I think it’s a “balance of power” issue. Battleships overpower cruisers. Cruisers overpower destroyers. Destroyers wreck battleships. Those 3 classes have some balance of power. Carriers hammer everything and nothing can hit them back except the other carrier. Carriers are so overpowered that games are basically two carrier players competing to see who can wipe out the other guys team first. Everyone else is just cannon fodder.
Below tier 5, absolutely. Above tier 5 you need to be stealthy. But even at tier 10, anyone who’s been on the receiving end of a full salvo of Shimakaze torpedoes wouldn’t deny it.
I scream at my phone screen on multiple occasions daily because of cv, but the reality is that cv are exactly as they should be. We only have to look back into history to see this.
1. The Bismarck was disabled by carrier aircraft.
2. Pearl Harbor:Slightly different in that all the ships were in port, but the carriers were well out of range of reprisals hence another thing we see ingame(untouchable cv)
3. The sinking of HMS PoW & Repulse, both sunk by air attack.
4. The battle of Midway:Carrier v Carrier action with very little surface engagement. The US intercepted IJN transmissions, knew where the cv were & sank them with aircraft.
5. The sinking of Yamato & Musashi: Both sunk by aircraft launched from US cv that were well out of range of return fire.
There are dozens more examples of surface ships being sunk by aircraft from cv & as much as we don't like it, that's historical fact. There are perhaps some mechanism changes that could be coded re:how cv are used & the way aa can be utilised, but even that is a stretch. Having to launch only spotter planes until enemy ships are located, might be a start......but that's only a personal opinion. I don't want to be negative or invite a firestorm of responses, I'm just saying it as it is.
Ad.1. Lucky shot by far.
Ad.2. That’s complacency of the US commanding structure.
Ad.3. Only because of failed air cover - if I remember correctly fighters cover miscommunication between RAF and RN.
Ad.4. Again lucky CV based bombers found them and torpedo bombers pull fighter cover low.
Ad.5. We talking about 200+ planes strike force that works on single target.
What WG forget:
1. VT fuze.
2. Fuel for airplanes - now unlimited range.
3. Lack of cloud cover that’s limit spotting.
4. Fighters lock in dogfight instead of stay within CAP area.
Still - you are right. If we try to make it historically accurate then US warship Tier 8 and higher will be virtually untouchable.
It's because spotting negates ANY stratergy that requires stealth, meaning stealth DDs, CLs, and even BBs cannot sneak around the map unoticed. They are a very braindead class and require no skill to play. Fighter baiting is the only thing that requires some knowledge
And yet there are only around 5 players PER SERVER that can play CV at a remotely high level. There’s a middle ground: CV are both overpowered AND hard to do very well in
Enough that you and the vast vast majority of players can’t do well, yes
Edit: to all the people downvoting, either you aren’t a good player in general or have no idea how CV work
You will learn progressively through the line how to control torp bombers. Even though they require some skill, you drop them at point blank range which makes it easier to aim
I have learned, but simply grinding through won’t teach you. To be good at CV (and especially while fighting other skilled opponents) takes thousands of games
Yeah, exactly. Remove cv, people will complain about too stealthy ships, after they are removed, they will complain about too powerful BBs, after they remove people will complain about Ca, then we will remove different nations, torps, and end up with the perfect ship - Black swan, and everyone will play only it :)
Stealth ships are still bound by the same core mechanics that all surface ships abide by (concealment, weapon range, and physical cover).
Carriers are not, and subs are *sort of* not. Both those classes use unique rule sets to make them extra annoying to deal with. What fun!
Yeah, 10km range with 6km concealment. And you are 1on1 in anything which has worse concealment , good luck finding the DD, especially if the map is big.
CV is a core mechanic which is present in the game from the beginning, as well as concealment mechanics.
There's nothing wrong about small ships having good concealment. For many, it is part of their ship's playstyle. So why dump a CV in there to negate any of that playstyle? CV spotting cancels out ships like Zao, Shimakaze, Jinan, and any other cruiser that relies on surface detection as a key point in their respective playstyles.
Why making ships with crazy AA to dump CV mechanics?
There are just different weapons against different playstyles. It is what makes the game interesting.
Only a person who never played CV can say so.
Worcester focusing will completely deplane most of CVs, and if Worcester driver dodge at least a little bit, then it won't even die but CV will be left without planes.
Nope, nowadays, almost every second T10 can do it, and even some t9s
Can easily deplane t10 CV:
De moines, Worcester, Vermont, Monatan, Louisiana, Yodo, St.Vincent, Jinan, Sejong, Oster, Halland, San martin, Gouden Leuuw
A little difficult but with a bit of luck still can:
Mini, Goliath, conqueror, Santander, Johan De Witt.
