eliastion

Well, I've tried the rework and the combination of "your planes die after a strike" (rather than just fixing the F- issue this actually is more of a problem for the strike detachment that attacks and then tries to leave) and "your two torps have a default spread of 90 degrees" is pretty harsh. Problem is... it's not targeting the things it should've been targeting. To put it simply: pre-hotfix: Haku was fun to play and extremely powerful. post-hotfix: Haku lost a noticeable bit of power - but more than power, she lost the "fun" quality. WG should've tuned how forgiving the ship was - so that you couldn't just be attacking whatever you wanted and then teleport away in a pinch. The standard x2 torps could've been tuned down a bit in how easy they were to use... but A BIT. Not what was done to them. The main problems with them would've been easily addressed by F-fix and AA-tweaking because you have 12 planes and only attack with 2 at a time - you need SIX strikes for a full-squadron attack. The reason they seemed exceedingly effective was because it wasn't rare to be able to pull all six strikes out. That plus the floodings that could be stacked until a permanent one was inflicted - but that is "fixed" already next patch with flooding super-nerf! OK, you could say that my impression is basically a preliminary one - but I do feel like the match I played should be somewhat representative of the new Haku experience. I played one match (lost by point difference when time ran out, although we'd have lost anyway, with me being one rocket plane strike from death), dealt well over 160k damage, killed 3 ships... it wasn't a bad match. Other than ending in a defeat, I should've been having fun, right? Only I didn't. It's not a good sign when a 163k damage 3-kill battle is not fun...

45k doublons on FreeXP to skip through a branch that is (by WG claims) up for significant changes... all to get a ship that is (by general consensus of players) insanely OP. I mean... what would you expect? BUFFS? That being said, I heard that WG went about balancing their usual way. As in: took a sledgehammer and BOOOM. Gonna have to check the Haku. I don't have the guts to check the lower tier CVs

Citadel damage might stick better but the amount is pitiful to begin with. Putting all your Haku AP bombs into someone's citadel (every single one a citadel hit!) gives you just barely more damage than putting all the Midway's HE bombs on the target (all penetrating hits). And let's be frank: you'll get a much better % of accurate, penetrating hits with HE bombs than the % of AP citadels. It would be a different story if AP bombers used an unusually big strike detachment (rather than 12-plane squadron with 3-plane strikes if Haku had, say, 10-plane squadron with 5-plane strikes), giving you a good alpha oportunity for the ever-so-satisfying THAT WAS A BIG HIT on the rare perfect drop. But you don't get that. You perform a very hard drop that likely costs you a lot of planes and the best-case scenario is... quite underwhelming as a reward, really. If WG doesn't want CVs to perform huge alpha hits, they just shouldn't be giving them weapons that only make sense as a source of huge alpha hits due to all the difficulty (hard to use attack run that needs to hit the target in the right place at the right angle) and risk (DBs die. A lot) involved in using them.

