Pikkozoikum

And as I said, most attacks were around 5k, when the HP has full hp. And as I said. You can expect that your rocket planes do 8k to every bb, because they are always full hp and healed. That is not consistent 8k dmg ;) In my definition consistent would mean, that you do almost always 8k and less is a rare case of bad rng You can show me 2 or 3 replays in a row of a game, were you do consistent 8k dmg, if you want. Though those should be in a row, not that some extremes were picked ;)

Yes, in real condition its worse, not better, because mostly ships are damaged. Thus you have less hp to drain in general, and you have less AA to hit (since some will be destroyed) Why are you distracting with one module? I'm talking about all the modules who are sitting in the center? Btw the smokestack of the Yamato has 50mm armor, so it won't get damaged by rockets anyways.

Of course, but we were talking about BBs, I guess, hehe

Does a BB heal after one strike? That's new. The Smokestack is where the engine module is located. and as I said, all the other modules are also there like aa and secondaries. Only Main guns and rudder is not at the superstructure?

The hp pool is also higher and also the armor. When you do 4k in low, and 8k in high, but BBs have 100k instead of 50k hp, then nothing really changes ^^ The smoke stag, aa and secondaries are a lot modules. So the most modules are at the super structure ^^ Only Rudder and main guns are mostly not directly at the Superstructure, though some BBs have also guns in the center, so in that case, they might get hit as well. So you attack always only 100% healthy super structures? I think they are quite often depleted, not oly to attack planes, also to other ships. Yes, I aim always for the main guns, of course xD Destroying single AA guns does mean nothing. In case of Yamato. Yamato has 72 AA guns. 60 of them are short ranges. I did a small test. I attacked 8 stationary Yamatos with 8 squads. The last Yamato I attacked only with 2 wings instead of 3 My average damage per attack with 25 attack runs: 4232 My totaly rocket damage: 105,816 307 of 408 hits I think I did one time 8k, one time 7k, then almost every hit 5k or 2-4k. (Guess some saturation already happend after the first 5k hit) What a bit suprised me, I did 9.5 AA and 1.25 secondaries destroyed (though it was mostly 1 secondary per ship, and only one took 4 destroyed) But then we have to consider -Yamato has a lot short range, thus they are easy to destroy and easy to hit. Yamato has 72 AA guns. 60 of them are short ranges. -The ships had no AA/Seconadry sustain mod 1 -I attacked 8 fresh ships, as soon some of the short ranges are destroyed, no further can be destroyed. So it becomes harder to hit any AA. -The ships were stationary and no AA was distracting You could do the same test, maybe my aim is just so bad ;)

How can you do consistently do 8k? Superstructure will be depleted at some point. 8k-10k can happen with Haku, but it's not consistently and when you hit modules, then the modules takes the dmg, not the ship. Well, 1% wasn't a real serious value. But as far as I remember, I mostly took 0-1 AA gun with rocket planes. Those were mostly short range MGs. When I play myself a BB, I lose not much AA, only if HE Spamming BBs are invovled. and even then, the AA is pretty tough. Though I take with some ships the AA sustain module.

Eh, you mean US rockets? I don't think that IJN rockets are op against BBs. Also how much AA do you destroy? 1% per attack? ^^

Every ship has a concealment. Lets say 6 km. If an enemy ship is inside the radius of 6km, then the ship is spotted. If you are in range for an ally, who is spotting, then you can see, what he sees. But sometimes the ship, that is spotting, loses sight. So you lose sight as well.

Das mit dem Details habe ich nie gesehen xD

If a CV attacks 5 ships, all 5 ships will automatically. They don't have to use their weapons. Even if 5 CVs would go for 5 ships, all 5 ships will shoot at all 5 CVs, the AA multiplies. If a DD fights against 5 ships, then those 5 ships have to go for this single ships. If they are reloading, or going for something else, then it's already a difference. if 5 surface ships fight 5 surface ships, the dmg get splitted up and not multiplied. There is a huge difference. That's also why I often say, that comparing doesn'T always work. What you mean, "that would mean the class is balanced", we are talking about changes and why you can't have 4 in one team, because of those mechanics. If you go with mentioned changes, you need to have more CVs, otherwise those changes would make CV under powered heavily. You also don't get payed to write anythign in this forum, or to say, that any suggestions are bad/good ;) If you would get in this forum a really good propsal about AA rework, which would gets 10ths of views and approval, then WG would might go with that suggestion. What does that has to do with the manual AA change? xD Depends on the design. Because you can't design it for 1vs1 as I said earlier. If you do it for 1vs1, it becomes broken in team fights. AA is automated and works always as soon ships are around. If single ships become too powerful, a CV will be useless in team games. If single ships should be able to counter completly a CV, then it should meet the same condition like against any other ship. Otherwise you would get games that would be like RTS CV vs a 12 Full AA build Mino match. If the game design is changed, it can't be just in favor for surface ships to give them easy life, it must have also disadvantages. The context is not clear here. If you have a normal team fight, you have to use your guns and torpedos. If you have a CV, you don't have to use your armament. That means even an AFK person gives AA cover. If you want make AA that potent, that a single player can kill a full squad before a strike, how should that work in a team game? I can tell you, that the average CV player will have 0 dmg :D

