El2aZeR

Don't think it's worth it. 66kn is plenty imo and the extra range does come in handy sometimes. I took Superintendent instead, which will become much more valuable when stealth fire is removed.

Bet those AA rockets are gonna be hilariously OP. Something like "Increases AA by 900% for 10 seconds" "Shoots down 1 aircraft in each squadron within your AA bubble" "Permanently panics squadrons within your AA bubble" You know, fun stuff like that. Because WG has forgotten how to make balanced premium ships. Seriously, though. I can't imagine those things getting more than 1 dps per launcher if they're not gonna be a consumable of some kind. Heck, even that might be too much.

*1/1/0 I agree, though. Stock deck is by far the most powerful setup you can take in Bogue.

A beautiful ship, for sure. *inb4 camo gives 100% chance of detonation if shot by Bismarck*

The counters to CVs are missing. Really? I mean, I sure must've missed that when I sailed my Iowa next to a friendly Missouri and was completely immune to a full Essex strike yesterday. In a way, yes. You're putting plenty of emphasis on stats without interpreting how they come to be. Let me show you a change that will affect stats massively, yet will not change balance whatsoever. First of all, it should be universally acknowledged that BBs have higher damage potential than CVs. While CVs may have higher theoretical alpha strike, BBs aren't far behind and reload much, much faster than planes could ever hope to cycle. Why are BBs then on par or behind CVs in terms of DPG? This is where the average player skill and the way classes deliver damage on their targets come in. When a potato BB shoots a potato BB, chances are he's gonna miss horribly, wasting a lot of his damage potential. Yet when a potato CV auto drops a potato BB, he will inflict massive damage because potato BBs do not know how to dodge even auto drops. So simply remove auto drop and I can guarantee that CV stats will plummet, at least until potato CVs either stop playing the class or git gud. Nothing regarding balance will be changed with the removal of auto drop, though. Stats are meaningless if you don't put some thought into them. Let's not kid ourselves, CVs at low tiers are vastly overpowered. The usual counters simply don't work at lower tiers because ships do not have enough AA to deny strikes even when grouped up. WG could've fixed that by simply adjusting plane HP and/or air dropped torp damage however. Alternatively they could've given some lower tier cruisers Def AA. Instead they remove one of the core mechanics of CV play and even act like they're doing lower tier players a favor with it. What a joke.

There is one time you can always get strafed: When you've passed the point of no return on a drop. You may get torps in the water, but you'll suffer heavily for it and eventually run out of planes, even with the projected capacity of 90. I don't see the point in giving up a fighter for an extra torp bomber. You lose too much utility and air coverage the extra fighter gives you, especially considering you'll already be on the back foot with T6 planes. Sniping against 1/3/2 will also be hilariously easy and thus become a viable tactic.

Funny how you can comprehend how CV WR is influenced yet not the rest of them.

So, no changes to one ship that scrubs have immense problems with yet massive nerfs to another that's doing the same? Hypocrite much? I'm assuming you also plan on nerfing/buffing every other ship so that they're roughly even in stats? Have fun with that, because that's gonna be impossible unless you remove all but one class from the game.

So you WOULD nerf Zao then? Very conflicting statements you're making here.

Oh, it isn't? Then you disagree that CVs are only powerful because so many low skilled players are running around? Oh, yes, he will outcarry you only because he plays a CV. Not because your team is splitting up and giving him easy targets or sth. Noooo, it has to be sth else. After all, a CV can totally strike ships that are grouping up or even just defended by a single AA cruiser, right? Oh wait. Your illusions, dude.

Don't have DM, so I'll go with Zao. Tho I have to say, I'm starting to take a liking to NO after having an initially bad impression of her.

Gearing's ballistics are a non-factor if you put her in a situation that allows her to close the distance. What I meant was that you can maneuver to either force Khaba to silence a set of her guns or to get to her broadside. Most players also tend to oversteer and do one of the two depending on what they wanted to achieve. She may be fast, but that doesn't translate well into her turning rate (though to be fair Gearing's maneuverability isn't exactly fantastic either). I like to think I have a bit of experience in my Gearing, which I'm basing my arguments off of. I tend to win a good majority of my fights against Khabas by taking fights in situations that favor me and avoiding them when I have to fight her on even or less favorable grounds. Obviously Gearing doesn't stand a chance on the latter.

