Pukovnik7

I think every ship should get a crawling smoke that activates as soon as carrier planes reach a certain distance...

Playing CV (and sub) is the definition of being toxic.

I usually wait for the sub to launch torpedoes and then drop airstrike there. But yeah, subs are bloody annoying. Even if they were much less of a threat than they are, they would be dangerous because they are so stupidly distracting.

Well yeah, they are the reason why Wargaming pushes carriers and submarines. Players who care about other people would never play such things.

So doing a purely symbolic action that causes no real disadvantage is not fine, yet ruining other people's experience for your own sick amusement is? What world do you live in, exactly?

This is a team game. There is no excuse for doing things that ruin the game experience for other players. You want to be a piece of crap, go play COOP or find a singleplayer game. There are very good carrier and submarine games out there: I had even recommended some.

I'm not the one playing carriers and submarines, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

So how about showing results of these surveys, and more importantly, what you intend to do in response to them?

Actually, it does. I report CV and SS players on both my and enemy team, at the beginning and the end of the match. Even if I know it is useless, doing that is surprisingly good stress relief.

Same here. However... I think it is partly a force of habit. For a BB push to be successful, especially on mentally retarded wide open high tier maps, you need to a) wait for the right opportunity and b) have support of the teammates. But that is not something that can be relied on. I have had cases where I pushed forward to support a destroyer, only for destroyer to turn around and leave me... and a BB that shows broadside... yeah. Once you push in a BB, you are committed. But main problem I think are maps. At high tiers games, with wide-open maps, HE-rapid-fire-spewing smoke cruisers and destroyers, and literally no cover, pushing is impossible. Even if you get a 12v12 BB game (which I never had), pushing would still be impossible because majority of either team would be able to focus the pushing ship and burn him down in very short time. You want sane games, stay at low to mid tiers. High tier maps are just stupid. What I don't understand are BBs being pushed abandoning perfectly good defensive positions because apparently they are afraid of getting into secondary gun range...

How about you give destroyers cloaking devices as well? I mean this is literally what submarines have, and apparently it is not enough, because submarines can *gasp* accidentally detect each other. What are submarine players, a bunch of toddlers so you have to baby them like this? And why are destroyers not this coddled? Please, remove hydro, remove radar, remove submarines, remove aircraft carriers... pretty please?

Couple of days ago I got detonated in Grosser Kurfurst by a single torpedo salvo from Nakhimov. How the hell does this even work? Does a CV have nuke-tipped torpedoes? Just for people who don't have a clue about history or physics (which apparently includes game developers): battleships are large. That means that there is a significant distance between the hull of the ship and the magazine. Also, torpedo defense system was designed specifically to a) contain the explosion and b) catch the splinters. Now, it is true that torpedo defense system abreast the magazines was weak. On American fast battleships. Reason for this was hull shape, with hull tapering significantly abreast of the A turret and going to a very fine point. Kinda like a dart. What this meant was that the available depth was very limited. Further, the fact that the American battleships used angled internal belt meant that TDS itself was of a very limited effectiveness. With other battleships, TDS did get weaker towards the ends of the citadel, but this was nowhere as pronounced. Even so, it was physically impossible for a carrier torpedo to reach the magazines. A destroyer or a submarine torpedo could do it, but not an air-dropped one. Warhead was simply too small. Just look at the difference here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php And even if magazine gets perforated by a torpedo, and gunpowder starts burning... it takes time to build up pressure. This fact saved several cruisers that had gotten torpedoed by destroyer torpedoes which did defeat their magazine area TDS and start a fire. TL;DR: It should be impossible for an aerial torpedo to detonate a destroyer, let alone a battleship. Second point: Majority of the CV-inflicted torpedo damage is not healable. That makes no sense, considering that a) air dropped torpedoes are weak and b) torpedoes in general impact the torpedo defense system, not the armored plate. CVs have too many advantages already. So why the hell do they get a detonation mechanic as well?

Nah. I just wanted to get it off my chest. That is what forum is for, after all. To let people vent about stuff that WG will do nothing about. I think this is my second time. But yeah, it was a fairly flat angle - torpedoes basically hit broadside (as I said, pig of a ship). And I know it was a detonation because of a) notification and b) I got the detonation flag afterwards. 20220815_074923_PGSB110-Grossdeutschland_19_OC_prey.wowsreplay OK, thanks. Honestly completely forgot about it - I usually run damage con party there, especially on battleships, for floods and fires.