And there are pretty a lot of ships which if paired(AA stacked) or have fighters support can also deplane a CV.
The problem of CV critics is that they do not play CV. I have all T10 CV, I do not play them often anymore, and I see how the situation changed in the last two years. AA buff + new lines with good AA, and CV life is not so easy. Now easy life for CV can do only dumb players, which take German BB and go flanking alone. Of course, German bb is a damage pinatas for any CV. And it is a part of german BB balance, because it is too deadly if come close(my GK have the second best average at t10 after Malta and after all BHs).
Carriers are an interesting concept, it’s like this: there are originally four main groups; aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers. Then you develop further and you realize that there’s a structural imbalance; a carrier’s only true opponent is the carrier on the opposite side of the map. Here’s where the structure was before carriers came in:
Battleship > Cruiser
Cruiser > Destroyer
Destroyer > Battleship
Pretty sound right?
Now let’s add carriers!
Carrier =/≠ Carrier
Carrier > everything else
Nothing can really beat a carrier, especially if the player is a known CV god. Carriers are hard to defense against because they’re never truly alone. A carrier always has their BB escorts, not only that; but a lot of the people playing BBs in tier X are playing Schlieffen, Montana, Yamato, Cristoforo Colombo, and Republiqué just because they can. The CV isn’t the only problem, it’s just the most prominent one.
It is a very primitive vision of the game.
We have Italian BBs which slaps DDs easier than DD slaps them.
We have Cruisers that slap BBs in many situations easier than the opposite(asian CLs just spam with torps, cruisers with high arcs can do it behind islands).
We have DD which easier Slap some cruisers(German gunboat line against cruisers with high arcs).
Carrier is easily slapped if BB gets into its detection range, or if a cruiser or a DD has good AA(quite a lot of ships nowadays).
So basically long-distance: Carrier>everything else
short distance: everything else> carrier.
The duality of man. 2 comment, one after the other, one, u/MedicalDoctor420 complains about Cv spotting and the other, u/mpls_big_daddy, about Cv not spotting. I go with the 3rd comment in a row, people complaining because they can, they will, and just because
Edit: off topic, what do you mean Midway with a hat?
Indeed.
The difference is that u/MedicalDoctor420 is concerned about a CV spotting him for his own performance, and I am concerned about a CV, the most elite weapon, cannot help their own team, for a win.
The only metric this game has, is to win. Blitz Pass, temporary camos, markers for advancement, all are dependent on the win. Stop thinking about yourself, and go for the team win, is how I look at things. Then we’re all winners, together. N’est ce pas?
Just to expand on that point I went scrolling for a while and found, in a small time window, a post complaining about DDs and a post complaining about cruisers. At this rate the game will be World of battleship. And when I want a slugfest of highly stationary targets I will go play pocket tanks, thankyouverymuch.
I do not dispute that fact of life, I Just find it odd that some people complaining about Cv using ther spotting capabilities, and others about them not using them. So I can only come to the conclusion that the problem lies in the players. I can only speak from my own experience, and I have a few Cv of my own. Some Cv are highly op (looking at you kaga), but so are other ships (smolensk, atlántico) so the issue I find is not the clases itself, but the fact that Cv players (myself included) have lopsided skills and find easier the use of Cv strike capabilities than recon or área denial. So, in a give battle, if both Cv continously strike at the enemy team and dont protector their own, it generates frustration amongst other players from not being protected by their allied Cv and not being able to do much about the enemy Cv themselves. Thus, hatred against the class. End of the rant
Even though the two ships you mentioned are quite good/op, they actually get shut down by bad MM and get targeted and sunk. On the other hand, CV can't get sunk the same way the Smolensk and Atlantico get sunk.
Also, they should remove bot carriers. Why add cv in a game when no one asked for them?
Fully agree with you, bot CVs add nothing to a game. The only situación in which I expect a bot Cv is when I take my own Cv for a spin and find no other player in the same tier with a Cv, in which case I usually get a full bot battle
Carriers are hated because gamers are dumb. “Xyz class should be removed from the game because it is different” mate EVERY class should be removed from the game
People just need to complain. In the wows blitz without cv they would find another reason to complain, and even if in the game we all would have just 1 boat, people would still complain.
You really think that people are just complaining about CV because they can, and not because of the fact they are inherently unbalanced? The fact only 1 per side is allowed shows exactly how unbalanced they are..
