1MajorKoenig

No - planes are not any more expendable than HP of any other ship. You can use your „HP“ pool or plane pool to make an effect on the Game. It’s very comparable. You brought the reality argument - not me. I don’t have a problem with either class or the gameplay concessions needed to enable them fight each other (eventhough their real life counterparts probably could not

You noticed one of the basic assumptions for this game. Even more: the premise is that any ship can fight any other in the game. Still you make a statement like: Which is either a stunning amount of ignorance or a flabbergasting lack of game understanding. The game is - as said - built in a way that any class can fight any other class which - based on your previous statement - you already know. In reality a destroyer or even a cruiser has no business in fighting a battleship in a gunnery duel. Still the game allows exactly that. Same with carriers and their planes. You are contradicting yourself as you seem to know the truth but somehow try to twist some weird stuff to fit your lame narrative of “I don’t like Carriers”. It is down to personal preference but it doesn’t matter jack . So stop complaining

Well - firstly because the ocean is huge and usually your big ships are in the wrong spot, second: these ships are ridiculously expensive and most nations feared their loss, third: planes could cover vastly more area while delivering the same punch - while moving into the “right” spot Btw. There were only TWO BB engagements in the entire pacific - a war defined by naval combat

Sorry bud This is plain and utter nonsense and I am not going to bother with that anymore. In the “theme” era it was nothing about “gun ships have been doing fine without carriers” - that era was long done by that time (at least one Great War). This game is simply not about the big gun era whatsoever As a closing remark - even if the carrier indeed made the battleship obsolete in WW2 - that has nothing to do with this game. All four classes are equally viable in the realms of the game. You probably just need to play all classes instead of spamming such nonsense here. Merry Christmas

The game is a slow arcade shooter with four classes from the get-go with different strengths and weaknesses. It is naval themed - yes - and that is what a lot of us keep us here. But it certainly is no “artillery” game nor has it much to do with WW1 (sadly). Btw.: do you know how many battleship vs battleship engagement WW2 saw? And second guess: what were the most useful ships in fleet battles in that era? Hint: the three are portrayed in the game as classes (and it’s not the battleships). Saying CVs are less fundamental to the game than any other of the classes is utterly stupid though

No it is simply not. Don’t even need to read the rest of that nonsense since the basic assumption is as wrong as it is stupid.

OKLAHOMA!!! Go go go

Fighters would still be AI so you wouldn’t necessarily be able to shut down anyone. Which indeed would be a problem But fighters would certainly be more tactically useful. Basically they would lose something compared to today (spotting + and completely mindlessness in using them) but would gain something at the same time (some protection for your team). I wouldn’t say this concept would be very difficult or complex to use for the CV player. Maybe even a little more intuitive, no?

Frohe Weihnachten euch allen! Euch allen schöne Festtage und ein besinnliches Fest! Und ein riesengroßes Kompliment für unglaublich viel Kreativität, wahnsinnig interessante Details und Fachwissen, die eine oder andere hitzige Diskussion und ein paar wirklich kranke Wendungen (bei einigen lag ich lachend auf dem Boden ). Feiert schön! @Walther_K_Nehring @linkum @quash @Parasitkaffee @x_scheer109_x @Qu1ck_Silver @Septimus @Graf_Orlok @Hargen_Tannhaus Und auf viele weitere gute und interessante Diskussionen

It’s somehow sad if that’s the expectation of the players regarding their feedback - @MrConway (EDIT: although the Gif is pretty funny) Especially since there has been some back and forth on tuning and adjusting the (not so) new (anymore) CVs. The good part is that WG did actually continue working on CVs - so we would appreciate if the state of fighters would be reviewed At the very least some kind of reaction would be nice

Merry Christmas

EXTRABLATT!!! Irland bekommt neue Regierung! Italien ernennt neuen Flottenchef! Herzlich Willkommen @Qu1ck_Silver - klasse, dass du diese beiden (Traum-) Rollen übernimmst Mal sehen was der Dude dazu sagt?

It wasn’t really supposed to be sim-heavy though... but thanks for the like anyway bud Thanks dude! I hope WG takes a look and thinks about fighters. I mean having something to support the team defensively would be great

What’s the problem over there? Haven’t visited in ages?

Summarized the discussion about fighters here in a clean proposal - please check it out:

Pinging: @MrConway / @Crysantos / @Ev1n / @Sub_Octavian

Die Chinesen stauen nicht schlecht was für Gadgets ihr da auffahrt @quash - wo genau ist die „Nordgrenze“? —————————— Nanjing Dezember 1928: General Tschian Kai-Shek kündigt für das Frühjahr eine Großoffensive direkt gegen die Sowjetrepublik Jiangxi an. Dass es einen zweiten Chinesischen Staat direkt vor seiner Haustür gibt ist im logischerweise ein Dorn im Auge. Der Generalissimo gibt sich siegessicher, dass man mit den „Banditen“ schon fertig werde. ————————— OoR: - er verschweigt dabei, dass er die längste Zeit gemeinsame Sache mit den Kommunisten gemacht hat und dass er sie erst erschiessen ließ, als er alternative Geldquellen aufdecken konnte - er führt parallel mehrere Feldzüge im ganzen Land. Die Kontrolle der KMT Zentralregierung ist alles andere als vollständig - sie gleicht eher einem sich ständig verschiebenden Flickenteppich - nicht nur die Kommunisten sondern auch die KMT haben Geldsorgen und Versorgungsengpässe. Die Steuern, dir Kai-Shek gern in die Kriegskassen fließen sehen möchte werden immer noch in dezentralen Machtstrukturen erhoben und versickern dort auch zu einem erheblichen Teil. Die Loyalität der besiegten Warlords ist wackelig und bei der Verteilung der Steuern ist sich jeder selbst der nächste. Die Zentralarmee kann zwar ihre Soldaten mit Gewehren ausstatten aber der Krieg in China ist eher einer auf Sandalen als auf Panzern

Wouldn’t that lead to players manually chasing the enemy squadron? At least if we would allow repositioning of fighter sectors while in flight? Also: if the enemy CV places his fighter area relatively close to my CV (but outside CAP) and in the way of my planes - would that be something that is intended? Or would that become an issue?

Thanks both. Will check on 25th how that looks in the coupon section. Did not fully understand whether Siliwangi is now part of that offer or not but I guess I will see it on 25th. And yes - I know she is a weird wish..

Question: there was a note that Siliwangi will be available for doubloons and that there will be special one time coupons for these ships. Did anyone understand exactly how this will work and when? Seen 25th Dec and 8th Jan? Are these coupons on top or are these the ones which just dropped a couple of days ago?

Fair points - I would like to write up a clean proposal once there is a nice thought through view on how it could be improved. However: - maybe you are right - maybe we don’t need an immunity to long range DPS and flak, some reduction maybe while at “high” altitude - no spotting - agree - I prefer fuel and ammo count - the further out you place the patrol the more of the fuel is consumed en route so it becomes a trade off - repositioning within the fuel flight time would be interesting but not necessarily crucial I would say - planes aggro right away once enemy enter their patrol area / patrol area bigger than today - fighter should be “recall-able” as usual Further questions: - what happens with the fighter squadron meeting planes en route to their patrol area? - do they scan for enemies en route? Will they Aggro? - if two fighter squadrons engage they are both subject to AA as they leave the “high” altitude? - disengage: I think you should at any point be able to recall fighters. They could just do what all planes do: gain altitude lose some planes on the climb until they reach the “safe” altitude? - triggers for disengage: manual (F), ammo consumed, fuel consumed - what about CAP? Are these a separate entity? Otherwise you would potentially deplete that capability if you have your fighters elsewhere?

I don’t disagree that fighters are terribly „implemented“ - but the whole consumable concept is garbage unfortunately. Also because they are one time use only is a problem. The whole thing is bad. @El2aZeR - so in this little model: - so should fighters only be subject to close range AA and would take reduced (likely significantly) damage from Flak clouds (they won’t dodge) and long range DPS? - what (limited) spotting do they need to do? None? Or just ships firing at them? Or just small radius around them? - should they be placed anywhere on the map? Or should they have a max range from the CV hull? - what would be reasonable patrol duration? If the fighters become part of the flightdeck there would be no number of charges anymore but only ready planes? - is the old RTS dogfighting sufficient? - what about exiting a dogfight? Yes/no/maybe?

Tend to agree although it’s a pity Abuse like putting on top of the enemy CV? If that would trigger CAP (would that a feature to be kept?) this would be wasting (and now fighters would need to be kept alive) the fighters, no? As they would just fight the CAP supported by the CV’s AA? And it would mean the enemy CV needs to be spotted in the first place. Or are there other abuses for “fly high - don’t eat Flak (or little) and don’t spot ships (or little but probably none)”?

Facts like „one time consumable = 100% comparable to playable assets such as torpedo bombers” - calling this nonsense “fact” is a bit of a stretch but as I said - that part is not going to find a common ground. Current situation yes but a possibility to reduce the enemy’s damage race that would be. Question would be more if it would be too decisive as a tool? Precisely that is where I took it from. I admit at first I didn’t like it but once you think about it a bit more it would be an improvement. Especially since manual controlled fighters probably don’t work well in the model. For me it would already be a big step forward if fighters would be part of the deck and use the same logic with regards to availability, etc. And I don’t like the “cancel each other out” at all - a simple AI dogfight would be a bit less gamey for me at least. Fair point Valid point - although it would be nice to somehow have a possibility to place these next to your ships without a random enemy killing them

That question maybe a little aside as it is a very general one which we likely won’t find a common understanding. But: What would you do with fighters? What do you think about the two alternatives? To me it looks like WG only spend Major considerations on the strike part and just slapped the rest (AA, fighters) in afterwards. Well maybe the flak clouds were some original design element. What I’m looking for: what would be a reasonable alternative to the current - and mostly disliked - fighters? WG doesn’t seem to be entirely against putting some more effort into it (eg they re-did this sector thingy). But what would be a reasonable request for improvements?