FloRead

Wait, what? Could you elaborate more on this bug?

That's a floatplane fighter, not a spotter aircraft. The spotter aircraft has a signal symbol.

Have you tried the IJN air superiority loadouts?

Carriers are still top. I honestly still feel more nerfs, not buffs needed. Notice Taiho air kills. Anyone still want to keep alive the myth of the US fighter superiority?

So how would you buff the IJN T9 and T10 CV? Personally, I feel that amidst the hysteria, that nobody will admit that those who still stick on with the carriers can clearly see carriers are still extremely powerful. Could still use a few nerfs to their power. I see a nerf to Essex and Midway strike loadouts sooner than buffs to the Taiho and Hakuryu.

Bogue and Ranger will be nice with those upgraded decks but I disagree on the Independence. 3 squadrons max for Independence is fine. Otherwise you get the silly situation where Ranger stock is a downgrade from Indepedence upgraded. There's also the problem of 24 planes in the sky if you have 4 squadrons for Independence. That's T7 upgraded and T8 territory. You will also have the problem of replacement planes being 9/9/18, way too easy to deplete the Independence's fighters and torpedo bombers.

You do realize that T5 is the only tier where the USN outnumbers the IJN in terms of number of planes in the sky? T6-10, IJN always puts out more planes, made only worse with air supremacy.

If you look at the T8 carrier balance in isolation, you will notice that most people feel that Lexington and Shokaku are balanced. It is the most equal tier. But take a closer look at the Lexington's load outs. You have the stock load out, which is 2 fighters, 1 torpedo bomber and 1 dive bomber squadrons. The lolstrike setup is 1 torpedo bomber and 3 dive bomber squadrons. Then the quite humorous air superiority setup which is made up of 2 fighter and 2 dive bomber squadrons. Does any Lexington captain with a brain play anything except the stock load out? It is basically an air superiority load out with the useful torpedo bomber and the dive bombers to balance out the Lexington's damage(and nerfing the torpedo bomber replacements). And this tier with this load out is balanced! Yet for the tiers below it, there is this crazy need obsession with keeping the poor load outs. Langley vs Hosho is a problem, but nothing that cannot be fixed by nerfing the Langley's fighters to maintain a slight superiority to counter the Hosho's 2 torpedo squadrons.

Hi, refer to this thread. Much has been discussed about the Ranger against its T7 counterpart, the Hiryu. http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/26586-how-does-ranger-fare-against-hiryu/

So far, this barrage ability seems to benefit the enemy more than anything. The few times I tried it, it hardly damaged the enemy, but made me run out of ammo in the dogfight and just get torn apart by enemy fighter squadrons eager to show me where their ammo is. Regular click and attack for fighters still seem the way to go.

Just have to wait for the IJN CV hysteria to die down first. Once that happens, and the remaining players stick around, the OP cries will be back. The few games I played post-patch, CVs still topped the teams on both sides with XP earned and ships sunk.

1. State of DDs from T6 and higher. 2. Current effectiveness of HE hosing with certain low caliber guns. 3. Ocean map. Really wish I gave the Ocean map a good blasting during the post-CBT survey.

I'm still waiting for someone who will address Sharana's T7 imbalance for ranked play. If you nerf the US torpedo spread, how will you address the Ranger inferiority in ranked play against the Hiryu? It already is vastly inferior even with this current torpedo spread, pre or post 0.4.1.

Tier 6, the CV skill cliff tier. The reason many people find T6 particularly hard is the introduction of AA Defensive Fire on cruisers and as T6, you start to meet them regularly. You will find fewer matches where your bombing and torpedo runs are uninterrupted. It's just something you really have to adapt to and learn how to make your approaches correct from far, rather than correct the aircraft approaches within AA range. Anyway, some ideas to help you along. When I played Independence, I always used my dive bombers as the "sacrifice". My dive bombers always flew ahead of my torpedo bombers. Those dive bombers do the scouting and find either lone battleships or ways to approach enemies. If you can't find lone battleships, look for the lone cruiser or destroyer instead. However, if you have to attack a cruiser who is T6 or higher, approach with your dive bombers first and have the torpedo bombers follow from a distance. Keep your alt key held down for the dive bombers. If you see the manual targeting circle inflate like a balloon, pull them out. If your dive bombers are too close, it might be better to just commit to the drop and hope RNG favors more bombs dropping because pulling them out in heavy AA fire means you will just lose planes with no result. But pull the torpedo bombers out and count 40s before returning, that cruiser will have her AA Defensive Fire on cooldown. If your torpedo bombers are too close, might be better to just drop and pull out. The Independence really does not have a lot of reserve planes, I empathize with that. Not much you can do about that though. The Ranger at T7 will improve on that but the Ranger brings a whole different world of problems.

