1MajorKoenig

Uff That’s a long read. Not disagreeing with everything but to your first question: 1. Why didn’t WG cooperate with the current CV unicorns? -> these guys like the current model but they are alone. WG wouldn’t be able to make a fresh start with these guys unfortunately. They would always pull the thing into their/the current direction almost nobody likes. 2. Could be but could be fun as well - I for one will give it a try and wait with my judgement until afterwards. It also depends on how the other elements play out - fighters, interaction with AA, etc 2.3 As discusse above - best would be to gradually reduce the strike squadron size with losses to finally zero in into a minimum size of eg. 3 planes. You could add increases service times - to be tested 2.4 would be nice if CV gameplay would pick up more characteristics of real CV battles. As you said - IRL the CV chose the weapons and sent a huge wave at the enemy. Controlling one squadron makes a lot of sense therefore. Fighters were mostly used for CAP - which is to be seen how this plays out 2.5 yes agree we need to control the ship 2.8 true but unlikely it makes the current CV game more attractive 3. Yes and no. The game is also about attractiveness. And that is unfortunately where the current models couldn’t win the hearts of most players. so long

Der Dasha-Hype ist irgendwie komplett an mir vorbeigegangen. Ist da irgendwas besonderes dran oder liegt es einfach nur daran, dass eine Tante im engen T-Shirt die Patchnotes vorliest...?

+1 we want to be able to WASD our ship

Yes but I like the reduced squadron size idea better as it would be in line with deteriorating AA power throughout the game.

It would be better - as already suggested to decrease the squadron size after one gets wiped out. On top you can increase sevice times to bring a new squadron to the air but I think making them smaller after loses is both logical as it is the right incentive. It should level out at a minimum squadron size though so you can still do stuff - just less dangerous. Say minimum squadron size would be 3 = one attack wing

Habe sie mir nach den Tipps hier geholt und bin nach ersten Eindruck begeistert! Ist genau was ich gesucht habe. Danke die Poster hier

I am an optimist and believe it can change. Today DDs And CL/CAs cooperate. Because they kind of have to. BBs and CVs are a little detached at the moment - that certainly doesn’t help.

Die He100 hatte diesen unsäglichen Kühler. Wie könnte man glauben, das sei eine gute Idee wenn man Beschuss erwartet...?

WG should keep the option to steer the carrier in 1st person mode like today when pressing z. At least be able to navigate properly with the fleet, select AA targets or however it will work in the future and then switch views to the strike squadron

What he meant was AA deteriorates over the game (less ships, destroyed AA mounts) but CV striking power stays

You are having a point with comparing planes to HP rather than Ammo. I am bit sure yet though what view makes more sense in the context of the game.

For those who keep complaining about the removal of de-planing. It’s exactly the same as unlimited ammo and torpedoes. It makes sense in the context of the game now it is to be seen how it will be implemented

That I like as well! Still can’t picture the fighters other than a CAP around my own CV - would be curious to see that in action (or did they show it in the video?) @El2aZeR altitude control would be nice / different abilities to spot / vulnerability to long range Flak maybe

If you read how CV battles went in real life I like the fact you choose the type of weapon before ordering the strike. Look at the re-arming chaos on the Japanese Carriers at Midway. I like that this finds a way into the game. What would be interesting to understand is whether you “stay” with your squadron when returning or if you jump straight into the next squadron when you hit the “return to carrier” button? EDIT: if they don’t want fighter gameplay a consumables “CAP” might be a thing. Some fighters patrolling the vicinity of the CV and defend against strike. “Could” encourage to sail together - combining it with AA bubbles

Potentially - certainly different to a different line of sight. I can imagine the gameplay experience changes and that cooperation with AA ships besonders not relevant. Avoiding “Focus-CV-Fire” doesn’t mean hiding in the back or behind islands necessarily but keeping close to AA bubbles. Could be interesting - let’s see

Is this any different to “focus fire” from ships?

This is a oversimplification. You are missing the point that the current solution is ridiculously unpopular. WG wants to address valid concerns - and while I fully understand that CV players who somehow got to like the current CV game are disappointed - WG had to change the style. And quite frankly, some tweaks here and there to the current model won’t change the attractiveness issues. I like they dare to think different and I am curious how it really plays out. Personally I would have preferred a “Battlestations” solution but hey - let’s try it first. I think the concept has some good potential - I am currently not sure about the fighter solution but I need to play it myself

Some questions I still have after watching: 1. How do fighters work? Didn’t get it? 2. Will the commander skills be redone? I mean Manual AA which boosts long range AA looks rather useless? What’s up with “AA Focus to one side?”

These reactions don’t surprise me but the class in its current state is simply unpopular. It saying that there aren’t some few who like it but that‘s it Unfortunately. I am curious how the new mode plays out - I will reserve my judgment for after trying but I am positive about the overall concept.

Why weaker than Kronstadt? What do you base this statement on?

@Walther_K_Nehring danke ist notiert - hier kann man leicht mal ein Design übersehen

Cheers mate stuff happens

Yea no prob, can you confirm the mail was sent by WG and is not any kind of fishing or other fraud?

Moinsen, es gab erstmal keinen Widerspruch zur Tonnage, das freut mich natürlich. Würde ich später aber alles mal zur Abstimmung stellen, wenn es klare Szenarien gibt. Ansonsten erstmal ein Zwischenstand zu den derzeit geposteten Entwürfen - bitte kurze Info wenn ich wieder einen übersehen habe! Leichter Flottenkreuzer für die Kampfgruppen mit großer Reichweite ("Arbeitstier") Walther (post #1264) 8.840t / 3x3 15cm / Diesel 32,4kn / 12.000sm @18kn Exzession 01 (post #1260) 10.590t / 4x3 15cm / Dampf 34kn / 12.000sm @15kn Exzession 02 (post #1267) 8.854t / 3x3 15cm / Dampf 33kn / 12.000sm @15kn DeadMemories (post #1354) 8.415t / 4x2 15cm / Diesel 34,5kn / 21.450sm @15k Flottillenführer (ca. 4.500t) Walther (post #1257) 4.530t / 2x2 15cm / Diesel 32,5kn / 12.000sm @18kn DeadMemories (post #1354) 5.355t / 2x3 15cm / Diesel 35,5kn / 20.500sm @15kn Zusätzlich habe ich mir den Dieselzerstörer 1935 von Dullman aus Post #1334 für später notiert

Hehe nee. Ein zeitgenössischer Marinebaurat hat es einst auf den Punkt gebracht: „Kreuzer-Schlachtschiffe“ (im Gegensatz zu den Englischen „Schlachtschiff-Kreuzern“)