El2aZeR

Huh, interesting. I'd wait on an offical comment on it, but just keep in mind that invisible flak is actually a thing.

Here is the question: If Alaska activates DFAA and/or has all flak damage buffs skilled, is it enough to make flak oneshot Haku planes? If yes, then the explanation is fairly easy. Haku flew straight into the lovely thing that is called invisible flak (yes, that exists). You can see the wall spawning shortly before planes all die with a perceived gap in it. That gap probably isn't real. If not, then I have no idea what happened. Haven't experienced this personally either.

It's only the icon that is bugged. Planes will actually still return. Icon disappears if all planes are shot down or have landed back on the CV.

Still completely ridiculous.

Again blobbing wasn't necessary. A single ship was enough. Because of that tactical flexibility gets retained as you don't need to commit gigantic amounts of resources to counter a CV. Also in a way getting denied by enemy action is much worse than getting denied by islands etc. The former you have no options against, the latter can be played around. Ironically that's because WG failed to keep CVs up with the times. CVs used to be the only scouting tool available and the game was designed around that. By introducing more and more info providing mechanics (free SA, hydro, radar) it makes the scouting CVs provide way excessive. You also have to keep in mind that the concealment based meta was developed without CVs in mind. CVs were pretty much dead by then. Imo trying to play the concealment game when a CV is in play is much more exciting because it requires a lot more planning and execution, thus is a lot more satisfying when it does actually work. CV players aren't all knowing, something has to give your position away. Scouting should have been adjusted however. The rework actually introduces an interesting thing that I wish the RTS iteration would've gotten, namely the inability for returning squadrons to scout. This could've been a viable concept in the latter as well. Again, no it doesn't. Single ships could and were perfectly safe from air strikes (until AP bombs were introduced but we don't talk about those). These were also supposed to be the most numerous class in the game, not reduced to 2-4 participants per match. Tactical flexibility can be easily retained if most of the targets in a match are actually unkillable for a CV. Best example of this was competitive. It wasn't always two blobs killing each other every time with CVs killing everything that dared to move out on their own. In fact the damage CVs dealt was very often near 0. CVs had a lot more counterplay options than just "OMG BLOB!". Air cover is important because it gives CVs the ability to play for the team as well. Included it just for that. This is something I never quite understood why people love to bring it up when it comes to CVs. This is a team based game, if your teammates are bad then naturally you deserve to lose. There is nothing unfair about that. Except such actions become entirely voluntary. There is nothing to punish you beyond losing (which given the egoistical nature of the reward system doesn't really matter) if you decide to abandon your team completely.

