ttchip

I wonder what the gold ammo in that scenario would be. What about spiked paddles?

Cleveland has the best AA tier for tier of all cruisers. You don't get comparable strength until tier 9 in that line and then you have to face ships with almost double the reserve counts. It's an "issue" with Cleveland and not AA in general. Edit: #shamelessplug

...and yet, you run into situations where a Ranger can yolo his three DB and one TB squadron into a Pensacola, a New Orleans (both in AA loadouts) and an Aoba and lose less than half of his strike. Yes, AA increases in strength throughout the tiers. So does the number, health and speed of your planes. No, you don't lose an entire strike against a singled out ship unless that ship is a higher tiered USN cruiser and you fail to spot it using its AA ability. From a purely mechanical perspective, I would've liked it to work like this: Every CV starts with a base FCS. This FCS allows for X squadrons to be coordinated at every single time. If the ship has an upgrade to its FCS, that upgrade increases the number of squadrons it can control to (X+1). In any case, you could pick and choose the types of squadrons pretty much like ammo in WoT. In order to not mess with balance too badly, you could force players to, for example, carry one of each type and have limits for each type, i.e. (X+1) = 6 with no less than one fighter and one DB squadron and not more than two TB squadrons. In such a scenario you could run 4/0/2, 5/0/1, 2/2/2, 1/2/3 and so on.

Fair enough. Seems a tad harsh for tier 3s. Can you imagine facing off against New Mexicos in your Kawachi?

I'm pretty sure a tier 3 cannot meet a tier 6, Sharana.

Never seen a single non-failplatooned tier 4 BB in my NO.

Those air kills need to be targeted. I would assume that your AA killed some you didn't actively target.

Are people even using autopilot on anything but CVs?

Nope.

Considering how little these missions contribute to your overall profits, I don't see why resetting all of them every 24h would be terrible.

Good day, fellow forumites. Given my sudden boredom and my lack of motivation to actually play the game, I decided to mess with numbers and spreadsheets regarding AA DPS, how it develops as you go up the tiers and, of course, how much it increases relative to a full strike's health and speed. This is obviously a very simplified model and I'm only really considering USN CA AA DPS and IJN CVs in strike setup of tier 6 and up (mainly because I'm lazy and don't really want to deal with lower tiers and their differing ranges). Here are my considerations and findings: I've done two things: First, I looked at AA DPS, the distance at which that DPS is achieved and how it changes with distance, assuming a direct approach. I'm considering two situations, a self-defense one where the minimum distance to the squadrons is 0.5km and an escort one where short range AA (2.1km range) is neglected. Secondly, I've picked IJN CVs with strike loadouts and looked at the number, health and speed of their TB and DB squadrons. Reserves and their increase are not accounted for. Here are the two resulting figures: This figure is fairly unremarkable. One can see that AA DPS tends to increase as the tier of a ship increases. There are a few exceptions to that: New Orleans has the same escort DPS as Pensacola and Des Moines has much worse AA DPS than Baltimore - even if you consider its longer range - unless it's a pure escort situation or the CV in question messes around at maximum AA range. Des Moines, however, is a much better escort than Baltimore purely by AA DPS alone. (apologies for the scaling and formating - too lazy to change it) Now this one's a much more interesting plot. In an ideal world, the resulting figure would be constant or increasing if you account for the vast increase in reserves CVs are experiencing. It's doing neither. It shows that, out of those four CAs and Cleveland, Cleveland and Baltimore are easily the best AA for their tier when pitted against equally tiered IJN CVs in strike loadouts. This obviously assumes that they're yoloing their planes over your CA when you're escorting. Granted, this is pretty much never going to be the case and it basically puts Des Moines much lower than it deserves to be - at least as an escort. It also shows that New Orleans is an incredibly weak escort, tier for tier. The gist of this is basically that escorts do not scale as well as carriers do (duh.) because the increase in AA DPS barely accounts for the increase in plane survivability and speed, let alone the increase in reserves. Now, of course, CVs can argue that an escort's job is the reduction of damage through the usage of AA barrage and the resulting panic instead of actually shooting down them planes. Unfortunately, panicking planes without shooting them down doesn't really pay for the escort and makes for incredibly boring gameplay. What do you guys think? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The diagram indicates that relative AA strength on USN BBs increases with each tier until Iowa. Montana is weaker than Iowa in terms of AA. With Colorado being roughly as good as North Carolina against equally tiered CVs, you're looking at the same issue where AA DPS increases enough to account for plane speed and health upgrades. Luckily, this isn't met by increases in reserve counts. With that being said, Shokaku should perform at least as well against a lone NC as Hiryu does against Colorado. This changes if you include one escorting cruiser. In that case, Shokaku does much better against NC + NO than Hiryu against Colorado + Pensacola. Tier 9 would be much more in favor of the BB as the relative AA strength increases by a lot more than the increase in reserves can account for, especially if you consider that this increase in reserve counts for Taiho happens through the introduction of an additional fighter squadron. This goes double if the BB is escorted by a CA. (taken from this post in this thread) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit: I've attached an Excel file with my calculations. Feel free to have a look at them. AA DPS.xlsx 12.33K Edit2: Noticed a small mistake on my part regarding DM's DPS. I updated both the diagrams and the attached file with hopefully correct versions. It doesn't change my conclusion in any way as it really doesn't need fancy maths and figures to tell you that DM is crap at defending itself and pretty good at protecting others. Edit3: Added data for USN BBs to the attached file and to the post itself. AA DPS.xlsx

