GulvkluderGuld

Thx. Gonna try it. I know Jingles (a youtube WoT and WoW caster) ran into a guy that tk'ed twice. Second time he saved the replay and contacted WG and said this player got a punishment. So basicly you believe one has to send the replay to Jingles/other Youtube casters and hope he posts it on youtube, before WG will take action?

You're not reading my post. I'm not claiming or suspecting anything. WG specifically told us this relates to tiers 5-8. Furthermore, let me add to Seintas post: The japanese CVs on those specific tiers are simply way to strong at impacting the game compared to all other ships and classes. They shouldn't get anything in return or compensation, unless they will be underperforming.

WG stated that IJN carriers had abnormally high winrates on these tiers, even with otherwise abysmal players driving them (see the 4.1 patchnotes on the asia server). So yes, IJN carriers were OP and has been hit by the nerfbat. So enjoy the fun in OBT while it lasts ;-)

Edit: Resolved! Do anyone know where to check PT server status? I got the client installed, but while updating it crashed past 17%, stating "critical error, unable to download the update via http" (dunno exactly where, as I were surfing the forum here). Now i'm going to check the log file, but I have seen wierd client errors tend to pop up when the servers are full / down. I suspect this is more of the same, but it would be nice to know if anyone can log / are logged into the PT at the moment?

Arn't you forgetting something? Those torpedoes of the Myoko's for example? Those torpedoes that the USN don't get from the Cleveland onwards. I might also add the Myoko also have substantially more HP and stock gun range (14,2 km vs 16) than the Pensacola. Not to mention lots more Citadel armor and better top speed. Now I'd say a potential 30% DPM advantage is pretty substantial in it's own right (and that is completely excluding torps). Makes me wonder if the Aoba and Furutaka suffers a similar disadvantage at tiers V and VI (including worse armor and HP). What makes the Pensacola so terrible isnt the drop in RPM - It's the slow turret traverse speed combined with poor range and poor armor. Basically, everybody and their mother will be shooting your citadels up for 2-3 km before you're even able to return fire. Add poor armor and slow turret traverse speed, you now have to choose between taking evasive maneuvers or shooting, once it does get in range. Compared to the Myoko, the Pensacola has worse stats (offensive as well as defensive) in almost every respect apart from a slightly smaller turning circle (and possibly AA). And that's true before AND after upgrades. So coming back to the question if nerfs are warranted - let me ask you right back: How can they not be warranted? ;)

My experience with the Cleveland and Pensacola (i'm at tier 7) is that they easily lose a main gun turret completely every other game or so (despite the Gun Mod 1 upgrade). This has made me favour Preventive Maintainance, as I have no problems at all starting fires with my Cleveland (and I'm assuming similar ROF on DM). Jack of all trades is a strong choice too though, giving you an extra 10% cd on repair (10s total with the tier 3 skill). Another strong choice is the tier 4 skill that lets you sail and steer despite engine damage, as losing mobility = the cruiser's achilles heel (I heard the DM has a citadel like Pensacola).

Oh don't mistake me, I'd love to have a ROF increase on my pensacola The thing is, 203 mm guns are generally slower firing than 150mm and would thus benefit more from percentage ROF increases. I doubt WG will hand out such a buff. As for the range increase I think that is pretty much mandatory. Going up against clevelands with 20% range and 10% ROF bonuses in a Pensacola (that do not benefit from the same upgrades) is just brutal. Hell, 150mm guns even get a bigger buff to traverse speed than 203 mm. Thus, in the HE spam/fire meta, it would also make sense to rebalance the captain skills, since they hugely favours the 150 mm HE spamguns.

Same experience. I have much more fun in my omaha and phoenix than at higher tiers. I also get way more Xp and particularly, credits (due to high repair cost in high tiers). Some rebalancing between 150 and 203 mm guns are in order. Advanced Firing Training should include 203 mm weapons. Maybe it could also give an extra 20% reload speed when switching between AP and HE (total possible then 50% with the tier 1 skill) for guns < 203 mm. Maybe

Thx for explaining one good reason. I even find myself surprisingly somewhat in agreement with you on the fighter vs fighter issue. On the other hand, removing melee would let the lower tier fighters escape, too. As for Prop planes vs jet fighters, I think you misunderstood my argument. I asked why only fighters have the melee lock. Why not implement it for all squadrons under fighter attack. That would strengthen the carrier self-defence, not weaken it, as it would allow attack waves to be broken up. I have no problem with my strike setup. My win rates etc are fine. I'm simply finding carrier play to be lacking in diversity and thus boring. Also we may disagree, but I find the melee to be more detrimental to the lower tier carrier, not higher. If you play smart, the higher tier carrier will never catch your fighters unless you want him too.

