Widar_Thule

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.

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.

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

@Commander_Cornflakes Pointless Sources and Statements Long, Medium and Short Term Carrier rework speculation @Tungstonid I can understand your disappointment when you saw only text under the spoilers instead of nice pictures! A lot of people like pictures! So by special request I will indulge you with a spoiler that hides…. Pictures! GZ AP Bombs The relevancy of real life AP Bomb vulnerability

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.

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?

@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.

@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.

@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?

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.

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."

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. I have a suggestions and a proposed player/modder friendly solution regarding Flags used by ships in WOWS. 1.) Admiral Flags It would be both appropriate and AUTHENTIC to implement Admiral Flags which either the player can manually select or which the game automatically adds when a ship Commander has the appropriate rank. Almost every major maritime nation had/has Admiral Flags which are hoisted when an Admiral with the appropriate rank is aboard a warship. It would be a player/modder friendly approach if the Admiral Flags, especially the Japanese and German ones, would be combined in a fully new Flag file containing only those Flags which are NEVER altered with each new WOWS update. That would be a good solution because WOWS can then also implement politically correct and fake Japanese and German Admiral Flags which players/modders then only would need to change only once into AUTHENTIC Japanese and German Admiral Flags. Some Examples. Great Britain The following ranks have their own Flags: Admiral of the Fleet, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral Admiral of the Fleet Admiral Vice Admiral Rear Admiral United States of America The following ranks have their own Flags: Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral Fleet Admiral Admiral Vice Admiral Rear Admiral – upper half Read Admiral – lower half France The following ranks have their own Flags: Amiral, Vice-Amiral d'escadre, Vice-Amiral, Contre-Amiral Amiral Vice-Amiral d'escadre Vice-Amiral Contre-Admiral Japan up till 1945 The following ranks had their own Flags: Kaigun-taisho (Admiral), Kaigun-chujo (Vice Admiral), Kaigun-shosho (Rear Admiral) Kaigun-taisho (Admiral) Kaigun-chujo (Vice Admiral) Kaigun-shosho (Rear Admiral) Germany up till 1945 The following ranks had their own Flags: Großadmiral, Generaladmiral, Admiral, Vizeadmiral, Konteradmiral Großadmiral Generaladmiral Admiral Vizeadmiral Konteradmiral 2.) Incorporate the Japanese and German Naval Flags used up till 1945 in a separate WOWS Flag File. There is the well-known file: flags.dds That file contains most of the flags used by the ships in WOWS and which is located in the folder: \World of Warships\res_mods\0.x.x.x\content\gameplay\common\flags In that file there are two politically correct and fake but UNAUTHENTIC flags (the Naval Flags used by Japan and Germany up till 1945) which players (modders) who prefer AUTHENTIC Flags have to constantly replace with every new WOWS update. Changing these politically correct and fake Japanese and German Flags into AUTHENTIC ones with each new update is quite TEDIOUS and is also fully unnecessary if a better and more elegant solution is implemented instead: create a new second Flag file with Naval Flags which are NEVER changed with each new WOWS update. That way players/modders would only need to change that new second Flag file ONCE and all the new Flags which WOWS adds with their constant new updates could still all be incorporated in the original Flag file (flag.dds). So I propose to create a second Flag file which has these Flags in it (basically the Flags which are never changed with each new WOWS update): - Great Britain, USA, France, USSR, Germany, Italy, Japan Now to be clear I DO NOT PROPOSE adding the AUTHENTIC Naval Flags used by Japan and Germany up till 1945 which currently are self-censored by WOWS. So with the proposal the current politically correct and fake Japanese and German Naval Flags can continued to be used by WOWS. I however instead propose to at least put the Naval Flags of Japan and Germany in a SEPARATE FLAG FILE so player/modders would only need to change these Japanese and German Flags ONCE and not with every new WOWS update. Maybe this new second Flag file proposal can be combined with implementing the Admiral Flags described under point 1.) in the same new second Flag file. That would be a good solution because WOWS can then also implement politically correct and fake Japanese and German Admiral Flags which players/modders then also only would need to change only once into AUTHENTIC Japanese and German Admiral Flags. During WOWS special missions, events etcetera a player can "win" ship Commanders that often have 6 or more skill points. These Commanders are quite valuable due to the skill points they already have, but the names and images of these Commanders is unfortunately randomly chosen by the WOWS program code and as a result "the invasion of the clones" occurs. As a result of this I now have many (!) ship Commanders which all have the same face and the same names. In other words WOWS ship Commanders suffer from "the invasion of the clones": many ship Commanders which have the same names (first and/or last names) and have the same face. This is becoming increasingly annoying as time goes by. In order to solve this increasingly annoying issue, which is becoming worse with more and more ships being released and more and more ship Commanders being "won" in special missions etc., I propose the following: 1.) Allow players the ability to reset the faces and names of Commanders assigned to ships or in reserve. 2.) Increase the number of ship Commander images so that they match the number of ships of that nation. So in other words when a new ship is released for a nation, also release a Commander with a new face for that ship. That should not take that much time. In that way a player that has collected all the ships of a nation will have at least ONE unique looking Commander for EACH ship of that nation. 3.) Increase the number of first (Christian) and last names (surnames) in the WOWS "name" file which is used to generate the name for ship Commanders for each nation. So basically increase the number of first and last names to let them match the number of ships available for that nation. 4.) Let the WOWS program code prevent adding more ship Commanders with the same name (duplicate names) and/or same face to a player's fleet. In other words let the WOWS program code make sure that each ship of a nation has a ship Commander with a unique first (Christian) and last name (surname) and unique face. Making sure that Characters have unique faces and names is something that has been done in gaming for decades and really is not difficult to implement. The current "invasion of the clones" is really amateurish, annoying and also not necessary from a programming and development point of view.

