Jump to content

Widar_Thule

Players
  • Content count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [BTS]

About Widar_Thule

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

448 profile views
  1. Yes indeed. Just for fun: In percentages those 18x Bombers were 37.5% of the total offensive air power of my Carrier and the 12x Fighters were 50% of the total defensive air power of my Carrier. I can just image the endless complaint topics on this forum if any other ship class in WOWS (Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships) would PERMANENTLY lose 37.5% of their offensive power in a mere +/- 4 seconds without having ANY way to recover from that for the whole duration of a +/- 20-minute match. Making up till 3x such attacks against an AA setup high Tier Battleship or a "Defensive AA Fire" Cruiser (the AA setup only becomes apparent in a match when Aircraft actually attack the ship, so when it is already too late to disengage for most Carrier players) will let most Carriers in WOWS lose 100% of their offensive power in a match, effectively turning them into match spectators. That plays a key role in new players quitting Carriers for sure. Fully Passive AI-controlled AA that can fully negate and even eliminate the offensive power of a human player is apparently part of WOWS being "fun and engaging". A week or so ago in an EPICENTER type random match I watched some poor sod in a SHOKAKU make 3x Air Attacks on what appeared to be a solitary Tier 8 Battleship. He did not realize that near that Battleship there was a MINOTAUR hiding in a smoke screen near some islands since he certainly could not spot the MINOTAUR. His first Air attack cost him all his Bombers to that hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result whatsoever. Then he came in for a second Air Attack which again cost him all his Bombers to that hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result. So when he was making his second Air Attack I decided to warn him in chat by asking him how flying inside the AA range of a hidden enemy MINOTAUR was working out for him. Apparently the SHOKAKU Commander did not take the hint (or had the text chat turned off) and he sent in his third and last Air Attack which again cost him all his Bombers to the hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result. I doubt the MINOTAUR Commander even noticed the SHOKAKU Air attacks, he was too busy sinking enemy ships while his passive AI-controlled AA was slaughtering the poor human controlled SHOKAKU Bombers. When I checked the SHOKAKU Commander his stats I found that he was a fairly new Carrier player in WOWS that had no doubt invested a lot of time - and maybe even money - to get his Tier 8 Carrier. I certainly cannot blame him for not knowing about the existence of invisible super AA ships such as the MINOTAUR. Examples such as these no doubt play a large role in new players quitting to play Carriers. And that is solely a result of how WOWS decision makers have implemented and expanded AA, especially at high Tiers, and even more importantly of not "learning/teaching" new Carrier players what they have to know and master at each key Tier (Tier 4, 6, 8, 10). The SHOKAKU Commander in the example is just another case that highlights that WOWS has never introduced a mechanism to "educate" and "teach" new Carrier players the key Carrier play concepts which highly influence and even dominate Carrier play at each respective Tier. If new Carrier players are not "taught" and "learned" Carrier game play concepts via the usual (pavlovian) "action-reward" mechanism that is used in WOWS for basically everything EXCEPT Carriers, then they cannot blame the new Carrier players for not "learning" and thus not "staying" in the game. A old Roman saying sums it up best: "Eventus stultorum magister est" (Experience is the teacher of fools) And since many Carrier players do not want to repeatedly be made a fool of when using a Carrier, like that SHOKAKU Commander I mentioned in the above example, they just quit WOWS and move on to other games. With the exception of the hardcore Carrier Commanders that have learned through experience. It will be interesting to see if the hardcore Carrier Commanders will stick around to play Carriers when the "long term" dumbed down XBOX/PS4 Controller "Carrier rework" play is finally introduced in WOWS.
  2. Well I remember once running into a French Tier 9 Battleship ALSACE that was setup for AA, the effects of which surprised me so much that I kept a screenshot of the after action report and watched the replay of the match afterwards. That ALSACE shot down 30x of my Tier 7 Hit Point level GRAF ZEPPELIN Aircraft. Which was kind of remarkable because I rarely - if ever for that matter - lose 30x Aircraft to the AA of a SINGLE enemy ship even in Tier 10 matches. The 30x Aircraft lost to the ALSACE breaks down as follows: I lost 12x Me 109 T-1 Fighters that were strafing enemy Aircraft at the very EDGE of the ALSACE max. AA range. The 12x Me 109 T-1 Fighters were all shot down in about 1-2 seconds before they were able to fully fly out of the max. AA range of the ALSACE. At that time I actually thought the 12x Me 109 had been shot down by an enemy MINOTAUR which was behind the ALSACE. The MINOTAUR was about +/- 2 Quadrants away from the Me 109 T-1 Fighters. The MINOTAUR at that range normally does not shoot 12x Me 109 T-1 Fighters down in 1-2 seconds when they are flying away from her, but at the time I thought it might have been possible if the MINOTAUR had an AA setup and manually targeted the Me 109 T-1 Fighters. Then after the enemy MINOTAUR moved to another part of the map I sent 3x full strength Dive Bomber Squadrons with 18x Ju 87 C-1 Dive Bombers to that ALSACE which was by then completely solitary and stationary in capture point A between two islands (sleeping giant map). To my surprise the ALSACE shot down all 18x of the Ju 87 C-1 Dive Bombers in a few seconds and only 1x Dive Bomber Squadron survived long enough to score 6x AP Bomb hits on the stationary ALSACE for a total of 19,489 damage. Needless to say I avoided getting anywhere near that ALSACE with Aircraft for the rest of the match. Watching the replay of that match made clear that the enemy MINOTAUR had in fact been too far away to use her AA against my Aircraft and she thus had never fired on any of those 30x Aircraft that the enemy ALSACE had shot down, so the 30x Aircraft were all lost solely to the AA of the ALSACE in just a few seconds. To be fair, that is the only time that I can remember running into a French high Tier Battleship that was using an AA setup.