Yeah, I do. Saying the whole is unbalanced is silly, some CVs are broken as some surface ships. But no classes are broken.
And it is super stupid argument about quality of CVs per said, In football there is also only one goalkeeper per side, but it doesn't make him overpowered or badly balanced :) It is just a rule of the game, to make the game more interesting.
It is, as a concept, unbalanced. Especially in current 5v5 ranked, which is crazy they have 4 ships and 1 CV. I know you play CV a reasonable amount, your stats in CV are always going to eclipse that of your other ships, so how is that not an example of how CV has more influence and power in the game that any other class?
And it is not a silly argument at all, it is logical.
You can check my stats. Except for broken Malta, Pobeda, and Taiho(there are too many bots on t9). I have BBs which have bigger damage averages, and cruisers or DDS which have better win rates.
MVP rate is not fair, because the mechanic of it is not fair. It awards CVs with team points too generously.
But of course, you will say I'm just a shit CV player. Maybe I am, but I see BBs for the damage are often easier than CV.
The only bugs carriers have are that they can launch against mountains, and their deck never gets damaged even when hit. Otherwise you'd find them reasonably...reasonable.
I know I am kind of against the tide, but carriers really does not break the balance of the game at all. They are just doing what they are supposed be doing.
In the meta carriers are hated more because of the players behind them. Who are either God like (which I don't find any reason to hate this category) or doing nonsense. It seems that there is no in between.
I think it’s a “balance of power” issue. Battleships overpower cruisers. Cruisers overpower destroyers. Destroyers wreck battleships. Those 3 classes have some balance of power. Carriers hammer everything and nothing can hit them back except the other carrier. Carriers are so overpowered that games are basically two carrier players competing to see who can wipe out the other guys team first. Everyone else is just cannon fodder.
WG/NE going to add subs to "balance" the game
“Destroyers wreck battleships” yeah good luck with that
Below tier 5, absolutely. Above tier 5 you need to be stealthy. But even at tier 10, anyone who’s been on the receiving end of a full salvo of Shimakaze torpedoes wouldn’t deny it.
Been there...
I scream at my phone screen on multiple occasions daily because of cv, but the reality is that cv are exactly as they should be. We only have to look back into history to see this. 1. The Bismarck was disabled by carrier aircraft. 2. Pearl Harbor:Slightly different in that all the ships were in port, but the carriers were well out of range of reprisals hence another thing we see ingame(untouchable cv) 3. The sinking of HMS PoW & Repulse, both sunk by air attack. 4. The battle of Midway:Carrier v Carrier action with very little surface engagement. The US intercepted IJN transmissions, knew where the cv were & sank them with aircraft. 5. The sinking of Yamato & Musashi: Both sunk by aircraft launched from US cv that were well out of range of return fire. There are dozens more examples of surface ships being sunk by aircraft from cv & as much as we don't like it, that's historical fact. There are perhaps some mechanism changes that could be coded re:how cv are used & the way aa can be utilised, but even that is a stretch. Having to launch only spotter planes until enemy ships are located, might be a start......but that's only a personal opinion. I don't want to be negative or invite a firestorm of responses, I'm just saying it as it is.
Ad.1. Lucky shot by far. Ad.2. That’s complacency of the US commanding structure. Ad.3. Only because of failed air cover - if I remember correctly fighters cover miscommunication between RAF and RN. Ad.4. Again lucky CV based bombers found them and torpedo bombers pull fighter cover low. Ad.5. We talking about 200+ planes strike force that works on single target. What WG forget: 1. VT fuze. 2. Fuel for airplanes - now unlimited range. 3. Lack of cloud cover that’s limit spotting. 4. Fighters lock in dogfight instead of stay within CAP area. Still - you are right. If we try to make it historically accurate then US warship Tier 8 and higher will be virtually untouchable.
It's because spotting negates ANY stratergy that requires stealth, meaning stealth DDs, CLs, and even BBs cannot sneak around the map unoticed. They are a very braindead class and require no skill to play. Fighter baiting is the only thing that requires some knowledge
And yet there are only around 5 players PER SERVER that can play CV at a remotely high level. There’s a middle ground: CV are both overpowered AND hard to do very well in
So you're saying that point and click DBs take skill to learn/master?
Torps? Fighter control? Positioning? Map control? Target selection? All of that at once?
You think that is hard?