Dear WOWS Developers, I have a suggestions and a proposed player/modder friendly solution regarding Flags used by ships in WOWS. 1.) Admiral Flags It would be both appropriate and AUTHENTIC to implement Admiral Flags which either the player can manually select or which the game automatically adds when a ship Commander has the appropriate rank. Almost every major maritime nation had/has Admiral Flags which are hoisted when an Admiral with the appropriate rank is aboard a warship. It would be a player/modder friendly approach if the Admiral Flags, especially the Japanese and German ones, would be combined in a fully new Flag file containing only those Flags which are NEVER altered with each new WOWS update. That would be a good solution because WOWS can then also implement politically correct and fake Japanese and German Admiral Flags which players/modders then only would need to change only once into AUTHENTIC Japanese and German Admiral Flags. Some Examples. Great Britain The following ranks have their own Flags: Admiral of the Fleet, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral Admiral of the Fleet Admiral Vice Admiral Rear Admiral United States of America The following ranks have their own Flags: Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral Fleet Admiral Admiral Vice Admiral Rear Admiral – upper half Read Admiral – lower half France The following ranks have their own Flags: Amiral, Vice-Amiral d'escadre, Vice-Amiral, Contre-Amiral Amiral Vice-Amiral d'escadre Vice-Amiral Contre-Admiral Japan up till 1945 The following ranks had their own Flags: Kaigun-taisho (Admiral), Kaigun-chujo (Vice Admiral), Kaigun-shosho (Rear Admiral) Kaigun-taisho (Admiral) Kaigun-chujo (Vice Admiral) Kaigun-shosho (Rear Admiral) Germany up till 1945 The following ranks had their own Flags: Großadmiral, Generaladmiral, Admiral, Vizeadmiral, Konteradmiral Großadmiral Generaladmiral Admiral Vizeadmiral Konteradmiral 2.) Incorporate the Japanese and German Naval Flags used up till 1945 in a separate WOWS Flag File. There is the well-known file: flags.dds That file contains most of the flags used by the ships in WOWS and which is located in the folder: \World of Warships\res_mods\0.x.x.x\content\gameplay\common\flags In that file there are two politically correct and fake but UNAUTHENTIC flags (the Naval Flags used by Japan and Germany up till 1945) which players (modders) who prefer AUTHENTIC Flags have to constantly replace with every new WOWS update. Changing these politically correct and fake Japanese and German Flags into AUTHENTIC ones with each new update is quite TEDIOUS and is also fully unnecessary if a better and more elegant solution is implemented instead: create a new second Flag file with Naval Flags which are NEVER changed with each new WOWS update. That way players/modders would only need to change that new second Flag file ONCE and all the new Flags which WOWS adds with their constant new updates could still all be incorporated in the original Flag file (flag.dds). So I propose to create a second Flag file which has these Flags in it (basically the Flags which are never changed with each new WOWS update): - Great Britain, USA, France, USSR, Germany, Italy, Japan Now to be clear I DO NOT PROPOSE adding the AUTHENTIC Naval Flags used by Japan and Germany up till 1945 which currently are self-censored by WOWS. So with the proposal the current politically correct and fake Japanese and German Naval Flags can continued to be used by WOWS. I however instead propose to at least put the Naval Flags of Japan and Germany in a SEPARATE FLAG FILE so player/modders would only need to change these Japanese and German Flags ONCE and not with every new WOWS update. Maybe this new second Flag file proposal can be combined with implementing the Admiral Flags described under point 1.) in the same new second Flag file. That would be a good solution because WOWS can then also implement politically correct and fake Japanese and German Admiral Flags which players/modders then also only would need to change only once into AUTHENTIC Japanese and German Admiral Flags.