You can lose the other types of planes too, though. Just like with old CVs - losing all planes of one type wasn't making it impossible to use the other types, right? It really doesn't take much to find yourself with reduced squadron sizes - and even relatively low casualties already limit your striking force. Let's keep with Haku as our example: you have 18 places on your deck for each of the three plane types. Even if you have more than a full squadron, a couple planes missing reduce the number of planes of this type that you can send - so every plane lost actually does hurt a little bit, although as long as you lose just one here and there, the resupply can sort-of keep up. Now, as for the OP Haku bombers... Haku has strong TBs and decent RPs - plus DBs that are mostly a decoration, they die like flies and deal almost no damage in practice (they're MUCH worse than the already unimpressive counterpart on Midway). Depending on the match and the situation I fly more TBs or RPs - but unless the situation really calls for the "correct" choice I'm usually taking off with whatever has more planes. I almost immediately find myself with only one being "full" at a time because a lot are in the air. Then it quite fast becomes a situation where neither are full - because some are in the air and some are dead. In more than half of my battles at some point I find myself with the absolute number (including these in the air) of planes in one or both being below 12 planes (and when that happens it's rare to see them ever recover to full squadron). It's rare to see less than 6 (overall, not just these on deck) in BOTH categories - but in just one? Happens in maybe one of 3-4 battles. DBs aren't included in the above calculations because they're basically an addition to occupy myslef with rather than something offering any actual striking force. If I'm forced to send them out, A LOT of them never makes it back usually. Now, I'm not saying that I really struggle with the lack of planes. But I feel the hits to my plane reserves. And I actually conserve the planes, avoid flak, use F when I deem it necessary and - I believe - I use my resources effectively, seeing the results. I also sit close to the battle, so my "wait for your planes to come back" problems are less severe than for a lot of players I meet that opt to stay much further (and safer) in the back. And yet my plane reserves are shrinking noticeably and this does impact my effectiveness as the match goes on. Yes, I am "always able to have something in the air" but there is sometimes not that much of the "something" and not of the kind that I need... Basically, there's nothing wrong with the model of planes resupply. It's actually quite restrictive. The only thing that needs addressing is how easy the planes are to save, allowing CVs to play recklessly if they want and have the skill to pull it off. It's not the effect of them having inexhaustible supply of planes. It's quite simply the effect of a situation where - as long as you can dodge flak - you can keep your planes from dying in the first place while attacking even pretty AA-heavy places (although even in the current situation there ARE no-fly zones where your planes just start melting if you're careless enough to put them there and even F might not be enough to save them in time). As long as the AA balancing is improved and F fixed a bit (although the way they're doing it in the hotfix is wrong), CVs will need to get more careful about picking their targets. Their impact will be reduced and the "damn, most of my planes are dead, what do I fly with now" situations will increase a lot for those who don't practice that caution. Well, we went away from that - it was one of the main points of the rework - and I do believe this to be the right decision. To put it simply... there are better games about planes fighting other planes. War Thunder is a nice title or - if you want to stay loyal to WG - post-rework World of Warplanes is actually quite good too (it would've been a successful game if it started from day 1 looking and playing like WoWp 2.0 rather than that joke it was at the start when it missed its chance to secure a proper playerbase). I could consider ideas about implementing some form of real manual AA - but leaving the bulk of AA defense to CVs is not a good idea, it puts CVs in their own little world AND it's actually impossible to balance in an acceptable manner at all. You see, the problem with CVs is that there won't ever be very many CVs in this game. 2 per team are already A LOT. If you let CVs fight for the air superiority, you need to balance AA with the assumption that the enemy CV doesn't just have free reign in the air. And then if your CV (or, best case, two CVs) are not up to the task of at least contesting the air, you'll see the surface fleet at the mercy of the CV. Not because of bad balance but because of bad design. Now, if you assume that CVs don't actually protect their fleets in a significant manner, things get very different: you end up in a situation where you're balancing the planes against the AA. And that actually can be done properly - because most ships have some AA capabilities. Even if someone screws up, this doesn't mean that the rest of the fleet is defenseless. That's what WG is aiming for - and while we can clearly see how far we are from actually getting there, this goal is at least potentially achievable.

It might be both. 8.1 seems to give you the chance to buy (for event currency) CVs of tier 4, 6 and 8. Then the next patch would see the full release of the branch. Just like with RN DDs, only this time it's less about luck whether you get a ship (you need to accumulate special currency rather than hope for a specific mission from a crate).

Are you sure? They are announced to be available for Crowns and Florins while the loot crates can contain missions rewarding you with Edinburgh or one of three RN premium BBs (Hood, DoY, Vanguard). Even if getting your hands on the new branch is going to be tied to crates, it should be indirectly (getting Florins out of crates and buying ships for that currency).