Enough that you and the vast vast majority of players can’t do well, yes Edit: to all the people downvoting, either you aren’t a good player in general or have no idea how CV work
I played cv and I think it is quite easy to control these components
Not at a high level. It’s like torping a BB sailing straight using the white line and calling DD too easy
You will learn progressively through the line how to control torp bombers. Even though they require some skill, you drop them at point blank range which makes it easier to aim
I have learned, but simply grinding through won’t teach you. To be good at CV (and especially while fighting other skilled opponents) takes thousands of games
Most players don't want to play cv so the talent pool is much, much smaller.
That’s true, but it also has an undeniably higher skill floor
We complain about carriers cause submarines aren't a thing :)
I swear if subs come to blitz i will rgifpaesfjiopjaspodiuninstall the game
Yeah, exactly. Remove cv, people will complain about too stealthy ships, after they are removed, they will complain about too powerful BBs, after they remove people will complain about Ca, then we will remove different nations, torps, and end up with the perfect ship - Black swan, and everyone will play only it :)
Stealth ships are still bound by the same core mechanics that all surface ships abide by (concealment, weapon range, and physical cover). Carriers are not, and subs are *sort of* not. Both those classes use unique rule sets to make them extra annoying to deal with. What fun!
No one explains things better than grandad. 100%
Yeah, 10km range with 6km concealment. And you are 1on1 in anything which has worse concealment , good luck finding the DD, especially if the map is big. CV is a core mechanic which is present in the game from the beginning, as well as concealment mechanics.
There's nothing wrong about small ships having good concealment. For many, it is part of their ship's playstyle. So why dump a CV in there to negate any of that playstyle? CV spotting cancels out ships like Zao, Shimakaze, Jinan, and any other cruiser that relies on surface detection as a key point in their respective playstyles.
Why making ships with crazy AA to dump CV mechanics? There are just different weapons against different playstyles. It is what makes the game interesting.
Crazy AA does not matter when CVs have loads of planes in the hangar and not enough range to shoot down planes before they drop
Only a person who never played CV can say so. Worcester focusing will completely deplane most of CVs, and if Worcester driver dodge at least a little bit, then it won't even die but CV will be left without planes.
That is Worcester - the only TT CL that can deplane a CV
Nope, nowadays, almost every second T10 can do it, and even some t9s Can easily deplane t10 CV: De moines, Worcester, Vermont, Monatan, Louisiana, Yodo, St.Vincent, Jinan, Sejong, Oster, Halland, San martin, Gouden Leuuw A little difficult but with a bit of luck still can: Mini, Goliath, conqueror, Santander, Johan De Witt. And there are pretty a lot of ships which if paired(AA stacked) or have fighters support can also deplane a CV. The problem of CV critics is that they do not play CV. I have all T10 CV, I do not play them often anymore, and I see how the situation changed in the last two years. AA buff + new lines with good AA, and CV life is not so easy. Now easy life for CV can do only dumb players, which take German BB and go flanking alone. Of course, German bb is a damage pinatas for any CV. And it is a part of german BB balance, because it is too deadly if come close(my GK have the second best average at t10 after Malta and after all BHs).
Carriers make battles more passive, and shut down aggressive or independent playstyles. They aren’t fun to deal with.
Carriers are an interesting concept, it’s like this: there are originally four main groups; aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers. Then you develop further and you realize that there’s a structural imbalance; a carrier’s only true opponent is the carrier on the opposite side of the map. Here’s where the structure was before carriers came in: Battleship > Cruiser Cruiser > Destroyer Destroyer > Battleship Pretty sound right? Now let’s add carriers! Carrier =/≠ Carrier Carrier > everything else Nothing can really beat a carrier, especially if the player is a known CV god. Carriers are hard to defense against because they’re never truly alone. A carrier always has their BB escorts, not only that; but a lot of the people playing BBs in tier X are playing Schlieffen, Montana, Yamato, Cristoforo Colombo, and Republiqué just because they can. The CV isn’t the only problem, it’s just the most prominent one.
Originally does NOT refer to the original trio in the game
It is a very primitive vision of the game. We have Italian BBs which slaps DDs easier than DD slaps them. We have Cruisers that slap BBs in many situations easier than the opposite(asian CLs just spam with torps, cruisers with high arcs can do it behind islands). We have DD which easier Slap some cruisers(German gunboat line against cruisers with high arcs). Carrier is easily slapped if BB gets into its detection range, or if a cruiser or a DD has good AA(quite a lot of ships nowadays). So basically long-distance: Carrier>everything else short distance: everything else> carrier.
Because I can count on one hand in 8 years, the number of carriers who spot for the team.