What anti-detonation upgrade? There is a Juliet Charlie flag, and yes I do buy them, but I preserve those for destroyers. My point here is that I never had any clue I should have used that flag to protect my battleship from being detonated by a CV because it doesn't make any sense. I mean, sure, a destroyer has no TDS, no armor, and very low hull depth, so an air-dropped torpedo detonating it? I can buy that. Hence why I use the flag. But a battleship? It is not like I was hit by a destroyer torpedo - if I had, I wouldn't have been pissed off because, well, destroyer torpedo - those things are powerful, so flash reaching the magazines may make sense. But a carrier torpedo? That is simply making a stupidly broken class even more broken. Carriers should be removed from the game, not given every single potential advantage dev team can think of. How do you avoid that when faced with carrier torpedo spread? Grosser Kurfurst is a bloody pig, and I had cases of receiving broadside CV strikes in far more agile ships. I'm looking for FUN in a GAME. There is a reason why non-CV players call CVs "fun police". If you have a CV in the game, forget about having fun. More than once I considered going AFK to not have to deal with CVs, but that would be shitty towards my own team so I just bit it and played.

So you want an excuse to be able to ignore the surveys and say "this isn't really what the players want, this is fine". That's dumb.

I believe that lack of maintenance was one of main things that kept the Argentinian Navy in port. That, and presence of British nuclear submarines. On the Argentine side, well: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-one-argentine-submarine-kept-royal-navy-bay-during-falklands-war-145087

It is about hull shape, yes. But I do not recall any submarines in WoWS that have proper hull shape for that (not that I play them, mind you), and regardless, these submarines were not able to chase down destroyers. So yeah. Wargaming's submarines still run on magic pixie dust and tears of players.

Islands are basically "terrain" in World of Warships, and have a decisive impact on how the match plays out. But it sometimes seems to me that majority of maps, at higher tiers at least, islands are positioned to make the game as static as possible. Essentially what you get are shooting alleys, three corridors running north-south, which prevent maneuvering, make closing the distance difficult, and ensure that there is as little as possible close-range action. All I can think of is that WarGaming hates players having fun, for some reason.

The only multiplayer naval game I found that seems interesting is Naval Action, but it seems to have gone to shitters recently, much like World of Warships had, except far worse. And since it is not free to play, I am not interested in paying to be a guneia pig, even though it is actually not expensive. Other than that, and Star Trek Online, all naval games I play are single-player. So thus far I had found no replacement for World of Warships, unfortunately.

Nothing in this game makes sense to begin with, though, so "makes sense / realism" argument is worthless as it goes. This is an arcade game, not a simulation. I find artillery duels boring yet still play the game. So that argument is useless. Oh, I do that quite often. But it is too repetitive with mostly or just bots.

Personally, I would prefer mangrove forest islands... You do know that this is a naval combat GAME? As in, it is supposed to be fun? So why do you want it to be boring merely because of "muh realism"? Have you ever played Star Trek Online? According to your logic, they should have ship combat happening at 200 000+ kilometers, with ships unable to even see each other. Instead, they limited phaser range to some 10 kilometers or so, and starships behave more like oversized, slightly sluggish fighters than anything else. Why? Again, it is more fun that way. And no, there are no other multiplayer naval games that have close encounter experience as the core of the game. Trust me, I have looked. As for your last paragraph: fact that what you wrote is not true at higher tiers is precisely the issue I have. I am fine with sniping for 10 minutes or so, if I can have my brawl at the end. But majority of games at tier 9 and especially 10 seem to end without either side's battleships entering each others' secondary gun battery range. Game is decided at range, and if you want to have a brawl you have to literally chase the enemy all the way to the map border. That is stupid.

WW1 and WW2 naval battles also lasted for hours at least, days at most, and most of the time resulted in few or no ships sunk unless one side badly mispositioned because retreat was usually an option. Again, if you want realism, go play Rule the Waves. This game isn't even pretending to be realistic, so that excuse is, frankly, idiotic. And I'm quite certain I know more about naval warfare than you do. I just don't want to play a boring game. And having all the high tier maps be almost identical is the very definition of boring. Islands themselves are not a problem. Bad positioning of islands is. What is needed is more maps akin to Polar, Solomon Islands, Big Race, Fault Line, Neighbors and Hotspot. By contrast, Ice Islands, Mountain Range and The Atlantic maps are flat-out terrible. Personally, I would really like a "Mangrove Forest" map...

As I said, I haven't yet gotten to high tiers in Italian lines. But basically, what you do is find an island, and move so that you move towards it while cruiser is moving away from it. That way you can farm him while he can't shoot you at all.

CVs are broken by their nature. Even if a CV is not top scorer in the team, you can be certain that his contribution to victory (or else defeats) outweights basically anybody else's.

Are you trying to tell me Italian destroyers have torpedoes? HERESY! ...On a serious note: these are gunboats. Yes, you can stealth-torpedo in some Italian DD's, and it can be nice thing to have... but that's just what it is: nice to have. Always expect, and aim, your main damage to come from your guns. I mean, your concealment's already terrible, so it is not like you lose much by shooting non-stop. So far, guns have been my weapon of choice on Italian destroyers, no matter what I'm trying to damage. Another destroyer? Guns. Cruiser? Guns. Battleship? Guns. It is almost like playing Russian destroyers, except your torpedoes are... slightly less useless owing to their much longer range. But torpedoes are always situational, and I honestly mostly use them against enemy destroyers more than anything else.