Huh, never knew that. I guess you get the same effect with AP shells? I seem to get hilarious penetration damage to my belt even at seemingly auto bounce angles with my Iowa. Always assumed it was because of the torp belt.

Even if it were true, Missouri gets a 38mm outer belt which can bounce even Yama shells, while Iowa's 25mm outer belt gets overmatched by every BB gun she meets, making Iowa hilariously squishy even when angled.

Because obviously having a stationary target while you're also stationary is representative in any way. In an actual knife fight it is unlikely that Khaba can keep an angle with which she can use all her guns and bounce AP at the same time. Either way you're gonna have the advantage in a Gearing. Besides, keep in mind that Gearing will always open up the fight, giving her at least 2 free salvos before Khaba can respond. Combine that with any sort of situational advantage and Gearing should win a knife fight 9/10 times (if only guns are used).

Promoting a change that solves absolutely nothing and creates hilarious amounts of problems only because it is some kind of nerf to CVs. This is how stupid people can get, huh.

The thing is that, with Iowa/Mo/Monty getting their citadels lowered as well, I can't really fault them for also lowering the citadel on the Alabama. I'd see this as a global change rather than a specific buff. Besides, doesn't she get what is essentially pre-buff NC accuracy? The internal armor belt and huge superstructure also make her highly vulnerable to penetration damage. Depending on how thick the outer belt is it may even get overmatched like on the Iowa, giving her rather wonky armor when angled. Imo those are pretty harsh trade-offs for her advantages. (Obviously does not justifiy the whole p2w thing which should never be an accepted practice by the community, but really we should be used to it by now) The only thing I can't really understand is why the rest of the "citadel-too-high" crew doesn't get their buffs put into the patch alongside the Alabama and are instead slated for release in 6.4.0. It obviously doesn't take that long to change it as proven by the Alabama.

It's probably just to show how hypocritical WG is being with the removal of manual drop for low tier CVs.

Carrier sniping in high tier also ruins your own economy, since you will not be able to shoot down enemy planes anymore (which in itself is a sad, sad statement about CV economy nowadays).

I'm not the one who came up with it. I'm asking a simple question that you apparently cannot answer and instead you pull *edited* out of your *edited* that has literally nothing to do with it. If you want to nerf CVs on the basis of catering to scrubs, why wouldn't you nerf Zao, Shima and all other ships that offend scrubs too? Go ahead. No more *edited*-ing around. Answer the question.

Can't say I was never guilty of that, either. However by going after the enemy CV solo you're taking a very big risk and it should be treated as such. Like it is now.

Actual K/D ratio is irrelevant. If you want a representative statistic for a "K/D ratio" you'd need average plane losses per kill. CVs do not have unlimited ammunition, if a CV that lost all it's planes early survives it will still make CV K/D look good while being absolutely worthless in the game itself. Again, DDs were most likely never meant to hunt CVs (at least solo), so there is nothing wrong with the ease with which CVs can defend themselves from DDs.

Don't cut off your part saying that Zao is only so strong because the average player is so bad. If you want to nerf CVs on that basis, why exactly shouldn't you nerf Zao following the same principle?

So you are telling me that Zao should be nerfed because BBabies cannot manage fires? Yeah, great argument, mate.

A concerted effort to push can do wonders to break defensive stalemates. It happens far too rarely tho due to various reasons, the biggest of them all is again because the average player sucks and does not understand at all how to most effectively play his/her ship. Teach DDs to scout for and screen their teammates, tell them that laying down smoke cover is a good idea and that chasing after that one BB at the edge of the map solo is not. Teach BBs that to effectively utilize their weapons they must close the distance to at least a certain point and to utilize cover that your friendly DD has so graciously given to you etc. etc. etc. You can also adjust game mechanics to promote teamplay. Decrease the ranges for ships a bit (I believe no ship in the game currently needs 20+km range), introduce different scoring areas (playing close to an objective = bonus exp and credits income; camping at the edge of the map = decrease in exp and credits income), increase scouting rewards, make teammates utilizing your smoke give you additional rewards, increase the income for tanking damage and so on. There's plenty that can be done about it. Why WG hasn't at least made an effort to do so is beyond me.