I'm amazed that you have all conveniently forgotten that the consistent cry during CBT is that once you have more than 1 squadron of torpedo bombers, your damage output skyrockets. And that has now been played out to be extremely correct. USN carrier damage output is consistently below IJN from T4-8, conveniently because they have only 1 squadron. Do Essex and Midway need nerfing? Of course! But so long as WG wants this asymmetrical balance, you will have to wait till WG has "enough" data to nerf the Essex and Midway.

My bigger beef is the number of planes the IJN carriers can put in the sky and still be useful. The squadrons of 4 always ends up leaving the IJN with the increased count. In fact, ironically, the Bogue is the only carrier where it can have more planes in the sky as compared to Zuiho. After that, you cede airplane numbers in the sky to the IJN forever. Yes, reserve planes are important but at the lower levels, you should be shooting down more of the IJN's planes than they shooting down yours. Squadron vs squadron, your fighters will always win, maintain that advantage. If you meet a carrier of a higher tier, you just have to tough it out till 0.4.1 hits(which will bring a whole different world of problems.)

The 2/0/2 Ran The Ranger has a 2/0/2 loadout. While she was effective in stopping you, was that Ranger wrecking your fleet? She is doing her job, which is stopping you from wrecking her fleet. She is still ultimately depending on her team to win. By the way, I've learnt this much playing a Ranger air superiority loadout. The Ranger's servicing time for both fighters, along with the travel time needed when both fighters are out of ammunition is sufficient time for an IJN carrier to strike at least once. So many times, I would cripple the first wave, and while my fighters are flying back to rearm, that time needed to fly back, service and take off, is more than sufficient time for the instant replacement of the lost IJN squadrons to take to the air and hurt my fleet. I know I sound like a newbie for even trying this. These days, when I know my fighters are about to run out of ammo and they are badly damaged, guess what? I deliberately lose them. It's faster to replace them that way. The Ranger's air superiority is not an inpenetrable AA brick wall.

Despite the fact that IJN fighter squadrons cannot face USN fighter squadrons on a 1 to 1 basis, the IJN carrier always have enough squadrons(assuming you don't take the strike loadout) to either: a) keep all the USN carrier's torpedo bombers or dive bombers occupied, thus affecting their drops b) keep all the USN carrier's fighter squadrons occupied, thus leaving you clear to drop. You always have squadrons available to do something. Funnily enough, go to T10, with the Hakuryu and Midway. Even if the Midway goes air superiority, look at the numbers. Midway: 3/0/2 Hakuryu: 4/2/2 With air supremacy captain skill(which by T10, you better have!), Hakuryu is putting out 20 fighters in the air and Midway has 21 fighters. That's a close fight. Yet those 3 squadrons will be easily tied down by the 4 Hakuryu fighter squadrons giving the Hakuryu's torpedo bombers and dive bombers plenty of free reign over you. Your 2 dive bombers? Yeah, some fires. Even if the Hakuryu stays stock loadout(2/3/2), you don't have enough fighter squadrons to keep all of the Hakuryu's torpedo bombers and dive bombers occupied, while also fending off those 2 fighter squadrons. However, so far, I have rarely heard of any Midway player going air superiority. Most take the 1/2/2 loadout. For obvious reasons. Hence why if you look at the Asian server stats, Hakuryu has a better win%, but Midway does more damage. I doubt it's a coincidence.

My own stupidity and lack of skills.

By the way, you cannot Ranger correctly. If you go stock, you are gimping yourself. Even a T6 Ryujo has 5 squadrons, 20 planes in the air. That outnumbers you already. Yet if you go fighters, you have little impact on the battle. Where does that leave you? Strike?

Starting to find a certain attitude around here overly annoying. For the most part, IJN carriers do far more damage to the enemy ships in both stock and strike setups while also being more agile with the number of squadrons IJN carriers have. USN carriers have to put up with nearly everything inferior except for 1 setup, their fighter setup which can utterly nullify a bad IJN carrier player but a good IJN carrier player can still dance around the fighters. So USN fighter squadrons always win a fight again a IJN fighter squadron, boohoo. Why not play the USN carrier then? Is it because you cannot bear the pain of every other disadvantage the USN carrier is so massively overburdened with?

I have also noticed an annoying factor that contribute to draws. Draws seem to only happen in Encounter or Standard game modes with the problem being capping that base. Even if a team tries to cap, I have noticed that ships that are capping, if they get hit, the capping counter drops. So if you have 2 very strong and even teams, there's no point even in capping. That counter is just going to drop. And with 2 strong even teams, you can be sure it's going to take a long while to even inflict crippling damage on the enemy fleet to then safely cap.

It's also a good portrayal of what jackasses most people in online communities can be.

I don't mean to demean many of the arguments already put out here, but if good players are represented by a high WR, why do we not have many players with <40% WR? If someone is bad, they should average out to a bad WR right?

Where did you get this news? I am not surprised though. There's a large russian audience for this game, WG will naturally want to cater to them.