Beastofwar

Be very sure it is not your own actions that kill you..... Many AA cruisers like to hide from shell fire from enemy ships behind island mountain ridges, at the same time visually hidden able to ambush overflying aircraft targetting some other ship. This worked well for some weeks but all players learn and adapt. These mountain ridges are now used against you, as you yourself can not fire medium-long range AA through mountain ridges at aircraft specificly coming for you either ! That means that bombs are already falling on such AA cruisers before AA is doing something, and it will only be short range AA doing damage. Handicapping themselves that way is their own fault ! Out in the open AA cruisers are very vulnerable for bigger fish enemy ships......so most of them hide, and fall prey to this mechanic. But out in the open the highter tier ( T9-T10 ) AA cruisers are VERY deadly to squadrons, so your complaint isn't very credible unless you can describe what is happening better, and you are not hiding behind some mountian ridge or betweens islands....as this makes you very vulnerable as your long range or even medium range AA will not fire ( into mountain ridges ) and aircraft players that use these mountain ridges laugh at your stupidity shutting down your deadly medium-long range AA this way.

As of late i have noticed somehow rocket fighter became more viable again, making divebombing DD with US divebombers only a somehat niche thingy......probably not worth nerfing. A certain former DD player on this forum is advocate to this : according to his own posted result screens he can't stop firing rockets....most at DD i suspect. But then again maybe that is only because his divebombers carry AP bombs. Could be a solution for all US CV instead of nerfs

When you think of it a well known low tier ship like the Yubari is branded a (light) cruiser, but is in fact a large Destroyer simply designed to be the lead/flag ship of smaller ships ( Destroyer flotilla leader ) which is a RL role /reason to design ships, but we do not know that distinction in game. We often do notice it however when we expect it to be a class it isn't. This grey area between large destoryers and light cruisers will be often only a matter of WG programmed concealment stats, often but not always their gun caliber and consumables. But there is a grey area between heavy Cruisers and Battleships too, as Battlecruisers are unknown as a class and just branded Battleship confusing players expecting heavy armour and durability. Further confusing many as real battleships in later periods are just as fast as Battlecruisers were, without the reduced armour to be faster. It is probably not that far out to take on a role of a not that much different class, it must be quite viable with a Light Cruiser ( especially if it has smoke too ) to take on the role of a large Destroyer. But there are Destroyers without smoke ( choice now, for new French tech tree i read no choice ) too so why not take their role with a (light) Cruiser ?

Probably yes...

The excuses about communications do not explain why it is nessesary for customers who paid for CV's should not be able to get doubloons for a double, should that at all happen. I'm sure WG would not be hurt by some of those paying customers being able to get a nice unexpected doubloon ship from armoury for "free" Afterall they first supported WG to do their thing by buying CV's in the first place, but they get this treatment in return ? Not very nice....very hard to explain i'd expect too.

I admit i didnt know that, learned from that answer too...i am no Guru....happy ?

Could this have anything to do with me experiencing DD as uninteresting targets score/ XP/credit wise while i am repeatedly told the low HP of a DD are worth more then high HP on a BB ? Is this multiplied Xp/credits in that manner not a pure DD thing making up for their inconsistent dpm ? My guess is WG could have made attacking DD less attractive as they are in a pretty bad spot. Funny thing if that were to be true but the playerbase don't even notice it and till continues to mass whack DD's.

That was a short debate.....

According to our forum Guru the Lexington's AA and secondary battery are far more powerful. ( the CV as a ship ) This is true. Enterprise : You will have to do without (cruiser killing ) TiT's but get pretty hard hitting AP divebombs in return. But this also means you are forced to shoot HVAR's at DD's if that is your cup of tea. Squadrons and reserves are enlarged. Lexington : You get HE divebombers that are very dangerous to DD, but cause less damage to other ships unless you repeatedly set them on fire. You have the option to mount TiT's that wreck Cruisers. Aircraft have good durability.

The real answer you should have is i am not often top scoring player when doing 50k -100k in a CV in randoms. If i am top scoring there are other class players just below me without incredible scoring gaps. That means other class players do get more then 50k-100 K damage or a regular basis, and i do not have to prove this with my own ( old, grinding the Nelson/Mushashi/Jean Bart mindlessly ) stats....

I do not contest this. I merely have observed having clubbed many DD for weeks they yield scrawny rewards. Probably because their modules soak so much damage, or even more probable because spotting them has them shot from under me as in a cap they are usually in gun range of allied ships too. In other words : removing their HP is not often credited to me, but nearly always shared. I made this post because Cruisers seem more rewarding/threatning targets in more then one way. They block me torping BB's and they pose a treat burning down allied BB or flanking allied Cruisers with citadels....search& destroy allied DD as well...... Most even carry long range torpedo's making them important targets to take out. I have no clue why players shoot at BB as preferred targets, and leave these Cruisers alive untill late match. I won't because they would hinder me all match long making me pay a hefty sum for lost aircraft anyway. Agree, but it is not a bad idea to shar this with other CV players is it ? Maybe it gves some breathing space to DD allowing them to die in more traditional ways, fighting over a cap with each other or cruisers....will not take much longer to die i guess. Agree...but ofcourse i will keep tabs on them overflying them regularly. Among my kills in the screen i took was a DD...... I had two 100 K damage matches with retraining captains - shut down skills or reduced to 50 % - it mattered little.

