Figment

Cowardice is a natural instinct. When you have two opponents, the first thing they do is size each other up: can they win or not? You'll note that before there's a fight in real life, there's a lot of posing involved. Threatening though is an attitude that's halfway between fighting and fleeing: if you think you'd end up losing the engagement, chances are you'll flee. Intimidation and postering actually works in games as well. Intelligent players may see through your posturing more easily though, but the amount of times a WoT player doesn't engage a reloading enemy on the other side of the corner, but backs off or waits just because it is looking in that player's direction at that time, even if storming could make it win? The amount of times I've been able to finish my AMX, KV, Obj or IS reloading because the other guy didn't know if I was loaded and pretended to make a move on him? Happened so often I can't keep count. An intelligent player would realise "hey, he just fired" or "I counted his shots, he's empty or only has one left, so he's just bluffing". But a bad player? He'd get insecure and scared. And may either wait, keep sizing the other up or waiting for that other player's move, avoid or they may even flee (it's easier to react instinctively if you have to respond and you're forced to make a decission, which a lot of player's can't). And bad players have had bad results in the past, thus they will feel they'll lose sooner, making everything scarier. They will spot opportunities less easily, don't coordinate well (if they even realise they got assistance) and they'll make different decisions from people who know what they could do as a team, often they'll opt to sacrifice others to keep themselves alive a little longer, without realising they're isolating themselves and making everyone on their team easier targets. Especially if they throw away control of a flank. All of which reinforcing their idea that the opposition is scary beyond believe (and of course, being alone vs more enemies or in bad situations and spots, they'll feel their tools are crap). As they scare more easily, they're more cautious, more cowardly and end up being too far from battle or too late to be decisive. Even if they have aiming skills and deal "sufficient damage", these players tend to deal that damage in the period when their chance to change the outcome of the match has already passed. You'll see this with campers in WoT as well: sitting in the back, finishing off low healths that charge them, after having wasted 10-12 minutes without firing a shot and having no dps output, yet ending with most kills and thinking they're awesome unlike the rest. So yeah, you'll find a lot of players here that in their cruisers or BB act just like IS-7 players sitting behind artillery. Stay in a situation where they're not forced to make decisions, where they're not under threat for a long time and where they think they can snipe from safety, without realising they're not optimising their team's and thus their own chances of winning and dealing damage properly. And yes, that's a lot of people we're talking about.

That and any straits near the edge forcing people to fight really close to it, combined with having to be at speed to not get hit constantly. A soft border has to exist in that scenario. Without a soft border as some people are incredibly STILL proposing, a border that would be like island walls... Well, it'd be like playing near C in the strait map, only in every map, around every edge. I don't have to remind anyone that it means battleships would start extreme avoidance behaviour of these areas, causing extreme cowardice and loss of support and less pushing. Even "wide" openings would be avoided by BBs, because it would mean having to commit to going forward, which they don't dare. Right now they can turn back when it turns out there's 7 ships there. To turn back in the future, they would have to turn into the enemy, away from the border if they tried a long distance approach along the border (currently they can use the border to turn back). Alternatively, they'd take the inner route and have to turn towards the border and risk coming to a complete standstill. Also unwanted because that is certain death too. So what will they do instead? NOTHING. They'll just wait, or turn back where it's safe and camp more. Isn't that awesome? It would make it a lot easier for DDs (great, even more pure-BB-captain whining) and it would generally cause a huge pile of frustration to hit the forums. Not that the people proposing it care. Yet. It'd have such a huge impact on survivability that most players couldn't turn in time anymore since they have very poor feeling to how much time they have left before they can't make a turn and they're in tunnel vision so often... Their window of opportunity regarding firing (especially with BBs, but also with other ships) being so small, they just couldn't play in most areas near the border edge at all without becoming extremely sensitive to torpedo attacks and AP citadel hits. I don't think the majority of complainers here have any idea how much hitpoints they owe to these borders being flexible for turning (both offensively and defensively). And then I'm not talking about purposeful border hugging, I'm talking about escape opportunities and not losing lots of speed, let alone all speed, by coming into the border at a bad angle. Let alone becoming STUCK on the border as the "island" idea would cause a lot, fixing an erroneous steering, finishing a turn in the direction you've been turning your turrets for for the last 30 seconds, etc. The amount of things impacted by simply being able to steer and move on is so much bigger than the capacity to border hug. So much so I very much doubt any of them really comprehend what they're supposedly willing to throw away. And just because a few percent of the populace in a few percent of the matches annoys them temporarily by causing a few misses. Automatic steering? Please no. Turned off automatic collission avoidance for a good reason: it got you stuck (and thus killed) and more often than not turned you in the direction you didn't want to go. You add this to the border and you'll just ram islands and land masses that are on the border on a regular basis, while you lose track of your target just as you were about to shoot before you lost control of your ship. I'm quite sure a lot of IJN ship captains would be so happy with those moments (what with slower turning turrets than the hull can turn). I'm sorry, but people proposing "island walls" on the edge are really not good at predicting consequences and havn't thought it through. And that's the mild judgement...