That's what I meant with "We don't want it". If I want something, then I would work on the idea and not just decline. Because with Declination, we won't get any progress. And that's what I said. People don't like the AA, but if anyone comes up with a new design idea, it gets declined. So it's basically "I want a change, but I decline all changes" "If". Also the same type answer could be given to your answer then ^^ It will not work better, it will work different. More risk/reward, instead of consistent dmg but also more skill involved and to be honest, it would be fun to shoot a flak barrage at an enemy. It's like you would go for Yue Yang torpedos over to Shimakaze torpedos. The YY torpedos are quite consistent for torpedos, while the Shima are kinda easy to avoide, but then, the Shimakaze torps hurt a lot. Yep. But I don't think, that bad players won't have any fun. You could also add a "I'm a bad player captain skill", which increases the cont. dps, but lowers the flak explosion. Players who hit bad, would gain a benefit, while good players would lose dmg potential. Lets say a ship has 300 dps. Then a good players hits with Flak. We calculated the value in dps, he hits a lot and does 900 dps with Flak dmg in average -> 1200 dps The bad player has 300 dps, his flak dmg is in average 300. Now he gets the bad player skill, which increases the cont. dps by 200% and lowers the explosion by 80% -> 900 dps, flak 60 dps. He gets 960 in total and does more. The good player would do with that skill 900 dps and 1080 dps + loses skill points. That would be one possible option, but needs a lot tweaking. That's the problem, you can just go with 1vs1 good player vs bad player, bad vs good etc. Because the CV will also face multiple good players, or multiple bad players. It has to be deisgned for the team fight, not for the 1vs1 imo ^^ If you designed it for the 1vs1 and make manually aa that impactful, you will need more CVs per match, to make it fair. If a 1vs1 can be even with a surface ship, then it would be always unfair for a single cv, since people would go always in 2, 3 ship groups and be save. You can only solve that, with having multiple CVs against multipe ships

Kann unter anderen an den Teams liegen, aber auch an den Schiffen die du spielst. Du spielst sehr viel low tier, wenn da deine Stats höher sind, dann aber mal zu high tier wechselt für 100 Spiele, kann es sein, dass du schlechter performst. Deine les Terrible hat 500 games und 47% WR, deine letzten 150 nach aktuellen Stats haben 48% WR. Sprich, wenn du Les Terrible gespielt hast, hast du dich sogar verbessert. Aber wir können nicht einsehen, welche Schiffe du gespielt hast. Daher ist es schwer zu sagen.

As I said earlier. The CVs technically controls 2 hulls and the squadrons are actually the active one. Guess you could design manual control for the consumables of the carrier even while flight, but I see not really any improvement in gameplay with granting that. Just imagine you could now manual control the DCP - is the CV now better? I see really no difference ^^

Still sounds like you decline it? That's a bit iffy asked... Would you like to get one shotted by a Shikishima? ^^ Mostly you won't lose the whole squad. It has to be designed, that it's not easy mode for any good player (RNG mostly "balances" good players) There is a delay of the flying shells, so there is some kind of randomness, that the planes could actually maneuver out. You could also add dispersion. Or lower the explosion dmg, you could increase the reload time of the burst. Lower the cont. DPS. Many ways to encounter that. It's about tweaking the number and design it properly. If the dmg is too consistent, the dmg has to be lowered, if the dmg is too inconsistent, then the dmg could be higher.

How is that possible, were they afk? I mean in some cases I could have taken every single hit, I would still win with points and enough hp. I had only a few CVs as enemy, though the enemies had quite good stats so far.

Those 1vs1 maps where fit to 1vs1 conditions. If they wanted to fit it for CVs only, they would put the caps in the corner. That's why the 2vs1, 3vs1 won't show much, imo. It's not a realistic condition to start a 2vs1 on a large map in CV vs surface. We will see, that the CV will lose a lot planes and win over time, or won't have enough time and loses. That dends mostly only on the map setting. If the map setting favors the CV or the surface ships. It's like playing 2vs1 with 2 submachine guns vs 1 sniper. If the map is 1 km big and open ,the sniper will win. If the map is small, the submachine guns will win even a 1vs1 in some cases, depends on the shooter of course. So I see not, what it actually will proof, though it will be interesting to see that as an AA test, no matter of the result.