These changes will have the exact opposite to the intended effect (unless the intended effect was the opposite of what it should be). They are HEAVILY nerfing the capability of 4-TB set-up to deliver targeted attacks against specific ships. The "torpsoup" tactics suffer much less by comparison. And when you add the increased difficulty of disengaging when you get close (and possibly the increased risk of losing the strike detachment after a successful attack, punishing attempts at getting closer to the enemy)? With the changes from the "hotfix" the dreaded torpedo soup seems to be the only viable tactic left for this loadout. There's just no point in even trying to attack specific ships anymore unless they are AFK. And even that actually got nerfed because if your tightest spread is wider now, you might not be able to land 4 torps on an immobile ship's broadside anymore.

WG. Are you NUTS? The problems with this loadout was: bad for actual aimed attacks at specific targets. Good for making a torpedo soup. So, what is being nerfed? - worse spread at maximum aim (irrelevant for torpsoup, bad for targeted attacks) - torps are slower (not much of a difference for torpsoup, extremely bad for targeted attacks) - worse arming time (irrelevant for torpsoup, removes the not-so-long-range option for targeted attacks) - increased detection radius (worse for both torpsoup and targeted strikes) - slower return (worse for both torpsoup and targeted strikes) These changes make the tactic that should be eliminated (that should've been the very point of messing with this set-up!) into the only tactic viable for this loadout! What the hell!? @MrConway, @Sub_Octavian, these changes as described actually make it harder for anyone wishing to use the loadout normally and basically push anybody willing to take this loadout into the one way of using it that is the real problem for the game! Also, the F-fix seems like it fixes nothing. If anything, now it becomes more advantageous to hit "F" right away because when you notice the health of your planes dropping, it'll be too late. Instead of preventing the use of the F-key for immediate escape, you're punishing people who hesitate to use it, since you need the planes in better shape to be able to escape. Especially if you get into flak-capable aura and the escaping planes find themselves caught in it. This "fix" will most likely see increase in F-abuse, not decrease. Why couldn't the issue be handled by postponed effect (pressing F starts timer, planes blast off only after a couple extra seconds) so that the player would retain control and be able to still make the most of the planes' maneuverability and remaining speedboost to minimize the damage taken in the pre-disengagement period? Also, technical question: do automatically returning planes (the strike detachment after attack) suffer from this penalty as well, making it more likely for planes to deliver an attack and then fail to return, dying outside of player's control?

Actually, at high tier it really depends on how close or how far you are just as well. I run the increased speed, the faster return, and yet I must be parked right beside the nearby island for my first 3 rocket planes to be back by the time I'm done with the last of my 4 attacks (assuming that I more or less chain them instead of striking once and flying off on a trip around the map, of course). I launch incomplete squadrons so often that it hardly constitutes "emergency". And I try to keep relatively close to the fleet, so that my round-trips are short and my AA helpful for my teammates (and vice versa). Even with no good cover (forcing me to stay a bit further so that I don't just get focused by enemy ships) it's hardly a rare thing for me to eat some hopeful long-range shells from an enthusiastic BB or two as I am close enough to be spotted basically every time the enemy CV goes on an adventure with his planes on the flank I happen to be gracing with my presence. And yet I need to wait if I want a full squadron (even assuming I hadn't taken any losses) - now imagine these CVs that prefer the safety of the blue line... So, yes, the planes at high tier are faster. But the maps are bigger too and going from around one "side cap" to its counterpart on the other side takes some time even for t10 planes.

