1MajorKoenig

Dude there are no facts. Currently YOUR “feeling” is the most prominent here. You brought literally ZERO facts and I showed you why. There are still about FOUR very vocal Rework-haters here on the forum who keep repeating their story. The only “fact” is at the end of the day how many players do actually play CVs and that seems to be still more than before. But only WG has these numbers unfortunately Don’t get me wrong but you are wasting your energy here. WG can’t go back - the earlier you accept that the better

Are you even capable of a having a grown up discussion? Can you create a single post without insulting? Besides: point is WG didn’t screw over 96% with the rework

Well yes. You can easily calculate the needed sample size. But please don’t fool yourself - 100 or so votes are by no way significant and the second condition, that the sample is random isn’t fulfilled either. What you essentially have is a sample of 100 frustrated and therefore very vocal voters. Which is most likely not representative for the entire player base. Not saying I don’t see your reasons but claiming “the majority” thinks this is simply a pretty vague and not very credible statement. Plus what I dislike is the way this discussion goes. Everyone who likes this change gets purely personally attacked by a small group of rework-critics. It’s not about having a civilized discussion but just about shouting down others. That’s rather cheap and shows me that some ppl here are lacking facts so they revert to personal insults as a last ditch

I am not saying there are no people sharing your opinion. I am just telling you that you can’t know whether this is a majority or not. Especially if only a couple of forumites give their vote. At the end it will come down to how many play CVs after the fudging around comes to an end. That’s the only thing that will tell you if it is more popular or not

That’s exactly my problem

Your poll showed what - 100 votes?

It’s not about for or against the rework but he just attacked the other guy. I am not mentioning any majorities or shares btw. It’s fine to like the old RTS or the new rework. However your own claims about majorities are more than doubtful but I didn’t expect anything different so no worries mate

Seriously? Currently the balance is not good and WG greatly struggles to balance CVs. This skill vs RNG is one of the issues And works? Sure but does it work well?

Agree with that. However skill vs skill in CV vs AA would solve a lot of the current balancing dilemma

The less you ask for the less you’ll get. I am sure people are very well capable to learn much more if needed. And it’s a rather obvious concept to aim AA guns at attacking planes - I think a lot of people would get that ...

You can‘t say whether it would be powerful at all. It’s pure guessing on your side. And no - manual AA gun control would be exactly what’s needed. Manual attack vs RNG Defense is a badness idea to begin with And who in hell would be overwhelmed by manning AA guns? You could even leave an automatic weaker base Defense in place in case you are doing other things such as manoeuvring or attacking

Wow what a helpful post... The manners here on the forums seem to be taking a nosedive unfortunately.

No-Phly-Zone? Dann bappt der andere CV seine Jäger dagegen und dann heben sie sich gegenseitig auf

I find them pretty useless too. More to distract AA and enemy fighters than actual use

Ich finde das Rework ebenfalls deutlich spaßiger. Allerdings hat WG die AA Balance noch nicht getroffen (Flak zu stark) und die Jäger finde ich blöd als Consumable.

Err nope

Well you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean there isn’t any skill gap at all anymore. If there wouldn’t it would be pointless to try to improve your skill hence the class wouldn’t be very exciting. What I meant was that the skill gap with the new CVs isn’t a problem anymore. Remember - in the old world a good CV could shut down a weak one completely and make the “big points” with the extreme alpha strike. That’s both gone.

Think big mon ami

Well sailing a BB doesn’t teach you how to torp and how to DD either. And even these use different Consumables. Even within a class these things can be different. So yea if you go down to that detail level you will find differences. But it’s still no game-in-a-game. CV planes move like everyone else on the map and are controlled like everyone else. They have a targeting mechanisms like everyone else and so on. The only difference is planes can’t cap - but your CV still can. Essentially you have two avatars rather than one but that’s about it

I disagree that CVs are still “a game in the game”. Now they follow the exact same mechanics. If that was your concern it would be solved...

Why? All classes are different yet balanced against each other. The current ones are not terribly unbalanced but there are some elements that are a problem (AA progression and +/-2 MM - mainly constant AA DPS, But again - how is that different to other classes? Skill gap is normal - it just becomes a problem if it comes with extreme influence on the game as it shrews it up for the whole team. The new CVs are more supporters than big-point-scorers - their influence is drastically reduced. Hence why skill gap - if there’s still one - isn’t a problem. That kind of problem is probably now more prominent on DDs. The CV damage is already scaled down drastically. And even that much to cater for the fact a CVs lives usually for the entire match. That’s already in place. Problem is that +2 MM AA is currently unbalanced against CVs hence why you need to either restrict the MM to +/-1 or time down AA progression.

This. To add to this: the FW190 was used in the fighter bomber role solely because there was no better design. With the Ju87 becoming outdated the Luftwaffe needed a more modern and aircraft with better chances to survive in that role. So the robust and durable FW190 was used. Btw even 109s were used in that capacity but the FW was cwrtainly the better workhorse in such roles. It was a tractor compared to the race horse 109. The question which planes would have been used on GZ is interesting had it been completed. As naval fighters weren’t as prominent in the Atlantic as in the Pacific my guess is she would have used Ju87s nevertheless

BTT: I voted “promising” because I think the new system offers some immersion. In understand everyone who likes the old system even if I never did. But I hope for the sake of the game that WG finds a good balance with the new system. I don’t see them going back to the old one so I would appreciate more work to finalize the new one. My current pain points are: - Constant AA DPS too high - fighter Consumable close to pointless - no manual CV ship control - MM - CVs are useless when uptiered - in general RNG AA vs manual strikes I think some useful next steps could be: 1) fix overlapping AA constant DPS 2) restrict CVs to +1/-1 MM 3) implement a button to switch between active strike squadron and CV ship to enable manual Defense of the ship And further down the road: - rework Fighter concept entirely

I guess let’s not feed the troll