dasCKD

I made this. I felt it was necessary.

Bismark. Really? A Bismark? Look, I don't know where you go to dig up these 'facts' but last I recalled the Bismark has a superior AA set to the Amagi. An Amagi, isolated and alone without even a destroyer escort, can shoot down a third of a Shokaku's incoming attack wave with some rudimentary manuvers. Inadequate. Unless inadequate in your book means 'incapable of entirely wiping a Taiho's full attack wave whilst completely isolated' then you're talking pure tosh.

I swear, these posts are like moles. You whack down one and two more pop its head up.

Much obliged, I'll make sure to. I'm actually coming up with an article on why destroyers should be given citadels actually I am contractually obliged to be a [edited]to everyone I meet in battle that I recognize if they end up on the enemy team Mostly by my terrible personality.

It's that time of the month again, where I arbitrarily think that I should write myself another essay instead of doing something actually beneficial for my professional life! Yay! Artist Page: http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?id=5192176 Carriers are the most decisive ship in the game. Player skill can be entirely compromised in half the team, but as long as the carrier captain is of sufficient skill they could still pull through. Likewise, a mostly competent team could be brought down by a bad carrier player. The skill of the carrier players are extremely important for just about any game, often deciding the outcome of the battle which is why carrier players train so long and hard to combat their single largest enemy: the crappy carrier interface. It should be noted that the changes that I am discussing here have nothing to do with the performance of carriers in the game. This thread is not about making carriers more powerful in any way (though I might start another long thread made if nothing interesting happens in Warships) but making them less irritating to use. Mechanics such as ships and planes being able to spot each other over mountains and high smoke screens are also issues, but would probably be best addressed in its own thread. A quick retrospective on carriers: The promised carrier overhaul has yet to come. It was promised this year, but I would sooner believe it when Donald J. Trump tells me that liberal professors are smuggling Apache helicopters, napalm, and Hilary's rancid [segment omitted] into our water supplies to turn our goldfishes gay before I trust a WG developer announcing a sunrise outside of official patch notes. The track record of War Gaming doesn't exactly imbue me with great optimism is what I'm saying. WG is probably working on carriers to some degree, but trusting WG devs to balance out carriers without guidance is like expecting a pre-neolithic humanoid to spontaneously compose a manual on constructing and maintaining a interplanetary warp network. This, combined with the fact that the devs of WoWS would probably have to sustain third degree burns over their entire body before they'd listen to me when we tell them that they're burning down their house if the RDF debacle is anything to go by, does not imbue me with much faith. It won't be surprising that War Gaming would attempt to court more carrier players by straight up buffing the alpha damage, plane performance, or flight control modules. This is something that is, for the most part, unneeded. I suppose that when all you have is a hammer, everything ends up looking like a nail and when all you listen to is your statistical analytic you might think that numbers are the only thing that would fix carriers. The largest issue with carriers isn't the direct performance, though match making can screw over the middle tier carriers rather often. The interface and controls for the carriers is one of the largest if not the largest problem with carriers right now and buffing carrier alpha damage is like Nintendo trying to boost Wii sales by introducing exclusive gore, horror, and porn titles into their repertoire. In order to bring the team victory, carriers need to perform the correct role at the correct points and perform those roles well. It becomes a very large issue when a carrier player gets interrupted by performing those roles not by good play on the enemy team but by the game just refusing to cooperate with the player. This issue is persisting. Many changes have been made to the interface of the surface vessels in order to make the game more pleasant and convenient for them to play. The carrier interface, as far as I know, is as bad right now as it was in the early game stages and in many ways worse as the introduction of the circle of no return and large plane turning circles makes it extremely annoying to pull off attacks against fast targets when the planes would rather fly in a straight line for a little longer, turn away, then spinning back to try to attack a target whose crew has sailed or flew on, reached their destination, and is already building a family with three children (the youngest of which is a mostly mute cook) and an inheritance that would be attracting the attentions of a psychotic yet quirky thieving count when their parents ultimately die in a fire "accident". The issues that arises from the carrier's interface is numerous: Redundant Controls Insufficient Vital Information Cluttered Interface Annoying Camera Tilt Terrible Minimap Feedback The issues with the carrier interface is numerous, as are the ways that they can be fixed. Each topic can probably be used to start a topic all on its own, but for now I want to keep everything in one place so I can give suggestions for improving the game interface all at once. These are the interface changes that I would like to see that would, in my opinion, do much to close the massive gap between skilled and poor carrier players. In the current meta carrier combat isn't comparable to a duel with swords or guns between two opponents of skill. It's more like a switchboard operating contest when all of the buttons are labelled in Mandarin and the manual is written in Braille. Improvements Section With that over with, let's get to the crux of the article. I created a few slides to go with the radical interface changes to help players visualize the improvements I am suggesting. Locked Camera Angles Improved Interface Improved Interface II Improved Minimap Redundant controls That is all for now, I think. I might have to edit this article later. This one took a lot longer than I thought it would. I will (not) be awaiting the indignant complaints from the whiner brigade below saying how carrier population should be cut down as much as possible and that the interface should be made as unpleasant and unusable as imaginable despite the fact that almost every single problem with carriers in the game right now are being caused by those issues. Best regards.

