eliastion

No. Just limit CVs to 1/team, remove situational awareness from planes, make it so that RPF doesn't work on planes (or doesn't point towards ships with AA deactivated when you're in a plane) and see how "easy" it will become for CVs to find the (usually stealthier than higher tiers) t8 DDs that don't want to be found and don't give away their position by going into the caps before the CVs end their initial scouting/anti-DD adventure with rocket planes and start switching to something meant to attack bigger targets. I mean, seriously - the main defense of DDs is stealth and as a CV player I can vouch that these litter buggers ARE stealthy. It's not easy to find them if they were never spotted/remain unspotted for long enough to reposition a bit... Or rather: they WOULD be hard to spot if CVs weren't given an advance warning "there's a DD hidden within <your plane's spotting radius>, scout around" when getting ship-spotted without seeing any ship around. In fact, @MrConway, maybe this is an idea that could at least be pushed "upwards"? I mean, I play CVs right now and I actively hunt DDs, without even using RPF - and that class is really under a lot of pressure (it's one of the thing that WG is trying to address if I'm not mistaken) in CV matches. Pressure that could be significantly alleviated by just removing situational awareness from planes. DDs are all about stealth - and the main reason why this stealth doesn't work against CVs is the combination of "you're spotted" giving away their approximate position combined with planes' speed allowing them to quickly scan the entire area suspect of DD presence. And this is, in fact, one of the very few applications of that plane situational awareness. Being fired upon by AA is a very important information - being spotted usually isn't because in most cases when you get spotted, you see your spotter in return... unless they are a DD. Removing this function would give DDs much more freedom, giving them an honest chance to capitalize on their stealthiness and actually avoid detection by planes, leaving the CV unaware that he ALMOST saw a "silent" DD along the way.

Ouch, this sounds like another thing... not very favorable for the 2-torp set-up on IJN CVs that have (obviously) very small strike detachments... on top of bad spreads with just two torps that they got now, low alpha (since, well, two torps at best)... well, they aren't slower than most ships, at least Although I'm starting to wonder how I'm sometimes seeing any of them return to the carrier post-hotfix. I mean, it really happens from time to time! I swear! Maybe a case of short-range AA badly damaged by AA spam or something... Anyway, I'll use the opportunity to ask another question that bugs me. How does AA interact with islands? The way it SEEMS to be working is: - if you're not spotted (for example behind an island) you're not taking AA damage and you're not targeted by flak. - if you're spotted, you're taking continuous AA damage even if the AA platform is behind an island (and can't be spotted while firing the guns at you, making the interaction... quite one-sided). - I'm not sure if flak is spawned for you if its source is behind an island. Sometimes it seems like it does, but then again, sometimes I get the feeling like there should be more based on what I know is behind the island. So, does Flak spawn for you through mountains? And is my observation that continuous AA shoots right through solid ground correct (as long as the planes are spotted by something else), or is it a mistake on my part? Oh, and two more minor thing came to mind: - With the recent hotfix, "bombers" get reduced AA damage during the attack run. I'm understanding that the mechanic specifically benefits the bombers only (Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers + maybe whatever the RN CVs get) and not the rocket planes - am I correct in that assumption? - Also, I assume that the lowered damage affects the entire squadron and not just the strike detachment that will separate in case of completing the attack, is that right?

It doesn't seem like mere 30% of damage reduction should have the effect quite as dramatic - the planes are still taking more than 2/3 of the normal damage, after all. It's a precious bonus (really noticeable on torpedo planes) but hardly a god mode.

I don't think you understood the guy you're quoting. Every DD with dual-purpose guns (and there's a lot of them in high tiers) has guns that are used as normal main battery and count as AA at the same time. The thing is - there is really no reason to nerf this by having the players choose. The AA of DDs isn't impressive at the best of times. Sure it's not realistic for guns to be magically firing at planes and ships at the same time, but there's no need to remove that feature since it would mostly just make ships with weak AA even weaker. The only viable idea of removing this "magic" would be to completely change the way "main AA guns work" and give players control over them. Basically, a complete AA overhaul that would introduce true manual AA. That would also require giving more freedom to the CV players (and even the current system is criticized as "WoWp over the sea" - imagine if you were actually given more control over the course, speed and altitude of your planes, actually making it a strange squadron-sized 3rd person flight sim) AND there are serious problems with ships that are designed to have powerful AA but that don't actually use their main batteries for AA - so you'd probably need a system where you not just switch the way you use your guns but actually switch the guns treated as "main battery" for the purpose of AA... AND then all of that needs to be balanced. Somehow. Let's put it this way: it sounds like more work (and a bigger change to the game) than the current CV rework AND future submarine implementation put together. I doubt WG will ever be willing to commit resources necessary to make it work.