Dear WOWS EU Forum moderators, specifically: @MrConway @Tuccy @Crysantos Is it possible for you to get an "official" response from the WOWS Developers regarding the three questions that I asked above concerning the Fighter Strafing "techniques" described by @El2aZeR @Farazelleth et al in this forum topic?

Dear WOWS moderators of this forum I have a question for you which is of concern to all those WOWS Buyer-Testers that have bought the GRAF ZEPPELIN for 50-to-100 Euros in August 2017 and since then been involved in 5x Test Phases and been giving test feedback during the 5x Phases of GZ testing to date. This is the question: "Please be so kind as to inform us (the "Buyer-Testers in the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group") what Aircraft setup the (AI-controlled) GRAF ZEPPELIN will be using in "OPERATION HERMES" in WOWS Update 0.7.2 dated 1 March 2018." This question has also been asked twice already on the "WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook group" that has been setup by WOWS for these GZ Buyer-Testers and the 5x GZ Test Phases they have participated in up to date. But apparently the WOWS moderators of that WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook group do not find it relevant to provide their GRAF ZEPPELIN Buyer-Testers with any information on the setup of the AI-controlled GRAF ZEPPELIN that has now been released on 1 March 2018 as part of WOWS version 0.7.2 and is used in "OPERATION HERMES". So hopefully the WOWS EU Forum moderators will instead answer this question that the "WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook group" moderators apparently do not want to answer to the GRAF ZEPPELIN Buyer-Testers that have so far participated in 5x GZ Test Phases. The answer is going to be real interesting because it takes about one month for the internal WOWS professional Test Team to complete all their regular internal test stages before a ship is cleared for rollout/implementation on the live WOWS servers in EU, NA, RU and ASIA. It is known that "OPERATION HERMES", which includes an AI-controlled GRAF ZEPPELIN, was tested by Supertesters on the live test servers starting 6 February 2018, so after the internal WOWS professional Test Team had already completed their own tests, and at least one CC released a video on YouTube some time ago that he had seen in-game that the GRAF ZEPPELIN is part of "OPERATION HERMES". The Phase 5 testing conducted by the GZ Buyer-Testers started on 9 February and lasted till 23 February 2018. After the Phase 5 testing by GZ Buyer-Testers was concluded on 23 February 2018 they received the fifth survey which the Buyer-Testers can still send in this week. Ostensibly the fifth survey feedback from the Phase 5 GZ Buyer-Testers is going to be used by WOWS Development to refine the GRAF ZEPPELIN. It is now clear however that an AI-controlled GRAF ZEPPELIN has on 1 March 2018 been rolled out (implemented) on the Live Servers in EU, NA, RU and ASIA, that is quite remarkable because the GZ Buyer-Testers are fully in the dark as to what sort of setup that GRAF ZEPPELIN has. On this WOWS EU website page: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/updates/update_072/ The following is mentioned: "0.7.2 Update Notes The update happens March 1; preparation begins at 06:00 CET until 10:00 CET (UTC+1)" "'Operation 'Hermes' The new Operation charges players with the task of escorting a ship loaded with gold while fighting German patrols. The Operation is made up of several stages: - Fight against the coast-based aviation - Repel attacks of enemy destroyers and cruisers - Finally, engage German battleships which receive powerful support from mighty aircraft carrier VIII Graf Zeppelin" So my question is about that last remark, as apparently an AI-controlled GRAF ZEPPELIN has now been released on 1 March 2018 in WOWS. I repeat the question: "Please be so kind as to inform us (the "Buyer-Testers in the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group") what Aircraft setup the (AI-controlled) GRAF ZEPPELIN will be using in "OPERATION HERMES" in WOWS Update 0.7.2 dated 1 March 2018."

