Aerroon

Taihou and Hakuryu have huge dive bomber circles. Shoukaku's dive bombers are straight up better than Taihou's and Hakuryu's.

CVs have some of the worst maneuverability in the game - huge turning circles and long rudder shifts. That's why I argued in the video about using the map edge. There is no way to survive an assault by two CVs in a CV yourself alone in open water. The dive bombers alone will do a huge amount of damage and adding just some damage from torps to that is absolutely devastating.

If you want to see a Hakuryuu in use here's a link to the topic of my first game in her: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/15018-first-hakuryu-game/ She's pretty beastly.

Taking a step beyond the Taihou, the Hakuryu: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/15018-first-hakuryu-game/ Video included!

PS Hakuryu was released. Already played a match and recorded it. Uploading currently to youtube.

I don't know about a job. I do need to get one, but I really don't like work and life is in ruins in that aspect pretty hard. WoWS just happened to be the game I'd be puptting my time into. I don't know how much I want to do the OBT regrind. I might only do a few shiplines, because playing more than half the ships is really frustrating because they're too slow or too fragile or too short ranged etc.

BBs are too boring. They need way more to do. Maybe give them control of their secondaries - eg game wait a second or two before firing your secondaries automatically in which time you could fire your secondaries yourself. They would be shown as a separate weapon like torpedoes. Maybe adjust their damage to make it more fair. DDs get wrecked by secondaries anyway so it doesn't really matter there. CAs are like mini BBs. They dominate mid ranges and have lots of gun shooting to do for usually mediocre damage. I initially liked them the most but now I like them the least, except Zao. Zao is cool, but that's because she's more like a BB to me than a CA. Generally I don't enjoy them as much nowadays, because they can die so easily, have generally poor-ish mobility and don't have the range to stay safe. I regularly die very quickly in my Des Moines. DDs need better AA. Maybe not outright stronger AA, but give them mounting damage - the longer they are continuously firing their AA guns the higher the AA damage ramps and then slowly ramps down when they aren't firing. This would prevent a CV from planting an idle fighter squadron above a DD and that DD being unable to do anything for the rest of the game. Also, DD guns and engines need to break way way less. It can't be that every 2nd volley I take my engine or gun breaks (especially on Gearing). More DDs should be Gearing strength level - and the unnerfed one, not the one with -40% damage. CVs - I don't know. On the one hand, they dominate noobs, but on the other hand people who know how to play are so so hard to play against. Fighters do need to be changed - air superiority is worthless if you don't have bombers to back it up. It is only useful in a few types of scenarios and fighters are generally a poor choice for actually changing the outcome of the game. Taihou dive bombers are WORSE than Shoukaku dive bombers and I hope that won't stay the way it is. Also, CV vs CV needs an overhaul - when the best course of action is for CVs to kill each other at the start of the match then it just makes it frustrating for the lesser players and they'll play something else instead. I could make a longer post but these are my overall thoughts on the classes. I wish there was a bit more teamwork in game and people were more skilled overall. I'd like to see most BBs try to avoid planes properly, but few do.

Because T9 ships play against T10 ships. They are treated very similarly. Matchmaking does not place a T9 ship in vacuum against T10 ships. This is the most relevant part about carriers - carriers can pick and choose the target. If I can drop on an Iowa or a Nagato I will almost always drop on the Nagato. I'm not refuting the statement because the statement doesn't make sense. The ships don't exist in a vacuum. Also, I've been pointing out that you're using MY stats, while I'm telling you that I've improved in those ships quite a lot - something that is not shown in T9 stats, but IS visible in T10 stats. The reason you will see Taihous wreck so much is that almost all of the players that got one actually know how to use it, unlike other CVs. So if you meet a Taihou you can't expect him to be a tomato. PS my Ibuki stats literally refute your statement. 75 * 3 > 154.