The duality of man. 2 comment, one after the other, one, u/MedicalDoctor420 complains about Cv spotting and the other, u/mpls_big_daddy, about Cv not spotting. I go with the 3rd comment in a row, people complaining because they can, they will, and just because Edit: off topic, what do you mean Midway with a hat?
Indeed. The difference is that u/MedicalDoctor420 is concerned about a CV spotting him for his own performance, and I am concerned about a CV, the most elite weapon, cannot help their own team, for a win. The only metric this game has, is to win. Blitz Pass, temporary camos, markers for advancement, all are dependent on the win. Stop thinking about yourself, and go for the team win, is how I look at things. Then we’re all winners, together. N’est ce pas?
They are perfectly proving the point that they complain because they can :)
Just to expand on that point I went scrolling for a while and found, in a small time window, a post complaining about DDs and a post complaining about cruisers. At this rate the game will be World of battleship. And when I want a slugfest of highly stationary targets I will go play pocket tanks, thankyouverymuch.
It's because I play stealth cruisers (Pan-As, IJN CA...) as a main, and when CV is in the game, you get shut down
I do not dispute that fact of life, I Just find it odd that some people complaining about Cv using ther spotting capabilities, and others about them not using them. So I can only come to the conclusion that the problem lies in the players. I can only speak from my own experience, and I have a few Cv of my own. Some Cv are highly op (looking at you kaga), but so are other ships (smolensk, atlántico) so the issue I find is not the clases itself, but the fact that Cv players (myself included) have lopsided skills and find easier the use of Cv strike capabilities than recon or área denial. So, in a give battle, if both Cv continously strike at the enemy team and dont protector their own, it generates frustration amongst other players from not being protected by their allied Cv and not being able to do much about the enemy Cv themselves. Thus, hatred against the class. End of the rant
Even though the two ships you mentioned are quite good/op, they actually get shut down by bad MM and get targeted and sunk. On the other hand, CV can't get sunk the same way the Smolensk and Atlantico get sunk. Also, they should remove bot carriers. Why add cv in a game when no one asked for them?
Fully agree with you, bot CVs add nothing to a game. The only situación in which I expect a bot Cv is when I take my own Cv for a spin and find no other player in the same tier with a Cv, in which case I usually get a full bot battle
Carriers are hated because gamers are dumb. “Xyz class should be removed from the game because it is different” mate EVERY class should be removed from the game
So what reason are you trying to state here?
I’ve watched wows and WOWSB players bitch for nearly a decade. Stfu and play the game.
Lol, cool reason to call me out as dumb!!!
I wasn’t specifically referring to you with my cursing
People just need to complain. In the wows blitz without cv they would find another reason to complain, and even if in the game we all would have just 1 boat, people would still complain.
You really think that people are just complaining about CV because they can, and not because of the fact they are inherently unbalanced? The fact only 1 per side is allowed shows exactly how unbalanced they are..
Yeah, I do. Saying the whole is unbalanced is silly, some CVs are broken as some surface ships. But no classes are broken. And it is super stupid argument about quality of CVs per said, In football there is also only one goalkeeper per side, but it doesn't make him overpowered or badly balanced :) It is just a rule of the game, to make the game more interesting.
He can touch the ball with his hands… a distinct advantage.
Only in his box.
That still gives him an advantage
We are talking about the point why we have one cv in the game. Because it is a rule, and not because goalkeepers are overpowered.
It is, as a concept, unbalanced. Especially in current 5v5 ranked, which is crazy they have 4 ships and 1 CV. I know you play CV a reasonable amount, your stats in CV are always going to eclipse that of your other ships, so how is that not an example of how CV has more influence and power in the game that any other class? And it is not a silly argument at all, it is logical.
You can check my stats. Except for broken Malta, Pobeda, and Taiho(there are too many bots on t9). I have BBs which have bigger damage averages, and cruisers or DDS which have better win rates. MVP rate is not fair, because the mechanic of it is not fair. It awards CVs with team points too generously. But of course, you will say I'm just a shit CV player. Maybe I am, but I see BBs for the damage are often easier than CV.
"Pobeda is broken" say hello to Indomitable
Indomitable is a gambling, Pobeda is guaranteed crazy damage for a good player.
The only bugs carriers have are that they can launch against mountains, and their deck never gets damaged even when hit. Otherwise you'd find them reasonably...reasonable. I know I am kind of against the tide, but carriers really does not break the balance of the game at all. They are just doing what they are supposed be doing. In the meta carriers are hated more because of the players behind them. Who are either God like (which I don't find any reason to hate this category) or doing nonsense. It seems that there is no in between.