El2aZeR

On Hiryu you can delay landing/starting your DBs to service your TBs (or the other way around). I even recommend it since you want to delay your follow up strike anyway to take full advantage of damcon being on cd. Kaga will have no such options. You either group up or you risk potentially dealing very little or no damage for the loss of the majority or even all of your TBs.

2x4 TBs Launch time: 2 x 10s = 20s Service time: 2 x 10s = 20s Recovery time: ~15s Overall service time: ~55s 5x2 TBs Launch time: 5 x 10s = 50s Service time: 5 x 4s = 20s + ~10s due to longer recovery = 30s Recovery time: easily 30+ seconds Overall service time: ~110s Even if you cut launch time in half Kaga will still need far longer than Hiryu to service TBs.

Ahh, yes, the good old days. Or when MM could churn out gems like these:

Haven't used it yet because I never felt the need to do so, but theoretically it should put the AS CV at an even higher disadvantage since now you get second chances even if he manages to lock you into a fight. Meanwhile if he decides to disengage that's still a victory for you since now he has wasted ammo for nothing, crippling his ability to deny your strikes. Then again you should also theoretically be able to strafe after a disengaging squad to wipe it if you pay attention. Should be especially easy with USN fighters since they strafe longer. Haven't had the chance to try it yet, though.

Tl;dr: AS Kaga most likely has low strike potential due to Saipan DB levels of land, service and launch times.

That's not the issue, imo. You will actually have very low strike potential with AS. With 5 squads and each launch taking 10 seconds you'll need 50 seconds to get all squads in the air alone. Landing will also take quite a while assuming all squads survive and if 2-3 don't then you're gonna have to wait for those anyway. Service time individually may be shorter but overall would be the same as Hiryu IF all squads make it back alive and longer if a few don't. Unlike Hiryu you will also be unable to force damcon first using DBs. You could split your TBs to try to force flooding, but I don't think that's gonna be recommendable considering their fragility. Also A6M2's are stock Hiryu fighters, not the same.

It's more like CVs were equalized in MM so that they don't have to fear snipes as much anymore. That and people have learned that snipe attempts are rather unrewarding most of the time along with the addition of Def AA for high tier CVs. Even with BBs receiving AA buffs (that, for the most part, they did not deserve), it's also that experienced CV players learned to play their role more effectively. Why should I strike a camping BB at the edge of the map when I can kill the DD capping instead? Target selection changed, with CVs now picking on DDs far more often than on BBs due to various reasons, but the dynamic is technically speaking still there. *sigh* Ain't that the truth.

Honestly, they still do, or rather should. It's just that the average playerbase now is so bad that even the most basic of teamwork is far beyond their reach, which is why you get so many complaints about them. The dynamic is still there, the meta and playerbase, however, have changed.

Or you could just sail together with a couple of capital ships. You know, as you should anyway with CVs in a match. I see no reason to give a CV player any sort of drawback when his counterpart is afk. It means freedom of movement for other classes, but on a CV it has very little impact considering their primary counters in terms of damage dealing are still ships sticking together and not the enemy CV. He can scout more freely, that's it. The number of ways this can be abused is also hilarious. People could pressure you into leaving to neuter the enemy CV if you're inferior in terms of skill. It gets even worse when you account for divs. Instead, afks should be punished more harshly. Example: A warning or two, after that you're banned from entering random and ranked, forcing X games coop with earnings of ~500+ exp before you can rejoin. Warnings reset after 7 days. Such a system would be far more effective, easier to implement and, most importantly, cannot be abused.

Well, can't deny that.

A better question would be why you would keep the AS loadouts considering they are completely and utterly worthless?

Indeed it is, but this is the same company that buffed Kutuzov back then and RU DDs recently because according to their data they were "underperforming". Are you really that surprised? If I were to buff the Mogami I'd increase her range to at least 16.5km, give her better AA and make the concealment penalty when firing gun and not hull dependent (although now it would only have an impact on air detectability). While I agree that the 155s turn far too slow, it still makes sense to have some heavy drawback to encourage the use of the 203s, which is why I believe anything below 40s for 180° traverse to be too fast.

Nah, however they did benefit from BFT/AFT unlike the 203s. And now with IFHE, if you gave the 155s even just slightly worse turret traverse than the 203s, the 155s would be a far superior choice. I do agree that the 155s turn too slow, but I wouldn't go under 40s with them. Imo her main issue is her range. The 203s offer better penetration against broadside cruisers, true. The 155s with IFHE however vastly outperform them against BBs, angled cruisers and DDs, thus offering more utility.

You'd have very little reason to choose the 203s then (especially with IFHE). WG nerfed the turret traverse to make the 203s a more attractive choice.

Anticipate from which direction enemy fighters may be coming from and move your planes "behind" the Texas accordingly. Keep an eye on the minimap. Set a bunch of waypoints manually. There are plenty of ways around it.

Aside from the RN CL line which consists purely of light cruisers, it's mixed with light cruisers eventually transitioning into heavy cruisers starting T7 for USN/KM and T5 for IJN.

Honestly, I agree. 2 CVs per team is rather unpleasant for everyone involved, including the CV players.

Honestly, that's probably more because people don't know about it than anything. I always go bow in in my NO/Chapa/Takao against BBs carrying "low" caliber guns and laugh manically as their AP shells bounce off my bow while I burn them to death. You should try it, it's great fun.

Why play them? Because at high tiers they are vastly better torp boats than IJN DDs with great self defense guns and AA to boot. Knife fighting also still works if you have cover to work with. I'm with you on that one.

Unless they change the overmatch mechanics for it 305mm AP won't do anything to most same tier cruisers if they bow on since 25mm bow armor needs a caliber of 357,5+mm to overmatch. I can imagine this thing becoming rather similar to Moskva in playstyle. Sit back at long range, go AP against broadside things, spam HE for everything else. If she gets cruiser like bow armor then I can see it being fairly reasonably balanced (although radar would still be a questionable addition). But hey, who am I kidding. It's Russian AND a BB. This thing will probably get a 50mm glorious stalinium bow/aft so she'll be immune to even Yama shells.

I would hardly call it advanced, nor even one of the best of it's time. Which is kinda to be expected considering the system was introduced in 1941. And that extensive radar use was actively discouraged in the KM, believing that radar would eventually be traceable and in the superiority of optical systems. Pretty sure allied French ships actually got refitted with US or UK radar sets, which would make them equal or superior to their KM counterparts. Anyway, this whole discussion is kinda moot. MN ships don't get radar ingame. I literally laughed for 5 minutes straight when I saw the AA on that thing xD

Ah, yes, I have yet to acquire that. The FuMO 81 is the one based on recovered British technology, which was deemed superior to existing German radar systems when examined by German radar manufacturers.

I'd love the source on that. All I can find is that she eventually carried a radar that was based on recovered allied technology. Never heard anything about MN cruisers getting radar consumable either. I doubt we can take ship descriptions as a credible source.