HaachamaShipping

Better use that hydro then though. Some CVs just torp the smoke cloud.

30 mm armour was restored, which does make an actual difference.

Actually... depends. I saw teams that ball up, even if there is no threat, neither from enemy CV, nor enemy DD, I got teams that just play normal, provided CV basically takes over the spotting role and shows them where they can expect to encounter what.

While I get where you are coming from, T2 shouldn't ever see CVs anyway, so, what's the issue with your T2s?

I'd not call the survivability a bonus, because on most tiers it is the main point why the BB is better. If you get HE spammed in your cruiser to the point you lose most AA mounts, you are likely dead anyway, then the CV was just the one to clean up behind the rest. Also, Montana long range has nothing on Mino long range in protection, given Mino long range is her main battery.

If after 6s you still are in a terrible position, what exactly have you been doing in those 6s? And no, you don't need to spend the game 10 km away from anything. Just 10 km away from the next USN/RN radar ship, 12 km in case of RU radar. I haven't played too much DD after radar change, given it coincided with CV rework, but I found radar changes always kinda unnecessary. Those 6 s are a lot to people who aren't out of position to the point they would die anyway and it utterly nerfs the utility of 20 s radar on things like Chapayev.

Then fix aircraft vs ship interaction instead of going on about how you want to cherry pick opponents. If one looks at what aircraft can do to surface ships, it's not even hard to come up with arguments why planes are broken. Yet some people instead of stating these to seem reasonable, they rather go off and ask for class exemptions which: won't ever be a thing, because it opens a slippery slope to making the game utterly unplayable if it becomes a regular feature. makes the person arguing for the opt out just look like a whiner who has no clue. But hey, why would I post something reasonable if I can just downvote. That will get me heard, right? While I'd not say that builds should be completely reworkable, I'd argue that stuff like the hydro vs defAA option are long overdue to be reworked. It has been a lottery before, now it's just a bit less of one because 2 CV, no DD becomes increasingly frequent, making hydro the same as defAA was pre-rework. In general though, even AA build won't save a ship's bacon most of the time and it's kind of unreasonable to expect CV rework to work out as long as surface ships have basically no decent option of counterplay except to maybe blob up, killing gameplay. Because even in the pre-rework meta, a blob of three ships was enough, if one of them had defAA. Now, a blob of three is annoying, but no longer safe, not in the least because of the way overlapping AA got nerfed. Now, your best bet is to pool catapult fighters for the rest of the match.

Not really. That's one of the least issues with CVs really. Regeneration is slow and typically getting a plane in a minute would already be considered great. With 20 minutes, this would translate to 20 planes going to a maximum of 60 planes recovered over the course of the match (20 planes x 3 plane types), provided you actually lose 1 plane of each type at 0:00 game time. CVs start out with 1.5 waves squadrons of each type, which usually are 8-9 planes strong. This would mean 27 planes at the start. 87 planes combined. while RTS CVs had a good part of the hangar taken up by fighters, most CVs have restoration times that are higher and result in smaller amount of aircraft that aren't much bigger than the old aircraft numbers. If you shot down 30 strike aircraft of an old high tier CV, they'd also still have planes to throw at you, provided noone else shot anything down. And if you aren't the only one shooting down significant numbers of aircraft currently, chances are, even a Kaga will run out of planes. The issue then is, shooting down all those planes though, as losing planes is up to CV skill, not target skill (which is where to me the actual rework issues start). If the CV is good enough, he just won't waste all the planes (just like in the old times). Other issues I find more pressing is how the current system makes BBs the best AA ships at T3-8. Even something like Cleveland has nothing on NC, just alone because every T8 CV can use any type of plane to hurt it and the damage sticks. You have to actually make proper plane selection to do meaningful damage to an NC. With some CVs being almost unable to do so in a single strike even (GZ). Was very fun the other day when an Enterprise just decided to ignore the DD and just rocket the AA cruiser instead, shaving off a fourth of the hp right from the start with its expendable rocket fighters. And what can a Cleveland do? I would make a joke about fighter plane instead of radar, but Cleveland doesn't even get that option...

Can I disable certain specific other classes too? I'd appreciate being thrown into matches without classes that counter me. Heck, the day I can select which classes to be matched against, if the game survives that, I'd buy an Asashio even. Imagine if people actually tried to figure out what is broken, not just whine that they don't like it. They might come up with actual solutions instead of knee-jerk reactions that make WG's balancing department look competent. Because the last thing this rework needs is more absolutely braindead over the top attempts of a solution that screws the game even more than it already is.

Worth noting though: Most ships where it goes up from 1 to 3 are ships like the IJN DDs with DP main battery or some utterly underarmed cruiser. For those, there isn't really anything better to spec into at that slot anyway (except maybe hydro mod on the cruisers). Though in general it's often a case of "what else gives a decent benefit", because 10-12 explosions is often just restricted to cruiser mid-range, as BBs nominally get it, but typically don't spawn the full number of bursts due to BB AA accuracy. Not that going from 12 to 14 on those cruisers is going to make a great difference though, because if you fly into the 4 km midrange of a Mino or Worcester that get this explosion count, dps shreds you far more reliably than the flak bursts.