Problem is - what you want sounds like a terrible gameplay. Yes, WG could EASILY create "historical" kind of gameplay - all that's needed or that is to make CVs more vulnerable to airstrikes (for example by removing the artificial aid that makes flooding and fire so ineffective against them) while increasing the CV striking power (for example allowing, say, Haku's or Midway's whole torpedo squadron to drop everything they carry in a single strike). If you did that, the only viable strategy for a team would be to protect their CV at all costs because the moment one side destroys the enemy CVs, the match is decided. But I'm petty sure you can see why this is not a good idea. In fact, in the old system, at first, the system actually had some flavors of this. CVs were the kings of the sea and sniping the enemy CV was a big thing: because a match was basically decided if that was allowed to happen. Then CVs were nerfed so that their impact was lower (it was still very big, don't get me wrong) and they were given additional measures to make them harder to attack with aircraft. Because it's just no a good game design to have one player be the one deciding factor of the entire match with the rest of the team reduced to his (AA) escort, trying to help their carrier win his little air battle against the enemy CV. This puts tremendous pressure on the CV players and is completely unfun for pretty much everyone else. One of the main reasons for the rework was precisely to make it even less like this by removing CV's huge alpha and making CV fight more against the other ships and less against the other CV. Have you actually played CVs post-rework, though? Do you know why the F-abuse is so attractive to some players? It's not because it's effective. It's because it saves you a lot of planes. And losing planes hurts like hell. Yes, you are never completely deplaned because planes regenerate, but this doesn't change the fact that if you end up losing just a single full squadron, you struggle for the rest of the match. The very reason why F-abuse is a thing in the first place is because the threat of running out of planes is so severe. It has gained some popularity precisely because people have experienced getting effectively deplaned and want to avoid it, putting conserving planes as much more important than maximizing their striking power. They prefer to spend most of the battle flying in the direction of the battle (if they put the CV far away) or risk their precious hull by going forwards to stick to some island in a place they can't possibly retreat from if it gets overrun - all this because they see it as preferable to attempting more than the the first (relatively safe) strike per sortie. If you lose all your torpedo bombers in Hakuryu and are running the 4-torpedo strike squad version, it takes you close to five minutes before you can assemble another strike. STRIKE - the minimum 4 bombers to drop the standard set of 4 torpedoes. For the whole squadron you'd need three times as long - so you'd be nearing 15 minutes in a 20-minute game. And the 2-TB strike loadout actually replenishes even more slowly. With my CV+captain build on Hakuryu, with the set-up I use (2-TB strikes), if I were to start the match with 0 TBs on the deck, it would take my crew 14 minutes and 24 seconds before I could launch a full squadron. And over the course of the entire battle, I could get a total maximum of 16 planes ready for action. It would be literally impossible for me to reach the 18 I normally start the battle with. And if I were to completely mismanage a full squadron of 12 bombers at the start of the battle, leaving me with 6 of them, it will take me 7 minutes and 24 seconds to launch a full squadron again, despite starting with a significant reserve (6 extra planes that don't fit into the full 12-TB squadron). That's more than 1/3 of the battle before my TB striking power regenerates to the point of being able to send a full complement of torpedo bombers - after just one "misplaced" sortie. And the second won't end quite so nicely - because I'm all out of reserves at that point. Oh, and since I'm rambling already (yeah, I get a bit worked up when people are talking about "unlimited planes" and claiming that CVs no longer need to care for their planes and face no risks): The theoretical maximum (assuming I'm regenerating a torpedo bomber from the first second of the battle, never stop and the battle lasts full 20 minutes) of torpedo bombers I can get (just "get", we're ignoring the fact that it would be nice for them to start, reach their destination and maybe drop something before the match ends) is 18 (the initial number) + 16 (the theoretical maximum number of torpedo bombers I can regenerate) = 34 torpedo bombers. The old Hakuryuu had 4*3 + 26 reserve = 38. My new Hakuryu with "infinite planes" literally can't get to the number of torpedo bombers available on the old "limited reserve" Hakuryu from the beginning of the match. Yes, there are problems with post-rework CVs. Many. But "losing planes being irrelevant because they have infinite planes" is not one of them. It's too easy to save the planes after having mismanaged them, but I can assure you: the planes themselves are no more expendable than they were.

Your problem seems to be a non-issue: you sell the ships, you get freeXP, you freeXP the ships back. There's no need to grind anything as you've just gotten enough freeXP and credits to buy all the sold ships back. On the side note - why did you gamble on Halloween Pumpkins if you didn't want the camos that are, like, the main point why one would even consider buying them?

I don't think that's something you shoould have to apologize for, though? I mean, it has nothing to do with me one way or the other...