Hi MrConway, Thank you very much for the reply. From your answer I deduce that there is no final GRAF ZEPPELIN version yet, which is both comforting to know and is also as it should be because the GZ Buyer-Testers are still sending in their Phase 5 GZ Test surveys this week. I am glad that your answer has made clear to me and all the other GZ Buyer-Testers that the GRAF ZEPPELIN in OPERATION HERMES is not the "final version" of the GRAF ZEPPELIN. As I mentioned earlier I only asked this question on the WOWS EU Forum because that same question has already been asked twice on the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group where to date not even a response was given to this question let alone an answer. And that brings me to the following. From what I see on the WOWS EU Forum you, Tuccy and the other CC/moderators are doing a great job as moderators on the WOWS EU Forum – which is something that deserves praise - and that leads me to a communication issue regarding the WOWS GZ Facebook Group moderators and the GZ Buyer-Testers. As you probably know WOWS has setup a special WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group where the GZ Buyer-Testers can give feedback on the various GZ Test Ships which have been tested in 5x Test Phases to date. What I and others that are part of that WOWS GZ Facebook Group have noticed and commented on repeatedly in that WOWS GZ Facebook Group is that the response from the WOWS GZ Facebook Group moderators (so I do NOT mean the WOWS EU Forum moderators!) to questions and feedback from the GZ Buyer-Testers is – to use an understatement – very limited at best and also that real explanations are not given as to why the most common GZ Buyer-Tester feedback (for example about the too weak GZ Fighter setup) is basically being ignored. That to an extent – to use an understatement - has led to a communication and expectation management breakdown on the WOWS GZ Facebook Group which has had the effect that increasingly fewer of the GZ Buyer-Testers currently even want to post on the WOWS GZ Facebook Group any more, because they repeatedly state that whatever feedback they post there is simply being ignored and it does not seem to have any significant effect on the setup of the GZ Test ships that are being presented in each new GZ Test Phase. Since you, Tuccy and all the other WOWS EU Forum CC/moderators are doing such a great job on the WOWS EU Forum I would like to ask if maybe the WOWS EU Forum CC/Moderators can give their colleagues that moderate the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group some pointers/advice which could lead to communication, trust and expectation management improvements between the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group moderators, the WOWS Development Team members working on the GZ and the GZ Buyer-Testers. Just one critical look at the responses of the GZ Buyer-Testers of the past few months on that WOWS GZ Facebook Group will make clear that the most common feedback of the GZ Buyer-Testers is simply not finding their way to the WOWS Developers working on the GRAF ZEPPELIN. This is an unfortunate state of events from any point of view. It would be very unfortunate if the GRAF ZEPPELIN when re-released would again not be a match for the best performing ship in the eighth ranked season and the – by far – best performing Tier 8 Carrier: the 50-Euro costing ENTERPRISE. If would be very unfortunate if the also 50-Euro costing GRAF ZEPPELIN would join LEXINGTON in being inferior-by-design compared to ENTERPRISE and SHOKAKU. A repeat of the PRINZ EUGEN situation where a Tier 8 Premium is the worst performing ship at her Tier really should be avoided for both the benefit of WOWS and the GZ Buyer-Testers. In any event thanks for your response MrConway!

