dasCKD

11 Des Moines? Minotaurs? Montanas? The 'why' we should be asking is why are we discussing a hypothetical situation that simply does not exist inside the game? For argument, I'll just call the Zao is overpowered. There are 11 ships in the game, and you can pick one ship. For this hypothetical, we'll say the Zao has a health pool of 500k. She has the rate of fire of 1 salvo per second. She also has a 1/1 HE penetration rule and she has a 25% chance of detonating an enemy with every shell she fires. Not shell hits, shells fired. She also has a 300 meter turning radius and a top speed of 90 knots. Oh, and damage control doesn't exist. Do you pick a Zao or not? Why/why not? The problem, sunshine, is that arguing hypotheticals is pointless when the hypothetical can't be used to illustrate a point in the real world. A carrier without an opposing carrier would provide massive advantages to the team with the carrier which I meticulously detailed in my response to you which you appear to not to have bothered to have read. Honestly, I'm heartbroken. Ultimately, your point is pointless. Unless the allied CV is literally AFK, then they'll provide the assistance regardless. Oi you, stop ninjaing my points.

She should also be unplayable and would crash your game when you have her selected when you join a division, just like the April's fool submarine.

I think the Monarch should be automatically credited to everyone's EU account, and should be completely unsellable like the ARP ships. Unlike the ARP ships however, she should be impossible to hide.

Forever 17 (lol)

Bismark and Prinz could be the Lunarian sisters because Nazis. Ryuujo should be Tenshi because dragon surfboards. Flandre can be Yuudachi for coloration and temperament. Ashigara and Yuukari because - You know what. I'm going to stop speaking right now. Oh, and the Fletchers should be Suika. All of them.

Whilst lacking torpedoes, I am more than certain that this Monarch will have a gun rate of fire at least on par with if not better than a Tirpitz and Bismark. Quite frankly, overmatching is a mechanic that has been screwing cruiser players over for a very long time. It is my opinion that the deck and side plating of any cruiser, baring the British which plays by their own rules, should be resistant to overmatching by the guns of equivalent battleships. That alone would massively increase cruiser player retention.

Gimmicks are the British ship's thing, look at their cruisers.

Kutuzov is a little too powerful, but then almost all premiums are. To be honest, the Kutuzov is fine. She's not blatantly overpowered like the Saipan, Belfast, or the Black. She has notable advantages over her tech tree counterparts, but they don't break the game. She's one of the few premium ships that I am honestly fine with WG not nerfing if (not when) they ever grow a pair.

I am getting insanely close to selling my Shima. Just one more match with <10k damage that ends in a detonation is about as far as I can keep up with that- (descends into incoherent garbling)