You know, I think it'd be great if the USN DDs would get increasingly longlasting smoke. Say +3 seconds fog duration per tier up to tier 7, an initial +33% fog emission time over the IJN DDs at low tiers and a +5s emission time at tier 8-10, creating larger fog fields. At that point, you've got signficantly different playstyles from IJN DDs in which low range torps can be viably used and retreated from after usage, still at a higher risk due to proximity vs detection range than IJN DDs.

Actually, I'm just asking you to abide by forum rules as everyone should: search if a topic exists before making a new one is a standard forum rule to prevent spamming. Your response to my request to do so showed you think you yourself are more important than other forum members whome's threads get canned for being duplicate threads. Pure arrogance? Yeah, I see a lot of self-righteous and selfish people (in this thread too) and I don't use kitten gloves to handle them, no. They do annoy me, a lot. Social skills? Please. People are jumping on an angry mob witch hunt bandwagon and you talk to me about social skills?

Uhm, under 300m, which is the torp activation range: torps would simply become duds if you sail into them at that point. Or land on land at that proximity, so they'd have to go around to the other side. Hence why most carriers will try to torp you at the exit of a strait (probably at an angle if they can hatch), rather than inside of the strait where there's no room for torps to activate, where they're forced to fire along your ship's length direction. It's quite tricky to launch close to land because some torps might hit the cliff or you fire from too close. Hence also why most CV will fly around and switch to the other side. So all you gain is some AA exposure time. EDIT: But that's not really to do with the steepness of the cliff, if that was what you were on about come to think of it.

If you're close enough to them, it actually works. I would like the camera to allow you to pan up high enough to see dive bombers and be able to manually target them though if they're really close.

Actually I proposed several things, the following to me seems the only viable option: Dampening field on the border: will reduce your speed so if you stay there for a prolonged period of time, reduces your turn rate and ability to drift/border hug and get away It doesn't remove the exploit completely, but makes it relatively worthless. The longer you try to hug, the easier you become to hit. Now, people with broken rudders and engines don't suffer from this. Also doesn't drive you into islands without a way to get out. I maintain that a turn capacity and control has to remain on the border edge though, to help players simply survive and play as intended. EDIT: But yes, I think it's a big deal: I don't like the game to win me matches by creating tons of easy kills that accidentally ran into the border. In this game, due to the nature of combat, becoming motionless or taking extra damage... that's just a death sentence. You need different borders with respect to WoT where you can quickly back up and accelerate again.

Just open the spoiler in the previous post and check the personal attacks I've received from him. I'd say I'm quite gentile on the poor lad. EDIT: And quite calm I'd say. If anyone is throwing a fit... It's not me. I'm just not giving him the satisfaction of thinking he could bully me out of a thread though, besides. If someone like him is keen on digging his own grave after that PM session? I'm not going to stop him from doing so...

[edited]

Speaking of conversationalist and trying to piss other people off, you want me to go public with our "private intimate PM session" towards me? 'Cause that could be interesting, disclosing your 'agenda' and methods of 'conversation'. It's rated (im)mature.

So far my "agenda" is holding it's own on arguments. As far as "imaginary skills" are concerned, or trying to insult others with your experience vs attitude line, who's trying to taunt? You. Pot, kettle. Here, have that mirror back.