  3. While your topic is interesting, there have been many others like it on the forum the past few years. From what I glanced you have played about 27x or so random matches in a Tier 10 Carrier, less than 100 random matches in a Tier 9 and Tier 8 Carrier and less than 500 Carrier random matches in total. So your point of view is probably closer to an opponent than a proponent of Carrier play in WOWS. By contrast I have played about 1500+ in Tier 8 Carrier random matches alone last time I checked. And that is still nothing compared to several forum members that have played well over 10,000 Carrier random matches. In all Carrier play is not that bad in WOWS, it is actually quite fun depending on the setup of the match (enemy Carrier Commander skill, enemy Carrier flight mode setup), but some serious issues could and should be addressed to make Carrier play in WOWS better. A more recent forum topic on the subject of Carriers in WOWS - albeit in a different presentation and format than your topic - for example is the one I recently posted on both the EU and NA WOWS forums: In my Carrier topic I have listed 16 of the major Carrier related issues which most Carrier proponents and opponents can more or less agree upon, they are based on both my own observation and what I have read over the past 12 or so months on the North American and European Union WOWS forums concerning Carriers. The only thing I have left out in my Carrier topic is a description of the Carrier User Interface bugs which could easily have been fixed if the decision makers at WOWS had wanted to do so in the past few years. The 16 solutions that I mention in my topic could easily been implemented the past few years by the decision makers at WOWS. And they could still do that even now. But the decision makers at WOWS for the past 2 years have refused to even fix the Carrier User Interface bugs, let alone do anything serious to promote and improve Carrier play in WOWS. One of the key (pavlovian) mechanisms in WOWS is enticing players to "do" something for a "reward". This comes in the form of unlockable commanders, missions, campaigns, rewards etc. etc. You only need to take ONE look at the Carrier related unlockable commanders, rewards, missions, campaigns, etcetera: there virtually are none! That means the decision makers in WOWS are not interested in promoting Carrier play, not interested in educating the Carrier player base and not interested in generally supporting Carrier play in WOWS. The reason for that MIGHT be that the WOWS decision makers consider that their WOWS main player base is mostly interested in "pew pew" cannon play instead of Carriers, because Carriers require a different mindset and skill set. Whatever the real reason for it is, it is a fact that the WOWS decision makers have for the past 2 years made no real effort to promote and improve Carrier play in WOWS. One of the worst issues affecting play balance between Carrier Commanders is that most Carrier Commanders in WOWS do not use Aircraft manual attack. The majority of Carrier Commanders that I have met in matches still have not learned and mastered Aircraft manual attack (even at Tier 8 and up) and the reason for that is that players are not "nudged" or "coached" in WOWS to learn and perfect the Aircraft manual attack. Like I stated before on the forum: "if the learner has not learned, the teacher has not taught". And there lies a major Carrier related issue in itself. What could the decision makers at WOWS have done to "educate" the player base concerning Carriers, for example to close the gap between Carrier Players that use Aircraft manual attack ("strafing", etc.) and those that do not? The issue of Aircraft manual attacks alone separates the new or novice Carrier Commander from the skilled Carrier Commander and it leads to highly unbalanced combat between novice versus skilled Carrier Commanders. I gave one quite possible solution example for "educating the player base" in my Carrier topic which I will repeat here: PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION With such a solution it is highly probable that most of the player base (even the ones that only like to use Battleships) would give those Carrier missions a try to get the 1,000 Golden Doubloons while Carrier enthusiasts might be more interested in getting the LA FAYETTE which would "nudge" or "coach" them to learn and master Aircraft manual attacks. In any event players that would try out these missions would be enticed to learn and perfect the use of manual attacks ("strafing" etc.) or at the very least get an understanding of them. But NOTHING like this has EVER been done to my knowledge. WOWS decision makers are fine with having the majority of players having no understanding of Aircraft manual attacks, their pros and cons and their effectiveness. And that is just one major example of what basically is disinterest for Carriers by the WOWS decision makers. Many PC Carrier players, including me, have stated it: the Carrier Rework that is being worked on now is likely only being done to be able to port WOWS to consoles (XBOX, PS4). In other words, WOWS likely needs to be dumbed down to a level that allows it to be played on console with a controller. So the less mouse and keyboard input required the better for this purpose and only from that perspective. So the likely goal is NOT to improve WOWS Carrier play and it is also NOT to get MORE players to use Carriers in WOWS. The likely goal of the "long term" Carrier rework is to keep Carriers in WOWS in a fairly unattractive play state but playable with a controller instead. What the WOWS decision makers have made clear in the past 2 years is that Carriers are not really desired in WOWS, they are tolerated but the Carrier game play is kept overall unattractive (including keeping major Carrier User Interface bugs in place) to make sure that the Carrier player base remains small AND that the main WOWS target audience - the "pew pew" cannon interested player base - keeps playing WOWS in large numbers. Some examples of what can likely be expected from the "long term" solution "dumbed down" WOWS Carrier play which will allow WOWS Carriers to be played with a controller on XBOX/PS4 instead of a mouse and keyboard can be glanced from what has been done in other games. These two videos for example.
  4. Suggestions thread