The general inaccuracy of German ships is far more observable in their battleships than in any of the other classes, but nevertheless remains a problem that needs addressing on a far larger scale. The national trait of the Germans is twofold, firstly they either possess the hydroacoustic search consumable on ships that would otherwise not have access to such a consumable, and their second is their extremely powerful AP shell. Except of course, the power of the AP shell of the Germans is largely a fabrication. The power of a ship's HE shell is relatively simple, tied to its static penetration value, to the gun arcs, to the chance of fires, the accuracy of the gun, and to the alpha damage of the shell. AP shell on the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, depends on the angle of impact, the shell weight, the shell speed, the shell caliber, the accuracy of the guns, and, perhaps most importantly, the shell's Krupp value. Out of all the shells available in the game right now, the German cruisers and destroyers all possesses alpha damages significantly higher than their competitors and they possess respectable muzzle velocities which would naturally make players assume that they should perform rather well when it came to using their AP shells. Considering that the German line in the case of their cruisers and destroyers depends on their AP shells to do damage, this is of concern. German ships, the nation depends on their AP for a lot of their performance, actually has one of the poorest performing AP shells in the game. In the experiment, 0% of the SN destroyer's shells shattered on impact. 38% of the USN destroyer's shells shattered on impact. A staggering 49% of the KM's shells shattered on impact. At 4 kilometers, the Soviet destroyers had no difficulty landing citadel hits. The American destroyers landed some citadel hits. No matter how I modified the firing solution, the German destroyer failed to score even one citadel hit. This is a problem with the cruiser line as well. A German cruiser like a Roon can fire on the open broadside of a Zao or Moskva at 10 kilometers and expect no more than 1 or two citadels when those respective ships firing at those exact same target could expect instant annihilation or at least the removal of half their victim's health pool. For a line focused on armor piercing, this record is appalling. Not helping is the fact that compared to their counterparts, they possess greatly diminished accuracy that any armor piercing focused line depends on for performance. I think that this issue needs addressing as soon as possible, especially in light of the overall poor performance of German cruisers and destroyers in the larger context of the game. The AP shell performance should hold parity if not superiority with the AP performance of the other nations and simply having a higher AP alpha damage is not close to enough compensation if this test was at all indicative of the overall performance of these ships in the larger context of the game.

Don't quote me on this because I don't actually know, but my understanding was that USN cruiser had better AP until the normalization angles were all tied to shell caliber. This makes me quite confused about the Moskva's normalization angle that should naturally be poorer, if only slightly so, than the angles of any other 203 mm shell. I don't think there was ever a time where the USN had worse normalization angles than any of their competition.

It's the dispersion spread and the ways the shell deviates. It's not so much of an issue with battleships as their guns have very heavy shells and a lot of alpha damage meaning that they can do a lot of damage either way. With the low penetration guns of their cruisers and destroyers though, it causes major problems especially since those two ship lines needs to aim for weak spots for effective damage.

I don't have access to the Udaloi. Besides, using the weaker SN guns better demonstrates the point.

I'm quite certain that the shell shattering is caused by the low penetration of the shell compared to the piece of armor it is impacting.

I've also noticed that German light cruiser AP also underperforms their Russian counterparts. At 10 kilometers in battle conditions, it's relatively trivial for a Schors to land a debilitating citadel hit on another Schors at 10 kilometers or even more. A Nurnburg though struggles to cause citadel hits even at 8 kilometers.

