steviln

So what?

Well, the marketing and a lot of talk on this forum have claimed that cruisers are the counter to DDs. I also see a lot of rage from BB players complaining I am not chasing DDs in game when playing a cruiser. And if I had claimed that cruisers were not a counter for DDs, you would have claimed that I am a crappy cruiser player since I could not even deal with a DD that cruisers were supposed to counter, so you will write the same crap regardless. Since a lot of game, maybe most on high tiers lack CVs, I would certainly claim that DDs does not dominate even when carriers are absent. If DDs would be so superior they would run rampant in the battles CVs are not present, something they certainly do not. Why should I complain about those instead? Guess WG does not make historically accurate games. Just thought that if some unrealistic elements must be presents, subs would be better than carriers. Team play can be more than just running a lemming train. And still think the lesser degree of teamwork in War Thunder is preferrable, since it makes the game less toxic. You want a degree of teamplay that is simply not realistic with the playerbase this game has. But did the italian cruisers do any better? Can you give some examples of this happening in daytime set piece battles?

But if BBs are so dominant, how come you do just fine in cruisers?

But cruisers was supposed to be a counter to DDs as I understand it? Also, some DD trees like the russian one can also be a counter to other DD lines like the japanese, while the russian DDs are less of a threat to battleships. And I think DDs are a bit to weak now. Maybe I have not played them enough lately, but I find them much harder to play than battleships and cruisers. I actually miss the long range japanese torpedoes a bit. On the other hand, since some classes are so dependant on stealth that may not be a good thing? Also, DD could also serve as a scouting vechile. Stuff like that could also be achieved by including submarines or even smaller ships like PT boats or corvettes. That is the main reason while I hate them. Herding ships together only makes the game boring. Prefer the gameplay in WT where you more actively try to flank the enemy. In this way the CVs also causes more camping as ships get afraid to get seperated from the rest of the ships. This is actually my main reason for hating CVs. It can also make the outcome of a match a foregone conclution much earlier, something that can be a bad thing. Simply because I know that the games need a few unrealistic things to function in the way it is now. I also dislike the other things you mention, but they are not such a big annoyanse as CVs. When it comes to BBs being useless, you are reffering to the strategic level while this is a tactical game. And when you want to show how much better cruisers were, you bring in one specific night engagement, while ignoring the night engagement between italian cruisers and british BB near Crete.

Off course it is not a simulator, but people like you want something that bear minimal resemblance to the theme. I have no problem with planes in War Thunder because they behave like planes. However in WOWS, the carriers are more like "Airwolf carriers" than "Aircraft carriers". The point is, can you explain why carriers are good for the game from a design point of view?

In what way? I am actually pointing to the fact that it have been usual to focus games on either carrier battles or surface actions. That was usual before countries with no real naval history from the period like Russia started making games on the subject.

I have actually answered this many times before. CVs are by nature so OP that it is meaningless to combine surface actions and carrier warfare in the same game. If you look at board wargames and many early computer games they are clearly focused on one or the other.

I simply want a game like War Thunder that are made more for military history buffs than gamers. When it comes to balance, I simply prefer that the classes are slightly imbalanced rather than some classes being to weak or strong compared to reality.

Well, my main gripe is that the herd ships together in lemming trains.

But where are the arguments for the game being better with CVs? In what way are they valid?

No, I am not. I just refer to the people that want more CVs in the game as "CV lovers"... Yes, you bring in a lot of other crap also.

if you had any arguments, you would not have to bring up players stats all the time,and you CV lovers do that consistently.

Yes, but that is the only things. Other things like limited angles of ship facing, the extremly close engagement ranges, the pace and so on seems more arcade like that WOWS.

Yes, you do like to repeat yourself quite a bit. How do I disregard game design? I simply want the game to be less that WOT and more like War Thunder. And I still do not see how you can say how that korean game was more like a simulation. I thought it felt more like an arcade game from 1990

The biggest screw up was adding CVs to the game in the first place.

I rather think that for another BB or a cruiser the german BBs are really the easiest to handle, because they are relatively ineffective at max range. So what if they take a bit longer to sink than an american or japanese BB? Even though they take longer to take down, the end result is more sure than when facing another BB.

I do not think the KM BBs are very strong. They are inferior in a long distance engagement and their superstructures are very easy to set on fire. RN may not be OP, to early to say, but they certainly are Edited . This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inflammatory remarks.

Actually, your whining seem quite strange. You complain that the BBs could have sunk you, even though they are mostly not able to?

No, you would rather point to your opponents stats and call them idiots....

Why would you want to prevent someone from going lone-wolf? That is actually the main reason I hate CVs.

You would not have a castle in a medieval battle game, but a medieval siege game.

I agree with this. The IJN torpedoes should never have been nerfed in the first place.

It is one thing that the torpedos may pass lighter ships, but will the lighter ships still be able to spot the torpedoes? To be really useful it should also be more difficult for the ships that they just pass to actually spot them?

Or maybe the CV lovers is a small vocal elitist minority and CV haters are a clear majority among the general playerbase?

Yes, and my impression is that WG really wants to do what the "typical gamers" want, but have found out they make much more money from the BBabies, and therefore accept the BB heavy meta and even give direct and indirect buffs to the BBs.