I cannot speak for the AP Bombers of LEXINGTON and ENTERPRISE, but the GRAF ZEPPELIN has special problems. The Ju 87 Bombers are the slowest and weakest hit point Bombers of all Tier 8 Carriers. In order for them to be effective they all need to come in at the same time on the same target in one large formation and totally surprise their target. That means thinking and planning ahead. If the Ju 87 Dive Bombers are used in a manual bombing attack then it is very, very easy for them to all miss their target if the enemy knows how to turn smart and combine that with sudden speed changes. Because the Ju 87 Bombers are so weak and all by necessity concentrated in one huge formation that means that 1x enemy Fighter Squadron can easily shoot all 3x6 Ju 87 Bombers down in one strafing run. That means that the GRAF ZEPPELIN Commander needs to outsmart and outfight the enemy Carrier Commander and his Fighters and he must take care that the Ju 87 Dive Bombers are not spotted until it is too late to avoid or stop them and that they also will not be destroyed after bombing. Add to that the GRAF ZEPPELIN has the weakest Fighters and/or less Fighters compared to the other Tier 8 Carriers. To overcome those problems takes skill, a different kind of skill, but skill nevertheless. And remember all it takes to shut those Ju 87 Bombers down is 3x good AAA ships sticking together or one good AAA Cruiser with Defensive Fire AAA. How much "skill" and "thinking and planning ahead" does it take to use Defensive Fire AAA?

That is not true. Having good AAA or a ship that is immune to the AP Bombs goes a long way. The best protection against them is simply have 3x ships with good AAA sail within 1x Quadrant of each other. And even better: Defensive Fire AAA on most Tier 8 to 10 Cruisers really ends any Bomber threat. If you however sail all alone when facing any Carrier in WOWS then you really have a death wish. Ships which do not really have to fear AP Bombs are for example: all Destroyers, all Light Cruisers, ALABAMA, IOWA, MISSOURI, MONTANA, KII, YAMATO, MUSASHI, CONQUEROR, most Heavy Cruisers and most Tier 8 Carriers and most Tier 6 and 7 Battleships.

Well that remains to be seen. You see the GAMESCOM 2017 GRAF ZEPPELIN is the version which the people who bought her in August 2017 still own. But that version is broken, because the AP Bombs of that version have about a six-second delay so they always miss unless the enemy is fully stationary. So if you are right and the GZ in OPERATION HERMES is the GAMESCOM 2017 version than that is hilarious, because the AI randomly picks the Aircraft setup. And the AP Bomb setup of the GAMESCOM 2107 has Bombs which will always miss a moving ship. If however the GZ in OPERATION HERMES has the new setup with which the GZ is going to be re-released then that has quite significant meaning for all the original GZ Buyer-Testers.

Dear moderators of this Forum I have an important question for you. This is the question: "Please be so kind as to inform us (the "Buyer-Testers in the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group") what Aircraft setup the GRAF ZEPPELIN will be using in "OPERATION HERMES" in WOWS Update 0.7.2 dated 1 March 2018." I am sure that Buyers-Testers of the GRAF ZEPPELIN who are participating in that Facebook Group are interested in the answer to this question. The answer is going to be real interesting because it takes about one month for the internal WOWS Test Team to complete all their regular internal test stages before a ship is cleared for rollout/implementation on the live WOWS servers in EU, NA, RU and ASIA. That question is quite relevant because on this WOWS EU website page: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/updates/update_072/ The following is mentioned: "0.7.2 Update Notes The update happens March 1; preparation begins at 06:00 CET until 10:00 CET (UTC+1)" "'Operation 'Hermes' The new Operation charges players with the task of escorting a ship loaded with gold while fighting German patrols. The Operation is made up of several stages: Fight against the coast-based aviation Repel attacks of enemy destroyers and cruisers Finally, engage German battleships which receive powerful support from mighty aircraft carrier VIII Graf Zeppelin" My question is about that last remark. Apparently the GRAF ZEPPELIN will be released coming 1 March 2018 in WOWS. I repeat the question: "Please be so kind as to inform us (the "Buyer-Testers in the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook Group") what Aircraft setup the GRAF ZEPPELIN will be using in "OPERATION HERMES" in WOWS Update 0.7.2 dated 1 March 2018."

