El2aZeR

Not even a squad of fighter reserves with AS in 1/2/1. No ammo either. 2/0/3 is obviously utterly stupid. And ofc hydro. Yeah, no, this ship is still a joke.

KM BBs are more tanky than any other line. If you're eating pens in a KM BB, you would eat pens with any other line as well. It should also be noted that in general low-mid tier BBs do not possess sufficient bow/stern armor to protect against overmatch.

The most fighters you have is usually two, split across two flanks. Bombers tend to number in 4 all the way up to 6. There is no way you can clear them all out without some kind of AoE attack unless you up fighter dps to ridiculous levels. As in full AA spec DM + DFAA levels. You could also simply kill fighters with your bombers by picking two skills that were previously noob traps (Evasive Maneuver + Expert Rear Gunner). That'd still devalue fighters completely as a both an active and passive air denial tool. You could basically only intercept if your enemy is about to drop which really will not do anything given the small time window. Also this assumes your enemy is simply going to let himself be intercepted as he can see your fighters coming from miles away. When you try to save an ally you usually have only a small time window to prevent enemy planes from causing catastrophic damage which prevents a click engagement entirely. If your fighters are in the area anyway, the enemy CV simply won't go there. Not to mention that this would once again promote selfish play. Lock enemy fighters with your own, go deal catastrophic damage to your target. Doesn't matter if your team is left without air cover once you do, at least you get some sweet sweet numbers out of it. There's nothing you can do to cover your team with only click fights anyway, either the enemy also simply locks your fighters with his or he chooses a target you're not in place to protect. And after enemy bombers have dropped their ordinance any kind of attempt to kill them would kill your own fighters. Considering the current state of CV play and what fighters would look like without it strafing is not only a perfectly fine mechanic, I would even go as far as calling it essential as with it fighters pose the serious threat to air strikes they should quite frankly be. Unless you replace it with an equally dominant mechanic there is simply no way you can remove it. Instead, let new players actually know that something like strafing exists, how to look for it (maybe a better visual indicator is needed here, currently you can only see an enemy fighter squad strafing if you're way too close for comfort or if you can recognize the particular behaviors the s***ty UI tends to exhibit when an enemy squad strafes. Also it is obviously mandatory that the UI is fixed), how to dodge it and how to counter it. Same things applies to strafing out.

Problem with trying to remove strafing is that fighters would once again become worthless against massed strikes as they were in CBT. That ofc can also be remedied by introducing some new mechanic or tweaking the existing click fights, but imo strafing is a fairly reasonable solution to that issue. Not sure why you think it's buggy. Personally I've never experienced bugs with the mechanic in itself, only with the UI trying to use or display it.

It actually wasn't all that bad imo. The distances SF required usually also separated you from your team, ringing the dinner bell for any CV that happened to pay attention. But ofc after CVs went basically extinct SF spread like a plague as expected when there is suddenly a severe lack of spotting.

Used to be different. You were able to smoke in your teammates close to cap, encouraging them to move up, provide AA cover and fire support while you take a cap. Your role as a DD was not only providing vision but also to deny it. Literally nothing a CV could do about that. But ofc WG in their infinite wisdom has chosen to almost entirely eliminate such counterplay.

I'm speaking in hindsight. It used to be this way. RPF, radar, hydro and the like didn't always exist and concerning class balance it was actually better that they didn't. Best example for this would be CVs, all through CBT they used to have hilarious strike potential, combining what would now be considered "normal" torp alpha strike with ludicrous amounts of squads (anyone remember Haku 0/5/3? Fun times). To counter this amount of striking power you needed literally the entire team in one spot as AA also used to be weaker back then. But instead of addressing the core issue WG introduced their first of many gimmicks: DFAA. However WG did actually end up tweaking CV striking power and loadouts, in turn making DFAA an archaic mechanic in desperate need of overhaul. This can be said about literally every gimmick that is nothing but a shoddy patchwork to an issue. Thing is that it is not the goal of WoWs to make each class have the same amount of potential influence on a match, nor is it even remotely possible as it employs an asymmetrical class system, hence why a counter-based balancing system is needed in the first place. With the need to create mutliple, fundamentally different classes, each with their respective roles, you will inevitably end up shafting some. The only way to make each class have the same amount of potential influence on a match is to make every class capable of playing every role, inevitably making the point of having different classes moot, removing all differences and killing off diversity. Ships that have special utility or are capable of playing the information game for example will always have more potential influence than those whose sole focus is dealing damage. This is also fine under the premise that this is inherently a team game and not a free for all in which you happen to have teammates. If a high level player playing a DD is capable of exuding more potential influence on a match than one playing a BB, that actually means the system is working as intended. And as long as the counter-based balancing principles (along with the premise that this is inherently a team game) are upheld, it is fine this way.

That'd be a hilarious buff to CVs as small caliber AA is easily demolished by HE shells and bombs. What is needed is to prevent these lows and highs entirely. For the most part these exist due to a vast array of upgrades and captain skills. If you want powerful AA it is mandatory to pick these, eliminating any other choice you might otherwise have. The payoffs however are tremendous if you do happen to meet a CV in battle, even ships with normally bad AA are capable of utterly murdering entire strikes with a full AA spec. And ofc those ships that have good base AA already become absolutely hilarious when specialized for it. Then there is the problem of AA progression. At T4-5 AA is basically non-existent. T6-8 has a few ships that can do well without thorough specialization but are few in number. At T9+ everything barring some DDs has good to hilarious AA, but the effects are mitigated by CVs also spiking tremendously in power. There are even some lines that actually get worse when they move up a tier (Cleve to Pensa is an infamous example, even if it's being fixed soon). To say that this makes absolutely no sense at all is an understatement. Furthermore you have an issue with consistency. That AA mounts can be destroyed is a good thing and is one of the reasons as to why I don't think it's a problem that some ships have really good AA initially. It makes CVs dependent on their team just like any other class. But with the introduction of RN BBs with their thermonuclear HE shells, being capable of stripping ships of their entire low and mid range AA suite with only 2-4 hits, this needs rethinking. Thus to address these issues one needs to take the following steps: - remove or mitigate the impact of all AA skills/upgrades, then balance primarily around base values - smooth out AA progression - either buff AA mount survivability, reduce the splash damage to AA mounts by HE shells (particularly RN BB ones) or make "destroyed" AA mounts still emit a small amount of their DPS (say 40% or so) Please note that this only concerns AA, there are plenty more things wrong with CVs and their relationship with surface vessels.

