HaachamaShipping

Against terrible CVs.

Not all classes have same damage averages. Such hasn't been the case pre-rework nor is it post-rework. Nor are CVs incredibly much above the rest. The reason this still works out is due to how different classes get different modifiers for how their damage is rewarded. You see that with old CVs which had notoriously bad modifiers to account for being able to get great damage if you were skilled. Which didn't help new people pick up the class, because generally even if you managed to raise your CV skills to the level you'd do as much damage as an average BB, you'd get worse rewards, so why bother instead of just enjoying life in easy modo with BB?

For most cruisers, I only spot them as I enter their AA anyway at high tier. Depending on how I go about it, I might lose planes or not, though I likely will given you can't keep most of these permaspotted forever anyway. The only ships that get affected in a very meaningful way beyond supercruisers are BBs and CVs. And while spotting BBs is useful, BBs already can handle that. So, you are basically buffing BBs, because noone else gets affected by your spotting changes really. Your proposal is like trying to combat a lack of cheap community housing by building a few luxury apartments. Those who required the help won't get any and those who get affected didn't need the help. It's a misguided approach. Aircraft de facto are limited, because match time exists. And noone keeps aircraft in the air for 10 minutes, unless they are utterly inept.

Your proposal addresses none of the core issues you identified and the effects needlessly buff BBs when compared to other classes. It's almost like the CV rework itself that addressed few of the issues it set out to solve, but hey, on most tiers BBs now have some of the best AA, apart from also being the least affected by the CV drops and spotting. Frankly, I'd suggest getting a better understanding of CVs first before trying to come up with solutions. Yeah, it is kinda silly.

And both core statements hold up even with your changes.

Not exactly some rare ingredient. You can alternaively dispose of the DD's most vital support though.

Yeah ok, they and IJN ships without DP guns. Sad fact though is, those could have 1.1 km aerial spotting and they'd still get murdered, because what kills them isn't the free spotting, but that they are free kills for CVs with decent anti-DD capabilities. There's little as easy to rocket or bomb into the ground than a Kagero.

6.2 I think. Are you serious? 0.8.0 hit months ago and basically made it your main role to damage farm, not to spot. Spotting is a byproduct. I can spot part of the team, depending on where I am as a CV. I can't spot entire teams at once. And your proposal mostly prevents CVs from spotting BBs and other CVs. Spotting changes for the classes that are least bothered by getting spotted. Classes that play heavily around concealment and rely on it to survive are unaffected by your proposal. I think something's wrong with that.

Clemson gun upgrade increases the artillery rating from 10 to 11. Looks terrible. Detailed stats show that all your single gun mounts become twin gun mounts. You get exactly twice as many guns now. Obviously, that is way more impressive than +1 gun rating. Lesson to be learned: don't compare the ratings, compare detailed stats.

Nah, you just need to learn how to torp DD.

Never look at those silly scores, look at what it actually gives you in the proper detailed stats. Otherwise "Is it worth upgrading Clemson guns? +1 gun rating seems not worth the money."

Stealth IJN can actually spot Mino, Worcester, Seattle and Nep for free already now and would still be able to then. In this case, exactly nothing changed, except that Moskva and Stalingrad would be added to the list, as they are currently spotted way before AA engages, but would under your proposed change be spotted from 6.6, which is enough for keeping them spotted. Overall, your proposal will not change much as: DDs already have way lower spotting distance than AA range. They still die, highlighting why this change is not going to solve much. CLs are spotted usually from AA range. Nothing changes there apparantly. CAs would join the CLs. Matters not too much. BBs and CVs get massive aerial detection buffs. Because clearly, they deserve buffs.

Mino aerial spotting range currently is around max AA range. If you half the aerial spotting range, a Mino can just turn its AA off and bait you in. And barring that you just outright kill CV play by making any AA cruiser an absolute death trap, look at how DDs are flourishing again with their new insanely low aerial detection. Oh wait... they still die.

Tier for tier: Hermelin. If you want to actually encounter planes though: Atlanta, imo.

Genius. I'd friggin love to find myself like 3.5 km away from a Mino that turns its AA on. Right inside that 4 km area of insta death by 14 explosions and way over 1k dps. There's a reason they nerfed the aerial spotting of some ships, after they reduced it for everyone.