I care for the good of the game alright, I'm just interested in protecting those you and others unintentionally seek to hurt. You find a good way to stop the exploit without creating even easier kills and without collateral damage and we'll talk. I'm not a fan of exploits, but this happens to be one that is only mildly effective and not against players who know how to compensate for the border drifting. Which is apparently really hard to accept for some people, that you can actually compensate for it or simply deal with it. A gracing period won't work as I said before, because you can just steer away long enough to not make the penalty kick in and reset that effect if you're trying to use it, or just do it anyway to deal with torps and take the minimal damage or use the gracing period to get away with it. It simply practically doesn't work to solve the issues people want to get rid of. And engine/steering can't be broken? You can't run into an island on the border either then? Do tell me how someone is going to get away from that situation even with a grace period. If you go to the definitions in dictionary of exploit and cheating, you'll find that exploiting in this context is "taking advantage of" (in an unethical way). Cheating is trickery, swindling, fraud etc. Two different things. Much as I don't like exploiters, I care more for the people me and others would completely pulverise through the border systems proposed. Particularly those that want to treat it like an island. They have no really good idea what the consequences would be, or trivialise it even if they would affect those people far more. THAT is what I find wrong with the attitude. PS: You don't see threads about it because most people don't know about them unless they want to use them. On top of that you can't tell who is and who isn't using it, which makes it harder to complain about. Border hugging is obvious, so of course you're going to see more random threads complain about that. In the threads asking about the mods, I see lots of people raising eyebrows... Especially when it's clear there's advantages to be gained over vanilla through mods. Still there's been lots of threads debating whether mods are actually okay to use since CBT. Even a poll going atm. ammattimies, on 22 September 2015 - 07:32 PM, said: So far I haven't met any experienced players, only big attitudes Stop looking in the mirror.

Citronvand, on 22 September 2015 - 05:42 PM, said: That doesn't really persuade me that it is a bad idea to implement a punishment. A lot of things are decisive when you're on low health, and no, it's possible to not affect those people by having a grace period where it takes X seconds before something "bad" happens to you on the border. The goal is not to punish exploiters, the goal is to remove them or specifically the exploit in question. If people have something to gain from border gliding then they will continue to do so until they lose more than they gain. And yet you're punishing other people than exploiters by tarring them as such. That's a bad solution, regardless what you personally think of it and it should NEVER be done. Citronvand, on 22 September 2015 - 05:42 PM, said: That might be your definition. To my knowledge WG does NOT want border gliding and while they haven't banned it, it is definitely not an intended game design/feature. By the way, they haven't explicitly banned crosshair mods either so ergo it is not cheating. It's not my definition, it's THE definition. Unwanted is not the same as banned. Something that's banned is considered cheating, something that's an unfortunate consequence of game design that's tolerated for the time being even if unintended, is a "feature pending change". Crosshair mods aren't banned, but are an external third party "improvement" that affect the quality of gameplay between different players in the same game space. Hence it is technically cheating. An exploit does not change the capacity of different players and doesn't require an external source to implement. If you had a tool that made ships drift in game when normally they wouldn't, then it would be cheating. Citronvand, on 22 September 2015 - 05:42 PM, said: Now we could argue semantics all day what is an exploit/cheat but that is not really productive. The fact still remains that border gliding is not an intended feature and there are tons posts complaining about it. So it is an issue even though you, personally, don't have any problem with it. Hey you were redefining the worldwide accepted definition of exploiting by substituting it with your own definition on purpose, don't come here saying you don't want a semantics discussion when you started comparing it with cheating and argueing about my supposed duality in definition (double standard accusation) yourself. Intended or not (and no, we can agree it's unintended), the leading issue is something they can address in another way much easier: changing the visual wake of the ship, allowing players to see drift. I never said it isn't an issue, but it's a minor issue. Tons of people complain about torpedoes as well. An argument ad populum doesn't make you any more right. I don't care if there's 70.000 threads on a topic, it's virtually always the same people complaining anyway, so it isn't an argument ad populum either, it's an argument ad whinum. ammattimies, on 22 September 2015 - 05:53 PM, said: So what you're basically saying here is border slidey grind makes harder targets for all normal players but not for Excellent ones like yourself. This point of yours is well founded and I think all discussionists here will thank you for it. See how conveniently I managed to pull the carpet under all the blahblah you managed to pollute this thread (among others) with. All you need to do now is create your own threads like "ELITE PLAYERS feedback/bug reports" for those few of you who have problems understanding that casual players perform casually, and if it's too hard for them, it's affecting the good players among their teams as well. And therefore I'm also inviting you to leave the rabble here in peace to discuss a problem that us normal players have. EDIT: I'll even take this a little further and encourage all posters from now on to put in their topics "Not for Figment" Basically, yes, better players have far less issues with leading in these situations because they recognise it, have observed behaviour patterns and anticipate and lead accordingly, while poorer players just spam in the hopes of hitting something, without so much of an educated guess. As said, this is largely due to lack of clear visual indicators being used, opposed to the more subtle indicators (angle of ship and turn rate) that I use for leading in those circumstances, which is harder to compensate for by poorer players. As much as you like this to be arrogance, it's simply fact. Not everyone is equal and a lot of people are sadly just crappy players. I really wish the opposition I face in game was better for my enjoyment, but alas, they're not. Now, I can say they are awesome to not hurt their feelings (as clearly you've got a problem with it when someone gives a reality check), but I wouldn't be doing them any favours. I'd just help them delude themselves into thinking they're good. Regarding the rest, 'elite' players have a better grasp of the game. Think any game developer will tell you they're more worthwhile to listen to since they actually know what they're talking about... And what do you think supertesters are for? You may call me arrogant, but your opinion of me being arrogant doesn't actually make me wrong. It just means you're annoyed I can back my claims up with performance and point out you're not performing as well as others. That is annoyance with hearing about your own lack of skills and not wanting to hear critique on your own performance because you don't want it to be down to your performance. I'm just the messenger reminding you about your performance and how it colours your frame of reference. That you don't like that is your problem. I'm not going anywhere when you're trying to adjust MY gameplay and that of others for your own benefit, rather than everyone's benefit.