Actually, you got mistaken about the game mechanics and since you managed to have favorable results, your false impression got reinforced. Basically, the AA guns don't turn and don't acquire targets the way you seem to believe they do. There are three factors: 1. The AA auras (short, middle and long-range though not all ships have all three and the distance boundaries for each can differ between ships) that deal continuous damage to your planes. This can't be avoided - if your planes are within specific distance from a ship and are spotted, they are receiving damage from the relevant aura) 2. The flak. These are the black bursts that appear in front of your planes when you're within long- or medium-range aura of a ship capable of producing these bursts. And - now this is important - the flak bursts spawn more-or-less in front of your planes at more-or-less the right distance for your planes to fly right through them. If you maneuver (turn a lot, use speed boost to accelerate or decelerate, enter attack run to drop the altitude on rocket planes or torpedo bombers) that lets you avoid the flak bursts pretty reliably, SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the damage you would've suffered had you flown into them. 3. Sector reinforcement. This is the closest to "turning the AA guns" WoWs has - and, basically, you pick the side of your ship (180 degree half-circles on right or left) you want to focus your AA on. How severe the focus is (and how long it takes to change the side or go to neutral 100:100) depends on the ship class and captain skills. For a BB without Manual AA skill changing the reinforced sector takes a lot of time and the distribution becomes 75:125. A DD by default has 50:150 and much faster flipping time - and if you add Manual AA skill it goes up all the way to 20:180, making it possible for DD AA to be somewhat relevant despite base values being much lower than BBs and cruisers. But, back to the issue at hand. Your tactic can give you certain effects - but that's a coincidence. Basically: 1. There are quite a few ships with weaker short-range AA DPS than medium-range one - getting close to them lowers the damage you take 2. Short-range AA doesn't create flak (though there are ship that don't have short-range aura at all and their medium-range aura starts very close to the ship) 3. By turning a lot to keep over/close to your target you might be accidentally avoiding any flak spawned against your squadron even without realizing the threat it poses 4. If you happen to fight someone that actively uses sector reinforcement, then yes, circling around and being unpredictably on one or the other side of the enemy might actually be making his efforts to maximize AA useless. Still, I wouldn't expect many people at low tier to make good use of AA sector reinforcement, especially since there are no AA DDs down there and few people have captains with a lot of skill points to spend on manual AA that would make sector reinforcement more relevand and not as slow as it by default is on BBs and even cruisers. PS: In fact, the "destroyer vs bigger targets" tactics you described happen to be much more applicable not to planes but... well. Destroyers. A fast DD that for some reason gets close to a battleship (most likely trying to ambush the latter with torps) can actually become a pretty nasty target by sailing around the BB much faster than the guns can turn - especially when BB is for some reason not capable of adding the hull turn to the equation. Not to mention that small (low) targets like DDs can be hard not only to track but even aim for as short distances, since most people are used to aiming in binocular mode that severely restricts your ability to lower your guns when fighting point-blank... and even if someone knows that they CAN aim lower if they exit binocular view, it is simply harder to do because you receive less help from the game if you do so.

This might be a strange situation specific to DBs. I mean, all the short-range AA seems to be starting at 0.1 km. This implies a dead zone with a radius of 100meters - so, technically, wouldn't dive bombers that manage to get to the ship (and are performing that strange hop vertically up to then, well, dive) be actually pretty safe during their attack run? As in, potentially completely invulnerable to the AA of the ship they are attacking? This might be confirmation bias on my part, but when I run out of real planes on my IJN CVs and take DBs out, I seem to be losing planes (or at least hp) on approach but... not really during the attack itself, despite my targets often sporting quite reasonable short-range AA. Perhaps this could be tested in training room, but it's possible that Hood's AA (and the AA of other ships that rely on short-range aura) actually might be relatively vulnerable to DBs thx to them having the potential to abuse the tiny hole in short-range aura that seems to exist right over the ship itself.