Alaska is not some island hugging cruiser, you don't really need propulsion mod. And its base rudder shift already beats JB (as one would expect). I still use rudder mod though, because fires may last longer but are usually manageable, given the shorter damage control CD and a playstyle that usually doesn't see you tanking HE all the time. It's a decent margin that allows you to outspot ships like Hindenburg and be on par with ships like NC, instead of getting outspotted by them. I don't think JB has 88% accuracy.

I run spotter plane. But I agree with @El2aZeR that fighter is one of the more effective AA tools, though it doesn't always save you and by itself can be a bit underwhelming, depending on opponent (having one of those high tier fighter squads take apart a Saipan wing hurts far more than some mid-tier squad taking 4 planes out of a 12 plane Kaga squad or Enterprise rocket squad). Usually, unless the enemy has almost no planes, they will discourage a drop, not prevent it. *laughs in Graf Zeppelin*

Hatsuharu is a torp boat, not a gunboat. Don't try to play it like a gunboat. Don't play Shiratsuyu as a gunboat either.

Naturally, the ship that compares best to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau is likely Tirpitz. Yoshino will likely just get the 30 mm plating the Azuma had in initial testing, which makes it trolly, but not an absolute tank and certainly not a ship you'd want to rush enemies with for torp kills, as the torpedo angles are not the greatest. So far, torp angles at best seem to be Atago-style, which for IJN would be great, but obviously is not a torp brawler like the Germans. You're likely better served with a Hindenburg in that role, which got similar hp, better armour, better brawling torps and dpm-wise is likely not far off either. Also, while JB might have some things going for it over supercruisers, I wouldn't rate it higher than Alaska. Alaska doesn't have the long range firepower, but USN CA pen angles to help with targets you don't overmatch, even with speed boost JB is not even as fast as Alaska without (and Alaska is the slowest of the supercruisers), Alaska beats it in concealment by a good margin and Alaska gets cruiser consumables, meaning it hands-down has better AA (defAA), cruiser damage control on fast CD and a 10 km radar that makes it actually more versatile. I'd certainly accept an Alaska as a replacement for a Buffalo or Seattle in a lineup, I'd not take a JB in the same spot.

Depending on circumstances, this really is more a feature and not a bug. As @Beastofwar pointed out, to correctly turn, you need to set proper waypoints. The reason for this is, in the past, the autopilot only knew how to go forward. They introduced the reverse so that if you get stuck on an island, you can set a waypoint behind you to get unstuck, instead of spending two minutes in CV hull mode to do it manually. The autopilot is still clunky and I'd advise paying attention to where it moves your CV, but it is better than it was before (still not a great replacement for manual control).

Ah yeah, Arizona AA... the only difference between the Arizona and WV in AA layout is that one gets 4 76 mm guns as mid-range, the other 4 gets 4 Chicago pianos that count as short range. Both are utter garbage in AA, comparable to the likes of Mutsu. None are invulnerable, but none are even good. The best defense ships like QE and NM have are that it is harder to citpen them with AP bombs, but that also applies to Arizona and WV. WV also isn't the largest T6 BB (Mutsu, Fuso, PEF are all easier to hit by far and got more hp), so overall, the WV is basically just a T9 Musashi, if the T9 didn't have any AA better than FdG and Lion. Secondary NM or QE is a joke. NM has too few, QE has no range. PEF has secondaries but its AA is nothing special really. With full AAA build you get 7 long range explosions and 5 mid-range, which comparably is ok, but usually is still utterly insufficient because the continuous dps isn't worth a damn.

I mean, in the old system, Bayern, PEF and QE had decent to good AA, especially when specced into it, NM had mediocre AA decent for self-defense if specced into. Under the new system, they all can be easily dropped if they overextent.

And what T6 BB is not just going to get wrecked by competent carriers?

Yes, it works. It has HE bombs, but one doesn't need DE to play the ship. 50% fire chance already is good. Most of the time, playing for the team coincides with playing for your own advantage. Scouting for example is something you'd want to do anyway to find a target for yourself at the start. Picking off ships that are vulnerable is also kinda helping, while suiciding planes into ships that aren't vulnerable helps neither you nor the team most of the time.

Yes, please buff the Kaga. Survivability's fine though, just buff the torp damage to be the usual IJN one, as well as maybe the flooding chance. It'd totally not be OP. With regards, a Kaga owner >Complains about T10 AA shredding planes >The one damage they got was on a DM Maybe don't target the AA cruiser?