Simpler way of winning: 1. Be VERY aggressive as a team. Make the enemy fall back a bit long enough to get one or two zones with the rest neutral. BBs can try to cap when there's only one or two DD especially, send BBs to the outer zones, cruisers and DD control inner zones with BB supporting them. 2. Split up in two groups of main ships at most, the enemy will be in view of both groups all match anyway, better to make them turn turrets than be predictable and have the same angles they can hide from. 3. Prioritise cruisers and DD as targets. Leave battleships for last, ignore carriers altogether. Get a numerical and zone control advantage asap. CV prioritises BBs and enemy CV. 4. Whatever you do, focus fire on the low health / easy to kill targets -> capping targets -> front targets (in mostly that order). 5. Finish the game. About the "don't leave BBs to go alone". I tend to do this as I can generally handle two - three targets on my own and can handle myself in melee with a Nagato, as long as they don't citadel me early with mass BB spam. Torp planes are generally not a major issue, especially not if the CV does its role of using fighters to defend, rather than just escort themselves.

Citronvand, on 22 September 2015 - 04:45 PM, said: Why? It doesn't have to be something excessive like your ship blows up but something minor that gradually grows stronger the longer you are on the line. Something minor when you're already low health can be extremely decisive - I've even seen minor damage from two friendlies cause blowing up because one of them was at 670 hp and had a broken rudder, causing it to hug the other friendly ship against an island. No. Not a single point of damage from sailing into nothing. You're punishing people for something that will happen in game, whether they want it to happen or not. By the time you've got this implemented, THE ONLY PEOPLE who will suffer from this are those who are there by accident, since nobody would be there on purpose. So you're not hurting anyone but those who do this by accident. Yes, those other people will mostly be gone, but, you're now causing just collatoral damage, forever. In the long run, no exploiter suffers, just those who are there by accident. Citronvand, on 22 September 2015 - 04:45 PM, said: The thing is that this is an exploit and exploits are a form of cheating. Considering your stance to cheating, reading your posts about crosshair mods for instance, I find it strange that you defend exploits. Exploits aren't the same as cheating and no, they're not a form of cheating unless the company explicitly bans the usage of a bug or "feature" till a fix has been presented. Exploits is abusing an in game design mechanics to gain some sort of advantage. Cheating is changing the game parameters itself with an outside influence to gain an advantage. And yes, you are an easier target on the border. The problem is people have no visual indicators to gauge size, acceleration and speed, so they have to guess by experience and observation of angle with respect to ship speed (wake) and decompose the vector, a skill which they tend not to have, which is why it's abused so much. Not because it makes you invulnerable, it makes you less intuitive a target and now a brain is required. However, the lead you need on a turning target is far less extreme, so you should have a bigger chance of actually hitting them if you know that's the case and you time your shot such that you know their current move is going to continue due to rudder rotation (commitment to a course). Of course you just don't target a border hugger if it can be helped at distances over 13km, since then shell travel time takes too long. Those you just ignore for other targets.