To start with - "balance" is a term that only makes sense for PvP. When it's PvP, it's not about "balance" but "difficulty level". Remember Rasputin compared to the t3 ships people are sailing in the Transylvania scenario? And really, it's not like this is WoT where an enemy heavy tank three tiers higher would be hard to even scratch. In WoWs it's mostly just more hp and some more firepower. If you consider that "unfair" then go and count the sheer number of enemies that operations throw at you - that is a much more challenging factor than the fact that one of them happens to be a +3 tier ship. They could even throw at you a Yamato with Conqueror's heal as the last boss kind of existence and there wouldn't be anything fundamentally wrong with that

Actually, they are fast enough - the 2-torp layout has short arming distance, they are reasonably easy to land since you usually drop point-blank... but they still are a chore to aim after the hotfix. Them being easy to aim was their big selling point, so to speak, and that was nerfed for no good reason. It's not necessarily hard to use them once you adjust - but it's annoying, sapping the fun out of the game. And that's a pretty damn bad way of balancing them, because: - the "comfortable" option was easy to use for worse players and more fun for every Haku player - the "extremely uncomfortable" option is something better players adjust to easily and hold only marginally less power than with the comfortable option but it's just much less fun to use them Basically, the nerf to all the aiming characteristics of these torps lowered the power of worse players (that never was a problem), didn't really impact the power of the skilled players (that was problematic) AND negatively impacted the fun of everyone playing the ship. Increasing the skill gap while making the ship less fun to play - not exactly the best way of nerfing ships when your stated goal is to open the class to more players and increase their numbers long-term while keeping in check their extreme impact in unicum hands. The AA changes were good (and actually impacted the power of 2-torp option a lot since they made it hard to deliver too many strikes as the damage on planes keeps accumulating now even if you don't eat flak). Unfortunately, this particular change that was slipped into the hotfix as well... Ugh.

Sorry but I can't agree with you there. 1. The stock TBs are slower, more fragile, there's less of them on the deck and they replenish slower. 2. Planes in bigger squadron live longer because damage spreads out among them. 3. If you'd prefer to use a 10-plane squadron, you can just drop two torps into the sea or make them a heaven-sent present for the natives on some island along the way to your target. You're not obliged to fly all 12 planes all the way to your intended target. 4. If you often expect to lose your entire 12-plane squadron (or don't expect but experience that regularly anyway) while dropping just 2-4 torps, you really should work on your target selection.

Yes, yes they would. If it was balanced and fun to play, there would be no problem whatsoever. And, in fact, being a huge hulking beast that just doesn't die (as long as they managed to strike the balance right and made the things entertaining) sounds like it would likely bring you more of that feeling of being A BATTLESHIP. The problems would start only when you started to mess the "feels", not the damage output for classes. Yes, if BBs were to become the nimble ballerinas and DDs the heavyweights, it would lead to big WTFs. But just dealing similar damage to DDs, instead emphasizing cruisers as the ones delivering not only more DPS but also more damage per match? No problem there. As long, of course, as things were balanced and the "low damage" BBs capable of influencing the outcome of the match on par with other ships (hard to do with just their staying power considering that even now other, squishier targets are prioritized because they are easier to remove - so the even harder to kill BBs that pose less of a direct threat? Welll...). Anyway, you bring up damage, but there are plenty things that BBs should be doing much better than other classes but just don't, for balance reasons. The AA monsters being mostly the cruiser job, for example? Cruisers being the ones carrying the most powerful Radars? The advanced fire controls allowing for more precise fire? BBs, in general, should have cruisers beaten- or at least not be falling behind them - in all of these categories. But they don't - for balance reasons. Cruisers were given the utility role where they are (or at least the appropriately focused members of the class are) the superior AA platforms and/or the ships carrying the most advanced electronics. The essence of "the feeling of a carrier" is flexible power projection through the use of faster and more expendible aviation. Being a great damage dealer is just one of the ways it might be expressed - as long as the game is made entertaining, this doesn't need to be the case at all. CVs finding themselves shifted towards the role of support class would seem strange but the problems wouldn't be "shouldn't they be dominating" (especially since, due to balance, no, they shouldn't) - it would be "is the gameplay fun?" Well, high tier BBs are actually out in the sea slugging it out instead of mostly being conserved as a symbol of power more so than actually used due to how expensive they were, making the high command reluctant to risk their loss. And let's not even start with the standard BB tactics like bow tanking instead of trading broadside salvoes at distances dictated by "immunity zones" against the enemy armaments. DDs are equipped with cloaking devices, pretending to be submarines by specializing in stealthy torpedo attacks against much bigger targets. Cruisers are utility vehicles providing Radar and AA capabilities far ahead of the other classes instead of being basically a more economically viable cheap alternative to battleships. So... why exactly can't CVs be shoehorned into a completely unhistorical role? Every other class is.

