El2aZeR

Except that you literally can't judge that. Whenever the 5 minute mark is exceeded by any class MM will grab whatever ships available and creates a match with them. That naturally includes CVs. And with low tier CV population reasonably healthy you'd also expect CVs to be present almost every time someone exceeds the limit. High tier CVs are rare enough that they're usually to blame, same can't be said about low tier ones. So in the case of OP it could've been very well the case that he or the other cruiser is the one who sat in queue for too long while the CVs are actually the "victims". As for the 5 minute mark, this is a game without a lobby system. In that light it's reasonable to put such a system in place. Perhaps not ideal, but reasonable.

Dunno about you, but I'd peg ingame leading or coaching as a form of teamplay.

If you had bothered to look beyond "OMG CVS!!!!1111" you'd realize that the low tier CV population is actually reasonably healthy as proven by statistics. Games such as the above are practically impossible UNLESS you play at unreasonable hours.

Have to admit, I haven't touched the Iowa ever since I got the Missouri but then again the latter is essentially the same ship. Iowa's bow shape is actually formed very well to bounce shells bow on. It's just that it's also very long, if your angling isn't perfect you're more likely to eat penetration damage. Also her superstructure is huge, taking pen damage to that even when angled isn't a rarity. Never experienced a citadel through the bow ever since they lowered it however. Combine that with her vulnerability to HE/sAP shells or torps and you get a BB that won't stand up to prolonged punishment as well as others. Basically Iowa is a bow camper comparatively speaking. Always has been, really. I tend to find much more success roaming instead. Global stats for Iowa have always been weak ever since FdG came out. Even before she enjoyed a rather slim margin over the Izumo aka one of the most hated BBs ever. It's not surprising why, either. She's a hard ship to do well in, one introduced to the game when gimmicks™ weren't a thing yet. If you don't click with the Iowa, you're unlikely to find the Montana very appealing either as she has pretty much the same playstyle (stay at mid-range, abuse concealment). On the other hand if you do choose to master the Iowa, you've essentially mastered BB play in general.

- not enough players in queue - blames MM Brilliant.

And by equalizing the situation in the air it's where the rest of the team comes in. If they're good enough to beat you guys, I win. If they're not, I lose. There is nothing unfair or broken about this. And I'm saying this as a solo player. Also if someone is getting plane spotted in an area where neither surface ships nor CV can support him then he's misplaying horribly and deserves to die. I hold no sympathies for such braindead play. Your division is high impact, no doubt. That's because you're bringing three highly skilled players in a game where even asking people to WASD is often too much. So yes, even if the enemy CV were to neutralize C4rM4, you two will usually still be able to carry your team to victory. But that's not broken in the slightest, if the enemy team crumbles just because of two players in a 12 vs 12 match then they quite frankly deserve to lose. It just highlights the hilariously abysmal state of the average playerbase that just two players can have such high impact. However since the goal of balance is to provide equal chances to competitors outside of the human factor it's more than fair that you win. What would actually be unfair is if you were to lose under such circumstances. The game isn't broken. The players are.

3rd option: You don't waste your planes and play defensive instead. Just because it's C4rM4 doesn't mean he can do much against you if you understand the basics of fighter combat and deny his strikes while using DBs as expendable scouts. Your effort to bring an AA ship is then for the most part wasted as such a stalemate can be forced by the enemy CV regardless. Your so called "abuse" of game mechanics works because the average player is braindead, not because it is broken.

It's not smart to lie when your stats are publicly available. Your actual solo stats:

It's perhaps timely to point out that Gearing is getting Fletcher torps. With that Shima falls further into obscurity even as a torp boat.

That's simple: You don't. The average player doesn't even know how to WASD. Or manage DCP and repair effectively. Even if you expect literally nothing of the average player you'll still be brutally disappointed. It's a failure on WG's part, one they've been called out on for years already. At this point you can only accept that they're not interested in bettering the playerbase. And ofc the average player isn't interested in getting better either as OP thoroughly demonstrates. Rather than learn how to deal with AA divs he created a whine thread and insults everyone who doesn't share his hilariously flawed opinion.

Forgot I haven't posted this gem yet: Seriously, I can take caps in CVs so often nowadays I don't even bat an eye anymore. "Oh, look, an empty cap for me to take. Meh, whatever." "CV SO OP BRAINDEAD PLAYERBASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT PLS NERF!"

Well, here's a quick breakdown of what has been confirmed by official statements: - current prototype makes you control a squad in third person like in World of Warplanes for example - AA is getting an overhaul with some kind of manual control as well - striking component of the current prototype is done and "promising" according to WG. Now they're focusing on air-to-air combat (which, if I may include my personal opinion, is where I expect the current prototype to fail due to a number of reasons)

I'm... I'm not? Sorry... Just off to the bathroom for a moment. Got something in my eye. *sniffle*

Except that it is in fact the only advantage that they bring. If you yourself are competent you don't need swaths of AA on your team. You only need to recognize which targets are the most likely to get struck, defend accordingly and scout/strike when it's needed or possible. Because in CV play you can ALWAYS force your opponent into a draw regardless of how skilled he is or what division he decides to bring, making the respective teams decide whether you win or lose. The CV needs to come to you to strike, thus you don't need to fight the enemy CV anywhere but where you find it most convenient. Meanwhile he has also chosen specific trade-offs. Minotaur is easily taken out by just looking at it the wrong way in a BB, Grozo isn't the most stealthy DD to be in and there are plenty of ways to counterplay a Gearing. You can't take them out on your own as a CV, but your team certainly can. And if your team can't, then that just means you don't deserve to win.

Then one of my BBs will most likely blap your Mino in his smoke while my DDs will contest against your Grozo/Gearing accordingly. Meanwhile I'll use my DBs as expendable scouts, my fighters will defend against all of your attempts to strike (as contrary to popular belief I don't need to fight you where your teammates are, you need to come to me) and my TBs will just wait for an opportune moment. With those two ships you have gained more vision control over where your buddies are and nothing more. One of your mates is also easily taken out by anyone halfway competent, especially considering he has to take the center, and the other will then fall accordingly. Considering you've specified that everyone is competent you're actually at a disadvantage as you brought the more squishy teammate. In essence you've gained nothing but lost a pretty big deal. It's only when my own team is stupid that I'm at a disadvantage. Also ironically if your teammates take the center of the map your plane travel time increases compared to mine as I'll be closer to my teammates than you can be to yours, although that's map dependent as well.

Atlanta. Minotaur works too. Also stronk WG programink at work here:

Which makes your point moot. If my enemy has a smart Mino/Grozo while I have a braindead Zao/Shima then I simply don't deserve to win. Because the enemy team is better than my own. This is a team game. If your own team is sub-par and the other team has stellar players, you lose. You know what would be actually unfair? If you win under such circumstances.

That'd depend on how well said players perform. I'd much rather have a smart Zao/Shima than a braindead Mino/Grozo.

As you have clearly shown by essentially calling everyone who contests your point of view an idiot.

No it isn't. What it requires is having a brain and halfway decent teammates. If you don't have those you don't deserve to win anyway. I'm a solo player. I have no problems at all dealing with AA divs. You are not very smart, aren't you?

There is one. It's called "sticking with your teammates" or alternatively "press the T button". That's actually a lower bar than what it takes to attack someone in a CV. AA is rising chance over time with a cap at 90% per tick. You're probably more likely to win the jackpot in a lottery than striking a small group of ships in an effective manner (unless ofc all their AA is but even then you're often have to deal with hefty losses. Just struck a Fuso sailing close to a Bayern in my Enterprise a few games ago and lost over half my DBs to both). As for not being able to hunt down planes, imagine that your AA can be completely out of position so that it literally can't defend you when a strike comes in. What you're asking for is essentially represented in the game by fighters. AA defense can't actively hunt planes, true. But on the other hand a CV has to cross your AA every time to attack you. You can't have both. And for the last time, effective HP of a CV are planes. Without planes a CV is incapable of fulfilling any role effectively, a CV without planes may as well be considered sunk. Sure, you don't gain any points, but you don't lose any either unless your CV or your team is completely (which to be fair is a common occurance). If you lose a game because the enemy CV survived you never deserved to win in the first place as you have to up massively for that to even occur. Which isn't even the case in chess. Or in literally any other successful multiplayer game out there nowadays. Games with symmetrical balancing are dead and have been for almost two decades, for the most part because they're boring by today's standards. WoWs is inherently asymmetrical as it should be. Deal with it. Or do you mean to insinuate that we should give BBs DD concealment, cruisers BB armor, DDs BB guns and other moronic things to gain the equality you so desire? Fact remains that no, nothing of the sort that you're describing is needed because it is either already in the game or complete bollocks. Competitive WoWs displays that CVs not only work, but that they're actually too weak to do anything besides spotting. Their inherent design means you have to misplay horribly to get killed by a CV. This is a team game. If you don't want it to be then don't play it. The rework is coming because WG wants to release this game for consoles. It's not because CVs in their current state can't be balanced.

Whoops, my bad. Let me adjust that:

Dude. It's a BB. Everything can happen at this point.

Apparently not considering you fed the Mino 50 planes. If you didn't notice yet, badges mean nothing. If you can't play against AA divs you're far from being good at playing CVs. Very, very far.

Inb4 it gets a separate slot because "promoting different playstyles with BBs" or some other bull.