El2aZeR

That and regardless of what loadout a US CV picks, you can shut it down with the IJN balanced loadout from T7 onward while still maintaining great strike potential. Playing US CVs right now is like playing a game of "pick your poison". - AS is hilariously easy to outplay and thus completely worthless. - Balanced sacrifices far too much striking potential for very little gain. - Strike is adequate for it's intended role but runs in danger of getting completely shut down.

Or not take any damage at all if you had stuck with some teammates. Once again, if a CV can get a strike through to you, YOU'RE doing something wrong, not the CV. Also Bismarck and weak AA. Ahahahahahaha

Meh, I didn't even bother to play a single ranked game with all the Scharns, Gneis', Atlantas & Belfasts out there.

You could just branch one line out then back in again. E.g. split the USN BB line starting from NM into T7 Colo -> T8 NC and T7 Lex -> T8 Alaska with both lines converging back into Iowa (I know Alaska doesn't necessarily fit into T8. It's just an example).

I dunno, maybe my playstyle is just incompatible with NO. I often find myself wishing for more range when playing her. If I had to choose between more range and better maneuverability in a cruiser, I'd easily pick more range. Maybe that's just me, tho.

The mysterious, sacred art of WASD is not for everyone.

Speaking of monitors... "What do you mean I can't have an 18" gun on my CV?!" (HMS Furious, partially converted)

Both Pensa and NO are pathetic AA vessels. It would not be worth speccing into their AA even if CVs were guaranteed in every match. And I say that from a CV's perspective. I must admit that I haven't played NO all that much after the buffs, but the one major gripe I have with her still remains. For a vessel entirely reliant on her guns, her range is lacking to say the least. I feel like there is little the NO does that Chapa doesn't do better. Obviously that doesn't mean she's bad, but more... "recent additions" have simply left her in the dust. (dare I say the word "powercreep"?)

Yeah, no. Unless your team consists almost entirely out of potatoes you still have a very good chance of winning the game. If the former happens to be your situation you never had a chance anyway. Repeat after me: The counters to CVs are both widely available and extremely effective. If the majority of the playerbase wants to ignore those counters then that's not a problem CVs should have to deal with. Really, it's like you're not even bothering to read what people write (which is understandable. No one wants to admit their viewpoint is flawed beyond belief, no? ). If CVs really had such influence as you described almost every skilled CV players should be sitting at well over 90% WR, no?

Sounds to me you need a healthy dose of l2p.

If you have managed to deplete your plane reserves before the game ends you've done something wrong. Or it could just be a simple balancing decision. IJN CVs don't need another damage dealing source, especially not one that depletes fighters. BRING OUT THE PITCHFORKS! The amount of time it takes to land with Evasive Maneuvers is about as fast as it takes for a squad without EM to land and rearm. This is especially evident if you're moving (and you should be moving often). Therefore EM severely limits the amount of damage you can deal in a game, micro or not. Besides, it has no real use. You want to hunt DDs and HE spammed, solo BBs anyway. Those will be equally as unimpressed about your increased plane survivability as a DM with Def AA ready or a strafing fighter squad. Thus, imo EM is a noob trap.

Pretty much this. Also my CV stats still validate my point. When I'm playing CV most, if not all of my targets are scrubs that expose themselves. Easy, relaxing targets. Is it my fault that I can punish them in accordance to how the class I'm playing is designed? Surely if you have a problem with that you also have problems with oblivious BBs getting killed by torps, broadsiding cruisers getting deleted by BBs and DDs exposing themselves at close range to cruisers. Here's a clue: You can actually make yourself almost completely immune to air strikes (*insert collective gasp from all scrubs here*). All it takes is a little bit of teamwork and maneuvering. If CVs can pull high damage numbers, as it is currently the case, it simply means that the average playerbase sucks.

Not in WoWs, but in other games sometimes when it lags (or otherwise has performance issues) a key input gets "stuck" and you have to press the button again to "release" it. Often happens to me in Monster Hunter Online because it's a Chinese game and I'm playing it from EU with glorious 300-600 ping. Never had that WASD one, before, tho. Could also be a hardware issue. Have you tried another keyboard?

I thought Kitakami was removed and replaced by Atago because she was worthless? That was my impression of her anyway. I for one don't remember a single game in which a Kita had good impact on the game. Anyway: Benham-class USN DD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham-class_destroyer Only 4 guns but hilarious torp power with 4x4 tubes. 0.1 kn slower than Benson at 37.9 kn. I'd place her at T8 or 9. Somers-class USN DD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somers-class_destroyer 4x2 guns (not DP tho) and 3x4 tubes. Speed clocks in at 38.6 kn. More engine, gun and torp power than Gearing in exchange for anemic AA. Considering the scarcity of high tier CVs this ship would easily render Gearing obsolete if given the same or even slightly worse stealth values. T10 obviously.