It gets better when you see an operation that allows only t7 ships - but all the classes are allowed, CV icon is there too!

Then again, while they are hanging back, they are also less mobile and more clustered - that sounds like things that Asashio could actually try using, especially since she doesn't have to get far away from her friendly AA umbrella to torp. And planes won't stop these torps anymore. And there won't be many DDs in the front. And cruisers that have the choice are more likely to have def. AA than hydro. I don't say it's comfortable to see a CV (or, worse, two CVs, especially when they are two tiers above you) but for Asashio specifically it seems like there's a lot of silver lining.

That's literally what Operations are, though. This part of your post could just sound "hey WG, could we get some tX operations?". The second half is more "fresh" as we don't have something like that. But... ...what's the point of having it? Who would it be for and who would really participate in something like that, to justify the development time needed to introduce such a strange game mode?

Well, without flying into flak it's even more certain that you actually suffered mostly from something that wasn't Shima. Could be a ship behind an island or in smoke (you normally see enemy ship a while before they can start shooting at your planes), but as for Shima... let's put it this way: even if you built her for AA (for some reason) she really wouldn't become an AA monster. She could maybe shoot down something from t8 CV, yes, but bringing down an entire squadron (and fast, and with aura bubbles alone) is just impossible.

There was something else. Maybe smoked up so you didn't notice. Even flying into any available flak (of which she produces pitiful amounts) you probably wouldn't be able to lose a whole squadron to Shima's AA alone, not in two seconds, at least (even if the planes in the flak would die, Shima just doesn't spawn enough to let you fly the entire squadron through it - squadrons are too spread out for that to work).

...aaand I stopped reading here. How OP they were in real life is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion. Balancing things based on their relative real-world power in a match where a player gets a single DD, a single cruiser, a single BB or a single CV is ridiculous idea. In real world cruisers were significantly more powerful than DDs, significantly less powerful than BBs and CVs were sitting very far away and sh*tthing on everything else like pigeons with (literally) explosive diarrhea, the only real threat to them being the enemy carriers and land-based aviation. That's how it worked in real world. But that's a really, really terrible way to balance a multiplayer pvp game.