But you're forgetting the part that I mentioned earlier, I am SO MUCH BETTER now. I played Ibuki, Kagero, Baltimore and Fletcher a long time ago. Hell, even the Iowa started a long time ago. Which part of this don't you understand that people get better over time? I specifically mentioned it in the post. If you want to see actual stats where I don't just spam games you have to look at the tier 10 stats. PS most of my Essex games were before 3.1.0, which means they were in a tier 10 CV - why don't you look at those stats? Not convenient enough for you?

Shimakaze torpedoes are all about 1k each. Shot a volley? That's 15k. Repair cost is 180k.

I would make guns that can turn 360 degrees. At least if I made them for the game.

The problem with these stats is that you get better as you play. I've improved immensely over the course of the games I've played, yet my Cleveland has a horrendous score. Hell, even my Essex isn't as high as it would be if I started playing it now. The new patch changed a lot of things - average damages changed across the board for almost all ships. --- The people talking about AA getting buffed don't seem to understand that organized play will absolutely wreck a carrier. Yes, you won't find much of it, but you could. It could be that in the future most BBs will play at the level of top BBs currently in the high tiers and if the balanced stayed as it were CVs would be pointless. --- My question is this to you: if CVs should arguably be as strong as some claim, then how come there aren't CVs everywhere in queue? I want every game I play to have 2 CVs on both sides or at least a minimum of 1 CV. Then I would spec my Iowa/Montana in full AA and it would have use. If I did that right now then in most games it would just be wasted because there are no planes attacking me. I view this game as "protect the carrier". The carrier is the heart of the team: their role is to take out all the easy noobs that can be killed to make the fight easier for the rest of their team. Provide backup on flanks that need it etc. Like the queen in chess. The problem is that there are too few carrier players that are devastating like that. You don't even get carriers in every game, although you almost always get all the other classes (it is INCREDIBLY rare that one of the other classes is missing). This throws all of that away and it becomes a lot more difficult to balance because you have to account for games that have no carriers and games that do. --- But currently the biggest issue with CV gameplay is that the best course of action is to try to kill the enemy CV, because there's very little that can be done. Carriers have poor mobility and their AA isn't strong enough. Torpedo bombers aren't really even the issue - dive bombers are. They can deal huge amounts of damage to carriers and the fire will shut down the carrier completely. I'm rarely on the receiving end of a carrier strike, because I tend to kill the enemy carrier first, but it probably isn't very fun for the other carrier. It's not that fun for me either, because the other carrier is usually on the other end of the map and if there's 2 of them I'll be spending the first 11-13 minutes on just killing their carriers. Taking the balanced loadout to get fighters usually doesn't help enough and is completely wasted if they don't have a carrier or you strike first. It can also make your strike not be able to sink them which means you both waste even more time trying to kill each other.

Difference is that if I take my battleship to the right side of the map and win the fight there now I get full four minutes of sailing in a straight line to attack new enemies. A CV can output damage during that. Not to mention that CVs rarely die during matches which means they will usually deal damage the entire match's duration. However, a CV can be denied dealing damage if enemies play well, a BB really can't be. Also, my Taihou average damage is 150k-ish, my Montana is 100k-ish (although I keep getting horrendous teams in my Montana so my win/loss is TERRIBLE), Yamato is 90k-ish, Iowa is 80k-ish etc, Zao 90k, Des Moines 75k, Ibuki 75k, Shimakaze and Gearing at 80k. Considering Taihou is the 2nd to last new ship I've played (Montana being the last) it is going to give the biggest numbers in relation to current skill as it's the most recent. My Shimakaze damage, for instance, was shaped long ago already. It wouldn't make sense if a CV's damage output was the same as a BB's on average, because BBs tend to stay much less in battle. EDIT: Here's a video of me playing a Yamato and being attacked by a Taihou: Notice how I'm pretty unprepared (I'm standing still when I spot the planes) and I still only eat a few torpedoes. The dive bombers deal as much damage, if not more than the torpedoes, but I can heal all of that up no problem. Yet that attack was rather costly for the Taihou.