Depends on what you designed the ship to do. Yes, CVs have higher scouting and damage potential than the rest. But they were obviously designed to be that way, as they also have severe limitations and, like with DDs, dedicated, effective counters widely available. It's just that the average player doesn't use them. So if the average player doesn't understand how to or just straight up refuses to use the counters to a certain class, obviously that class is going to overperform. That's not a problem with that class then, though, no?

Alaska would face the same issue as KGV at T8: She would not be able to overmatch the bows of most T8 cruisers. Barring any changes to overmatch (as you have previously suggested and I'm still not a fan of because WG), I'd place her at T7 highest.

The bomber attacked will have it's accuracy and speed reduced like when it is under attack by an enemy fighter squad. I should however note that if you give a manual attack command BEFORE the fighter latches on, they will usually drop with a normal spread (no idea why). Personally I send in my DBs first to bait the fighter/s, then stick around with them to give my torp bombers a clear run (the fighter will not change targets even if you designate another one manually until the DB squad has left it's patrol area. And as you said it yourself DBs are usually strong enough on their own to kill it off).

Those "paltry limitations" are actually a pretty big deal. Let me address each one of your points. Undoubtedly true, but since CV MM is mirrored both teams benefit from it. Player skill, however, IS an issue, one all skilled CV players acknowledge. WGs "fix" to seal clubbing with low tier CVs will only further the gap between average and skilled CV players. Easily fixed by adapting your playstyle in DDs. Remember, if you sail off alone with CVs in the game you're doing something wrong. Torps can still be used effectively in concert with your team. There are also blind spots no CV will be able to scout: The AA bubbles of your teammates (well, alright, he can, but he'll suffer the consequences). I play plenty of DDs and have no problems whatsoever with CVs. While true, it currently limits the economy of CVs hilariously. And while their "weapons" have unlimited range, they also have severe limitations that need to be taken into account. 1. They have a game mechanic solely dedicated to counter them. 2. Unlike other ship classes you're unable to damage a well coordinated team (or even just potatoes that happen to run around in a big blop). 3. Launch, flight and recovery times limit your damage potential, therefore to get the most out of your CV you need to get closer to the enemy. That isn't a insubstantial risk as it often puts you well within range of BB guns. Damage can be limited. Remember, if a CV has all the time in the world to set up a proper cross drop on you, YOU'RE doing something wrong. I agree, though, that DBs aren't a particularly fun mechanic for all parties involved. Read the above. Also stick around for too long and even some single ships will wipe out all planes easily. If maneuvered correctly you can severely limit the damage a CV can deal to you. And again, CVs NEED to deal damage. Which is a great example of both teamplay and lack thereof. I don't see anything wrong with it. After all, if you can drop someone he's exposed and thus deserves to be punished anyway. Yes, CVs survive longer. They also have an "ammunition count" unlike other classes. Run out of "ammo" and you become worthless, necessitating you to pick your targets carefully. Flying your planes around trying to strike everything is a guaranteed way to have no planes left before the 10 minute mark. I'd actually suggest that you try playing CVs yourself to get a better picture, if only so you can understand how to counter them efficiently. Now, regardless of what stance you take on seal clubbing, you'd have to admit that WGs way to "fix" it is the absolute worst way to do it.

Afaik those were damaged at some point and removed, so WGs model is actually historically accurate.

Actually it does matter, even if the average CV player is a complete and utter potato as well. The average BB player doesn't even know how to evade an auto drop, granting a potato CV free damage. Obviously this doesn't make CVs broken, as we all know how easy it is to evade auto drops. Also according to your definition DDs would also be overpowered since they have a higher potential impact on the game than BBs, which in turn would also be op because they have higher potential impact than cruisers. If you try to make every class have the same impact on the game in an asymmetric system such as the one used in WoWs you'll end up in a never ending circle of nerfs and buffs. Quite frankly it shows that you have no idea about game design. As for AA, if there's a stealth ship that can down entire squads before you can even spot it it is kinda broken, no? My entire point about AA the whole time was that certain ships need their AA looked at, nothing more, nothing less.

Tbh I'd tell you to never lead charges in an Iowa and always keep your enemy at a distance above your min stealth range and ~15km. But then again that'd require someone else to lead and we all know how that goes... ¬_¬

It's quite obvious. Most people playing random are potatoes who don't understand the concept of basic teamplay, making themselves easy, isolated targets. If you stick together to maximize AA effectiveness it'll barely matter if your own CV is a scrub. I had games in which I waited literally more than half the match to get a decent strike in and you don't see me complaining about it. Remember, if a CV can strike you without risk, YOU'RE doing something wrong, not the CV.

He didn't mention KM BBs, no?

CVs having a high impact on the game currently does not stem from them being too powerful or anything of the sort. It stems from the hilariously low average player skill and quite frankly should be treated as such.