They never were "nukes" to begin with. The GRAF ZEPPELIN AP Bombs are generally only useful against SOME Battleships and SOME Heavy Cruisers, but fairly useless against Destroyers and Light Cruisers. I have done enough tests to know which ships have little to fear from them, they will do damage but it will not be that devastating to most ships in the game. Against ships which are fairly immune to them, these AP Bombs do from 840 damage minimum to about 1500 damage maximum per bomb hit. Against ships which are more vulnerable to them they do from 2500 damage to 5000 damage and on occasion 6000 damage per bomb hit. Ships which are particularly vulnerable to them include for example: BISMARCK, TIRPITZ, SCHARNHORST, GNEISENAU, FRIEDRICH DER GROßE. Ships which are not that vulnerable to them include for example: MISSOURI, IOWA, MONTANA, CONQUEROR, YAMATO, GROßER KURFÜRST. The GRAF ZEPPELIN Torpedo Bombers do more consistent and reliable damage and are a threat to ALL ship types in WOWS and in that respect far superior. The best thing to do against the Ju 87 Bombers is simply combine AAA by sailing in formation, since these Ju 87 Bombers are so slow and have so few hit point that they can easily be shot down before they can even complete their attack in the face of strong AAA concentrations.

Haha, yes of course they will... According to an "official" statement on the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN Facebook group: "Sorry, but we can't buff Graf Zeppelin's fighters, because they will become too powerful and break the balance. In the 5th stage we increased the fighter's ammo to increase her chances against other carriers. Graf Zeppelin has a very powerful strike setup. But her fighters are one of the weak points and players need to adapt their game to this fact." So instead of "buffing" the weakest stat Me 109 T-1 Fighters on any Tier 8 Carrier they nerfed them from 25x weakest stat Fighters on a Tier 8 Carrier to 14x weakest stat Fighters, but do not worry they will be replaced by 16x weakest stat Fighters eventually in a 1x9 Squadron, so that means x7 "reserves", or less than 1x reserve Fighter Squadron (1.7x Fighter Squadrons in fact). That of course is totally "balanced" versus the superior stat 43x Fighters of ENTERPRISE (7.1x Fighter Squadons) or the superior stat 36x Fighters of SHOKAKU (7.2x Fighter Squadrons). That the 3x Squadrons of Ju 87 Bombers are the slowest weakest Bombers on any Tier 8 Carrier of course totally compensates for the weakest stat 14x (or maybe 16x) Me 109 T-1 Fighters on any Tier 8 Carrier. The Ju 87 C-1 Bombers are in fact so slow and weak in hit points that they are forced to all attack the same target in one large formation to make sure they are not all shot down before they even drop one bomb. Needless to say only the ENTERPRISE deserves an extra module slot in WOWS which allows her to improve either the speed of her aircraft or the hit points of her bombers. GRAF ZEPPELIN, even though she also costs 50 Euros like ENTERPRISE, does not "deserve" to have that extra slot to improve her Fighters or Bombers because she is soooooo superior to ENTERPRISE in the eyes of the WOWS Developers... Some 50 Euros are more equal than other 50 Euros apparently.

That information actually is incorrect, WOWS representatives did state the above on the "WOWS Graf Zeppelin" Facebook group page but it is not what we have for testing. The situation in fact is even worse n terms of Fighters. It actually is only 14x Fighters and 29x Torpedo Bombers and 29x Dive Bombers. With all Commander skills and Ship modules the Me 109 T-1 Fighter Squadron is 9x Fighters strong. So the reserves are 5x Me 109 T-1 Fighters, these Fighters basically still have the same bad stats as they have had since the August 2017 Gamescom GRAF ZEPPELIN version. So this new test setup is in fact the weakest Fighter setup of all GRAF ZEPPELIN versions so far, the explanation given for this state of affaris by WOWS representatives is that they have received "good" feedback on a 1x9 Fighter Squadron. One wonders where that "good" feedback came from. It certainly did not come from the "WOWS Graf Zeppelin" Facebook group page, because on that page the overwhelming majority of the GRAF ZEPPELIN owners and testers posting there since August 2017 have been fairly consistent and united in requesting meaningful improvements of the Me 109 T-1 Fighter and Ju 87 C-1 Bomber stats and the number of on-board reserve Aircraft. So currently the GRAF ZEPPELIN in testing not only has the weakest stat Fighters of all Tier 8 Carriers, but also the smallest number of them. To sum it up regarding the Me 109 T-1 on the GRAF ZEPPELIN, they have the: lowest hit points, lowest ammo, lowest number of Fighter squadrons in the Air, lowest number of Fighters in the Air and lowest on-board reserves. The SHOKAKU N1K5-A Fighters are practically effectively just as fast as the current Me 109 T-1 in WOWS. The ENTERPRISE F6F-5 Hellcat Fighters with "Flight Control Modifcation 2" module are also effectively just as fast as the current Me 109 T-1 in WOWS. So outrunning enemy Fighters with the Me 109 T-1 is also not something possible versus SHOKAKU and ENTERPRISE. Needless to say the Ju 87 C-1 Bombers now in testing still have the same very low hit points and very low speed that they have had since the August 2017 Gamescom GRAF ZEPPELIN version and all test versions after that. The major improvement in Phase 5 of GRAF ZEPPELIN testing is that at least now the GRAF ZEPPELIN can use regular torpedoes instead of Deep Water torpedoes, combined with the faster aircraft processing which was implemented in Phase 4. And in Phase 5 of testing the bug was finally fixed which hitherto had prevented the 10.5 cm guns from firing on enemy ships over the bow, stern and to port.

