steviln

i would rather say that the tier spread makes the game less enjoyable, and in World of Tanks I left that game exactly because the two tier spread in battle is to big. It feels like the tier spread is so great so people will spend real money to advance up the tech trees faster. This however have the disadvantage of people prefering to play mid or low tier getting tired of the game and players getting more frustrated thus creating a more toxic community, WOT have become rather famous for this.

The german ships are so popular because people play them while they await the next Fuhrer.

The Kutuzov is a HE spammer, and is the only ship where I enjoy meeting BBS two tiers higher. It can also be very effective with AP against other cruisers at close range. However, I feel it is totally useless at "mid range". When I have had good games with it, I have only gone into close range at the end of the battle. Otherwise, it is best to consistently engage the enemy at maximum range and be very careful not to close in on the enemy.

It is most certain to be avoided if you do not use a CV in battle

Still not see the point. I rather think that to many BBs or DDs does not destroy the game for other ship classes in the way CVs or to many CAs can do. For my part, I actually feel the game is more fun when the game is no longer dominated by packs of three to four cruisers just spamming HE all over the place and restricting the DDs ability to move to much.

They propably do that out of fear that to many CVs will make people using BBs and DDs leave the game.

No, the CV should be nerfed even more, as there are to many CVs in the game as it is now.

Why?

You did not read what I actually wrote. With the exception of Musashi, NONE of those sinkings took place in battles where both sides had CVs! Yamato was a suicide run and Tirpitz was an air raid.

I am not suggesting having CV fight bots, but have CVs fight each other. Historically, CVs were so important that when they were present, nobody bothered to try to sink a battleship unless they were trying something insane like the japanese did at Leyte. One solution could be to give CVs much more credit and XP to sink and damage each other, and much less for damage on other types of ships. That would both make the game more enjoyable for everyone else and still give the escort ships a proper role. Also, shooting down planes should be much more important, as historically, losing a lot of the CVs experienced airgroup was a much larger loss than losing a BB.

They should let CVs have their own battles with BOTs as escort ships. Also, CVs are not effective enough against each other. In real battles, the CVs tried to sink each other and only bothered with other ships after one side had lost all their CVs. With the battle of Leyte the only exception, but that was very special.

I think a to strong emphasis on teamplay just makes the game community more toxic. One of many reasons I prefer War Thunder rather than WOT is exactly that the chat in WT is much less toxic because players care less about what other players do.

It is just you being religious. The only place to be safe from CV is to stay with other ships, and it is much easier ot stay with other ships if you do not move to much. Even if you expert players laugh at it, an average or below average player will also have problems in a CA if alone and the CVs focus on you.

[edited]

I think they try to discourage people from using CVs, as they have seen it was a mistake to include them in the game in the first place.

You rather get a situation where the entire fleet camps, for fear about becoming to exposed to CV planes.

How does that suppose to solve camping problem?

However, there still are a lot of people camping stationary using just their front turrets, having long range duels with North Carolinas.

It may also be that players are used to CVs or "learn" from other that are used to CVs, so that the culture of camping persist even if the reason for the original camping is to a degree reduced.

This remind me of norwegian educational politics. When the government have a new idea, they test it in the most well off neigborhood and everything works excellent. However, when they change the policy and it gets tested in more average and poorer than average areas, we end up with a total mess... Most players online today are simply not able to cooperate to the same degree that a lot of the betatesters did. Also, moving in groups all the time can be a bit boring, but since Gajin is not making a capital ship game I guess I will stay here for a while.

And that causes camping and lemmingtrains, because several ships moving together is difficult to organize. Personally I would prefer to have CVs moved to their own battles...

I think you are wrong. CVs promote camping because BBs get afraid to be to active in fear of ending up alone and becoming easy targets for planes. They may move around a bit in circles when CVs are around rather than remaining stationary, but that is not a noticable improvement.

There were some encounters between BBs in Europa, both between RN and Germany and between RN and Italy. One important reason it annoys me that Italy is not included. There also were quite a few surface battles between cruiser in the Pacific.

Yes, you have a good point, and therefore I do not want a simulation as such. A simulation would be much better as a RTS. The point is to find the middle ground. I therefore think it is fine that DDs and cruiser really are to effective. However, I do not think that cruisers need to dominate the group to the extent the whiners seem to think.

Yes, the escorts were present and had some impact, BUT the importance of a single DD or CA were nowhere near the impact of a single BB! That was that which was my point! If it were a simulation of naval battles, only CVs would play high tier battles and the BBs should be bots escorting the CVs. That was what BBs were reduced to for large parts of the war. My point if that you look at the battles of history, they seem to be roughly one of two types of engagements: 1) Surface battles where destroyers, cruisers and sometimes battleships fought each other, with no or ineffective support from carriers. 2) Carrier battles where the carriers focused almost exclusively at sinking each other, no surface combat took place and the BBs were mostly ignored by enemy planes, and were nothing else than mobile AA batteries in support of the carriers. My point is that the kind of gameplay I find tedious, surface combat with airplanes of both sides concentrating on the enemy surface combat ships was a kind of combat that did not occur, with the exception of the battle of Leyte that was a result of desperation. Simply put, I think that a tactical naval combat game should concentrate of one type of battle, and that all ships would be more interesting to play if CVs were simply put in their own battles with maybe three CVs per side, and the rest being bots.