1: BBs No real experience with BBs, but fire dmg seems a bit out of control. Also, BBs are made from thick battle steel. Bismarck, Sharnhorst and English BBs during the battle of Jutland remained in action depite burning from stem to stern. - Maybe the solution is to use a depletable HP pool for each 4 portions of the ship. Once 5000 dmg from fire have been reached, the fire is extinguished and this part of the BB cant be set on fire anymore (turns visually black). 2: CVs This class I do play and I agree with you completely. Carrier gameplay atm. seems incredibly stale and I don't like the current setup. Here's a couple suggestions I posted in a different thread http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/19089-why-cant-i-define-aircrafts-composition-on-my-carriers/page__st__20__p__447361#entry447361 A) WG should let us choose which setup (strike, AA or balanced) we want at/after the loading screen, so it can be customized vs the opposition. B) WG could also allow us to control which aircraft to load in reserve. That way you could pick any setup without giving the enemy CV an exact count of how many fighters/bombers you have in reserve aswell. For instance I imagine most ppl would pick balanced USN designs and stuff the carrier full of fighter reserves. Maybe IJN CV's at higher tiers would do the same (i'm only at tier 5). C) Give carriers a standing fighter Combat Air Patrol that is in effect a squad of 6 fighters anchored to the carrier. Give it limited ammunition and duration and let losses be replaced out of the carriers plane reserves. This is a classic example of giving the defender an advantage, which is intended to make 2v1 carrier kill missions less appealing. 3: MM Agreed, but hopefull WG will rework this before launch. --- No more time, unfortunately, I'll get back to you later.

Wait what?! My Clemson only gets a range of 7,8 km, going up 10% with the upgrade!!! Seriously. Stop revealing the level of your sheer incompetence (or laziness) to everyone. Stop posting in this thread.

Good point. Since you spout nonsense, why should he respect you? -1. Suggest another modification then? The OP already shot your argument down by pointing out USN DD's work quite well, despite having no choice but to get detected. In fact I heard the Nicholas has one of the 3 highest winrates in the game. --- Respect +1 to the OP for replying seriously to the incredibly stupid and disrespectful people attempting to discredit him. I agree on (almost) all points btw. See comments in next post!

No they don't. Some of the USN and IJN groups will be torpedo bombers. The tier 5 captain skill you refer to do not give extra torpedo planes. Carrier gameplay atm. seems incredibly stale and I don't like the current setup. However, here's my 2 cents on what could be improved: A) WG should let us choose which setup (strike, AA or balanced) we want at/after the loading screen, so it can be customized vs the opposition. B) WG could also allow us to control which aircraft to load in reserve. That way you could pick any setup without giving the enemy CV an exact count of how many fighters/bombers you have in reserve aswell. For instance I imagine most ppl would pick balanced USN designs and stuff the carrier full of fighter reserves. Maybe IJN CV's at higher tiers would do the same (i'm only at tier 5). C) Give carriers a standing fighter Combat Air Patrol that is in effect a squad of 6 fighters anchored to the carrier. Give it limited ammunition and duration and let losses be replaced out of the carriers plane reserves. This is a classic example of giving the defender an advantage, which is intended to make 2v1 carrier kill missions less appealing. -Maybe: Buff USN divebombers by making them fly A LOT faster once they are committed to a target, so they don't get shredded by AA. This would mimic a divebomber commited to a dive. 1) This would also be more realistic. 2) would give USN carriers in AA setup a way to fight cruisers and actually do something useful. 3) conceptually, If WG had the idea to make DB slowly kill ships by damage over time, please make them able to do so.

This. I also think WG needs to rework the carriers, but that's another topic.

Dont it detect DDs in smokescreens < 3,48 km? I was under the impression it should. Can't argue with your opinion though. The only class I can imagine who MIGHT find use for sonars in its present state is....BBs! When DDs go full banzai mode and charges isolated BBs, they might find use for sonar to see through the point blank smokescreen before they sink

Reading this thread and wondering. Does anyone know why fighter melee was implemented? I mean, WG must've had a reason? Why don't fighters work like torp and dive bombers under fighter attack? Or why is torp and dive bomber squads allowed to flee, when fighters are not? My guess is to make the idiocy that is the current difference between USN and IJN carriers work (cuz otherwise the USN air superiority would have no counter). However, I would like to see a more balanced approach to carrier play. Like fighter melee getting removed. For a start that would make lower vs higher tier fighter combat slightly less punishing. I can't imagine how this would punish USN carriers either. Discuss?

I think that is simplification for the players. Also, I dont seem to recall gun-ranges getting discussed in nautical miles, but I'm no military buff. I like the metric choice because it's a scale everyone (in europe) will be familiar and comfortable with.