But Zekamashi and Gearing have the same stealth.

But fighters don't help you WIN the game as much as bombers. The game is about killing other ships so it doesn't make sense to have CVs that only kill each other with fighters and don't hit ground targets. It's a ship game, not about planes fighting planes. It doesn't help to win the game if you shoot down enemy fighters.

But then CVs would just go fighters because that beats the bomber layout and it goes equal with the fighter layout. So CVs would simply just fight other CVs with fighters and have no bearing on the actual match result. They would be playing a completely different game.

More like 1 minute because the first volley doesn't need to be reloaded.

I had a fight with a Colorado in my Amagi close range. My secondaries did about 19k damage in an engagement that lasted 3 volleys I believe.

I shot down 26 of his planes in my Iowa that wasn't even fully AA specced before I died. Only time I could attack them was when he was attacking me. He didn't even kill me in the end. Some Nagato got the end shot instead. ^ This is my main fear with CV balancing. I know more or less how to avoid planes in my battleships and how to make it really costly. Technically you could have an entire enemy team that would be able to do these things and what do you do then as a CV? You can do very little. I had a game in my Taihou where I was out of planes in something like 10-12 minutes. I literally turned around to try to kill a Des Moines with secondaries because I can't make much of a difference any other way. A Taihou isn't supposed to be balanced against Nagatos and Fusous - it needs to be able to fight Amagis, North Carolinas, Izumos, Iowas, Montanas and Yamatos. PS I do feel bad for average noobs vs good CVs, because the CVs can pick their targets. Others can't.

I completely agree with what you're saying. I think BB RNG is a bit problematic yes, but I don't really think it's that bad. At long ranges it's problematic but close ranges the RNG makes it a risky type of deal. I think even if the guns were completely accurate and you'd know exactly where to hit it would still be problematic because even tiny range and speed differences at close range will throw your aim off by a lot meaning that players would still feel that it's about luck. That would just make aimbots and similar have an easier time, but real players have the same-ish results. About CVs: what use is air superiority and scouting if you can't actually damage an enemy? You want air superiority and fighter usage to give more exp and say that will require more skill? How does clicking on enemy planes every 2 minutes require more skill in any imaginable way compared to trying to drop bombs and avoiding enemy fighters? PS CSGO has plenty unpredictable things (like hipshotting with an AWP) or running and spraying. Hell, most pistol rounds don't even require people to have all that great aim because people just run and shoot which makes headshots be a large amount of luck. The difference is that you can plan and strategize in CSGO, because movement speeds are higher. You can traverse a large amount of the map in a short amount of time to reposition and change tactics, you can't really do that in WoWS.

No, everything HAS to be balanced around the top player skill and then made things that are too easy to do a bit harder to do if they dominate lower skill levels too easily. The reason you have to balance around the top players is that they show what is possible. If you balance around the middle skill tier then the best players might find it completely useless or completely overpowered and thus breaking the game.

Magazine explosions? No they aren't. They are just base HE damage hitting the superstructure. Have you looked at the amount of damage HE shells do on cruisers? It's almost 3.8k on Zao. That's per shell. A Zao fires 12 of those at once and they don't overpenetrate nor bounce.

I don't think fire is a problem at all, the problem is rather the base HE damage. You can avoid a lot of AP damage by angling properly, yet there is nothing you can do vs HE damage and it hits just as hard. 10k HE hits from a Zao are not unheard of.

Seriously exploited? So when a destroyer can use his guns it's a "serious exploit"? Are you kidding?

Shot a Yamato today with my Iowa for 45k from 2 guns (6 shells, 4 of them citadels). Seems to work quite fine to me. In fact I love this new bouncing mechanic, because it makes it so that skillful positioning can make even heavy damage livable and it's not just a complete zergfest. Just last game I had multiply people pounding on me, but because I angled myself properly and tried dodging salvos they couldn't sink me in time. My team just killed them all before they killed me.