Adding fuel to the fire -Kamikazes in World of warship -Taking carrier combat from passive to active

[kriegerfaust]

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2020/october/countering-kamikaze#:~:text=They also used destroyer pickets,to fight off kamikaze attacks

Add fuel and ammo (If they have guns) to the bombers from aircraft carriers, in the wings of course.  Why because ships can and do catch fire and explode, i am not sure if the same thing is applied to bombers.  Why this would make bombers the glass cannons they are supposed to be and not many damage sponges.  In exchange bombers should get formations and commands like a triangle or diamond box, flying at different heights and scattering to avoid fire.  

The fact is on both sides' bomber strikes is passive line up the attack then click top launch attack swing around and repeat if you have any bombers left.  On the receiving end its just as passive AA guns fire on the own, special one click, another click to launch fighter, the most active thing is turning to avoid fire.  Give us commands on how to fight and attack with and against bombers make the carrier gameplay more engaging for both sides.  Just like secondaries it feels like a passive loss of health with little to do in return. 

World of warships is a game of moving everything to the middle risks for middle rewards trying to smooth out the risks and rewards.  This of course means that we have to buff carriers if we want to de-buff them.  To everyone who wants planes to be made of tissue paper then they have to hit like sledgehammers.  High risk for high rewards balance is that the higher the risk the higher the reward, you may say they already hit like sledgehammers.  The second meter of measure is damage over time, measure how long it takes to make aa strike and how many strikes can be made in a match. 

Making planes weaker how do we then rebalance them, make them move faster there already fairly fast many times faster than any ship.  Do higher damage they already do heavy damage or at least some think.  Fewer planes in each squadron or longer time to replace losses i have already lost all fighters in some carriers.  The fact is no matter what is done some people will still min max the system and do well and some will suffer even more trying to play carriers.    I think the key is making the gun less passive and more active in fighting and using carriers this fixes it, there have always and will always be broken ships so smile.   

Oh and of course give the option to Kamikaze planes into the sides of ships instead of risking the attempt to get them back to the ship....

Edited December 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[Nevermore135]

23 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

Oh and of course give the option to Kamikaze planes into the sides of ships instead of risking the attempt to get them back to the ship....

This has come up repeatedly over the years, and WG’s response has always been that it will never happen. There is too much controversy and baggage surrounding the Japanese kamikazes for it to be included.

Two of the ships currently in game (Kitakami and the IJN premium submarine, IIRC) actually ended their careers as Kaiten (manned torpedo) carriers, but both are depicted in alternate configurations.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Not a subject a mainstream game publisher will touch.

If you want that kind of thing, you need to go into more specialized grognard games.

[kriegerfaust]

Four paragraphs and twenty-one lines and the only thing people respond to is an obligatory throwaway line at the end, yes i must have missed my own passionate desire to add human guidance systems to the game, The word Kamikaze appears three times in my post, that's cherry picking at its best, The idea is to grab attention at start a discussion about how the problem is not carriers being overpowered but boring and passive, I mean if it was just power the worst offender would be light cruiser with their high arcs god like armor and fire rate with insane range and pin.  I mean honest how the hell does a Light cruiser bounce 16-inch shells at 3k range.  That messing with stats will not fix the game, and for everyone who wants realism removing them is not an option.

Edited December 21, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[Helstrem]

Kamikazes were not operated off of aircraft carriers.  Kamikaze pilots had rudimentary training that was insufficient to fly off of a CV.

[Wulf_Ace]

its a bit ironic that we actually have kamikaze in game. You can take any ship and ram enemy ship what makes you a sort of kamikaze since you suicide. But taking a plane and "ramming" a ship is controversial. 

Also I bet a lot of you saw when you shoot the enemy plane down they sometimes fall on your ship( no damage) , interesting that WG has put that.

Maybe I would put kamikaze in game but limit their damage to maybe only causing fires on ship.But then again you would probably could limit that to only japanese, so I dont see much benefit into the game, maybe a new japanese CV line with kamikaze planes. 

But then again imagine the wraith of players where there are planes that just suicide on you with zero skill.

I wouldnt mind kamikazes in games, they were interesting part of history, but this is not historic game only wannabee.

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

Four paragraphs and twenty-one lines and the only thing people respond to is an obligatory throwaway line at the end, yes i must have missed my own passionate desire to add human guidance systems to the game, The word Kamikaze appears three times in my post, that's cherry picking at its best,

If you didn’t want people to comment on it, you shouldn’t have included it. Furthermore, none of the responses you have received have been rude or offensive, so I find this attitude puzzling.

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

I mean if it was just power the worst offender would be light cruiser with their high arcs god like armor and fire rate with insane range and pin.