*laughs in CV*

Except it used to be pretty one sided in the other way as well. Range, accuracy, alpha strike all had their trade-off in a long reload relative to range and, more importantly, being completely incapable of attacking certain ships or formations (barring misplay from said certain ships), a restriction literally no other class has to deal with. Sure, it might be stupid to engage a DM in a gunfight with a Shima, but it can be done. You were always capable of dealing damage if required. Meanwhile if you were playing a Worcester e.g. you could basically ignore planes entirely. Any that dared venture into your AA would suffer horrific losses very quickly, especially if you ambushed them by abusing your concealment. Positions which previously were used to counter CVs were strong in general so I don't believe that was much of an issue. Islands near caps could be used to not only provide radar but also AA coverage. (With reworked CVs this is obviously no longer an option.) Likewise the danger of getting spotted was thoroughly diminished by either island cover, moving when planes could not be near you (remember the whole prediction stuff? Applies here too) or just killing planes so fast that the enemy is unlikely to get more than one salvo. Ofc this became a problem when WG went down the drain in map design (*cough* Tears of the Desert *cough*), but that was an issue with maps in general. Even on these maps however playing AA support could still and did in fact work. This put responsibility on you as an AA ship. You have the tools to protect your less... fortunate teammates, so you should do so. Personally I very much liked this feeling of teamplay and interdependency. Others may disagree ofc. Unlike surface ships CVs could not be taken out of the game early (barring some severe misplay on their part), true. However that is traded off with, again, a far more limited target selection and the enemy's ability to completely negate your damage output without any options on your part. If you tried to hit anything protected you'd get negligible or no returns for severe losses to your reserves and an even longer reload. You could effectively block a CV out of a match without any input on his part, ironically this seems to be one of the things that WG sought out to "fix" for whatever reason when this aspect was crucial to their balancing. This wasn't a perfect system by any means, the consistency and progression of AA was especially bad, but the fundamentals did work. Improving and expanding on it should've been priority. The game itself would probably look drastically different. I don't believe theorizing with current mechanics holds any merit. Eh, not really. If you were a Midway there are a ton of options to choose from. Cleveland is in an easily killable position. You could hit Yamato from the top side of the map with single drops over and over again until he dies. Or abuse island cover to kill the Monty the same way. Depending on whether that Worcester chose to travel back towards you to take position behind one of the islands you could kill him with DBs as well. Which is a problem because counters to CVs no longer work. Back in the RTS iteration a single ship could keep several teammates safe over large distances if necessary. Now there is practically no safety as CVs inherited the one strength from surface ships they shouldn't have: The ability to attack everything. Not to mention that long range AA has been nerfed hard so teammates need to be much closer if you want to even consider punishing the enemy CV for attacking them. Said punishment would also be relative as a CV will eventually respawn their planes, making plane management far less of an issue and thus far less punishable than before. The positive attributes of a CV are thus no longer traded off but added on top, making them hilariously broken. Also tbh that's just the typical meta nowadays. Even in matches without CVs bull like this happens more often than not. Back in the RTS iteration? Primarily scouting info, air cover along with making the game requiring more than two braincells to play. CVs forced you to play for the benefit of the team or they would punish you. I don't believe such an aspect to be disruptive in what is fundamentally a team game. In fact it is pretty much a requirement and personally I enjoyed it a lot. Inevitably that means however that the class would have a lot of opponents. It's no different to how a good chunk, if not the majority of CS players despise AWPers for doing basically the exact same thing. Now they just punish you. And as such they have no place in the game.

And that is because of one thing: Lack of active interaction. What separates games from, say, a movie is the interaction. You feel like you can't do much against planes precisely because, well, you can't do anything. AA is automated, as such the only thing that you can do is defend yourself passively. Now prior to the rework this worked largely fine. A CV was not outplayed by your amazing aim or sth along those lines, he was outplayed by your positioning, knowledge and behavior when under attack. Now everything is up to the CV. This was where the rework could've actually greatly improved CV play. By implementing manual control of AA in some way (since you're already throwing the game on its head) and make skill a deciding factor in whether you get punished or not CVs could have enriched the game experience by giving you something to do under air attack. They clearly tried this with the sector mechanic, but all they've achieved is make AA use even more frustrating Let me make this abundantly clear: RTS CVs had some extreme issues, none of which were addressed. That and their scarcity meant they were extremely oppressive opponents to deal with if you were in the wrong ship. In the right ship however I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Which is why I thought it had potential, it just needed adjustments. A ton of adjustments. CVs as they are right now are beyond help. I've literally stopped playing almost every single one of my surface ships. As it stands if WG would give me a full refund I'd much prefer removing them as well.