    Introduction This post not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  5. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  6. Update. @TheKingOfUm @Tuccy @MedvedevTD @IsamuKondera Thanks to all of you for your help! Thanks to you I have found most of the texture files that I was looking for. (1) Thanks to @MedvedevTD his response I now know where to find the green favourite ship bar texture. I now only have to find out how to actually edit that service_lib.swf file. (2) (3) (4) Thanks to @TheKingOfUm his response I have found all the "SNOWY", "CONGRATULATORY" and "TYPE 12" Camouflage Pattern gun turrets/superstructure texture files. I have now modded some of those gun turrets/superstructure texture files so these Camouflage Patterns look a bit more like authentic Camouflage Patterns. Some of them are used by other Camouflage Patterns as well so here and there one has to compromise when editing them. (5) Thanks to @IsamuKondera his comments I have found some of the texture files that are used for the Carrier Aircraft Icons during a WOWS match.I now only have to find out how to actually edit the.swf files. (6) @MedvedevTD I have found the file that contains the snow flake that is used in the Hamburg Harbour. The file is called "particles0.dds" and it is located in the folder "\particles\textures". The snow flake is in the top right corner of that file and I removed the snow flake texture from that file and as a result I do not have to look at snow flakes any more in the WOWS Hamburg Harbour. Having no snow is more appropriate during the summer! (ad 5) @MedvedevTD To answer your question: the Aircraft Icons I refer to are the Carrier Aircraft Icons at the bottom of the screen that appear during a match. They are used to indicate the ammunition status of the Squadrons of an Aircraft Carrier during a match. These Icons have Bullets, Bombs and Torpedoes which change from coloured "full" ones to empty "outline" ones when the ammunition is expended by the Squadron Aircraft during the match. Apparently there are two sets of those. One Carrier Aircraft set is used for the icons in the Harbour (those are in dds files and I had already found and modded them) and the other Carrier Aircraft set is used for the icons during a match (those apparently are in swf files). @MedvedevTD @Tuccy regarding the swf files I have a question: are players allowed to edit/mod the swf files? I seem to remember someone stating that editing those swf files was not allowed because it could be used for cheating. Is that right? If so then please let me know because then I will not do anything with those swf files. And if it is allowed to edit swf files, how do you at WOWS advise me to edit them? With what tools?
  7. @Tuccy @MrConway Could you please help me out here and ask someone from the WOWS Development team where to find the above mentioned files, specifically these files: (1) I am trying to find the file in that WOWS uses to indicate your main/favourite ship, the file should contain a green bar. I already found the file WOWS uses to indicate a unique commander, the file with the yellow bar. But I have had not luck finding the file with the green bar. Which file is it that contains the green bar that is used to indicate the main/favourite ship in the Graphical User Interface (GUI)? (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5) I am trying to find the files that are used for the Aircraft Icons during a WOWS match. I have found the ones that are used in port, but during a match WOWS uses different icons from the aircraft icons that are shown in port. (6) I am trying to find the file or files that contains the snow flake or snow flakes that are displayed in the Hamburg Harbour.
  8. @TheKingOfUm I did check for other mods that change the same files but there to my knowledge are no mods that change the in-match aircraft icons, the port green bar or port snow flakes. There used to be a mod that changes the aircraft icons used in a match but that mod can no longer be downloaded so I could not check that mod. To complicate matters further some files even when you change them apparently are not even used by the game when you put the modded file in the res mods folder. For example I changed the Airship LZ 127 GRAF ZEPPELIN file and also that of the Flying boat that is used in the Hamburg port but the changed files are not used by the Hamburg port only the original ones.
  9. @TheKingOfUm Thanks that helps me find at least the ship camouflage pattern related files. How can I find the other texture files that are not ship camouflage pattern related?
  10. I have trouble finding several texture files which WOWS uses for certain items. Maybe someone has the answer to the following questions. (1) I am trying to find the file in that WOWS uses to indicate your main/favourite ship, the file should contain a green bar. I already found the file WOWS uses to indicate a unique commander, the file with the yellow bar. But I have had not luck finding the file with the green bar. Which file is it that contains the green bar that is used to indicate the main/favourite ship in the Graphical User Interface (GUI)? (2) I am trying to find the file or files that are used for the gun turrets/superstructure and which is part of the "SNOWY" Camouflage Pattern that became available as rewards for the "New Year's Raid" campaign for the NEW MEXICO, ERNST GAEDE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, LA GALISSONIERE and FUSHUN. I presume it is one file, but I am not sure. In any event I can find the ones used for the hull but not the file used for the gun turrets/superstructure of the "SNOWY" Camouflage Pattern of the aforementioned five ships. (3) I am trying to find the file or files that are used for the gun turrets/superstructure and which is part of the "CONGRATULATORY" Camouflage Pattern that became available as rewards for the "2 YEARS OF WORLD OF WARSHIPS" campaign for the KIEV, CHARLES MARTEL, NEW ORLEANS and Z-23. I presume it is one file, but I am not sure. In any event I can find the ones used for the hull but not the file or files used for the gun turrets/superstructure of the "CONGRATULATORY" Camouflage Pattern of the aforementioned five ships. (4) I am trying to find the file or files that are used for the gun turrets/superstructure and which is part of the "TYPE 12" Camouflage Pattern that became available as rewards for the "SANTA'S CHRISTMAS CONVOYS" campaign for the LEANDER, FARRAGUT, BUDJONNY, FUSO, BAYERN and ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE. I presume it is one file, but I am not sure. In any event I can find the ones used for the hull but not the file or files used for the gun turrets/superstructure of the "TYPE 12" Camouflage Pattern of the aforementioned six ships. (5) I am trying to find the files that are used for the Aircraft Icons during a WOWS match. I have found the ones that are used in port, but during a match WOWS uses different icons from the aircraft icons that are shown in port. (6) I am trying to find the file or files that contains the snow flake or snow flakes that are displayed in the Hamburg Harbour.
  11. Strafing and counterstrafing