I had some time (read: I should be doing other things but I'm procrastinating) so I decided to give our cute conspiracy theorists the oh-so-desired proof that the "MM-rigging" part of the patent is not implemented. To put it simply, I'll pick each option and I'll explain why the observations of the state of the game show that the system in question is absent from MM. This actually I won't deny. I have no proof that it's not random within the permissible range But I wanted to point out that this technique is also part of the patent, so... I guess the patent counts as proof for lack of MM rigging as well? Ok, but now more seriously, going to the described "speshul MM" techniques: If that was true, we would be seeing clear patterns in how we are being placed in matches of increasingly high tier. And yet - the MM in this aspect is all over the place, often at the same tier a couple times in a row. This is proof that the MM does not work as described in this part of the patent. If this was true, the poor players (these constantly at 30-45% winrate) should be playing - usually - as top tier. Do we observe this pattern? Well, it certainly didn't seem so in the brief period when I used a stats monitor to observe my teammates (and opponents) expected skill levels. Another facet of this is that good players (those at, say, 56+%) should almost always be bottom tier - and those with WR at 66% or above should literally never be placed as anything other than bottom tier unless playing a ship of t9 (then they would always be middle tier) or t10 (then being something than top tier is not possible since we don't have tier 11 or tier 12 battles in WoWs). I'm pretty sure I've seen some screenshot from one of the CV super-unicums where he played a Saipan and was NOT bottom tier. Since having WR ratio over 2 should make it impossible if the patent was implemented as described here, this single screenshot, unless fake, is proof that MM does not work as described in this part of the patent. Alternatively, the win/loss percentage might be counted for a single gaming session rather than (as the straight reading implies) for the global stats. If that was the case, then after sitting to play and having a winning streak (winning twice as much or more than losing) players should be constantly playing as bottom tier. This I have experienced personally to not be true - even quite recently, while playing Kitakaze (my favourite and most-played ship recently, I sometimes started the day with 5 or more straight victories - and yet I was still seeing a mix of t9 and t10 battles rather than always being stuck with the t10 ones. This proves that even with the short-term/one session WR treated as the basis for the win/loss ratio, the MM still doesn't work as described in this part of the patent. If this was true, then it would not be possible to be bottom tier for a second time in a row if the match was lost AND it would not be possible to be top tier for a second time in a row if the match was won. Since both situations can be observed on regular basis, this proves that the algorithm outlined in this part of the patent is not implemented in WoWs. If any of these two were true, it would not be possible to be a bottom tier in the first match played in any vehicle. I don't have 100% reliable data to debunk existence of this particular mechanism right away. I seem to recall that the first battle I played in my newly acquired post-rework Shokaku was actually a t10 battle - but I can't be 100% sure of that, I might've remembered wrong (also, it was coop that might work differently). So - based on the data I can vouch for right now, I can't be absolutely sure. However, if someone can show us a 1st ever match in some ship vehicle where he's bottom tier, that would be conclusive evidence that this part of pattern, too, is not implemented as described. Still, I don't completely discount the possibility that this is the case as I never paid special attention to how the MM for the first match presents itself. Conclusion The only techniques outlined in the "MM rigging" section that I couldn't disprove based on (easy to recreate) observations of the current state of MM are: 1. The "no rigging" method (you get assigned the tier of the battle at random, based on the range accessible for your vehicle) 2. The two "let the newcomers live" methods that make it so that you start with a new (for you) vehicle in a match where you're top tier, or at least not the bottom tier - and then either the grace period is withdrawn after a number of battles (one or more, depending on the set N attribute) or the range of battles allowed for the player-vehicle combination gradually expands (making it possible to be middle and later even low tier) It should be noted that none of these methods take your results into account. It should be further noted that even the debunked method don't give you allies of higher or lower skill - they are concerned exclusively about the tier of the battle (whether you'll be top, bottom or middle tier in case of +/-2 MM) you should be assigned to. @Jean_Bart, it is possible that I missed some method outlined in the patent (since it deals in many more things than "MM rigging" and describes at length the very concept of vehicle and battle tiers) and failed to write about it. If you notice such an oversight, by all means point me towards (preferably by quoting) the specific MM-rigging algorithm so that I can make up for said oversight and provide relevant commentary on the missed one(s) as well

So... The one scenario you came up with where it may take considerable time to clean up is a scenario where the last remaining player actually has quite a lot of power to fight off the remaining enemies before they catch up to him? Oh, sounds like something they would do! Oh, wait, actually I can imagine such a CV using the surrender option... if the player is of the very specific kind - the sort of player that, in WoT, meets the upcoming end of the match by jumping to the nearest body of water instead of fighting (and giving the enemy the option to score a kill). Most often done by artillery, but practiced by tanks of every class if the opportunity arises. Now, the kind of player we're talking about - if sitting in a CV - would be delighted. First he would harass the pursuers with planes as long as possible and then - when finally chased right into his corner and starting to come under enemy fire, he would surrender, ending the battle immediately without giving any of the enemies (that - as you say - actually spent some time uselessly chasing said CV while being harassed by more or less effective air raids) the satisfaction of actually having killed him (or the kill ribbon that might've contributed to someone's Kraken or whatever). ...somehow I don't feel like we have more arguments in favor of the surrender option after having analyzed the most likely version of the "lone CV that would want to surrender rather than fight to the bitter end" scenario

I've seen games that have a "surrender" option. Sometimes it's necessary to have a way out like that, but even then the "which idiot is blocking the surrender vote!?" discussions are ugly. And if you restrict it to a situation with just one player, then the option becomes meaningless because the situations where hunting down a lone survivor takes a lot of time (AND both the clock and point count allow for that) are exceedingly rare.

*Edited* !