And again Samar. It was a battle. It did happen. The circumstances leading up to it are irrelevant. And here's where I'm gonna disagree. CVs were actually highly predictable, you just needed to know how they play. Likewise in the RTS iteration other ships could lock down positions pretty easily (depending on the map) making them impassable for enemy planes, thus giving you space to work with. CVs flying around randomly rarely ever happens. A CV player is (well, usually) human in randoms and humans have habits. Combine that with the fundamental restrictions of CVs and you can narrow down the area where aircraft can appear pretty easily. A very basic example is in CV sniping. If you just watch the clock and haven't seen any planes appear at the 2-4 minute mark (again depending on the map) then it is extremely likely that he's flying his planes on the map border trying to snipe. Now instead of just your own CV, apply this to every ship. If you can count down the time it takes for a BB to reload before he can shoot you again, you can count down the time it takes for a CV to "reload" before he can appear again. The more time passes, the bigger the map area gets where a CV can be, the... more interesting his target choice gets. Just one of the things where CVs were extremely predictable. It required you to know plane speeds, service times and typical CV positions however and here's where most people will fall short. However a CV was far from unpredictable, if you just take the basic info provided you could deduce where planes are gonna appear next pretty easily. I had absolutely no issues playing positions or stealth with RTS CVs. Now ofc with faster plane speeds and cycling time that's not exactly a viable option anymore. Except your game crashing randomly is not game design because you're inevitably denying participation of a player. You're preventing a player completely from using mechanics, as in you're completely defeating the point of a game. However if you were to implement a more skill based mechanic that allows you to crash the game for others, that's a game. If you dress it up nicely it could even be fun. I actually did this during testing of the rework where spawning too many planes would cause your game and every other CV seeing said planes to crash. Again, a game designers job is actually to make your experience as fun as possible - if you're using a mechanic. If you are the target of a mechanic however it is his job that you're miserable, BUT also have a fair chance of getting out of whatever situation said mechanic puts you in. Aka when you're confronted by a mechanic a game designer's job is to challenge you. How difficult that challenge is depends on how hardcore you want the game to be. Now naturally it doesn't work like that in a PvP game. Here you are confronted by another player, thus it is actually impossible for both parties to "have fun" design-wise. And because a good chunk of players are inevitably going to be whiny s you'll have to be extremely careful as to what feedback is valuable and what isn't (again dependent on what type of game you want to make). As such implementing a mechanic, or god forbid a class that enriches the game experience of everyone is fundamentally impossible. It will only enrich the experience of those that either use it or benefit from it. A medic class for example will (hopefully) be appreciated by his teammates but hated by his enemies. A sniper class is usually universally hated because he tends to benefit no one but himself. The lazy way to balance this is to simply give both parties access to every class and that's actually the way most games go. Including WoWs. This poses an additional problem in inter-class balance. If you want classes to be as diverse as possible, then you cannot make it so that every class has even remotely the same influence on the battle. If you want classes to roughly have the same impact on a match, then they cannot be as diverse. This is then even further compounded by rising player numbers. In a 1vs1 scenario having extremely diverse classes which have roughly the same impact is far easier than it is in a 5vs5 or higher. This is why for example the balance in StarCraft, a game that is critically acclaimed for having superb balancing, utterly breaks down in 2vs2 modes or higher as just the addition of another player per party opens up unprecedented and extremely cheesy choices. It might not even be up to you. E.g. in CS each member of a team is technically speaking equal, however because of how players have organized themselves in teams their roles will vary in impact. An Ingame Leader or Dedicated AWPer will inevitably be more impactful on a match than your standard Rifler. Long story short, what you want simply doesn't exist and balance is difficult with the design WoWs has chosen, with most players not even understanding what balance actually is. Also that you believe a losing participation in e.g. Tennis to be worthwhile but not in WoWs is frankly subjective. I get my kicked in my company's weekly Smash Bros. sessions every time and I still love to participate. That is because I take it as casual. Clearly we don't see WoWs in the same light, aka we're invested.

There is a small gap between the turtleback and the citadel side armor. With a bit of luck you can shoot through the bow into that gap, resulting in a citadel hit. Considering the citadel side armor actually isn't that good it should be possible with some cruisers.

Indeed. And now you have to consider what a game mechanic is actually supposed to do. Here's the unpleasant truth: A game designer's job in a PvP game is kinda to make your ingame life miserable. Improving the game experience for one player will inevitably ruin it for another. The BB AP on DD adjustment recently is a pretty good example of this. DD players were happy, BB players were not. This comes down to the simple truth that in PvP games it is your direct goal to ruin the fun of your opponent. As such game mechanics have to be fun to use, not fun to be a target of. This is why the sense of fairness is extremely important in more serious PvP games (although on that basis we could ofc say that WoWs is in fact for casuals so balance can be neglected, but that's not how we see it no?). E.g. AP bombs were (and still are) bull because they destroyed exactly that sense of fairness by directly targeting ships that were supposed to counter planes. However when removing that aspect CVs had plenty of counterplay options. They were far from perfect, but they could more than be improved and expanded upon without throwing the whole system on its head as we have suggested for years. Meanwhile reworked CVs destroy it just by their fundamental concept. Tl;dr: CVs were never going to improve your game experience unless you play them yourself. That is simply impossible due to the nature of PvP games. What they can be however is balanced. That is where the focus should lie. And where the rework utterly fails.

What about introducing the fighter despawn exploit back into the game as a legendary mod?

And then you consider that WW2 was pretty much the only war in which CVs could've actually met surface ship engagements. BBs have existed for a far longer timespan at that point, ofc there are going to be more large scale BB engagements. It's all relative. Quite frankly history is just as often cited as a reason to exclude them as well. I think we can both agree that the whole discussion is dumb as .