The under-scroll confused me, but that's not really relevant to the discussion. Ultimately, the amount of effect of a lone torpedo boat and a lone carrier isn't relevant because ultimately, the classes are different. That doesn't mean that the effect won't be the same however. The problem isn't that a carrier is overpowered, it's that a team without carriers have fundamental and intrinsic advantages that a team without carriers doesn't. A team with a carrier will gain intrinsic reconnaissance advantages over a team without a carrier. They can see how the enemy fleet deploy far faster than the opposite, they can pull out of areas before they over-commit and can focus their forces where their team is needed most. Having a team with asymmetrical carriers is like having an RPG team with a healer fighting against a team without. It provides an unfair advantage to the team, not the carrier. Carriers can't be claimed to be overpowered in this regard because of mirror matchmaking. Both teams either have or lack the exact same advantages. Complaining about a hypothetical situation where carriers would provide unfair advantages is inane. Not every ship has radar or float planes. Every ship that faces anything but the low tiered point and click adventures has AA. You can also avoid or out-think planes. Unless you're a battleship, you would see the carrier coming before she sees you. You can't shoot torpedoes out of the water and you can shoot planes out of the air. They also can negate carriers entirely by staying in a blob. They still have the maneuverability advantage. They also have a stealth advantage, which planes have only over a few ships. Which doesn't matter, because EVERYTHING can spot planes. Besides, all of this is irrelevant to the true issue. Like carriers, destroyers provides a massive and undeniable advantage for a team over a team that lacks any. The damage output of both the carrier and destroyer can both literally be 0, and the most important reason that carriers are mirrored and destroyers should be mirrored is not negated. A torpedo boat on a team against a team that lacks one can: Provide unstoppable spotting. Out of all the ships in the game, only 3 (Chappayev, Black, Belfast) have the ability to radar beyond their concealment range. As long as the destroyer plays carefully, their team will always be able to choose their engagements as they like. You could say that ships can radar and sink the destroyers, well ships can also shoot down planes. A significant number of ships have AA ranges well above their air spotting range as well. Provides area denial. A true torpedoboat is very good at discouraging pushes. Yes, a cruiser could push their way to 'counter' the destroyer, against waves of torpedoes and guns that will turn to shoot at the furthest target forwards. Good luck with that. I would also like to note that this is something that carriers simply can't do. Provides smoke screens. One cruiser can provide smoke and radar at the same time, and no cruiser in the game is better concealed than torpedo boats. This makes it easy for the destroyer to support insanely aggressive pushes into enemy territory without the enemy having any meaningful counter. They have no torpedo boat. Capping. Carriers can't do this. If the enemy cruisers wanders close to the caps, the destroyer will spot them and the team will gun them down. Same with battleships. As long as the destroyer isn't a complete idiot, a domination match with a torpedo destroyer is basically won the second it starts. Indiscriminate power. Destroyers also can't face ships against which they simply can't operate. Radar is close to broken as a game mechanic, but it can be played around. A carrier, going up against AA cruisers or just being uptiered, stands close to no chance at being able to so much as scratch the hulls of enemy ships whilst destroyers can still do damage. You can pick at loose threads all you want about carriers being able to attack consistently or whatever, but the advantages provided to the team is identical. The reason that carriers are mirrored and destroyers should be is identical. You could, of course, also annihilate his planes before he even knows you're there if you're the correct ships. Or shoot down the planes before they drop. Or render the drop basically irrelevant by evading the torpedoes. You act like every single carrier you're up against is a super unicum in a Hakuryuu dropping Amagis and Bismarks. You don't need to outmaneuver the planes forever, just long enough for the AA to do the work. Or are you implying that a super unicum destroyer captain is as easy a target as a deep red bot, seeing as how AA is not skill based? Destroyers are, with very very few exceptions, also faster than cruisers. Can cruisers not also hunt destroyers? Is ambush or area denial just not a thing in this hypothetical of yours? Which would be a valid point, if you actually provided actual proof that carriers actually ruins games. Save for the personal anecdotes of the usual suspects. Nothing more than an artifact of how easy carriers are to counter. There are ships in this game that are basically impossible for carriers to even operate next to, so an entrepreneurial Hakuryuu captain can just drag around two Des Moines or a Des Moines and a Minotaur and basically cut off half the map from the enemy carrier, allowing them to operate freely on the other half as necessary. If there was no such thing as these silly 'no fly zones' ships, then the win rates of the top carrier players will take a drastic plunge. There is no other class in which on just the basis of the ships you picked, you could render an enemy ship basically impotent. Arguable at best. Very few ships have a lower surface spotting range than their air, and carriers will ALWAYS have to pull their planes back eventually. A destroyer could lurk there, spotting targets. CV planes also don't get informed when they are spotted, extra information that destroyer captains could use. They deal good average damage because they tend to survive to the end of the game. They are also about the only weapon that can be used to deal significant and consistent damage to battleships, which raises their damage threshold higher. Cruisers are also nearly extinct, leading to carriers being unopposed by one of their many natural enemies. It's quite consistent however, so I'll concede this point. Which NO OTHER SHIP can. -cough- torpedo destroyers -cough- ships inside smoke -cough- ships shooting over islands -cough-. No 'so on' was added as part of the addendum, and therefore will be dismissed as evidence. Really? Because I'm having trouble seeing it right now. Yes. Planes do indeed have to fly to places to discard their payload. You might have noticed this in real life. They are also called bombers in real life. #themoreyouknow If you think carriers can change the angle of attack quickly, then I can't help but conclude that your experience with carriers is woefully lacking. You mean the area that is literally ALL around you ship? THAT special area? The area that the planes need to be in to attack you? Instead, they have to enter a random death zone that just kills off their attack vectors one by one, whether slowly or instantly. Throughout your entire post, you neglected to mention any of the glaring limitations that carriers have. Instead, you just list a series of the way that carriers are different from normal ships and then expect us to take that as carriers being overpowered. I'm sorry, but unless you provide reasons as to WHY those differences make them overpowered then it means nothing. I can equally go 'look at the York! She has bigger guns than any tier 7 cruiser! That makes her overpowered!' and look about as daft as you look right now.

He's insulting you on the CV AP thread as well. You like the wrong Youtuber, apparently.

Imagine that you were a Gearing or Fletcher or some other powerful torpedo boat, the only destroyer in the game with no carriers. Hardly rare in this meta. The enemy doesn't have a destroyer. The effect of that match would be no different, carriers are far from the only class that utterly dominate if not held in check by their contemporaries. Entirely subjective and therefore can be dismissed. Poof. Also, how exactly is "a limited player base" a thing that keeps a ship in check? A ship that is actually blatantly overpowered like, say, a Black is hardly in any game. She still breaks just about every single game she is in which a carrier doesn't do. Unless of course, the ships on your team are brain dead. I would like to note how you have presented literally no evidence whatsoever, which could be fine in most circumstances. You are, after all, attacking an ad hominem which I disapprove of. Even so, I should note that the reason that so many people shift to personal attacks is because when asked to explain how carriers are overpowered, most who say that carriers are overpowered either never actually present any arguments or resort to ad hominems themselves when their arguments are refuted.