And this is the only real issue at hand, the basis for all complaints. Because other ships damage/kill you too for the same or even more damage. Even shell salvo's always come from the air as well, making evasive actions from "air threats" a core thing in the game.....skies are never safe. This WG balancing guy Nelson said he is a server stats&data guy.....he will probably not nerf the hell out of classes that are balanced in numbers, stats and data because some players need to change their tactics and are perticulairly slow to do so.....there also players that have changed tactics, not rarely ending up top scoring. Because staying alive has a way of enabling you to do damage over a longer period of time, adding up to decent amounts. CV work that way...no huge peak damages for them......

I really do not see it that way....between 50 K and 100 K damage is perfectly in line with what other ( T8+ ) ships do in damage. As as i see it CV do not kill more ships then other ships per definition either. So what you are really saying they herass you more, disturbing your play/plans more as you perceive them to be a greater threat, which in numbers and statistics is not true. CV doing 50-100 K damage in a winning match where all the enemy ships were defeated means the team of surface ships really did their usual thing and deafeated the enemy mostly by ship launched/fired torpedo and shell fire, CV playing but a small role in numbers/stats. Yet, defence against aircraft is mainly automatic and requires little skill. Evading is all skill you need to have, and evading incoming long range shell fire - that often packs way more potential damage - is quite normal to you..... So...what is the problem really ? I know it is the herassment and perception of threat you can do little against ( no player weapons control except evading actions/setting zones ) Not the high damage or real high impact on the game. So it is a between-the-ears-problem. Although i admit DD are under pressure, but all lone ships are vulnerable. Without CV most DD die fast too, only then they are killing each other in the caps, with or without Cruiser support.

Nope.....they should TERRORIZE

And sirens....they actually will work on the nerves of the divebombed victims.....or is that not a great idea seen the controversy of CV in game already ?

True Tier X matches are a bit tough to deal with, using the lowest HP aircraft there are at Tier VIII ( Kaga ) But i did hit a Stalingrad with a 4 torpedo launch.....thought he was safe that close to an island mountian ridge, but it works both ways.....only in this game you can drop torpedo's from that high lol.... That damned Grozovoi DD turned out to be the most dangerous Tier X of the bunch, very hard to kill ( it survived ) and mowing down my aircraft.......and not only this time....mini AA cruiser that one.

I am still against stats used to flame/shame players that have an opinion/tactic/strategy to share, asif their words mean nothing. And you do realize my CV are still configured "wrong" with a secondary focussed build, and this does seem to not hurt performance at all do you ? Hell freezes before you see me stat shaming/flaming other players to bar them from speaking their opinion/share their tactics. They might just have something you totally did not think of.

Russian aircraft from 1943 on were pretty powerful and at least on par to any German ones. .....I would not mind to see some on a "paper" CV. But then again an Italian CV seems more realistic,as they at least layed them down and partially constructed them, just like the Graf Zeppelin.

The only relevant stats that could ever be dragged to this discussion is RECENT stats...since that is what this discussion is about right ? Discovering the value of NEW tactics i have not seen used before. For your convinence they are added in my signature....anything fundamentally wrong with them ? I see an increase backing up what is say...don't you ?

They could just buff the damage of dedicated AA guns to desired value's and add the damage of dual purpose ones when and if the player does not use them and has to pay for that in turret rotating ( back ) time when he wants to aim at surface targets. Ofcourse there really should be a button blocking dual purpose main guns turning automaticly for AA if you don't want to. P button proves that is not such a wild idea. I think it is a server data/load thing.....this mechanic is much more simplistic, just as the " AA aura's" of old were and still more or less are. This dissapointed me when i found out....i like animation a lot.

I found shooting the Bearcat 3 x TiT at DD is almost useless and certainly a waste of DPM because of high inaccuracy of these TiT's against small and evading ships not making hitting more likely either. Somehow the F4U Corsair 2 x TiT are more accurate fired at DD, but still not a preferred target for them as DD modules seem to soak up so much of their damage. I once shot 10 x TiT into a DD that still survived untill match end.... Waiting until the reticule is more or less covering specifically (cruiser) superstructures these 3 x TiT seem to be very damaging. They seem to do well against the huge upper sides of CV sides as well.

They really should have physical turrets turning toward air threats to be able to contribute to AA value's....some day. And not to contribute to those value's if the player aims/uses them for shooting at other ships ofcourse. Having these main guns "magically" contribute to AA while at the same time in use to fire on surfacre targets is unrealstic for certain and a bit rediculous in game.

Although the atmosfere-entering-comet speed of the bombers has it's benefits when you get used to them, i would like to have a choice...... Would torpedo carrying navalized BF110's and Divebombing navalized Stuka's be something ? The BF109's can stay...or be switched for navalized FW190's

Maybe WG wants us to leave DD be by decreasing rocket effectiveness to DD overall and increase/not nerf to other soft targets like Cruisers and lightly armoured superstructures ? I have seen rockets do quite some damage to BB superstructures aswell......but to Cruisers damage seems more consistent. Probably more rockets shatter against heavy armour on BB.

NEWSFLASH : if that were the case, why then are so many DD players complaining they are hunted high and low and cannot even play the game ? You cannot hunt DD and destroy Cruisers at the same time, as it all needs to be done early match. But maybe you are right.....just more CV players need to realize it, because i have NEVER seen it done in all the CV matches i was in. And because of it, suffered not being able to freely attack BB's with torpedo's as these cruisers then were the last ones surviving matches, save for CV.