So people with an Android phone would have to get an Apple for a free ship? ;)

Those (1 and 2) are two different things. [1] Is an unintended consequence of game design that's hard to remove without stripping people from basic survivability. It can at most be detered a little, but you can't outright punish it. On top of that, it's very situational and the work arounds are plentiful for the opposition. [2] Is an advantage gained by third party software. This is a deliberate out of game attempt to rig the game in your favour structurally in any and all situations. There is no work around for the opposition either.

1: No, normal scenario is dependent on how the 12 vs 12 panned out, where the CV is in large part reliant on its allies not messing up. Even a well playing CV can be put in a disadvantageous position. 2: I dare you to quote me on where I said anything about tier 10. I'm talking about skills you don't have. Maybe you need to learn to read too. As for the quote below, if you genuinly think you're more skilled than I am, you're an extremely arrogant person who has no realistic view of himself. And again with the ridiculous tier 10 comment. You're basically making a fool out of yourself with these baseless accusations, assumptions and claims. You're rapidly losing respect points from me, which probably means the sarcasm and disdain levels in my posts will rise when speaking to you. PS: That you reach top spot now and then doesn't mean much, especially not to me since it's rare I don't have top three, at all. Your performance is simply mediocre. And it doesn't have to be stellar to be better than rest. However, it is clear that it impairs your judgment about what the capabilities of the ships are. THAT is my point.

The penalty for hitting an island is almost certain death from enemy ships. I would think that's harsh enough. Collissions happen because people are incentized to be in gunner mode due to the one player one unit setup of the game. This hinders the situational awareness of most players, particularly those who can't prioritise sailing over gunning. They are penalized enough by becoming easy targets when hitting an island or friendly ships for instance. In CBT, collissions between allies caused both to explode. This penalized all other players on that team next to the ones who collided. Note, there's still no collission warning between friendly ships. I'm under the firm believe that the fast majority of humanity is too dense to scrape their own butt, let alone play a game smart and a team game of randoms as an actual team. Communication is bad, situational awareness is bad. Punishing people who are already punished by their own actions - let alone by the game mechanics (randomly broken equipment) - already get punished through that and it won't help them get any better, because you reduce their chance of learning. If you want to use punishment so eagerly and like to make strawmen (comment about moving through one another) and think that's a great idea to hold a debate, then I can make a couple strawmen as well: Why don't we punish people who can't aim? Why don't we punish people who don't move their CV? Why don't we punish people who all sail in the same direction as the rest leaving cap empty? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY PUNISHED FOR IT. If you sail into the border, you're already an easier target. Not for the people who don't know how to lead and decompose a vector and account for acceleration, no. But that's something you can learn to predict and aim for. Like your argument that you can "learn not to hit the border", you can also learn to hit a target on the border. And the latter is far easier, I would say.

Really? If you can already outperform the US CV with a tier V IJN carrier, a tier VI should be even easier.

Let's see you get out of tier 5 DD first, when the enemy becomes mildly competent (only mildly) and your tools are getting worse.

Let me FIX and finish that sentence for you: "As long as this side-effect exploit from the border design exists, you still need only ONE topic to discuss it".