Another viable tier 4 skill would be Demolition Expert if those 3% are additive to the 16-18% base fire chances of 203mm guns. AFT doesn't seem to be overly useful for IJN CAs as they're not really ment to escort ships. As a result, they're using their AA for self defense mostly and rely on AA barrage for that. They don't have the AA DPS to actually touch high tier bomber squadrons outside of that. So you're basically picking either Last Stand or Demolition Expert. YMMV, of course.

Being extremely vulnerable to CVs is this game's equivalent to WoT's being extremely vulnerable to heavily armored vehicles due to insufficient penetration on stock guns. They've got to incentivise people to convert experience somehow, ehh?

Played a lot in the first week after the reset. Right now, playing high tier battles feels like a chore and none of the mid tier ships seem to tickle my pickle. Also, I'm quite fed up with failplatoons like these: When your repair/resupply bill upon death is >160k, having your team gimped by a couple of tier 4s really does impact your chances of survival. This is basically what most platoons are in high tier matches. The rest are those tier 10 CV platoons you really cannot do much against on your own - especially when matchmaker decides you totally don't need tier 10s of your own to beat them. Edit: Sorry for posting basically the same stuff in two separate threads. I really needed to vent a bit.

Matches like these killed my desire to play this game tonight before I could get a noteworthy result. Please don't failplatoon like that. You're ruining more than just your own game. Edit: This is what 80% of the platoons I encounter at these tiers look like. Seeing a platoon of equally tiered ships is basically like finding a unicorn.

What do you mean by "chance of killing him"? The carrier is faster, stealthier and has more hitpoints than him. Heck, Hiryu is faster, stealthier and has more hitpoints than Pensacola. CV would need to be a muppet for him to lose a pursuit, meaning that trying to cap is the only "viable" play for the CA. Let's be frank: CV would need to be afk for him to lose the game. But yeah, going mid seems correct.

I have no intention of spending more money as I'm still sitting on 60 days of premium through WoT and the CBT pack I bought. I'd like a tier 8 premium vehicle but I'd much rather see them fix their economy to reflect the economy in WoT a bit more. I'm currently sitting at tier 9 in one line and high tier matchmaking is currently awful. Not sure if and when that'll change, seeing how both repairs and module cost scale ridiculously in high tiers.

It increases your loading time, which is obviously bad, while increasing turret rotation speed, which is obviously good. There's another upgrade you get access to on tier 9 and 10 ships that does the opposite.

This is indeed correct. Colorados, Pensacolas and the lone Cleveland should be more than enough to really mess with a lower tier CV.