CLs haven’t been anywhere close to how powerful you describe them since IFHE was nerfed years ago. Prior to those changes the ability to pen 32mm (every hull in the game) with minimal fire chance penalty made CLs simply superior to CAs in most situations. In fact, CLs in general didn’t get the ability to bounce 16” shells off anywhere but their turrets or conning towers until that same time, where tier X CLs got 30mm deck plating standard and CAs also got 30mm upper belts. This was implemented because cruisers in general are incredible vulnerable to overmatching BB AP, which heavily discouraged cruiser play at high tiers, where BBs are generally much more dangerous than at lower tiers. Ironically, the explosion of 18”-armed BBs at high tiers has largely negated these armor changes at tier X.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Jakob Knight]

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

Four paragraphs and twenty-one lines and the only thing people respond to is an obligatory throwaway line at the end, yes i must have missed my own passionate desire to add human guidance systems to the game, The word Kamikaze appears three times in my post, that's cherry picking at its best, The idea is to grab attention at start a discussion about how the problem is not carriers being overpowered but boring and passive, I mean if it was just power the worst offender would be light cruiser with their high arcs god like armor and fire rate with insane range and pin.  I mean honest how the hell does a Light cruiser bounce 16-inch shells at 3k range.  That messing with stats will not fix the game, and for everyone who wants realism removing them is not an option.

 

This is a classic example of how the ends do not justify the means.  You could have simply titled the thread 'My Ideas On Making Carrier Gameplay More Active', and the discussion would have proceeded on the basis of that.  However, you elected to include a subject that had nothing to do with your discussion in order to generate attention, and now you must accept that attention and the responsibility for the subjects you brought up.  The discussion is now inextricably tied to the subject of kamikazes due to including it in the title and the OP, and it is far too late to expect it can be removed from the discussion, or decry those who wish to pursue the subject you intentionally inserted into it.

 

That said, I would disagree with quite a lot you said.  Bombers do catch fire, as you can see them aflame and leaving a notable smoke trail before they are shot down.  Carrier gameplay is not passive, as the planes are controlled by the player at all times they are active and require actions on the part of the player to be effective (including tactical and strategic thinking).  Lastly, Carriers were originally much as you described, and the Rework was deemed necessary to adjust both their impact on the game and the low numbers of players choosing to operate them.

 

I simply don't see a problem here that needs to be corrected, or really why the described issue is a Carrier problem and not one all types of ships in the game share.  The game is engineered to allow the greatest number of players to be able to play well while still preserving the tactical and historical aspects that it is based upon.  That means it is not a simulation but more of a hybrid arcade game with simulation elements that affect gameplay and which can be used by the player to enhance their performance.  The proposed actions here seem to be rooted simply in trying to apply history or real world considerations with little benefit to the game's goals that I can see.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Jakob Knight

[Utt_Bugglier]

4 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

Four paragraphs and twenty-one lines and the only thing people respond to is an obligatory throwaway line at the end.

Cut the obligatory bovine excrement. It’s front and center in your title, so don’t try to feed us the “obligatory throwaway line at the end” garbage.

[hipcanuck]

5 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

This has come up repeatedly over the years, and WG’s response has always been that it will never happen. There is too much controversy and baggage surrounding the Japanese kamikazes for it to be included.

Two of the ships currently in game (Kitakami and the IJN premium submarine, IIRC) actually ended their careers as Kaiten (manned torpedo) carriers, but both are depicted in alternate configurations.

And yet WG added Tone, the scene of dozens of western Allied sailors being beheaded on the quarterdeck......

[cheapinkc]

I missed where you can recreate the beheadings on Tone in the game.  Is that a specific captain skill?  
 

OP you derailed your own thread at the outset.  You might want to try again later.

[Aethervox]

Of course, Wedgie would never allow a mechanism that would harm their protected class of the reworked CVs.

Can you imagine reworked CV players simply trying to take out their opposing CV player? I sure can & that would be GREAT which is why it will never happen.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

29 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Of course, Wedgie would never allow a mechanism that would harm their protected class of the reworked CVs.

Can you imagine reworked CV players simply trying to take out their opposing CV player? I sure can & that would be GREAT which is why it will never happen.

I fondly remember those early air superiority duels to stop each other from sniping...

Of course, I played less CV back then...couldn't play to relax, had to be 'on form'.

WG has since made it clear that they balance to ensure people play the ship and class 'enough' for the MM.

As far as I can tell, it's less about 'protected class' and more about 'protected game vision' that happens to be deeply flawed.

Plus, WG refuses to listen to any criticism that might enlighten them about the flaws.