El2aZeR

Nah, unless WG decides to scrap the rework and start anew even radical adjustments won't really solve anything as the fundamentals themselves are what is causing such issues. Well, considering the last official statement was "is all balans now camrade" I actually wouldn't expect too much more at this point. Especially if the rumor about WG having given up on the rework is to be believed, which becomes more and more credible as 0.8.10 will be the third major patch in which no significant adjustments are made.

Fun fact: Initial reserves of reworked CVs are actually fairly close to the total reserves of RTS CVs in most cases. Only the T10s get vastly outmatched. Basic examples: 24 of Independence (-/12/12) vs 38 of Ranger (12/12/14) 48 of RTS Shokaku (-/24/24) vs 49 of RW Shokaku (16/17/16) Even in terms of individual planes they aren't that far apart. This WOULD be true if AA were actually capable of downing a significant amount of aircraft. Too bad it isn't. Said alpha was dealt at a much reduced RoF, making them far less flexible. RTS CVs also had to deal with no fly zones which presented no counterplay options for the CV player whatsoever, meaning they had to rely on teammates to deal with them. Locking down the opposing CV is actually of less value than one might think as this can happen only against potatoes which are naturally more useless. Anyone who has mastered the basics of fighter combat will prove to be much more disruptive to even a skilled player. Besides, it's not like potatoes now are any more useful compared to before. If anything they've actually become more useless if stats are any indication.

If the logic of some people here were to be taken seriously then the amount of shells a ship can fire per match is also limited due to the match timer just like CV reserves. Here's the relevant question tho: Does it matter?

116 aircraft total, however 35 slots were taken up by fighters meaning Midway had a total of 81 strike reserves. Rework Lexington meanwhile has a theoretical total of 101, with numbers around 90 being more realistic.

You mean smaller, right? Because most T8 CVs easily rival RTS Midway in terms of strike reserves. In fact e.g. even in terms of individual plane reserves reworked Shokaku almost rivals pure strike 0/3/3 RTS Shokaku from 4 years ago (35 vs 36 TBs, 33 vs 36 DBs). Saipan is pretty much the only CV left which has what were considered appropriate strike reserves in RTS at T8 and even she gets a couple more planes in comparison.

Oh boi. Also S_O in a nutshell: Sauce

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Except those crocodiles can fly, are at least thrice as fast as you and can attack you anywhere at any time, not just while swimming.

Turns out hitting a Kremlin with a quad cit drop isn't very fun and engaging.

To be fair there weren't exactly many carrier engagements in the first place after Midway. Off of the top of my head: - Santa Cruz - Philippine Sea - Leyte All of which were flown with fighter escort on both sides.

Depends largely on the time period. US strikes weren't exactly refined at Midway. Practically all late war strikes meanwhile were flown with fighter escort.

*by enemy fighters intercepting them well before they were in range to drop. Just saying.

Judging who is deserving of them meanwhile seems to be. I could tell you to stop trying as well since you clearly don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Obviously since the rework has added its own fair share of issues on top. Which has been proven to be completely wrong by publicly accessible data. Numerous threads have already been archived and as such are excluded from search results. If you want to find them go do it yourself. And yes, your memory is completely off. The RTS iteration was very much flawed in multiple aspects, however there were plenty of myths and lies surrounding it. I merely disproved those. You might as well call the floatplane fighter concept itself silly then since there were rarely, if ever used to effect in air denial capabilities. There are plenty of cases in which a squadron jettisoned their ordinance due to fuel concerns. In fact it was standard procedure to jettison still attached ordinance before landing for safety reasons. As such the current implementation at least has a shred of reality attached to it. Can't say the same for a lot of other mechanics. That these aircraft take off in the first place can be called a gameplay concession as so many other silly mechanics you deem acceptable. Which is completely irrelevant, or if taken to the extreme even the standard to adhere to if your goal is to turn maximum profit as it seems to be for WG. Too bad even that clearly didn't pay off.

Surely something based in fact and not based on personal opinion. Ahahahahahaha Because guess what, the rework didn't solve any issues, thus the complaints remained the same. Shocker, I know. And clearly your memories are failing you. Some of the biggest critics of RTS CVs were the CV mains themselves. Except a fighter downing multiple strike planes is far from silly or unrealistic, thus WG actually went with the more silly looking option. Instead WG went with the practical solution as they hardcoded fighters to behave in a certain way to save time and money that would have otherwise been spent on something which would've made no practical difference anyway. Same thing applies to current squad shortening. It's practical. You don't need to code, test and balance additional mechanics as they are superfluous. Besides, I fail to see how wings breaking off despite being fully armed and undamaged is a reasonable representation of anything either.