Which is why I'm waiting for a pure IJN light cruiser line. That + IFHE = chaos and battleship tears for years

The more the game file has to load in to start a session, the longer it takes for you to start the game. If your data transfer is too slow, remove superfluous graphical effects even if it doesn't seem to slow you down in game. It will make your sessions load faster.

Firstly, it's a matter of line balance. The KM DDs really only have their Hydroacoustics going for them. At present, they are not the best at anything else. Second, it's not rare to encounter a cruiser at close ranges at maps like shatter at which point I can drop smoke. Third, the ability to score citadel hits is mostly for demonstrative purposes. The KM destroyers will quite obviously perform worse against most armor layouts than their USN counterparts at ranges where a destroyer would choose to use AP and they will definitely perform worse than the SN destroyers. Hipper was one of the ships I liked. Her AP is fine at tier 8, but not at tier 10. I only find the Hindenburg and Roon to be acceptable ships thanks to the pure volume of fire that they put out. I would still prefer performance of at least what the Zao has though. I tried out the training room performance. At minimum ranges, a Zao has little issue penetrating the citadels of both the Yamato and the Montana often scoring 4 or 5 citadel hits in one salvo. With the Hindenburg though, the only success I ever had with her was firing from 1.4 kilometers down into the citadel where presumably it punched through a weakness in the armor. I think that this fact alone is enough to consider improving the KM's 203 AP at the top tiers.

Is it really fine when, at certain ranges, even the tiny 127 mm guns of the USN ships outperforms the 150 mm guns on the KM despite the latter being an AP focused line? The penetration of the general guns don't even intersect until about 6 kilometers out. I also picked a ship with notoriously poor armor for my experiment so you would think that the AP focused destroyer line would AT LEAST be able to keep up with their counterparts.

I couldn't care less about the main line German BB. That isn't what this thread is about. Bringing the battleships in does not subtract from the fact that German AP has subpar performance per caliber and that hurts cruisers and destroyers the most. The worst in the game. The destroyers have no secondaries, and who cares about a cruiser's secondaries? So do the RN CLs, and they get smoke as well unlike the German cruisers. Good, long lasting smoke. Who cares about the battleships? This isn't what this thread is about. Honestly, people would save me so much time and effort if they just READ WHAT I WROTE. The Americans have the best destroyers in the game, I guess that means that their carriers are fine and need no changes whatsoever! WHY DIDN'T I REALIZE THIS SOONER?!? Poor HE, bad AP shell weight, velocity maintenance, and Krupp values. Mechanization surpassed by the British. Rate of fire surpassed by the British and the Americans. AP shell characteristics surpassed by literally every single other nation in the game. Battleships UNIVERSALLY outperform their destroyer and cruiser counterparts. Give the KM cruisers and destroyers the shell performance, autobounce angles, and penetration mechanics of the RN cruisers and I will not lodge a single complaint against the German cruisers or destroyers again until the end of time. Really? Then would you please explain to me why in the last two weeks, baring premiums, the German destroyers are some of the least played destroyers in every single tier but the lowest one? Go on, take your time. I'll wait.

That's the thing though. The German cruisers might have the best armor, but that's because their armor profile exploits battleship overpenetration like WG exploits Soviet military "sekerit" documents. Cruisers can still land crippling damage on German cruisers. The German destroyers in fact have no advantage in armor profile compared to any of the other destroyers. They, in fact, have some of the poorest survivability considering their large size (which means that AP shells are less likely to overpenetrate) and poor protection that offers no benefits against HE compared to any German destroyers. Their battleships, in anything, overperform. The AP shells of German cruisers and destroyers need serious help though.

Ugh. Imgur sucks. I'll fix this ASAP.

