Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SoliDeoGloria

IJN Kaga

19 posts in this topic

So we have news of Kaga. She will be tier 7, in 1935 config, and a hangar of 90 planes. I've heard speculations of a 0-2-4 loadout, based on ingame images from a WG livestream, but this appears to have a 1-2-2 setup. Also, lol, 10x 200mm secondaries.

32SwzFI.png

I'm probably buying her when it comes, even if I'm utter trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, 0-2-4 is like the mirror opposite of the Saipans 3-1-0 -seems like something wargaming would try.  I can only play low tier CV's and not very well at that.  This won't be on my shopping list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd spec CV meta confirmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love DD's trying to use guns on it with 10x200 mm. Looks like fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem, and I'm really hoping they do the Akagi in this manner, is having triple flight decks. Even if they don't have them working, it would be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to stop this nonsense.  The entire problem with IJN vs USN carrier imbalance is the bullshit "national flavor" plane loadout differences.  Having more squadrons (especially of fighters) will always be an advantage, so plane and squadron numbers should be moving closer to uniform, not further apart.  Tweak hit points and damage as needed to make them feel different, but not actual plane numbers.  Saipan's unique arrangement just exasperated the problem, and Kaga will do the same.

I hope they don't release this ship before they've executed whatever "fix" they're supposed to be working up for carrier mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to make it so you can choose your own individual squadron types. They can still balance with squadron size, HP, speed, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mesrith said:

They need to stop this nonsense.  The entire problem with IJN vs USN carrier imbalance is the bullshit "national flavor" plane loadout differences.  Having more squadrons (especially of fighters) will always be an advantage, so plane and squadron numbers should be moving closer to uniform, not further apart.  Tweak hit points and damage as needed to make them feel different, but not actual plane numbers.  Saipan's unique arrangement just exasperated the problem, and Kaga will do the same.

I hope they don't release this ship before they've executed whatever "fix" they're supposed to be working up for carrier mechanics.

Always having more squads of fighters in particular, is not actually an advantage or, at least, wasn't an advantage initially. At some point, only one squad could actually attack another squad (which they changed somewhen, I think). Simply having a larger squad, always meant that the larger squad held superiority over multiple smaller squads, especially since killing planes is not based on an actual hit-point-pool, but a wierd semi-RNG-based hitpoint-divided-by-DPS-in-percent-figure. The larger the squad, the more hitpoints it has and the lower the chance to actually loose a plane (and yes, this also applies to ship-based AA-fire). If you meant that on a purely strategical level, aka map control and setting up attack vectors, you are perfectly right though.

As for their magic fix for carriers, I'll hold my breath till I see details. I very much doubt they really understand what makes carriers tick within the meta of the game and them so often and prominently name-dropping interface-changes is, imo, a clear sign of them not having the slightest clue of what the fuck is wrong with them, not to even think about how long the carrier overhaul is in the pipeline already anyways. I mean, they even haven't understood why dive bombers are shunned so much and one of their prefered ways of nerfing IJN CVs, was giving them more dive bomber squads, which basically equals just removing a squad, as you barely ever hit anything with the 4-bomber-squads to begin with, not to even think about the miniscule damage they deal. Pretty much the only dive-bombers squad that actually works, is the Saipan's and even there people hate it for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't play carriers at initial launch, but yes, under the CV mechanics that have existed for over a year now, having more fighter squadrons is preferable to having fewer, bigger squadrons.

IJN dive bombers are only good for the fires they can start.  USN dive bombers are, IMO, very good from the Lexington up, but dive bombers will always be frustrating when there's an RNG element, and Defensive Fire or fighter panic is much harder on them than it is on torp bombers.  I think any real, long-term solution to carrier play is going to require nerfing AA or increasing plane survivability, reducing RNG, but lowering overall alpha damage output.  Make them more consistent, bring the floor and the ceiling closer to the middle, and reduce the difference between having a 35% potato CV on your team vs having a top-50 CV player that eliminates the first person to stray from the friendly AA bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been waiting so long to have an IJN premium CV to play since I've enjoyed the Saipan so much and have learned to enjoy CV play as a whole. An all strike loadout would be awful, and even a 1-2-2 loadout will outright lose to any CV it goes up against at tier 7 from a fighter perspective, but if it really does have 90 planes then there's a lot of room for forgiveness and will teach me to be sneakier with my strikes to avoid enemy fighters. The way I play now is basically "come get my planes fucker" and fly them to the middle of the map then come in with the fighters. Not exactly discreet by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually putting effort into learning how to CV, and unless I'm being camped by USN fighters, I haven't really had problems. I use my fighter squad to scout, and create a standoff over my team's AA, and then swing my bombers over to the other side of the map. I'm sure this will fail against a good player, but it's working thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are that it'd be opposite of Saipan: more planes of lesser tier.

Speculated flight comp is 2-2-2 with 5-plane TB squads and DB squads. If Kaga uses same T6 TB like Hiryu does, 10 torps per drop and large plane reserve might prove to be rather nasty for the tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CompanionCav said:

Words are that it'd be opposite of Saipan: more planes of lesser tier.

 

That would be utterly shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CompanionCav said:

Words are that it'd be opposite of Saipan: more planes of lesser tier.

Speculated flight comp is 2-2-2 with 5-plane TB squads and DB squads. If Kaga uses same T6 TB like Hiryu does, 10 torps per drop and large plane reserve might prove to be rather nasty for the tier.

Oh yay 20 torp cross drop, even DDs are going to feel the pain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

Oh yay 20 torp cross drop, even DDs are going to feel the pain

But dds can shoot them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

Oh yay 20 torp cross drop, even DDs are going to feel the pain

How does two squadrons of five torpedo bombers equal twenty torpedoes again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RollerCoaster47 said:

How does two squadrons of five torpedo bombers equal twenty torpedoes again?

Each plane drops two torpedoes per run:disco:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CompanionCav said:

Airship Kitakami?

4 squads of torpedo bombers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.