Actually they do. A lot. Heck, even the Pope said that not everyone is deserving of respect and courtesy. The key word you're missing is "simply". You're using it to deflect any criticism of the rework regardless of whether it is valid or not. So anything you deem not silly is a "gameplay concession", but anything you deem silly is "silliness" and needs to be changed? That seems to be a rather familiar train of thought seen aplenty on these forums. But hey, surely you can tell me where the difference lies then between the current squad shortening system versus, say, ships launching entire squads of catapult fighters.

Yes, and not everyone deserves them. Repeatedly accusing others of simply wanting RTS back, saying that 0.8.5 created no fly zones, etc. Need I go on? So basically you have no idea but demand others to do the job for you anyway regardless of whether it is actually feasible or not. Typical. Are you a politician by any chance? This is also funny because game design is actually both part of my degree and my job. Again, just because a mechanic is silly doesn't mean it needs changing as otherwise the whole rework needs to be changed from the ground up. It is incredibly silly that a ship which was used to launch combined strikes with can only ever have a single squad in the air. It is incredibly silly that that squadron attacks only a few planes at a time while everyone else just follows behind for nothing. It is incredibly silly that fighters patrol only a small area for only a single minute and do not even engage enemy squads immediately. It is incredibly silly that AA shoots to miss rather than to kill. And so forth and so on. Yet for some reason I don't see you complaining about any of these mechanics. You can't even be consistent in your extremely laughable narrative.

I will treat you according to forum rules, nothing more. Why you believe you are deserving of respect or courtesy after repeatedly lying or being unaccepting of proven facts is beyond me. Shortening only near your CV is completely pointless as it takes away potential options that if not needed you can still adjust for later on anyway. As it currently is squad shortening is a working game mechanic that cannot be exploited nor needs to be changed. It's like dropping your pistol in CS to fake a flashbang. Just because it looks silly is no reason at all to change it, otherwise the entire rework concept deserves to be scrapped. Not that it doesn't for entirely different reasons already tho ofc. If anything is telling it is your inability to come up with viable potential solutions to what are solveable issues according to you as you have already demonstrated in your views on flak and DPS. The only thing you seem to be capable of saying when it comes to any of the fundamental issues of the rework seems to be "lol there surely is a better solution and you're just too biased to see it", yet even the few options you actually have presented are either completely unviable or utterly pointless in addition to being childishly naive in nature. It's almost as if not an ounce of thought has gone into them as you have demonstrated here once again. Although I suppose in this case you could make using the button while having aggro'd fighters make any bailing wing instantly die, but that would be unintuitive to the extreme, so much so that the entire mechanic can be called into question especially as the current implementation does its job perfectly fine already.

That you even have to ask... Two options here: 1. Make fighters go kill the bailing wing, leaving the main one untouched. This would turn such a button into an anti fighter exploit, making them pointless. 2. Make them go after the main squad, at which point you just use the button to first send your excess wings home, then make an attack to save what is left as fighters completely ignore or, if already pulled, stop attacking bailing attack wings. Unsurprisingly this too would make fighters pointless. So there is no scenario in which such a button doesn't make fighters completely useless in their already limited air denial role, eliminating the only halfway effective AA consumable still left. Unless ofc that is your goal? Wouldn't surprise me.

AP bombs are actually much preferable to HE ones in the current meta and superior RF performance is nothing to scoff at. These are tools to singlehandedly win matches with. And it's not like Shokaku TBs are particularly bad, either. Unless when faced with a pure or near pure BB match I'd prefer Shokaku over Kaga any time.

Can't be done because it'd make fighters pointless. Or at least even more pointless than they already are.

You forgot Case D) Is it in any way related to CVs? => Either ignore it completely or call it a feature

Nothing has changed.

Tracers always get rendered, however their position is now randomized. Fun part: If a ship is hiding in smoke and you're not directly looking at it, flak tracers get rendered but actual flak bursts don't.

Everyone: "KREMLIN OP OMG!" Enterprise:

A lot of people also believe 0.8.7 buffed AA massively to the point where CVs are now useless. Entering any reddit thread about CVs shows as much. 0.8.10 is on the horizon with no big changes to CVs whatsoever. That'd be 3 major patches since the last major CV changes. Seems like a long enough time period to me. Besides, we have an official statement regarding the current balance of CVs, namely that WG considers them perfectly fine now and no big changes to CVs will be made from hereon out. You have literally just proven my point. If bad players perform worse and "good" players perform worse while top players do not, then the statement that "average players fail even harder than before" is true, no? Christ... Does "CVs unplayable - demand refund" ring a bell? Also if so then I'd have no reason to be angry. After all I can and still do play RTS CVs. Except you have also just stated that CVs aren't particularly influenced by surface ship skill, meaning that such inability is entirely the fault of the CV player. Meanwhile if a Kolberg eats a König Albert alive, that is certainly not solely due to the ability of the Kolberg player since a KA can actively influence the engagement.