Such a fun game. Made a grand total of 6k credits and roughly 1.1k exp that game. This means I earned roughly 2.8% of the experience and 0.2% of the credits needed for the hull upgrade.

Not necessarily on a per-strike basis. However, you're given a lot more opportunities to strike against DM thanks to its relatively underwhelming AA damage.

You'd think that a 19% longer rudder shift time, a 16% wider turning circle and a 21% increase in length are kind of on par with a 50ish% increase in hitpoints. Pretty much exactly why I calculated for 500m minimum distance as that's the rough arming distance for torps. It messes with the planes' accuracy if AA barrage is active. The direction in which you're going has no influence on average AA DPS in your AA aura. It does have an influence on the absolute total of planes shot down, which is not what I'm concerning myself with in this thread. DM gets an additional multiplier for its longer range. Other than that, what you're seeing here is the average AA DPS within a very simplified model, as mentioned in the OP. If you wish to calculate it differently I would urge you to do it and present the results. I'm sure it'd be an interesting read.

Welcome to any Wargaming title ever. Increased AA range - particularly for escorts - means that you're not held on as tight a leash as you currently are. This means that you can actually move and even try to engage surface bound targets. This is not really a problem for Cleveland with its excellent mid and long range AA, humongous main battery range and relatively good maneuverability (especially given the lower plane speed). You can afford to "dart in and out" with Cleveland. You can't reproduce the same playstyle with Pensacola or New Orleans in regards to AA performance. I'll report on Baltimore - I've bought that one yesterday - and DM once I gather experience with them. Right now, if you're trying to escort a CV moving at maximum speed, you're basically forced to babysit it and move within 3km of the other ship because CVs, thanks to Wargamings infinite wisdom, were made to be as fast as cruisers (literally all IJN CVs starting at Hiryu are faster than all USN cruisers beyond Omaha). The latter generates a whole different host of problems apart from it making escorting rather annoying at higher tiers. I'm aware of the rather poor scaling of CV's direct damage dealing capabilities beyond Ryujo for IJN and Essex for USN. Luckily, that poor scaling of direct damage is met with significant increases in DB squadron numbers, resulting in more damage over time through fires and flooding - at least in theory. You be the judge if that's justified as I lack significant experience with playing CVs beyond tier 5. Again, I'm fully aware of that and I've never claimed it to not be the case. I just made the same calculations for BBs: The diagram indicates that relative AA strength on USN BBs increases with each tier until Iowa. Montana is weaker than Iowa in terms of AA. With Colorado being roughly as good as North Carolina against equally tiered CVs, you're looking at the same issue where AA DPS increases enough to account for plane speed and health upgrades. Luckily, this isn't met by increases in reserve counts. With that being said, Shokaku should perform at least as well against a lone NC as Hiryu does against Colorado. This changes if you include one escorting cruiser. In that case, Shokaku does much better against NC + NO than Hiryu against Colorado + Pensacola. Tier 9 would be much more in favor of the BB as the relative AA strength increases by a lot more than the increase in reserves can account for, especially if you consider that this increase in reserve counts for Taiho happens through the introduction of an additional fighter squadron. This goes double if the BB is escorted by a CA. There were some calculations floating around about how a fighter squadron's damage dealing capability (DPS * ammo) scales and it basically claimed that the relative damage is the same at all tiers. I'll try to dig it up if you want. In any case, this is an issue with the design of CVs as they're only really countered by other CVs. As is, this is a topic for a different thread. I don't see how this is in any way worse than losing all your hitpoints in a normal ship. CVs without planes are much more useful than destroyed ships. This is met by an increase in size and a decrease in maneuverability, meaning that the accuracy should increase quite significantly. It's not very likely for CVs to oneshot BBs anyway, so nothing is lost there. Edit: Updating OP with BB data

Tier 9 and 10 get that slot. Personally, I'd go for "-15% turret rotation time//-10% rate of fire" because these two are the exact wordings used to describe gun parameters.

It takes approximately five matches to unlock a destroyer if you start from zilch - which you aren't.