I'm conflicted really. On one hand, this makes the Shiratsuyu much too weak. On the other hand, the consumable was borderline unviable on the other IJN DDs having the double disadvantage of the longer grace period time and the fact that it was placed on top of the smoke slot. There was no reason for what is for all intents and purposes a ship identical to the Shiratsuyu to have that much of an inferior product except possibly game balance, but that is indicative of a far bigger issue. I think that it would be better to tweak the consumable i.e. make it only reload one tube but put it on a separate slot (IJN DDs would therefore have a higher torpedo density than their contemporaries i.e. 12 torpedoes for the Akatsuki, Kagerou, and Yuugumo but stops it from detracting from any of the current power of the ship. It would also allow the consumable to be tacked on to the Shima which can now launch 20 torpedoes). None of this, of course, fixes the fact that the baseline torpedo performance of Japanese destroyers is awful.

Is this bait? I feel like it's bait, and it'll be stupid to bite.

Please don't laugh too hard. It can't be too hard to think straight with the voices in his head.

That's hardly fair. People can hardly choose their deficiencies. Which would not matter as those counterwhiners have so little of a leg to stand on that many genealogists have had difficulty classifying them as mammals. Not all whining is equal. No more than a creationist has a place in a biological department just because both scientists and adherents of creationism both bring arguments to the table. WG has admitted to there being too many battleships. WG has made it clear that this is a balance issue, and is currently ruining the game. The only thing that is keeping them from taking proper steps to address the issue is presumably that they would lose out on what they probably see as a massive part of their consumer base. It makes sense to cater to the idiots after all. If they manage to maintain a healthy and paying base of idiots, then WG wins in a way. They don't have to worry about balance or building a coherent and well designed game. They don\t have to worry about premium ships they can't nerf due to company policies damaging the competitive scene. No, they can just print out ship after ship that just power-creeps the heck out of what has come before so that they can just get the sheep to shell out hundreds every few month to skip the grind to the tier X ships, buy premium camouflage and accounts to try to negate the catastrophic debt they'd (deservingly) incur otherwise, and clap their hands like seals as they sail broadside to enemy battleships at 6 kilometers, completely unpunished because none of the players knows what AP is anymore. Perhaps WG is fine with that. I am not, and I will go down fighting tooth and nail instead of stepping aside and letting those with so little of a clue that they would have trouble investigating their last meal do as they wish with this game I love.

She really isn't. A lot like the British cruisers, she's one of those ships that requires the team's destroyers or carrier to at least have most of their brain matter inside of their skulls to function properly.

I prefer the Prinz myself, but the Atago is by no means a bad ship.

They should just give the Prinz the heal. I find her to be a good enough ship, one of my favorites at her tier. The lack of ability to recover from early damage does kill a fair bit of the enjoyment though.

The Harakaze is a decent destroyer with all around decent stats. She is a weak torpedo boat however, thanks to her speed. The improvement to the guns of the IJN destroyers to rival the destroyers of other nations would be welcome, but ultimately that only means that they are being turned into gunboat destroyers instead of making a workable line of torpedo destroyers. I'm not even sure if a proper torpedo destroyer even could work anymore, without restoring ships like the Shimakaze that could launch walls of torpedoes that needed to be close to undodgable. It would fix the IJN line, but I'll still be said to see true torpedo boats go.

Whilst that is very much true, it's still an issue of player interaction and reciprocation. You could see a carrier strike incoming, Before you get hit by enemy shells, you would most likely be spotted. A Shimakaze though, isn't like that. You can't really anticipate where her salvo will be, and it can't really work to avoid it. The carrier rich early game made it so that the torpedoes would be spotted earlier, but it really only served to hide the problem beneath a thin veneer. The Shima's original state was as a fleet destroyer as she was conceived in real life, which doesn't really fit in the game very well into the game. The lack of skill doesn't come from the destroyer per se. It's just that a enemy ship could do everything correctly as far as they knew and still died to the Shimakaze. That isn't something that exists anywhere else in the game, with the exception of detonations. I think that the Shima was going to be nerfed eventually, it's just that the 'balancing' killed her as a competitive ship and the damage also spread to the rest of the IJN line.

Hey! Ocean ecosystems are very important for the world!

Detonations :P

So what you're saying is that if someone with a consistently superior win rate in other classes compared to their carriers argues against the 'CVs are OP' point, then you are by default wrong.