBs will require a rework, maybe a longer than usual "preparation phase"?

Lastly, the attack cooldown will also probably require some tampering. At this point I'm not sure if a quicker re-engagement time is a positive or a negative. 

so my example would be something like:

Then they quickly recall the attack and line up to an appropiate attack vector, knowing they don't need to worry about AA they don't waste time avoiding AA sectors or taking detours. Once in the estimated location they start the "real" attack run at a prudent range and proceed to line up the attack, from here on is business as usual.

or something like: 

Drop fighter at the "suspect" location, proceed to attack as usual using the intel by the spotter.

or maybe: 

Use the proposed Hydro-like consumable to gain situational awareness, setup your attack according to the intel acquired, perform your attack. 

 

Could also use their now manually controlled secondary guns, massive HP advantage and virtual immunity to DoT to extract a significant HP tax out of the attacking vessel in a fight it should be losing anyway by design. You can't expect a "Ranged" specialist unit to also be a competent CQC combatant and preserve balanced interactions. 

 

While I do agree changes would me mandated for this to work, I don't see indications WG is considering them yet.  I do see the scenarios I described as in line with the information they have given us.  I hope you are right.

 

I would also question the idea a CV will be able to engage a CA at the ranges described with its secondaries.  Most don't go beyond 5km, and a CA will be pounding it starting at about 15.

 

 

[Sailor_Moon]

2 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

Reduced damage would be preferable to not being able to effectively do any damage at all.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The realization by WG that they have to do something about CV spotting and sub shotgunning is indeed reason for optimism.

My hope is that the developers aren't too stuck on these ideas they have proposed...and would be willing to tweak them in maybe major but good ways, to make this all be better.

Unfortunately, my experience with WG counsels me to be wary, as they have not been able to manage changes of this complexity well in the near or long term.

I am a glass half empty kind of guy.

As someone who's been advocating for nearly 4 years for California and other ships to receive much-needed buffs....I understand your concerns here. That said, I also agree with you that Wargaming looking into issues that have plagued the game balance for a while is certainly cause for cautious optimism.

2 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I was always wanting to play my CV in a supporting role.

Well tbh, I expect that these ideas Wargaming has for fixes will be fine-tuned, or even changed as testing starts and continues. We may yet see CVs take on a more supportive role in the game (which would be pretty amazing, I think), rather than a Do-It-All kind of ship type.

[Sailor_Moon]

5 hours ago, Mutsu_Man said:

I am not gonna lie. Seeing the "CV is fine", "gitgud" crowd cry tears even before this is in testing is a) very predictable and b) quite hilarious. 

Cant say I care that much anymore but maybe "GITGUD" ? 

You're welcome 😄

[Sailor_Moon]

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Not sure if anyone has covered this yet (too many posts to read) but I hope WG adjusts spotting damage task requirements now that they are massively limiting CV spotting. I am fine with the change just stop the 500K+ spotting damage mission tasks now that the best ships to do it in got their ability to nerfed.

Works for me. The spotting damage mission tasks are annoying to complete anyways. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ArIskandir]

23 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

I would also question the idea a CV will be able to engage a CA at the ranges described with its secondaries.  Most don't go beyond 5km, and a CA will be pounding it starting at about 15.

 

We all know a gun rated as "secondary armament"  has much shorter range than their main gun equivalent... given they will be manually controlled I expect they keep the standard range for their caliber... 152mm, 127mm, 100mm... we would be talking about DD gun ranges, which roughly match their own concealment range. 

[AdmiralThunder]

1 minute ago, Sailor_Moon said:

Works for me. The spotting damage mission tasks are annoying to complete anyways. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yup.

How much you want to bet they don't change that though.

[Sailor_Moon]

Just now, AdmiralThunder said:

Yup.

How much you want to bet they don't change that though.

I don't wanna bet against that, I'll probably lose..

[Ensign Cthulhu]

2 hours ago, Gillhunter said:

I don't believe that non-CV/non-Sub players want Jutland.

Some of them at least want Jutland.

A smaller proportion would be quite happy if destroyers were also removed.

[Andrewbassg]

Aand the man delivered

 

 

Spolier alert:  not what some people expected 🙂 Contrary to some more or less popular beliefs around, he is not mindless.....

[Gillhunter]

8 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Some of them at least want Jutland.

A smaller proportion would be quite happy if destroyers were also removed.

Some want nuclear jet skis. What's your point?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

This issue is easily solved by having a manual "disengage attack" key, similar to recall but obviously not a full recall.

I think we have a misunderstanding here about the nature of attack mode, nowhere I read anything about it being LOCKED attack phase (if I understood you correctly, you mean the second click when the attack animation is happening). The most logical reading implies it corresponds to the regular (first click) attack order, when you still retain control over your planes course and acceleration. As I mentioned before, there'll need be some adjustments on the different timers, but it is perfectly viable in concept.

My experience might be limited but was massively focused on hunting DDs (Bearn Interceptor build) so I would consider in this very specific topic of "blind" hunting DDs I have enough experience to know what I'm talking about. 

These and your later proposals sound better than what was announced on stream...and would fall into the tweaks to make it actually work bucket that I said I hoped would happen.

The difficulty now is that WG doesn't like to accept outside of the team proposals...so we may not get something that actually makes sense.