I think 1 BB, 1 Cl could be even better, or 1 BB and one Halland (Halland just close to the BB and suprise attacks the CV, so it stays in AA of both, when going for big HP ship) In the 1vs1 brawl, the BBs were invincble against CVs

It's funny, people say AA is useless and skill does nothing, but as soon an suggestion comes up, which skill would involve : "No we dont want that" xD I see really no issue with the idea. If you see an issue, then I assume you can't imagine how to make this idea work (stats and mechanics can be always tweaked, until it works). It's only using the Flak one or two times every 10-15 seconds, that doesn't need much effort... Even with a spam cruiser you can hold the right mouse button, keep firing and then quickly use the flak. You can do that at the same time. Overall the AA cruisers would have a great benefit from that, especially when the player is good. BBs have a lower hit chance, that means they produce less flak explosion, so their aa is worse in terms of explosions. Beside that, this "issue" is already existent. You already have to look at the planes side, The only thing that changes, that the cursor has to be on the planes (or in front) Plane + hull is like having hull+hull. You can't compare playing 2 hulls with playing 1 hull with guns and aa (it's still one hull) Those need a big rework any ways, imo. But actually it could work similar, then you have to aim for a barrage, then it shoots 3 salvos in a row to that spot. Could have bad dispersion or something. But well, they won't do that ^^

it's just click and poof. You have to aim... That's the difference. Those 5% (3% for others, or what was it?) always apply. If you have more dmg, but less hit chance, it averages out. If it has a 25% hit rate, then it also does only 5% in mean

There should be some training rooms sessions of 12vs12 games and one team has AA on, the other not :D Then 20 matches for the test ^^

I can understand the design of making the AA automated. Though I personall wish they would change at least the burst dmg. Right know it's only 5% or lower, depending on the ship. That's to static. I would rater prefer they do dmg like the flak explosion, so every ship does different dmg, and then instaead of an instant burst, you actually fire one flak barrage, which you have to aim. That would be fun!

Oof. No, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying, that you can't treat a CV like a surface ship, espcially in case of the surface-ship management of angling, positioning etc. It's not about, that you need mulitasking or anything. it's about that you basically have 2 units. But not 2 units in RTS style. 2 Units in Action style. It's like you would have to play 2 surface ship. How efficient would that be? Try to angle with both at the same time, while attacking with one. Idk why you ignore the whole explanation and comparisons always depend on the relevance. Many of the comparison of some people here are irrelevant.

What is easier: Controlling your ships, while you use guns, or controlling your ship, while you are controlling planes? The point of view is different. You have way more controll on your surface ship, than you get on the CV, beside that, the CVs are pretty sluggish and don't turn well. It's a huge difference, if you have to be at two places at the same time, or at one place... When I use my guns, I'm on my ship, when I look for position, angles, enemy planes, then I'm on my ship. When I attack with the CV, I'm on my planes. When I spot, I'm on the planes. When I travel and try to get into a position (for attack or spot), I'm on the planes. Otherwise: Play DD, and always track the camera on your gun shells and torpedos, and tell me, how well that works.

I think a small delay wouldn't change much at that situation, With RTS you had multiple squads. While planes rearming, there were mostly other planes still up like fighters or other Bombers. Without regarding balance: Imagine any ship type, no matter which, would you like an increased delay on armament? +30s to guns? Nobody likes waiting, and just adding a delay is not a fun mechanic for a player. Hmm, it was actually considered to be the best dmg dealer by Wargaming, just look at the 100 games average damage archievment for the emblem. The CV needed the most dmg, then bb>CA>DD Just because they have dmg of a BB and spotting, doesn't mean, they have everything. They don't offer a 100k hp pool. They don't have a good capping ability and other stuff.

That kind of comparisons make no sense, since they have different game mechanics CV blunders his attack, gets one strike out 5k dmg DD blunders his attack, hits only one torp instead of three - 15k dmg CL/Ca blunders his attack, but still hits his HE, sets a fire BB blunders his attack - but RNG can still cause cit hits. I really don't like this kind of comparison, when someone argues with the unqiue trait of a ship type. Ship types are different. Those comparison mostly works only with the same ship type. Like comparing Montana with GK, otherwise they are too different. That the CV is kinda save and doesn't need much of positioning is obvious, that's the type of ship, who has long ranges. That's a common design in this type of games. Changing that, wouldn't make sense. You could give a CV a max flight range, but not sure, if that would work well. A CV is too busy with planes, instead of angling and positioning like a surface ship.