    Thanks @MrConway for your reply. We probably have reached the "agree to disagree" status on this issue. In my opinion it is not up to players like @El2aZeR, @Farazelleth or me to "teach" the whole WOWS player base about the Fighter strafing mechanics of the game. @Farazelleth, @El2aZeR et al to their credit "teach" those players that they can "reach", but it is not their job to "teach" the WOWS player base as a whole nor do they have the "reach" to do so. Neither is it my job nor do I have the "reach" to do so either. If there are crucial and competitive play relevant Fighter strafing mechanics in WOWS like the one described in this topic which have not been "taught" (explained) by the Developer to the WOWS player base and which are even admitted to be "a bit to (sic) complicated and niche" to "teach" (explain) via the usual way, then the point still stands and becomes even more important that the Developer of a game needs to "teach" the WOWS player base these sort of crucial and competitive play relevant Fighter strafing mechanics. If the learner has not learned then the teacher has not taught. Like I said earlier however @MrConway, we probably have reached the "agree to disagree" status on this issue. Again, thanks for your reply. Edit: I added a description for the "Strafe-Out Tactic" and "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" on the WOWS WIKI "Aerial Combat" page, but that does not compensate for WOWS not "teaching" the tactics related to "strafing" to the mass of their Player Base. The majority of Carrier Commanders that I meet in WOWS do not even use "strafing", let alone the "Strafe-Out Tactic" or the "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic". http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Aerial_Combat "Strafe-Out Tactic" As described earlier one of your Fighter Squadrons can engage, or be engaged by, an enemy Fighter Squadron via a mouse button left-click which then "locks" your Fighter Squadron into that Fighter engagement. Via the "Strafe-Out Tactic" it is possible to "break the "lock" of a Fighter engagement by giving a "strafe" command in any direction but it will cost the Fighter Squadron ammunition and one of its Fighters in return. When your Fighter Squadron "strafes out" of the Fighter engagement the enemy Fighter Squadron will receive a "stun lock" which prevents them from moving for a few seconds. The "Strafe-Out Tactic" allows a Fighter Squadron to "strafe out" of a Fighter engagement at any time. The tactic is especially useful when a friendly Fighter Squadron is "locked" in a Fighter engagement and is either losing that Fighter engagement, or is in danger of being "strafed" by another enemy Fighter Squadron or in order to prevent the friendly Fighter Squadron from being destroyed when running out of ammunition. The Premium Tier 7 Aircraft Carrier Saipan is currently the only Carrier that can let a Fighter Squadron "strafe out" of a Fighter engagement without losing a Fighter in the process. "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" As described earlier one of your Fighter Squadrons can engage, or be engaged by, an enemy Fighter Squadron via a mouse button left-click which then "locks" your Fighter Squadron into that Fighter engagement. If the enemy Fighter Squadron then uses the "Strafe-Out Tactic" in order to "strafe out" of that Fighter engagement it is possible to use the so-called "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" by selecting your Fighter Squadron and giving ONE movement command (not an attack or "strafing" command) in the direction where the enemy Fighter Squadron is "strafing out", this will allow your Fighter Squadron to get out of the "stun lock" that they normally receive when an enemy Fighter Squadron "strafes out" of a Fighter engagement. Then give your Fighter Squadron a "strafe" command in the same direction so that your Fighter Squadron will start "strafing" the enemy Fighter Squadron either immediately or shortly thereafter. Do not place the "strafe" command too close or your Fighter Squadron will first circle around to get into position. If executed properly the "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" will allow your Fighter Squadron to "strafe" the enemy Fighter Squadron as it "strafes out" of the Fighter engagement.
  12. Strafing and counterstrafing