Well, if you have a lot of freeXP, you should be able to freeXP to the Shokaku and then get rid of all the CVs again, getting the freeXP back. You can "sell" every ship for freeXP only once but I think it does work even if said ship was acquired after the patch. Although it's obviously a borderline exploit of the mechanic. The part about not being able to keep a camo when selling a ship is pretty strange, though. The refunding option seems to have always contained the idea "if you want to get rid of your CVs or re-set the line and grind through it again". The relevant article explicitly suggested this option: ...and yet, by doing what the article suggests as one of the two good reasons why you might want to refund the line, you find yourself losing things that perhaps will be available again in a couple months (but there's no guarantee they will) and some that were never sold for doublons in the first place (but you can probably gamble for them the next fall). It just seems... strange. And not particularly honest, in fact, since I can imagine people not fully realizing that by selling ships for XP+credits they are going to also lose their special permanent camos, well, permanently. Wouldn't it better to either let these camos be sold separately or, IDK, make Halloween camos not refundable at all (they were never even directly sold, they were a prize from gambling with pumpkins) while the single space camo could be bought back for doublons in the Arsenal so that people just don't lose out? It could be limited to previous owners one way or the other, of course... although while we're at it - I'm pretty sure WG could also actually make some money on the wave of CV popularity and the fact that CV camos now became relevant since post-rework the players actually get to see their fancy camos on ships and - especially - planes even outside the Port. So, to sum it up... @MrConway , while the system clearly wasn't designed for the purpose of selling camos for ships you don't have, the same can't be said about re-starting your line in a way that lets you avoid losing anything (as this is one of the things directly suggested in WG's articles) - but if you do have special camos, you do lose them after all. Is this really set in stone and can't be changed even if that wasn't the initial plan?

Aren't you just making Haku's "torpedo soup" the only viable strategy in case of the enemy having any AA to speak of? I mean, there's no way to hit anything with such torps "the normal way" while torping from afar. Aiming is useless because they can dodge however they want and with relatively slow torps they most likely will dodge even if they fail to notice your TBs at all. And there's also the fact that TBs right now don't get the benefit of DD "torping indicator", so long-range drop is extremely challenging even against a target that's guaranteed to only move at current speed with constant heading. With the changes you suggest, the one correct strategy seems to just be spamming the torps everywhere and hoping for the best - aimed drop won't land anyway but the area saturation option is faster, safer, sends more fish and - in the end - almost guarantees that sooner or later someone will be unlucky and catch something.

Even t10 planes suffer when "worked over" by several ships' AA, even if you dodge the flak. If you give more power to continuous AA, you won't need that many ships. If you make F less effective at disengaging, the planes won't have the magical gtFo option when they find themselves losing health faster than expected. After the hotfix I'm expecting much more planes falling from the sky and/or competent CV players forced into a much more cautious play to not find themselves deplaned (contrary to the popular opinion, losing planes does hurt, A LOT). And all this is about the fast planes of t10 - the speeds at lower tiers are significantly lower and the reserves of planes smaller, so you have much less planes to carelessly lose before you start suffering a serious deficit in what you can send. The matter of F-spam is mentioned as something to be addressed in the hotfix as a separate thing, however. It wouldn't matter when CVs can dodge FLAK. CVs that can't are actually vulnerable enough. And if you both increase the AA ranges AND shift damage from flak to continuous AA, you're creating a lot of no-fly zones (longer range of a cruiser that wants to cover a friendly DD in cap is fine. But when you increase the ranges, you end up with a lot of overlapping among ships that don'te even make any effort to keep close to and support each other - they just are in more or less the same area of the map and boom, a no-fly zone is created). Limited fuel is a solution to a problem that basically doesn't really exist. The amount of spotting we observe isn't because CVs are hovering in place, it's there because the fighters (consumable) provide spotting, because the CV can attack with rocket planes and (as long as they keep close to the fight and front-face in the right direction) pretty damn quickly be back with another squadron AND because there's very often more than one CV doing these things at the same time. Limiting the fuel just wouldn't do a thing because, frankly, I don't think I've ever kept controlling a single squadron for more than 2 minutes (and even that's mostly reserved to the first squadron that's focused on scouting) and I don't think I've really seen any CVs doing that either. I would agree with that... but only for "same squadron" version. So, if you want to fly again with the same type of plane, you need to wait a bit (and there should be a global cooldown at the start of the battle, tuned so that your planes reach the cap at roughly the same time a DD from the closest cap would when steaming straight for it). In fact, for launching the same squadron again, the cooldown could be even much longer than 10 seconds, coupled with a special consumable "emergency takeoff" or something that would immediately reset the plane timers. That way you could take off immediately in a pinch but could only accomplish that 2-3 times per battle. This would allow CV players to remain flexible while curbing down "cheesy" strategies that rely on spamming planes mindlessly to perform low-efficiency, low-risk attacks all the time (especially the torp soup of the "long-torping" Haku set-up comes to mind where you rely on luck to hit anything but hardly even come within enemy AA while spamming the torps everywhere).

