robihr

you mean withthose that dont have any CV battles? or with those that are still so butthurt from CBT and OBT CV that any mention of CV flares pain their butt? like i said before try getting one CV to t8, or at least t7 to see how OP they are and how fun are they to play now, to those who call us CV apologist. edited: added bold part

with hiryu you can deny enemy cv and you can carry. with ranger you cant do that. you either go AS that defends your fleet and deal shitty damage, while hoping enemy CV wont strike when your fighters are reloading, or go with strike and hope enemy is incompetent enough not to kill your planes. and hiryu can defend and strike at the same time. so AS ranger at best offers 6v6 if cv player is competent enough, and 7vs6 if he isnt.

no it isnt. it is about AA and CV. you missed the thread completely.

you may want to change this changelog on your page

problem is BB mafia. nerf CV-> CV have OP stats and only stats matter nerf DD-> torpedo soup is unbearable, cause DD UP stats dont matter

problem with that tactic is that you cant carry the game to win. hiryu has potential to carry, while ranger doesnt. with strike setup ranger has potential, but can be blocked by hiryu fighters easily, with AS setup ranger only has potential to block hiryu, but not to do damage. stock could be ok, but against hiryu 2 fighters hiryu will be in advantage. overall losing strategy. you wont be able to help team, and you wont be earning top spot in team cause low xp.

CV have rather steep l2p on higher tiers. on t4-t6 you can derp cause not all ships have AA and not all CA have DF. but then on t7+ you either have good players, or players that will stop playing the CV cause they didnt l2p. did AA buff mean anything to good players? it nerfed their ability do deal damage slightly. did AA buff mean anything to bad players? it nerfed their ability do damage greatly. certain noob friendliness is needed even at the expense of skilled players for the player base to increase. i have mostly learned to position my planes outside AA aura for most direct approach to ship with high AA, or even have to drop torpedoes from far back cause i want to launch more torpedoes against straight line sailing AA heavy BB, cause if i do short drop i risk losing a lot more of my planes. and that is why i am advocating less TB damage for less AA. cause l2p is too steep and players are quitting CV play. with less CV meta is all f*cked up and you have more DD at higher tiers etc etc. there is nothing worse for CV player than positioning his planes for 3 minutes evading enemy fighters, AA CA and enemy fleets, then losing all his planes against lone BB with godly AA. it gives the feeling wtf was i doing this for the last 3 minutes.

cause CV are getting nerfed with every patch. 5.5 AA was good, but in 5.6 they just made it ridiculous. WG doesnt know what to do with CV, and they are nerfing it based on stats of most dedicated players (so not general server population) what most CV ppl agree is that we would agree for less TB damage for less AA. it isnt about damage whoring, it is about factor that we cant get through AA with most of our planes intact on lone targets, and i wont even talk about 2 or more ships. if you send one solo squadron against NC, it is questionable if half squadron will drop its payload, and you dont even have to hope your squadron will come back.

that is cause i am getting more stupid the more i am on your level of argument. ffs i never said CV are badly UP. you are just too stupid to correctly read my sentences.

i dont mind working hard, but when after all that hard work i did to avoid no fly zones against AA speced CA, BB and enemy cv fighter i come to lone target and lose more than half of my strike squad against their AA? lone targets shouldnt be so strong against CV.

did you even read this thread, or are you just coming whenever you like and drop random comments? did you play one teambattle? did you see CV that are OP there? even with 2 ships in group, how many successful torp runs have you seen? cause any 2 ships together make almost impossible for CV do to any damage. most of the damage done by cv in randoms are against solo targets, and even then you have to work hard to avoid all no fly zones cruisers and no fly zones BB to approach target just to lose half of your TB squadron cause that solo target has very good AA. i wont be even talking about +/-2 MM, cause in my ranger i can easily take down kongo with no penalty(and get that damage that you are so fond of for server stats), but when i am paired up against iowa, i can only watch it from distance. read more here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/52080-aa-cvsthis-has-gotta-stop-wg/page__st__580__pid__1063714#entry1063714 you shouldnt use all time server stats for comparison cause cv population dropped drastically on t10.

sure focus anyone anywhere... you talking about that from your rich CV experience? at least play one game in any cv at t7 or t8 before you claim that. or at least play any cv game.