Play what you like For me as an RTS game lover, they playstyle is fantastic. CV is my favorite credit and XP farm mashine and I had my highest winrate of any ship on the langley (70%ish). As has been said, there are conceptual differences between USN and IJN carrier loadouts and playstyle. As a USN captain I try to (order of priority): #0 rule: Always cooperate and support you fellow carrier driver. Support his fighters and strikes. By responding faster than the opposition in 2v2 matchups, you may cost them 2 squads (12 planes) instead of your team losing 12. 1) Beat down the enemy fighters and establish Air superiority. I always keep track of how many the opposing CV has left,and take great care where I engage with mine. 1a) Keep those fighter alive! 1b) Keep track of where the opposing squadrons move on the map. Dont lose track of them. Wait for a mistake to engage isolated squads or bait into friendly AA, use shiplaunched planes etc. 2) Remember 1 and never take unfavorable engagements if you have a choice. Your job is to keep your fighters above your fleet as a deterrent. 3) hitting stuff with your torpedo bombers (use manual drops). Usually isolated BBs. Takes practice. I have seen USN squads torpedo CA and DDs, but cant do it myself. Its frigging hard. You also need to read the map and read the battle, so you can figure out where your strikes will have the greatest impact (eg if you have 2 BB and they have 2 or 3, taking out one may cause the battle on that flank to go favorably). I've often won games 1v2 carriers and against air superiority focused setups by reading the map and striking the most impactful targets. Sometimes, drawing opposing fighters off to one side of the map and using your strike squads on the other will be necessary. Japanese CV guides contain a ton of info on how to do this.

Aim in the waterline below the masts. Works for me, although I cant citadel a cleveland > 7 km. Gun dispersion and shell flight time precludes it. Sounds pretty unlikely if the cleveland is maneuvering. But ofc I'm a pepsi hater, even though my results have started to improve. Got to test this in the Training room. Also if the OP finds Cleveland squishy, dont even think about driving Pensacola. You will get citadelled by everyone and their mother all day long.

Sounds much like being in the pensacola. Either too low tier to do anything, or highest tier and you get focused. Either way you die first in any skirmish or battle which sucks so [edited]hard. I guess if you prefer brawler type ships, stick with tier V or below? The game seems to change completely from about tier 6.

Agree 100% with this. This is most definitely a huge problem for carriers (also you cant properly manual torp map-glitchers). However as quoted, it affects all low ROF ships. Finally, it most definitely DOES provide one huge maneuver advantage, namely being able to approach or retreat from enemy fire without having to turn the ship, as you would normally have to do at islands or landmasses. This means in practice other ships have to expose their broadsides, while map-glitchers do not. Has there been any official response from WG on this issue? Is this currently regarded mostly as an exploit and as such can/should be be reported?

Great work Chase. New player to WoWs here. Really appreciate you efforts! ps: glad you got better. I admire your way of dealing with internet vitrol.

Nicely indeed. I guess there is a reason why Hotspots generate so many hate-threads (and is in the game for the same reason!)

Can someone link me a place to learn how to torp DDs? Also do any1 know what the arming time/distance is? Just got manual dropped in a DD by a carrier driver whom (driving ACs and having experience with manual drops) I would SWEAR had to be using hax, if there were such things. Edit: I'm talking USN carriers here, with just ONE squadron of torp planes. I take my DD through a narrow channel on North, and he drops the torps IN the channel (carrier USN ranger). The things were dropped < 500 m from me (less than 1 s of reaction time) and if I tried that in a carrier they would not arm in time, 100% of the time! Now ofc I wasn't paying attention to the planes due to lots of action going on - but normally that doesnt matter. With DDs I 'm used to juke torps all day long. Now I cant figure out how to upload screenshots to this forum, but i took one af the impact location. What i imagine is the AC driver predicted from the situation where I might well go and manual dropped accordingly (it was fairly hectic) - but I still say the torps cant arm in time when I try that!!! How the [edited]did he do it?!

Thanks buddy, however please relax. We strive to observe the forum rules. I did in fact read some threads (including that one), but failed to find answers with respect to the stock pensacola. It seems to mostly deal with how to snipe using the upgraded hull. On second thought I might've posted in that thread anyway. Might've, Could've, should've. Didn't. --- Once again thanks for the replies. I will try out usn dd tactics for my pensacola, as well as daring to get a little closer to the opponents to shoot them up. Also work a bit more on planning where to turn the ship, so I can safely show my broadside Clevelands are beasts to citadel. You can get citadels vs their broadside from 7 km, but rarely more than 1 / salvo due to dispersion RNG (tried it in the training room) Its almost always better to dodge and spam HE back. Also thanks for the cheering up battle results and replays. Crossing my fingers for similar good fortune soon-ish!