Enterprise uses T7 rocket planes. The rest is T7.5 Avengers (they are basically Avengers, but with T8 3x3 attack flight) and T8 Helldivers. Add to that that it replenishes planes fast and that while the rocket planes are not HVARs, the insane amount of FFARs still screw over DDs, cruisers and lower tier BBs. Yesterday I pretty much took off like 20k from a KGV with three passes and to a degree, you don't even have to care if some of them die, because Enterprise got a ton of them and topkek 44s restoration time. Torp bombers are slowish, but easy to use, because maneuverable, easy to aim and good torp damage, AP bombers are potentially insane, as they drop 6 bombs. IJN drops 3, GZ drops 2! In straight up comparison to Kaga, Kaga relies more on what it starts with, as it basically gets most of its planes upfront, but restores way slower. The A6M Mod 52 rocket fighters are absolute trash, the B6N Tenzan torp bombers are solid for damage and concealment, but lack survivability to make it home most times, the D4A Suiseis are okish, but get shredded vs T10 AA. Their greatest use is devastating DDs, but in that role Enterprise's rocket fighters are just as capable, if not better. Overall, Kaga, while certainly not hurting in its power level, is only like Enterprise in that it can throw out a crapton of planes over the course of a match, but Enterprise planes are far sturdier (the weakest of Enterprise's planes are the Hellcats with 1300 hp stock. Fully upgraded, the best you get from Kaga are 1451 hp Tenzans. as I personally prefer boosting Suisei hp though, in practice none of the Kaga planes ever reach the Enterprise planes unless I use SE on Kaga but not on Enterprise, in which case Tenzans reach 1350) and Enterprise has three types of useful planes, while Kaga has basically two (the Zeros don't even shine in anti-DD duty, as you're far better off using Suiseis).

Most pivotal naval battles of WWII included a carrier though.

Please don't pretend that this isn't the motto of the average random player, not just CV players. Your average random BB player or cruiser will prioritise targets based on how much damage it can farm off of it, not based on how useful it'd be for the team. Are we now supposed to remove the other ship types too? Which is why those who lack skill for this supposedly braindead class suck harder than they ever did in a ship class? Feel free to complain about CVs. There are very valid points to be made. Like, what the hell is counterplay supposed to be or is the counterplay that kinda works (blobbing up) desireable? Even Flamu in his criticism pretty much argues that the CV is a problematic class, because it forces a playstyle that is usually terrible and just not a great addition to the game. WG shot itself in the foot there by ignoring CVs for so long that the meta we know is basically just not accounting for CVs and now replaced old RTS cVs with an even more cancerous addition. But it does not help to bring up silly arguments like the quoted ones that don't even hold up to scrutiny. As is, the core issue for CVs is that they are a class that kind of has no role, because noone bothered to come up with one and the game marginalised the CV for years by making them crap to play and forcing them out of certain formats. And the CV rework to me is kind of proof that WG themselves have little clue what exactly they want out of this class. Even RTS CVs had more of a concept, in being ships that could punish positioning mistakes hard, but were liable to getting shut down hard if the enemy played well and their damage potential was limited by the amount of time it took to get squadrons set up again after a strike. Obviously though, in a game where the average player has little clue how to play properly, anything that punishes mistakes hard basically will perform extremely well. Part of the reason as to why other big alpha ships (BBs, Stalingrad) can beat ships that have vastly better dpm in average match performance. Also, appealing to "hardly anyone played CV anyways, so why do we need this class" is basically setting yourself up to get asked in a couple years as to why we still need DDs, because noone played those anyway, judging by how much they are played these days. It shouldn't be ignored that RTS CVs had reasons as to why they were unpopular that extented beyond "they were RTS" and by the numbers of CVs we currently have, we can't say it's an unpopular class anymore, just a broken one. In most naval battles where CVs participated, the surface ships didn't get a whole lot of shots in.

Well, what do you prefer, getting less bombs on target or losing a ton of them to AA 5 km behind the target? I'd say, sometimes just go for the suboptimal drop, if you have to use the carpet bombers over the torp bombers. Yes, the carpet bombers are pretty blergh most of the time. USN dive bombers (or Kaga's) are way more useful. Also this. But it's the truth.

In ricochet and to HE. And no, Suvorov's deck isn't HE resistant, unlike Gangut.

I often don't get any in months. Then last week I got two at once. RNG is just like that.

Moskva, T10 Soviet cruiser.

You do know that there really is no real difference between 75 and 120 mm?

Nice clan still recruiting. Even if not interested in CBs, we welcome new members. If interested in CBs, feel free to apply though. There likely is room to accommodate new members in the lineup. Experience in Moskva/Stalingrad is absolutely not required, but you can rest assured that Cagliostro will be very very grateful.

It's a KGV that got nerfed in aspects that are always helpful and valid and got buffs in situational aspects. It gets less repair parties and longer reload for improved ricochet angles, better AA and a hydro.

They gave us a free respec when they changed the RPF skill for CVs. I'm at least going to trust them to give a respec for IFHE that is crucial to so many builds.

And here I was hoping to get a decent economic bonus, but nope.

Duke of York was a better reward than PEF though.

I use manual secondaries and secondary mod, pretty much just for the heck of it. Frankly, it's not even the distance at which you play Yamato, the reason the secondaries aren't worth much is because they have terrible damage output against anything other than DDs.If you rely on secondaries to make a difference, you likely lose.

How about we half all ship's AA then and everytime they lose some AA mounts, every half a minute or so, one gets restored till they are back to their starting situation. Then AA mounts work just like post-rework planes, no? People might argue "hey, that nerfs my effective AA, because it's no longer all available from the start", but you gotta see it like you view planes: You no longer get your AA devastated permanently just because you ate a couple Conqueror salvos. You'll always be able to get some AA back!