You know you can also do it the other way around? Just remove auto drop. There is literally no reason for auto drop to exist other than to trap new players into bad habits.

Suggesting to remove glorious gimmick from not only a premium ship but THE premium ship?

Eh, don't worry about it. :) Excellent article as always. It is (or at least was) a counter-based system, as in no matter what strategy your enemy pulls out and however powerful it may be, you have a tool to mitigate or even completely negate its effects. Torpedoes? WASD hax. Amazing concealment? Plane spotting. Scouting? Smoke. AP pens? Angling. HE spam? DCP and repair management. Air strike? AA cover. And so forth and so on. BUT this was done under the pretense of WoWs being a team game, so you alone as an individual are not capable of defending yourself against all enemy action, only certain ones depending on the class you're playing. Since WG seems adamant to eliminate that from the game, I'd say they don't even bother anymore nowadays.

Ah, now I get it. Got a bit confused since he specifically referred to GFCS and the upgrade is called GFCS Mod. 2

Type "@" then the name. :)

Uh, I don't think a T5 ship is supposed to be able to upgrade range because that slot is unlocked at T9? Or am I missing something here?

Source: https://thedailybounce.net/2017/01/13/world-of-warships-sub_octavian-reddit-qa-12012017/

Meh, he wasted his DFAA immediately on my DBs as soon as they entered range. So I just got out, waited then killed him. :)

It's technically speaking possible if the enemy as Evasive Maneuver + Expert Rear Gunner skilled. @OP: The first skill you need is Aircraft Servicing Expert, which increases the health of your planes by 5% in addition to -10% servicing time. Then you need the Air Groups Modification 1 upgrade which will increase the dps of your planes by 10%. Without these two you will lose the fighter engagement against CVs who have this skill and upgrade every time. As for bombers, if you notice that they're flying especially slow after they've dropped their bombs/torps then don't engage them. This is because of the skill Evasive Maneuver, which increases the health of bombers that are returning to their home carrier by a whopping 75% but decreases their speed by 30%. In combination with the skill Expert Rear Gunner, which increases the dps of bombers vs fighters by 10%, this will make any attempt to kill them with your fighters a hazardous endeavor. Although those two skills are generally speaking only useful in low tiers as strafing doesn't exist. If you're aiming for higher tiers, don't take these skills.

While this is indeed a sad reality of DD play, it should be noted that Priority Target only shows the number of people locked on you with guns, not with torps. If you know there is a DD in the area and PT switches from 0 to 1, it's a fairly safe assumption that there are fishes in the water out to greet you. So as a DD don't immediately switch to guns after you've launched a spread unless you absolutely have to.

Damage saturation.

It's not, but if the team is camping in the back then the match itself is a lost cause regardless of whether he does stick with them or not as I previously stated. This way at least he doesn't die prematurely and hey, maybe the enemy will overextend and give you another chance to win. On the other hand if the team does actually push or even just move in a tactically sound manner he'll be inclined to follow, not only enhancing the overall effectiveness of the force but giving the enemy CV one less potential target. If the team is pushing, he'll follow. If the team is defending, he'll also stick around to defend. If the team is camping, the match is most likely lost anyway since camping in itself is tactically unsound, one more guy doing the same or not will have no effect on the end result unless the enemy team is stupid, in that case he'll be able to capitalize on the opportunity precisely because he did not become victim to an air strike prematurely. Thus sticking with the team, or at least retaining sufficient AA cover, only has positive effects regardless of the situation at hand.

So, saying "stick together for AA cover" isn't reasonable? On the off chance that this particular individual is on my team when there is a CV in the match and took this advice to heart, it only has positive effects even if the only thing he does is camp in the back (which would imply that everyone is camping and the game is lost anyway). The alternative would be him behaving in a "tactically unsound" manner and thus inevitably getting killed, losing my team points and potentially the game. Especially infuriating if I'm playing a CV myself and know from the first minute that he's going to die and I'll have to leave him to his fate in order to cover the rest of the team. I fail to see how this is unreasonable. I thought putting that in quotation marks would make it clear that I'm not targeting you specifically. Clearly I was wrong.

So, according to you us stating that people should seek AA cover against CVs encourages camping/lemmingtrains, but CVs which inherently force you to seek AA cover or face the consequences do not? Really? That's an interesting viewpoint to say the least. Please, what else should we write? "you're right, CVs op nerf pls"? "lol scrub git gud"?

And please, don't make this about "No, it's not CVs in general, but YOU". Using AA cover if you don't have sufficient AA yourself is utterly, completely basic information. Doesn't take a genius to figure out. If us saying that "teamplay" against CVs encourages people to camp and lemmingtrain then CVs themselves will do so without our input because "teamplay" is actually their counter whether we say it or not.

Let me recap: - You wrote that CVs encourage camping/lemmingtrains. - I wrote in reponse that while CVs can encourage camping (as does anything that deals damage, really), they can also encourage pushing. Also pushing when facing a good CV player is vital to put pressure on him. That has nothing to do with what you wrote? o_ô