THIS. It's true that people were so used to lack of CVs that they frogot how to deal with them, but at the same time the "game" learned to deal with DDs without CVs. The return of CVs basically means reintroduction of an extra threat that's much worse for DDs than for other classes - into a situation that was otherwise pretty balanced. It should be noted that it's not completely one-dimensional: - Radar cruisers need to be more careful as well since they can get spotted by things that don't just appear under their Radar to then promptly disappear under their guns, so they risk more by getting close - Planes in general stopped seeing torps, making long-range torping a bit more viable - There being less DDs means less spotting by things that are not planes (in a match without CVs the main problem of a DD is another DD - and these being less numerous works in favor of the remaining ones) These, however, offer but a small consolation to the DDs in face of what's often a double CV MM in a situation otherwise balanced around the idea that the other ships need to be able to deal with DDs without aerial support. It's clear that DDs need some help now... ...instead next major patch we're getting increased Radar range for US cruisers and increased Radar duration for soviet ones. And a huge flooding nerf that makes sense for CVs but for DDs just means that the hard-to-inflict DoT becomes an extra fire. And WG claiming that the damage numbers would actually go up boils down to the reasoning that "hey, the new flooding is so weak that nobody will bother repairing it now unless they suffer two at once". But hey. For the first 6 seconds of Radar (the time when most enemies notice your presence and are busy turning guns in your direction anyway) you'll only be shot by the ship that uses the consumable (usually the only one with guns more or less on target from the get-go). Oh, such joy.

...it always was, though. Since closed beta for sure. Most likely since alpha, although that I can't personally confirm. Returning planes also don't spot anything. They don't take part in the match in any way: - they can't be shot at by AA - they aren't visible to the enemies to let them locate the CV - they can't be targeted by fighters - they don't spot ships There is literally no interaction with any other element of the game, the sole exception being the CV they are landing at (I'm not sure if they briefly become vulnerable to AA at the moment of descent, but I don't think even that is the case). Seeing them provides no useful information to the allied ships apart from "oh, the planes just got to the CV, this means that he has at least this many planes of this squadron type available now for launch". And I don't really see how this info might be of much use. Certainly doesn't seem like worth it to clutter the map with extra icons. What's more, it even introduces false information: you see a plane icon, you might think that the CV is actually present in that place - able to drop a fighter consumable or to spot something. In fact, you provided a great example for why these marker need to disappear: a DD might see a plane crossing the cap and not spotting anything inside. The player will consider it a valuable info without realizing (due to lack of awareness of CV plane return mechanics) that there is actually no information in that situation: the returning planes could've flown directly over a non-smoked ship and said ship would've remained unspotted.