A lot of people spent their lives looking at the flatness of the Earth, you know? "FACT". And I personally could swear that when I'm taking a stroll in the mountains and going back to the same point, about 80% of the trail leads upwards But a bit of common sense and passing knowledge of geometry tell me that my perception might be.... not entirely correct, no matter how strong the feeling of always climbing up is

Perhaps the comment wouldn't seem quite as bad if you haven't misunderstood it. Thing is: as things currently stand, Shima has basically no tools to face a CV. Well, there's the smoke that can give her a bit respite but that's it. Problem is, she's also one of the most "autonomous" ships since her success depends a lot on finding and using good torpedo angles - because her torps just don't really work if not launched from the right angle. Too easy to avoid. In return she gets stealth but... here come CVs. Or, more specifically: here come LOTS of CVs. Therefore criticizing someone for "whining" about their Shima (as the guy I quoted did) just makes no sense. A meta with 1 CV in every match and 2 CVs in many is deadly for Shimakaze. No, I disagree here. You see, the AA DDs right now are a worthy addition to fleet's AA but they struggle to fend off attacks on themselves when alone against equal tier CV. They have some power and can deter the enemy a bit but usually it's "shoot down a couple planes, gain time when the CV wants to hunt you but doesn't want to be hit by your def. AA enchanced armamanets, hide in friendly AA so that enemy gives up or overcommits - and then pop up again once they go deal with other things". It's not reasonable to want and give non-AA DDs the ability that AA-oriented ones barely possess with their firepower. What DDs should be given is... basically what they have: their stealth. But that doesn't really require enhancements to DDs, but rather VERY targeted changes to the aircraft. I wrote about them a couple times, but I can repeat once more: 1. Take away situational awareness from planes. They don't need it much to deal with cruisers and BBs - the "you're under fire" icon is enough, they can live without the information that they are spotted. This information only really serves one purpose and that's: a wide-area DD detector. Your planes generally spot things before being spotted - with the explicit exception of DDs, there the trend is clearly reversed. So when you get spotted but see nothing within your concealment radius? Congratulations, you've found a DD, now you just need to comb the area and your planes are fast enough to do that quickly. 2. Take away the option of using RPF on planes. Again, it's only real value is for locating DDs - and that's not something CVs should be getting additional tools for, the speed of their planes let's them try and look for them well enough. 3. Least important, but perhaps worth a thought: just take away ship-spotting from fighters deployed through Fighter consumable on ships and planes. But that's less necessary. Anyway, with just these two-three changes, and assuming just one enemy CV in a match, the lives of DDs would become an exciting adventure of stealth once more. They would still have their problems - torping would indicate that they are "somewhere around" (but only when the torps get ship-spotted) and capping alerts the whole map of your presence. But there would be the possibility of being alone, as long as you're not too predictable. Air spotting radius for DDs is tiny. And without the extra tools, CVs wouldn't be able to find you in areas they have no reason to specifically comb in search of you - because unless they actually spot you, they would have no idea you are near their planes at all.

You probably should contact Support. Someone has stolen your account and played 23 battles just this week. 14 within the last three days, in fact.

1. Why the hell do you change the size of the font? 2. If you really struggle to reach 10k damage (I assume you mean 160k and 10k rather than 160 and 10 ) then this is far, FAR beyond the point of "Midway weak" kind of problem. 3. Have you tried actually aiming with these torps and rockets? As in, avoiding drastic maneuvers while lining up an attack? 4. Midway seems to actually be stronger than her IJN counterpart after the most recent changes, so it doesn't seem to be specifically hated by WG. 5. While we're talking about WG and what they are doing... We've had a hotfix this week, because Hakuryu was stupidly OP and AA in general relatively useless against CV players with modicum of skill. We're having a hotfix to hotfix early next week because the AA wrecks planes like crazy, making ships with reasonable AA borderline untouchable by lower tier CVs. Basically, rather than claiming that WG "hates US aircraft carrier" it's pretty clear that overall balancing is still a mess that might be sorted out in the future but right now is pretty far from what WG would consider the desired state of the game. All things considered - there are many people complaining about many things (sometimes contradicting each other heavily), but the tone of your whine is just ridiculous and makes you sound like an entitled kid. If you keep at it, nobody will take you seriously - including even people who might wholeheartedly agree with you that Midway is currently far too weak. In fact, these guys might actually hate you the most, since you just make them look bad by association.

I'm not sure about USN but Japanese rockets don't seem to be quite as reliable as you describe and bombs are AP. But regardless of that, there's a big difference between and "you have to fail to cripple her AA in the first attack", regardless of how great your rockets and bombs are for the job