    Thanks @MrConway for your reply. While your reply is understandable it is also very bad news for all the new Carrier players and all casual Carrier players who have no idea that this "strafing and counterstrafing" mechanic even exists in WOWS. And all 7x or 12x players on the side of the new or casual Carrier players are being hurt in their gaming experience if a new or casual Carrier player loses his Aircraft due to the "strafing and counterstrafing" mechanic. If the "strafing and counterstrafing" mechanic indeed is "working as intended" then WOWS in my opinion has a "moral" duty to inform the WHOLE Carrier player base about it to "even the playing field" for ALL players. It would not be all that difficult to at least inform Carrier players via the WOWS in-game "tips" system and the WOWS WIKI of the existence of the "strafing and counterstrafing" mechanic. It will not require six or more months of work to add one in-game "tip" to WOWS and to the WOWS WIKI. The Carrier rework was announced for 2017 but was not implemented, and there is no guarantee that Carriers will be "fixed" in 2018 either. There is currently no timeline or deadline on "fixing" the Carriers in WOWS. So the only thing we for now have to go on is the Carrier interface that we currently have in WOWS and not one which we might have one day in WOWS. For the time being, for the benefit of ALL players in WOWS, at least OFFICIALLY inform your Carrier players that this "strafing and counterstrafing" mechanic exists. Seriously, how much effort would it take to simply add this text to the WOWS WIKI and the WOWS in-game "tips" system: "Advanced Fighter strafing tip: When your Fighter Squadron is "locked" in "click fighter combat" and the enemy Fighter Squadron "strafes out" of it, then select your Fighter Squadron and give ONE movement command (not an attack or "strafing" command) in the direction where the enemy Fighter Squadron is "strafing out". This gets your Fighter Squadron out of the "stun" they receive when an enemy Fighter Squadron is "strafing out". Then give a "strafe" command in the same direction so that your Fighter Squadron will start "strafing" the enemy Fighter Squadron either immediately or shortly thereafter. Do not place the "strafe" command too close or your Fighter Squadron will circle around to get into position."
  13. Suggestions thread

    Fully agree with you. I also have lost golden doubloons because of that auto-resupply etc. option of camouflages, consumables, module dismounts, elite commander resets etcetera. I would like to see a user profile option where you can DISABLE using GOLDEN DOUBLOONS for ALL types of consumables etc. by DEFAULT. I rather spend golden doubloons on premium ships than on useless consumables etc. by mistake.
×