Thank you "El2aZeR" for posting your Fighter Strafing technique. And also thanks to "Farazelleth" for sharing his "6.3.2.3 Fighter Squiggle Strafe" technique. These two Expert Carrier Commanders and forum members have done the WOWS Carrier player base a GREAT service by posting these sort of insider Fighter Strafing techniques. Since they have made this information freely available in this way NO ONE can accuse them of cheating in a secret underhand manner. To me it looks as if these two Fighter Strafing techniques are either a glitch/bug OR it might be that these techniques are working "as intended" by WOWS Development. The only people who can answer that for sure are representatives of WOWS Development. The first thing that comes to mind when looking at these techniques is: "why does WOWS Development not communicate and "teach" these Fighter strafing techniques on their wiki page and in their own videos?" That leads me to some questions for the mostly absent forum moderators and WOWS Development representatives on KEY important game issues such as these. I ask the Forum moderation and/or WOWS Development representatives to: 1. State that the two Fighter strafing techniques as described by "El2aZeR" and "Farazelleth" in this topic respectively his video, are "working as intended" and that they are not a "glitch", "bug", "game exploit" or "cheat". That way everybody will know that these two Fighter Strafing techniques are "allowed" and "the" way to go when using Fighters for strafing in WOWS. 2. If these two Fighter Strafing techniques are "working as intended" I kindly ask WOWS Development to make a text explanation and two videos showing "how to" use these techniques and make them available on the official website and on the official WOWS wiki so that ALL WOWS Carrier players learn how to use/execute them and not only those players that visit the forum or Farazelleth's YouTube channel in order to "level the playing field" for all WOWS players of ALL skill levels and ALL levels of experience. 3. If these two Fighter strafing techniques are NOT "working as intended" I kindly ask WOWS Development to make sure that they are REMOVED from the game. Because these two Fighter Strafing techniques give a HUGE advantage to those which are aware that they exist and know how to use/execute them, as opposed to the great mass of players who have no clue that these two Fighter techniques even exist as is evident from the average Random Battle match in WOWS. Even though I am doubtful that we will EVER get a response from WOWS Development or even the forum moderation on these two KEY Aircraft Carrier Fighter Strafing issues, I hope that this will be addressed since in my opinion these two Fighter Strafing techniques give a HUGE advantage to the most skilled and experienced Carrier Commanders in WOWS, which puts these Expert Carrier Commanders even further ahead of low skilled and average skilled Carrier Commanders than they already are. And that means that not only will the lower skilled Carrier Commander be a disadvantage when facing these Expert Carrier Commanders, but also all the 11x players will be at a disadvantage that are on the side of the lower skilled Carrier Commander when he is absolutely clueless about the existence of these two Fighter Strafing techniques, let alone able to counter them. Again, many thanks to "El2aZeR" and "Farazelleth" for sharing these two Fighter Strafing techniques!

I think the thing you might be referring to is what Farazelleth calls "6.3.2.3 Fighter Squiggle Strafe", as demonstrated here: