El2aZeR

Age is displacement related as far as I can see. The smaller the displacement, the younger they are. It's a way (and actually a very smart one imo) to characterize different classes that share the same designation beyond simple clothing. A Mutsuki class destroyer displaces about as much as a typical wartime US DE, putting them firmly into the same age group that Eldridge, an actual DE, is also in. (Although it should be noted that there are outliers like Saratoga e.g.) KC just displays all DDs as at least early teens while separating "Coastal Defense Ships" (colloquially known as DEs but they're actually something else, the USN just called them escort ships) as their own class. And their age group is pretty much the same as what AL uses to portray low displacement DDs or DEs.

"CV divs op"

Yuo see Ivan when put giant beer can on ship ship become more popular because filthy capitalists love beer!

I'd swap DE for BFT tbh. That'd allow you to take AR as well.

I see no reason to not take both tbh.

It's not like it's too different from before. If you had a skilled opponent you'd rarely, if ever fly a strike regardless of whether he has two fighters or three fighters. On the other hand it's more than likely that your opponent doesn't have what it takes to micro three fighters around as many already fail with just two. If you on the other hand can then that's a huge advantage in your favor. Aka this is a buff for skilled CV players. Again.

Actually met my first competent Asashio player today. He contested a cap with my support (Zao). He spotted a cruiser and a DD for me which I both killed. He even offered to smoke me up (although I declined as it was unneeded). And perhaps most importantly he cleared a path for me by killing 3 spawncamping BBs. 10/10 this ship is totally fine in my eyes.

My guess: A CV + 2 BB div managed to carry their worthless teammates, consisting of a cruiser and 5 DDs, to victory. Inb4 CV divs op

For every whine post you make about CVs I play 5 CV games. You can stop this. On topic: MM has never taken into consideration whether a ship is stock or not. Bot CVs neither strafe nor manual drop.

Spotting damage rewards are pitiful to the extreme. If he ended up on top with just a single cap then your team must have failed hard. Over 100k damage is meaningless because rewards are calculated by percentage, not flat numbers. Killing a full HP DD gives you the same rewards as killing a full HP BB despite much less damage dealt.

3/3/2 is a buff. If you can handle the increased micro requirements that 3 fighters + great striking potential demands that is. Which I imagine is a hurdle not many players will pass successfully.

Even if there were too many CV players it'd have minimal effect on others unless it's extremely excessive. CVs are capped at 2 per team in T4-7 and 1 per team at T8-10. That means in a theoretical CV overpopulation scenario you'd barely notice the difference unless you happen to play CVs yourself.

You perform ludicrously poor and expect to be rewarded for it?!

Stacking AA and/or following teammates to cover them requires minimal skill that you are incapable of displaying apparently. And your sure beat my two incompetent DD teammates on North with skill. Oh wait. Guess DDs should be nerfed to then, no? Sure, sure. It's not like you tried to deny North ever happened. I wonder what else you're willing to lie about? Though, really, it doesn't even matter as North is representative of the playstyle you displayed on Haven. You camped on both, you lost on both, thus it doesn't even matter what match I was referencing as you tried to damage farm your way to victory regardless, then blaming me for shutting that down when in reality you've taken yourself out of the game. Right back at you. iChase is not dumb enough to fly his planes into several high AA ships. He displays basic competence which, thanks to players like you, lets him have tremendous influence on the outcome of a match. Aka I'm either good enough to not do what you're saying I did or you and your buddies are incompetent enough to let your 3 man div get utterly facerolled by randoms. Choose your poison. :)

I hope you realize that Worchester does not represent a global CV nerf. If anything Worchester will only increase the influence of a super unicum CV division. A 90% WR div may rise even higher when using this ship. And ofc skilled solo CV players who have already learnt how to deal with the Minotaur (and AA ships in general) will be thoroughly unimpressed with the Worchester. It's nothing we're not used to. Thus Worchester represents a huge buff to skilled CV divs and does nothing against skilled solo CVs. The only loser in this equation is once again the average CV player and those that are teamed with them in extension. If I were to examine this from the perspective of a skilled CV player only I'd be rubbing my hands in glee. It's funny how CV hate can turn one utterly blind.

Tbh you caught possibly the worst time to compare stats as we've just had a major patch hit with several balancing adjustments in it.

Thing is, why do you even have to build for AA? CVs are an integral part of the game, being one of the four classes you can choose from. Isn't it nonsensical that you have to expend a good amount of captain skills and upgrades just so you can defend yourself or others against a core part of the game and play to your air defense role as a cruiser? And wouldn't AA be much easier to balance if you do it largely around base values instead of having to pay attention to skills and upgrades that are capable of turning even mediocre AA ships into no fly zones?

If they keep to their concept of CVs being primarily damage dealers while having little team utility and pull it off in a right way (which is gonna be incredibly difficult and may very well change not only CV play but have tremendous effects on surface combat as well) CVs could probably occupy BB slots since they'll overlap in roles. That'd be an interesting way to cull BBs per match as well. Though honestly considering the decisions the WG balancing and design departments have made over the years I have very little confidence in them pulling that off.

Enemy CV doesn't even instantly explode the moment this ship enters the match. Absolutely pathetic.

To be fair if AA power exceeds that of plane HP, as it is the case here, we can pretty much assume that it'll hit the "chance to shoot down" cap (90%) instantly, which also means there will be no survivability buff to planes as it is the average time it takes to shoot down a plane.

In the past we've suggested how to do so in several ways, such as - removing auto drop (thus equalizing skilled and average CV players at least in mechanics) - making AA bubbles visible - giving a clear indicator that someone is using DFAA/strafe - giving an arming line for torps and so on. Yet we have never seen a single thing tested or implemented, which is why it's hilarious to see Notser say that "WG has truly tried to make the RTS concept work". If anything they've made CVs progressively more difficult to play for well over a year. As for how the rework will look like, the Waterline episode has already told us what at least the current testing iteration is. You have to manually control a single squad as you would in typical arcade flight games. Personally I don't really see how that'll working out in the face of automated AA (although they did imply that manual control of AA guns is also a thing) and multiple squad control (if you only can control one squad, that means ships are not allowed to destroy one squad or otherwise a CV would be useless. If you can control multiple squads by switching between them then they've actually increase multitasking requirements). While I'm curious as to how that'll turn out, I shall retain a healthy amount of skepticism.

What are you guys talking about? Please increase the DD soft cap so my Clemson can munch on even more delicious inferior DDs. Only 5 that are automatically dead per game aren't enough!

Have your BBs push him. Oh wait.