[Taylor3006]

Wow, they are jumping thru hoops to do everything they possibly can to avoid carrier versus carrier action. 

The answer to spotting is easy. Make fighter aircraft controllable. If someone gets in position to spot, the friendly carrier can send fighters over to kill them just like RTS carriers could.. 

The inability for friendly carriers to protect their team was the worst aspect of the CV rework. It is so pathetic that the only thing a CV can do is poop out some fighters into the path of incoming red aircraft. It is all so stupid. 

Wargaming is doing everything they can to keep carrier players from engaging each other. 

[Pugilistic]

1 hour ago, Taylor3006 said:

Wow, they are jumping thru hoops to do everything they possibly can to avoid carrier versus carrier action. 

The answer to spotting is easy. Make fighter aircraft controllable. If someone gets in position to spot, the friendly carrier can send fighters over to kill them just like RTS carriers could.. 

The inability for friendly carriers to protect their team was the worst aspect of the CV rework. It is so pathetic that the only thing a CV can do is poop out some fighters into the path of incoming red aircraft. It is all so stupid. 

Wargaming is doing everything they can to keep carrier players from engaging each other. 

Indeed CV vs CV play has been strongly discouraged via various mechanics. 

Although Id simply prefer planes to do only minimap spotting, at least they recognize the need to do SOMETHING to mitigate plane spotting. 

As regards both ship types, the changes appear to be in line with the Playerbase Rework recruitment strategy: don't frustrate bad BB players. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Pugilistic

[Sailor_Moon]

51 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Some of them at least want Jutland.

A smaller proportion would be quite happy if destroyers were also removed.

I would not say no....
....to a Jutland-like event!! historical Jutland-like BIG brawl event. Might be interesting hehe 😅

[Jakob Knight]

59 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Aand the man delivered

 

 

Spolier alert:  not what some people expected 🙂 Contrary to some more or less popular beliefs around, he is not mindless.....

 

After listening to him, I'm starting to come around to the idea what WG intends is to have two selectable modes rather than imposed restrictions.  As he points out, there are a ton of questions about such a change, my biggest one being 'how does not forcing a CV to use Travel Mode solve the problem they want to solve'?  I don't see why most CVs would use Travel Mode except as a damage mitigation mechanic to get out of AA damage, and wouldn't just stay in Attack Mode the entire time, continuing to operate as currently implemented.

 

[SureBridge]

3 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

But the same in cyclone and radar is fine ? Interesting thinking ...

Regarding Minimap spotting, there is little incentive to build a "mod" that shows the position (on the map) of s ahip that is minimap spotted ONLY because this occurs so rarely. If CV sotting became minimap only then EVERY ONE would want this ALL THE TIME - and there would be no way to "police" this - is the player really good at minimap aiming, or using an illegal mod. IMO this is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but the immediate temptation to design a mod for this would be the largest one.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Not exactly. As I mentioned above, I think some changes need to be applied for this concept to properly work. 

First, very likely a "disengage attack" key, so you can abort your attack run at will without waiting for the full attack time. A lengthy cooldown for this function will be obviously necessary to prevent exploits. 

I am reading the "travel" mechanic as a way to slow down CV's. Right now CV's can move (and spot) with their planes at max speed. If you have to "attack" (and thus slow down to say 2/3 or 3/4 speed) then you have the ability to do the same perma-spot as you do now, but you have just taken a speed penalty to do so. Even "porpoise-ing" reduces the speed of plane movement, and would also expose you to AA fire as you "dropped" into engagement range.   

On 12/14/2023 at 12:03 PM, Jakob Knight said:

An interesting question on the Sub torpedoes is:  will the torpedoes do more damage with greater range than they do currently (advantage), or only do their current damage after travelling a long distance (penalty).

 

 

On the sub "reduced damage at close range" thing, I think that the solution is likely "both". Reduced damage at close range, increased damage at long range and averaging out to about what it it now. "Lazy" is actually a good thing to look for in programmers, this should simplify the rebalancing requirements. 

For @Sailor_Moon an open question will be "how do BB's get to nuke planes in transit?" because pretty much none of then have DFAA (required for the "attack of transiting planes") although some have fighters. Perhaps "sector reinforcement" would also trigger in "interrupt" attack, since BB's are (logically) one of the AA platforms designed to throw AA a loooooong way up..

[Sailor_Moon]

40 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

After listening to him, I'm starting to come around to the idea what WG intends is to have two selectable modes rather than imposed restrictions.  As he points out, there are a ton of questions about such a change, my biggest one being 'how does not forcing a CV to use Travel Mode solve the problem they want to solve'?  I don't see why most CVs would use Travel Mode except as a damage mitigation mechanic to get out of AA damage, and wouldn't just stay in Attack Mode the entire time, continuing to operate as currently implemented.

 

Yeah, I can see that being an issue too. Darn it. I'm thinking maybe JUST the "increasing AA per strike" mechanic addition....and I don't know, is that enough? I'm not sure. But I'm not entirely sure the whole "duo-flight mode" thingamajig is balanceable....it does seem way too easy to just abuse. I know Wargaming's said they want to prevent Air dolphining, but...I mean...what really is to stop the CV player from going around in Attack mode, attack, swap to flight mode, max protection from AA? AA buffs would be even MORE pointless actually, in that case....