Actually, it doesn't seem to be. Occasionally there are people cursing CVs (or WG, or both) but I've seen it like... three times since the patch? And I actually mostly play Haku and doing it somewhat competently. People seriously asking things about the new mechanics actually seem to be happening more often than people raging about the patch. And even most complaints, when they appear, are delivered in a civilized manner (mostly it's everyone involved just expressing pity for DDs). In fact, while I think about it right now, I'd say that the chat seems to actually be significantly less toxic than it usually is - people are facing the new situation (being in CVs/playing against lots of CVs etc) and they feel less confident than usual about their own skill and performance. As a result, there is less raging about bad teammates. To the point that even putting together the hate expressed towards WG and the standard "my team is full of noobs", "our CV is useless" etc, I'd risk saying that the in-game chat is, overall, a little bit more civilized than it tends to be normally. A pretty surprising outcome, I'd say, but that's the impression I get (at tier 10 at least).

Ok, I've seen many people with great fanfare proclaiming that they quit the game. But this is the first time I saw someone proclaiming that they actually don't, because they plan to still be playing literally all the modes other than Random Battles... but they will stop reading e-mails that WG occasionally sends automatically!

The spotting-by-consumable now is just not needed. For ships it's useless as they don't spot torps anymore anyway. For planes it goes against the idea of "you no longer can hover in many places at once, spotting DDs while you occupy yourself with other tasks" that was one of the intended changes to the general mechanics. Also, fighters should probably be less powerful but better at acquiring targets. It takes them forever - but when they do lock on, it's boom-boom-boom and (insert the number of planes equal to the number of fighters) just evaporate. I'm not sure how to balance this but it's an auto-defense system that's simultaneously extremely powerful (although takes down a strictly limited number of planes) and extremely unreliable (it's not rare to deliver a strike to a ship under fighter protection and manage to get away without aggroing the supposed air cover at all).

I'm glad you've thrown your idea away and we're back to the talk about balancing CVs instead of implementing opt-out buttons so that people who don't want them would be able to switch them off Oh, I do understand how the failure at quoting occurred - it doesn't make it any less of a failure, though. Or any less in need of fixing since - the way it is right now - you're attributing your own words to me.

How is any of this relevant? I just don't want to see them, I can't play the way I'd like to with them around. So I should get the option not to see them, simple. If this logic works for CVs, it works for literally everything else as well. PS: You messed up quoting and quoted as my words something you said. Please fix this.

National flags (or rather lack of these) are part of special camos (be it Halloween or Spaceship). A mod can't change how your ship appears to the other players (it can change how other players' ships appear for you, but not the reverse). You shouldn't be bringing back to life threads that have been dead for well over a year now... this is so going to get locked by mods.

Great, I want to deactivate ships with Radars when I play my DDs too. And BBs when I play most cruisers. And, for that matter, when I play a high tier non-Radar cruiser DDs should be gone as well. Just like when I take a BB out for a spin, although that doesn't happen often. Well, we don't really know how much it's going to affect the planes, or even which ones are going to be affected. I must say, it is a bit strange when your spread keeps shrinking while in a hard turn. Let's wait and see what they are really planning and how it's going to look. If you actually read what you're commenting on (no need to go back to the post in question, all you need is in the part you're already quoting), you'd realize that they advise to manage the P so that it's switched off and the guns don't go off on their own when you're trying to avoid being spotted. Sure, they could've phrased it differently so that people won't get the wrong impression after reading just the first sentence of the recommendation, but seriously: it's not THAT long that reading to the end (a whole another two sentences) should pose a problem...

I wonder about this. I mean, this spotting of the whole map is the real problem mainly for DDs - and they are actually the class that doesn't really suffer from long-range fire because they're very hard to hit even if they don't maneuver and basically impossible to nail if they put in some effort. This solution would have miniscule effect - the one good thing that seems to result from it is that the blue line snipers would be not just ineffective but also (compared to more aggressive partners) blind. It would be a nice thing to add but I'm not 100% sure if this alone justifies introduction of this kind of mechanic. And even if it does - it's for the general improvement of the game rather than something addressing any of the pressing issues with CVs and DDs in post-patch meta.