i wasnt talking about you.. he was quoting someone on this thread who said how the class should be played..

cause maplesyrup has shitty formatting, but here just for you... US CV 7 Saipan 156 2619 16.79 53.92 0.00 46.08 1701 43072 0.92 21.59 0.00 0.00 74.39 3.59 JP CV 7 Hiryu 576 10723 18.62 51.27 0.04 48.70 1071 44902 0.83 14.39 0.00 0.00 71.48 2.91 US BB 7 Colorado 2425 47894 19.75 48.35 0.04 51.61 1017 42137 0.74 1.14 0.00 0.00 46.61 1.39 JP BB 7 Nagato 1825 33415 18.31 48.90 0.02 51.08 1093 45944 0.78 0.99 0.00 0.00 45.95 1.44 US CV 7 Ranger 628 11483 18.29 46.95 0.02 53.03 999 37914 0.68 13.99 0.00 0.00 62.01 1.79

you talking about these server stats? clearly CV OP. cause you were arguing on those basis for higher tier CV stats. stats are only relevant if there is enough of player population to make them relevant. you cant balance a ship based on stats from 50 players who actually perform good in that ship. if we were doing that we would need to balance any ship based on any of the top 50 player stats for that ship.

again with server stats. if one player played hakuryu with 100k damage you would argue that server stats show that it is OP.

would hardly call this useless. i can do this mostly cause enemy hiryu and saipans are mostly bad players, making strike setup on ranger excellent choice if you know how to play cv decently. any good hiryu player can kill me and/or block me, any good saipan player can totally block my strike squadrons off while still doing damage. 1/1/1 wouldnt give me near as much damage cause torpedo squad cant do flooding with every strike, so i cant set it on fire later for damage over time. 2/0/2 is basically making enemy CV useless while doing crapdamage making the game into 11v11, and cause of reloads you cant block enemy cv perfectly. any t8+ ship can kill off your squadrons so having only 2 strike squadrons is bad. so strike setup however bad it is, is still best choice on USN CV usn CA were great at start of open beta cause they had a role of AA escorts, and could deal some damage. nowadays with CV extinction on higher tiers they lost crucial role, while dealing crappy damage. i agree on crappy loadouts on usn CV, but considering player quality on low/mid tiers strike is ok for usn. if i had to battle against decent CV player i would always choose ijn over us CV. ijn DD need free captain respec. that is one of the reasons for their bad performance. other reason are potatoes with 20km torps. btw i like ppl with almost no experience in a class/ship making statements on how a class/ship should be played. #freerespec

fuso is excellent ship, you just need to know how to use it. like i said if maps are big like land of fire then it is good choice, if maps are like fault line then kiev will be a bad choice.

if i had to carry, i would chose these ships: for CV i would go with hiryu, and maybe saipan. ranger will be absolutely useless if you go against decent hiryu/saipan player for BB colorado, NM, nagato and fuso. anything can be good choice from those ships for CA i would take myoko as first choice, cleveland for second. indy is interesting option cause of radar, but i am meh about it. havent played budyonny/schors, but they could be viable option. nurnberg and yorck are too fragile to carry. for dd hatsu is obvious choice and mahan is also interesting. but cause of SA bug gunboats will suffer the most on small maps. kiev is situational and will depend on the choice of maps. if the maps are big kiev could be a good choice, and if they are small kiev will be a bad choice.

i find colorado more forgiving compared to nagato. nagato gets pened on weird angles, while colorado has great armor that can avoid lots punishment and can brawl. just it is not great against fire starters..

just checked on stats month before and after 5.5 update how much SA bug has affected me and my dd play. 4-5k average damage less on destroyers i play the most (benson and kamikaze). russian dd survivability has dropped really low(16%) cause i am still using aggressive smoke and it seem like you are spotted rather often with it. we need reliable SA and reliable smoke boundaries mod.

how does HE work? check this video

Like any half decent Montana player can wreck a Zao in one single strike, and that's not powerful enough? OK.

overall i liked kamikaze R mission better cause it was less grindy and you got kamikaze. GNB is ok, but seriously 500 battles in a month?

hakuryu same number of torps as midway?