Carriers are too strong on defense

Zazmio wrote:

If you disagree... then I don't get it.

Because I use carriers alot, so i'm not going to disagree with something which gives me the edge? You know, win by any means? They're not invincible, so I don't see your problem.

I think the OP assumes a CV is one lone ship. I don't see it that way. Like all other units (graphical representations) in CoW, the unit represents a more complex variety of military capabilities than that which the unit itself (if taken literally) would imply.

To me a CV unit in CoW = a CV + support vessels & aircraft (ie. spotter/recon air), etc.

To argue the capabilities of just a single CV seems to ignore all that the CV graphic represents.

The same goes for all the other units in CoW. People seem to forget (or not know), for example, most of the personnel that make up an armoured Div. did not actually ride in the tanks.

Not all of the personnel in an INF Div. are not considered frontline troops; etc.

So, when one thinks about the attributes of a unit, be sure one isn't overlooking the attributes of the entirety of that unit's Order of Battle.

I Patton wrote:

I think the OP assumes a CV is one lone ship. I don't see it that way. Like all other units (graphical representations) in CoW, the unit represents a more complex variety of military capabilities than that which the unit itself (if taken literally) would imply.

To me a CV unit in CoW = a CV + support vessels & aircraft (ie. spotter/recon air), etc.

To argue the capabilities of just a single CV seems to ignore all that the CV graphic represents.

The same goes for all the other units in CoW. People seem to forget (or not know), for example, most of the personnel that make up an armoured Div. did not actually ride in the tanks.

Not all of the personnel in an INF Div. are not considered frontline troops; etc.

So, when one thinks about the attributes of a unit, be sure one isn't overlooking the attributes of the entirety of that unit's Order of Battle.

I Patton wrote:

I think the OP assumes a CV is one lone ship. I don't see it that way. Like all other units (graphical representations) in CoW, the unit represents a more complex variety of military capabilities than that which the unit itself (if taken literally) would imply.

To me a CV unit in CoW = a CV + support vessels & aircraft (ie. spotter/recon air), etc.

To argue the capabilities of just a single CV seems to ignore all that the CV graphic represents.

The same goes for all the other units in CoW. People seem to forget (or not know), for example, most of the personnel that make up an armoured Div. did not actually ride in the tanks.

Not all of the personnel in an INF Div. are not considered frontline troops; etc.

So, when one thinks about the attributes of a unit, be sure one isn't overlooking the attributes of the entirety of that unit's Order of Battle.

Is a sub unit one sub? Is a Battleship unit a single battleship, or does it include escorts? I don't think so; I think it's just one ship. Is a destroyer unit one destroyer? I think so. So to say that the CV includes support units is not being consistent. Does the CV have ASW helicopters or something that justifies its very high anti-sub defense strength? Ignoring that helicopters probably haven't been invented yet, I don't think so, because we have separate naval bomber units that could represent its ASW force.

I can't argue with you if you want to look at the game that way. You can justify anything if you try hard enough. Maybe the CV has a very high anti-sub defense strength because it has leprechaun spotters who shit depth charges.

But there are times, like this one, when one can successfully explain something with very little effort at all.

You've certainly explained it, maybe with little effort; but, not successfully.

If carriers have support units that give it its high anti-sub defense, what about battleships? Shouldn't they also have support units? Shouldn't they also have a very high anti-sub defense? What about light tanks -- don't they have support units, like flak and AA, so shouldn't they have a very high anti-air defense strength? Infantry have anti-tank gun and bazooka support units -- shouldn't they have a high anti-tank defense strength?

Don't you think there should be specialist units in this game? In other words, should units be good at some things and bad at others? Or should everything be good at everything?

Isn't the destroyer supposed to be the anti-sub unit in this game? If you're worried your battleships will get attacked by subs, shouldn't destroyers, not carriers, be the unit you build to escort them? As it is right now, carriers make superior anti-sub escorts.

Let's say Bytro introduces another new unit. We'll say it's a rocket artillery, like a katushya, a truck with a rack of rockets in the back. Let's say the devs, for some reason, give it a 7 anti-air defense at level 1. That's better than the AA unit at level one. Would you argue that it's justified, because the katushya has support units?

I think its more that alot of CV at the time had anti-sub weaponary on station, giving them the ability to fend of Submarines.

As I said before, Subs got nerfed to shit, so when Carriers came out, most things could destroy a submarine. You've just got to get over the issue and move on. Carriers are OP, Subs got nerfed- end of.

Until the next patch, which is likely in two weeks time, Carriers will be OP.

If you want me to "move on", you've got to stop coming here and posting crappy arguments justifying the carrier's too-high stats. It's making me feel obligated to keep posting to defend my reasoning... though I might decide this forum is a waste of time, and move on. It's not like a particularly enjoy this; I do it because I like the game and am hoping that something that is obviously off will be corrected.

The overwhelming majority of the time, if not ALL the time, carriers relied on aircraft and destroyer escorts to deal with subs. Everyone knows this. If they had any kind of anti-sub weaponry installed at all, it never got used. In other words, it's a stupid justification for such a high anti-sub defense strength.

