Admiral_H_Nelson

That's a good point (Good series of points, actually) Maybe there should be a pinned thread for "Suggestions/Considerations for Carrier Rework"? We cannot assume that the devs will think of everything (they are only human), and they could use such a thread to minimise the "unforseen consequences" How about it @MrConway?

This is a key point, and I agree 100%. At the same time (as I posted in the "Public Test" section) I would also hate to see missions/tasks/whatever that HAVE to be done in this Arms Race mode. I think the new mode is a great new addition for many players (but too arcade-like for me). However it does need some tweaking, as others have mentioned.

Hello , I represent a Prince from a foreign country who has over $100 million locked into an account and needs the help of someone to help him retrieve this money. The person (to be known as the "Selected Assistance Person" or "SAP") who helps him will be given 10% of this money, which means they will get $10 million for doing very little! The whole of the $100 million will be moved to the bank account of the SAP, and then we rely on the SAP releasing $90 million to the Prince. My researches indicate that you are a very honest and trustworthy person so I have decided to offer you the chance to help the Prince and pocket this $10 million dollar reward! All you have to do is tell me your banking details (remembering to include your password) and I will do the rest. We have to work fast, so please reply quickly.

@Redcap375 When I see your posts I make sure that I read them properly rather than skimming through them. You have surpassed yourself in this thread - top quality comment. If it is any consolation, I can see all the classes being dumbed down in future in the name of making the game "more accessible" (a common theme of our times). If Wargaming find a link between profits and dumbing down ...well it could become unrecognizable.

Brilliantly put, Sir! One salute is not enough! I hope it improves. So far, the word "meh" could have been invented for this Anniversary Event!

Even though I don't personally go for this sort of "very arcade-y" gameplay, I think that Wargaming have done a great job with this. Sure, it needs tweaking a bit, but that's expected. This mode is providing what a lot of players want for their high tier ships as a change of pace. The crucial thing from my point of view is that you have to opt-in to play it. Nobody will be forced to play it. ONE IMPORTANT CAVEAT When setting up future events and missions please do not create anything that forces players to play this mode. Apart from that ... Well Done!

I agree. I lived for a time in "Pompey". It would make a good port. You could have views of the base itself, HMS Victory (flagship of some Admiral called Nelson) and the Solent Forts. At the same time a huge shout of respect to Plymouth/Devonport. Another great naval base with links to Drake, Hawkins and other Sea Dogs!

I totally disagree. If WG want to include US and Russian ships in an "Allied" operation then fine.....just make one up....don't pretend that it has anything to do with Dunkirk. At the time that this operation took place in real life America was 18 months away from entering the war (Late again, God Bless them!) and Russia were actually HELPING THE AXIS. Bring back the Dunkirk operation when players have had the opportunity to acquire ships from the upcoming British DD line (and ideally the French DD line - not just the wretched "Aigle") Let's face it Wargaming want to bring this op forward, even though the Brit DDs are not ready BECAUSE THEY WANT TO "ENCOURAGE" SALES OF THE PREMIUM SHIP "COSSACK" And, yes, I know that I am shouting.

At the moment, main battery guns and torpedoes guns can be knocked out permanently - or just temporarily. Could those who have crystal balls please tell me if Wargaming might apply this temporary disability to AA mounts? Thank You.

I can see the "True AA ship" mounting the Upgrade "Auxiliary Armaments Modification 1" in Slot 1 Wiki: Increases survivability of the secondary battery and AA mounts: +100% to secondary battery survivability. +100% to AA mounts survivability.

Oooh! You realist cynic, you!

There is a very big risk then that BB Kevins will 1-try it, 2-not like it, 3-go back to their battleships 4-demand (and get because.......battleships) nerfs that make CVs useless

I have a spare 17 point captain on USS Fletcher. I want to creating a captain with some AA skills that I could also use in the premium destroyers "Kidd" and "Sims" and the Dunkirk Operation (in "Sims" of course). What is the best build? Manual AA might be useful but so is AFT and Concealment Expert and I don't have enough points for three level 4 skills. "Last Stand", BFT and AFT seem a reasonable use of 9 points. What is best for the other 8 points?