Ah and you determine what a "normal" scenario is... Who said anything about getting into "ramming" distance? I've actually sunk a BB as a Lexington in CBT from ramming distance using my secondaries and outmaneouvring btw, but that's beside the point and hardly a normal scenario either. Being faster doesn't mean you can get away. That all depends on where you've been herded by the enemy as a CV and what openings they left to escape, IF they left openings to escape. You ASSUME they did. But you forget the EXTREMELY LIKELY scenario that a CV has had to fend off cruisers and DDs with its aircraft, that didn't allow it to get away to the other side of the map, while the defensive air usage allowed enemy BBs to get close enough to make escape unlikely if not impossible. You completely neglect the scenario where BBs come from two different directions, forcing a CV either into a corner, into or near at least one of the two ships in an attempt to escape and you neglect the possibility of the CV user simply being too late to recognise the threat. You assume far too many things to make any indication on "how it will end" simply because there are far too many factors and variables that could cause the game to go different. Instead, I see here a couple anti-CV people with rather meh stats theorycrafting from a situation where the BBs have to come from the other side of the map, ideal CV user, bad BB players, no pre-history to the fight that got them in these positions (aside from assuming the CV is in perfect position and working order for no reason). Have you got any idea how often a CV ends up virtually out of aircraft due to being forced to engage targets they rather not want to? Being distracted or enemy RNG luck causing the loss of aircraft, having to sacrifice some to save others or making a decision that cost them a few more aircraft than expected? It is by no means a set in stone case that if you have one CV left at the end of the match that it is capable of killing two BBs in whatever state those ships are in. So please do not try to present it as such. IF IT IS and all basic conditions favour the CV, there still shouldn't be so much distance between CV and BB, that the flight time makes it impossible to take both out. After all, it takes a lot of time to strike with a CV. Especially if the enemy BB is smart enough to make itself a hard target. And let's face it, most players aren't that capable, but that's still THEIR fault primarily and not their tool's fault. I don't think you have the authority to make a claim about what a BB can and cannot do. You have far too varying and put out far too low damage with your BBs to be taken serious as an expert on the matter. Sorry, but you're not so awesome you can exclude possibilities with an appeal to authority (which is what you do when you say "it can't be done"). Am I an authority? Probably not (I mean, only average of 60% winrate in them and deal 25-50% more damage than you), but I'm to such a degree capable that I can assure you my experiences provide me with a completely different perspective about the survival and dodging chances of a BB that's well managed. In my experience it is VERY MUCH SO possible to dodge torpedoes of two torp bomber squadrons, provided you act on time, set the right priorities, predict the CV player properly and control rudder and speed such that you're hard to predict yourself. There are situations where you can't dodge, but then that's because there's three torp bombers coming in at the same time. You should never be in a position where both torp bomber squadrons can fire torps in your side, one of them should always be such that you can pass between the torps, quite frequently a speed change and sharp turn can make you dodge the second squadron too, provided you killed some of the torp bombers by prioritising that as your AA target. So no, I don't recognise my BBs in your claim. Sounds to me like you personally need practice with BB torp dodging, because I'm dodging torps left and right and only very well placed hatches guarantee one or two hits. To me it's exceptional to be hit by more than two torps and it's usualy completely my fault if that does happen.

Btw, often see bad players take a route that chases the CV along the same route, rather than heading to where the CV is trying to escape to and cornering them. You so often see people take a route through a corner chasing that CV instead of herding it into the corner, you just wonder if they understand the concept of a shortcut.

Sigh. What I'm doing is something that is beyond you apparently. Sadly your short term memory only makes you remember the last post in a conversation, apparently. I said earlier balance in this game is situational. Depending on the situation, 1 BB can kill two CVs, or 1 CV can kill two BBs. I'm merely posting alternative scenarios (which in my experience are far more often occurances anyway) where a BB has the upper hand, scenarios that had been completely ignored previously. You continuously make extremely bad and biased assumptions (favouring CVs), which I can't see as guaranteed to be true. In my experience, can be quite the opposite. It's also funny you ignore the option that after 12 vs 12 dwindling down to 2 vs 1, that CV would be in perfect condition in terms of aircraft health. You wonder where that AA cruiser came from, without realising there's always AA cruisers in game. Yes even tier 4-5 have fighter aircraft now that can disrupt enemy aircraft a lot. CVs don't always have the luxury to fight outside of AA bubbles, without being an idiot, any CV may risk losing a lot of aircraft due to the enemy teams coordination. In fact, it wouldn't be the first time my BBs killed 20 aircraft myself (in CBT my record was 27 with an Amagi). Yes, even at tier 5 (my Kongo record is 11 aircraft shot down, Myogi is 9, Wyoming 7, New York 8 and Fuso at 15). Now imagine those two BBs covering each other with AA, and the chances of losing aircraft increase a lot. That CV hasn't saved up all its aircraft just for you. It has had opposition from at least one enemy CV during the match, which may have cost it aircraft as well. So yes, you keep presuming perfect conditions and certain outcomes. I presume practical conditions may vary, resulting in very different POTENTIAL outcomes. CV may win, but so might BBs. Especially when a cap circle is added to the mix. PS: during the time that CV has been busy sinking that one BB in the pincer movement, it may have taken damage from one or both ships, may have caught fire and the other BB may simply have gotten too close. So no, you can't just say "oh it sunk one so now it won against both ships". It's far too conditional and situational to make such claims.