If you've already grinded them then they should be in your inventory (unless they changed that?), but you can't equip them since they are currently disabled due to the rework.

You could say the same about large scale BB engagements if you consider how rare and circumstantial they were. I guess we need to remove BBs now? Really, who defines such circumstances? And who actually gives a ? Fact is those battles happened and could happen, their circumstances do not matter.

Likewise no one cared about T4-6 CVs back in the RTS iteration. Everyone just pointed at high tier CVs and REEE'd at how "overpowered" they were. Nothing has changed. I don't see how their evaluation should change now either. Contradicting yourself in the very same sentence. Amazing truly. I've read plenty of material on the subject (Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors being my favorite). In every single one the Battle off Samar gets classified as a, you know, battle. Meanwhile I guess I could point towards the sinking of HMS Glorious to demonstrate what happens when a CV gets caught out before it can get planes in the air, but that probably doesn't qualify as a battle to you either. In fact since no battle was conducted without ups in human history there are no battles at all. There we have it folks, according to @22cm war literally doesn't exist! Truly he is ahead of his time! Back in the RTS iteration a strike was known as the combined striking force consisting of all squads of the same plane type capable of dealing damage to surface ships. So no, two TBs doing a cross drop is in fact one strike. Wow, yeah, okay. So I need to fly one strike with my DBs, potentially dealing some damage, then wait 3-4 minutes for my DBs to rearm and return to attack again. So I'd need time potentially in excess of 6-8 minutes to kill a single DD in a RTS CV when I can do it in just 1 1/2 minutes with a reworked CV. I can definitely see how reworked CVs are weaker. /s Again, you literally couldn't kill a same tier full HP BB with a single crossdrop. The alpha strike was not enough. That means you need at least one more follow up strike, extending your kill time to 6-8 minutes again. I can kill a BB in half that with reworked CVs easily. And you were a fool to even attempt it against a cruiser which has DFAA and some AA skills/upgrades invested. Nowadays such cruisers are actually legit targets due to their playstyle and fragility to your weapons. "I do not lie." LOL

We are well aware and our answers reflect that. Regardless of whether we like it or not WG has recently stated that they will not change it. We've had far bigger topics about this before to no avail, restating our opinions over and over again has no effect as has been proven previously (*cough* AP bombs *cough*). So our only course of action is to deal with it one way or another.

Indeed, you won't see me denying that. I just picked it because it is one of the weird things I've seen getting criticised about Bismarcks voyage. I could've just as well made up some bs about "LOL BISMARCK SUNK BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH AA! IS GERMAN UP AND NOT BATTLE!!!" or something along those lines.

Indeed Catapult Fighters are now actually a better option for air defense than DFAA.

Any connection issues elsewhere? Like other games, watching videos etc.? Are you connected to your router via WLAN or cable? If you have another system at hand do you get any issues on that when attempting to play WoWs as well?

Considering the amount of people I've seen getting hit by spotted torps I'm pretty sure you can drop that skill without any issues.

"Nope™." - WG

I mean.... I guess I should be able to cripple anything equipped with torps via just a single bomb hit to those torps then instead of just disabling/killing the launcher and dealing no damage? Either way is fine with me. On a more serious note, I know the claim is unverified but I personally like it because it shows how insanely balls out the Americans were at Samar.

- Midway was not a battle, but a Japanese up. Japan simply failed to change their code and fell for some ez trickery. - Sinking of Bismarck was not a real battle, but a German up. If she had taken on a full load of fuel she would not have needed to return to shore. - Cape Matapan was not a battle but an Italian up. If Italy had invested in radar and night battle doctrine they wouldn't have lost as easily. Clearly what is a battle is decided by its circumstances, not the actual confrontation! This is why every battle on the Eastern Front weren't actually battles but just all German ups! /s To just quote a few passages from wiki. What you claim is an insult to every ship and life lost during Samar. But since you want more realism I guess I should be able to outgun CAs in my CVs considering White Plains crippled Chokai with only a single gun at her disposal.

Considering reworked CVs can actually do that far more efficiently which most people seem to conveniently forget, no. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On a more serious note, my point was that while alpha strike is substantial with RTS CVs, it isn't nearly as effective as some want to make you believe. Aka the guy above is way exaggerating.