Then the next sentence you say that subs got nerfed, implying that everything can destroy subs now. Not true; I sink battleships with one or two subs all the time. Carriers kill subs because they have the highest anti-sub defense strength in the game (better than destroyers!), not because subs were nerfed.

Then you admit that carriers are overpowered. Again, if you agree, why not just say "I agree". Why all the fluff, all the telling me to move on, etc.. It's a bit annoying.

I haven't looked at all the responses, sorry. but assuming your values are correct carriers do seem a bit strong. The constant comparison to WW2 reality is getting old. This is not WW2. This is an online game that needs to be balanced and that is the main consideration, not how strong an actual AC carrier might have been back in the day. I haven't looked at carriers much but they do have pretty high defense against ships. At this point though, I don't think it's clear that the values are imbalanced. It will take some real play testing over some months to determine this.

DxC wrote:

I haven't looked at all the responses, sorry. but assuming your values are correct carriers do seem a bit strong. The constant comparison to WW2 reality is getting old. This is not WW2. This is an online game that needs to be balanced and that is the main consideration, not how strong an actual AC carrier might have been back in the day. I haven't looked at carriers much but they do have pretty high defense against ships. At this point though, I don't think it's clear that the values are imbalanced. It will take some real play testing over some months to determine this.

I think the anti-ship defense strength is way too high; but my main gripe is the very high anti-sub defense strength.

The ship defense strength will only come into play if attacking ships move onto a carrier. It's off, but it's not as big a deal. More annoying is the very high anti-sub defense; combined with its 75 hit points, it means the carrier that sails around by itself will not die if attacked by a few subs. This is wrong, because if a player wants to sail a carrier around with no escort, he deserves to lose that carrier.

Well the HP is the issue. A maxed out AC gets 5 attack vs attacking sub which gets 5.5, FYI. But the 75 vs 25 HP does seem imbalanced to me. It's hard to tell how it will play out once people start using these a lot, but it does seem like the advantage of having navel bombers on ship should make the AC a bit weaker. 75 is a lot of HP to kill. I would say, even for beta testing to decrease it to say 40.

It looks like they matched the HP of AC to BS. For one thing, no one uses BS because they suck so bad vs subs. Since AC are in a completely different category in terms of usefulness, they should be easier to kill than BS. Much easier.

DxC wrote:

... Since AC are in a completely different category in terms of usefulness, they should be easier to kill than BS. Much easier.

It's not just the 75 hit points, but a combination of 75 hit points plus 5 anti-sub defense strength, that blows subs away. Battleships have 75 hp also, but their anti-sub defense is so low they still lose when attacked by 1 or 2 subs.

I think to fix carriers they should be given 50 hit points, maybe 3 anti-ship defense strength, and 0.5 anti-sub defense strength. Maybe the anti-aircraft defense should be lowered a little too.

Zazmio wrote:

though I might decide this forum is a waste of time, and move on.

The game in which I was building CVs has ended and now, I realize, I forgot to name one of them "Squiggles of the Sea".

As I was the only one with an economy to support CVs (or any sort of navy that mattered) I didn't get the chance to see if their stats mattered.

Zazmio wrote:

If you want me to "move on", you've got to stop coming here and posting crappy arguments justifying the carrier's too-high stats. It's making me feel obligated to keep posting to defend my reasoning... though I might decide this forum is a waste of time, and move on. It's not like a particularly enjoy this; I do it because I like the game and am hoping that something that is obviously off will be corrected.

The overwhelming majority of the time, if not ALL the time, carriers relied on aircraft and destroyer escorts to deal with subs. Everyone knows this. If they had any kind of anti-sub weaponry installed at all, it never got used. In other words, it's a stupid justification for such a high anti-sub defense strength.

Then the next sentence you say that subs got nerfed, implying that everything can destroy subs now. Not true; I sink battleships with one or two subs all the time. Carriers kill subs because they have the highest anti-sub defense strength in the game (better than destroyers!), not because subs were nerfed.

Then you admit that carriers are overpowered. Again, if you agree, why not just say "I agree". Why all the fluff, all the telling me to move on, etc.. It's a bit annoying.

I honestly don't really care about this post, I find you rather condescending and I would prefer it moved on from these forums.

So, unless you can have a debate in a civilized fashion, and can accept people wil think different to you, i suggest you leave the forums: because not everyone is going to agree with you on every subject.

TankBuster wrote:

because not everyone is going to agree with you on every subject.

So is telling me to move on being mature and debating in a civilized manner? I called your argument crappy because it is what it is -- a shitty argument. Nothing personal was meant by it; I was just calling it as I saw it.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. However, if I take the time to point out something that I think is a problem in the game, I expect people to put some thought into their responses. Instead, the message is getting drowned out by inane, one or two word posts, "like" fishing spam, and people agreeing with the spam.

Frankly, many of you are just being fanboys; in other words, Bytro can do no wrong in your eyes, so you'll use even the most idiot arguments to try and shut down constructive criticism of the game. I'm not really surprised; welcome to the internet, right? But I like the game, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Zazmio wrote:

However, if I take the time to point out something that I think is a problem in the game, I expect people to put some thought into their responses