To be fair, I never said that it should be left to CV elites either .... just that they should be part of the process - with real influence. I mean, if a Government were planning some major infrastructure project then it would be sensible to involve advisors with specialist knowledge in the project, as well as interested parties (or "stakeholders" as they get called now) P.S. Are you reading this thread, UK Government?

Judging by the high quality of comments in this thread by players who are either "CV mains" (or at least "CV Regulars"), I believe that Wargaming really need to get these people involved in the CV Rework as soon as possible, and for the duration of the whole program. Clemenceau is reputed to have said that "War is too important to be left to the generals". CV rework is too important to be left to Wargaming.

I've just realized that the carrier rework paves the way for submarines to enter the game. (For those old enough to remember Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea)

Great post, OP! Excellent description of the flow and emotions involved in the new mode. We don't yet know how the final version of the rework will turn out. I just have hopes and fears at the moment. I hope that more people play carriers and that it helps to "detoxify" them. I'm glad that I get a chance to take my favourite real live ships into battle - albeit only their aircraft (however they ARE their "raison d'être" after all). I hate the RTS style of the current carrier, which is the main reason for me not playing them. I fear that the "AA fortress" will remain. Strong AA should be a build option, but I hate these extremes. I'm sad that players who played the old (current) carriers and put effort into actually mastering them now have to face such a radical new style of play. I hope they get huge compensation. Given the code is still there, is there ANY chance that WG could create an "old-style" Carrier v Carrier game with bots as support ships, so that people who prefer the current CV style could still have their fun?

They will never do that - just like they won't let people opt out of battle modes such as "Epicenter", or battles with cyclones in them. I'm a bit surprised by the strength of your reaction though, since I have been reading (and enjoying) you posts on the forum for a long time. I never suspected that you had such strong feelings on the subject. However, I have also been on the receiving end of very good players in a CV who have just owned the battle and felt that it was zero fun. A fundamental flaw with random battles is that people with vastly mixed abilities are thrown together. A wolf(unicum) amongst the sheep can prosper in this situation in ANY ship, but in a Carrier then they prosper even more. Skill-based matchmaking would alleviate this issue, but would create others. Not least the fact that personal stats of the better players would be forced downwards, and for some people that is one of the big "payoffs" they get from playing the game - which is fair enough.

And feel free to believe you fantasy that Wargaming will abandon the guiding principle of tweaks and nerfs to persue balance. Did you only watch the video and not listen to Sub-Octavian? THEY DON'T WANT CARRIERS TO BE TOO POWERFUL! There is nothing in the video that leads me to believe that it is not possible to manage settings and capabilities of ships and aircraft to get the required balance. Stop being such doom mongers. LOL!

What they say they wanted is gameplay balance. Like over and over and over and over. All the settings are STILL UP FOR GRABS. For all we know they might do something daft like offering unlimited damage control as a counter to unlimited planes - so only actual damage counts. Or introduce guided missiles. Seeing some of the stuff coming from WG to make this 100% an arcade game and reemove the last vestiges of reality, almost any fantasy is possible!

I think it is "safe to say" that WG does care about what Battleship players think. The (in)famous BBBaby Bingo card got filled to pander to their whims. (Grrr) The success of the new carrier play is as much about how the BB lobby reacts to it as it is about how attractive the gameplay is.

Sub-Octavian said something about the squadron having to fly AWAY from the target, then setup another attack run (where more preparation and aiming is needed to increase your chances of success) so that you don't get rapid re-attack. Plus everything is up for balance anyway, e.g. damage control cool down, AA, strength of aircraft ordnance, aircraft survivability etc.

Actually it is what what you keep telling us that we wanted LOL! Not what I want at all, for the record AND NEVER DID.

They are not so kind to cruisers though, especially US cruisers. As a cruiser main I hate the cyclone effect for example, because it forces close combat which is stacked against me the vast majority of times.