Atlanta, Neptune, Minotaur, Cleveland, Baltimore, Des Moines, Kutuzov, Moskva, Donskoi, Grozovoi, Flint, North Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Izyaslav, Gnevny, Ognevoi, Kiev, Tashkent, Udaloi, Khabarovsk, V-170, T-22, Gaede, Maass,, Z-23, Z-46, Z-52 (CVs neutralizes concealment advantages), and to a lesser extent every single cruiser player who mounts defensive fire. I also don't see it as anything close to a good argument to argue from the side of what ship classes a certain player wants to see considering how it all evens out. You stated earlier that it's not a net benefit that carriers are in the game. Well I would argue then that NO class in the game should be implemented if we argued from the point of net benefits. A cruiser captain wants destroyers, but there also don't want battleships (+1 for DDs, -1 for BBs) Battleship captains want cruisers, but they don't want destroyers (+1 for CAs/CLs, -1 for DDs) Destroyer captains want battleships, but they don't want cruisers (+1 for BBs, -1 for CAs/CLs) So all classes in the game benefits one class, and is a detriment to one other class. This means that there is not a single class in the entire game that has a net beneficial effect in the game. They may be wanted by players of one class, but a player of another class would not want them. This translates to a net 0 benefit to the game. This also ignores the variations in classes such as USN destroyers who wants as many IJN destroyers as possible or KM cruisers who would prefer to see more enemy cruisers than enemy destroyers or ships like the Zao who prefers to see a lot of battleships than a lot of destroyers.

In that case I would like to pose the same query to you. Who benefits from the inclusion of cruisers? Or Battleships? Or destroyers? The classes are more or less mirrored in the current matchmaker system, so where is the net benefit in including ANY class in the game as it is in the present?

So having a team that is easily exploited by carriers is a problem yet having an entire class that is being completely pushed out of the game isn't. I see.

Cruiser captains think that there are far too many battleships in the game. The battleship captains in my clan thinks that there are too many battleships in the game. War gaming thinks that there are too many battleships in the game. Quite frankly, battleship players should be praying that carrier buffing is the option that War Gaming takes instead of, say, doubling battleship dispersion. Or nerfing their survivability down to cruiser levels. Or doubling their rudder shift speed and turning radius.

A destroyer hunting down a carrier? Yeah, maybe if the carrier is a Bogue or Langley.

The game balance as a whole would be the thing that most benefits would be my answer. A team with no defensive fire would (or at least would have) dealt very badly with carriers. This means that in the overall game balance, battleship players actually benefits from it. The large number of cruisers would mean that as long as they protect their allies, they would remain mostly safe from the carriers. It also means that they will be able to score a lot more devastating strikes and earn more credits and XP at the end of the game. The larger numbers of cruisers would also keep the numbers of destroyers down, meaning that destroyer players who remain would benefit from not having to run into enemy destroyers when they're planning out their torpedo runs (though this point may very well be rendered moot with the introduction of radar) as the carrier captain can only be in so many places at once. As for instances where I really wished there was a carrier in the battle, when I'm in an Atlanta is an obvious one. When I'm in even a poorly defended ship like the Izumo and I see an enemy team full of Shimakazes and Gearings which isn't that uncommon in the current meta. Having a fast and versatile spotter is always a boon.

First of all, CV captains have never been prevalent at the best of time. Second of all, that which can be claimed without evidence... Third of all, I want the Enterprise. And the Unryu. And the Zuikaku as a premium. And the Fantasque. That's a non-sequitur and easy to demonstrate. Premise 1: everyone DOESN'T think the inclusion of carriers are successful. Premise 2: War Gaming nerfed carriers to make them less prevalent Conclusion: War Gaming wants fewer carriers in matches That is not a coherent argument. It's not an argument at all. The premises just don't follow. The nerfs to the carriers were the following, in chronological order: removal of full IJN strike deck (done because just LOOK at the bloody things), nerfing of IJN carrier torpedo damage (no reason stated), nerfing of IJN torpedo speed (done in preparation of torpedo acceleration), Nerfing Midway and Essex (they were outperforming the IJN to too big of a degree). Most of the indirect nerfs to the carriers were done because War Gaming quite frankly has 0 foresight. The changes to AA mechanics was not done to service battleships. At the time, USN cruisers were not well liked. The relocation of AA DPS to the longer ranged AA guns and the improvements to AA skills were introduced in order to improve the performance and popularity of AA defense vessels. It failed miserably of course, because the effect of the changes were that battleships no longer needed the defense of dedicated AA cruisers. Then there was the indirect nerf that was the economy changes, done because battleship players were too busy cowering at the back of the map to play the game. Due to this change, the carriers were murdered one last time because all but the best carrier players would bleed credits if they continued playing. Carriers were the victims of fundamental changes to the game that hit all classes, not the target of some dedicated nerfing that you implied. You see unlike the idiots in the battleships, I happen to play ALL classes. By nerfing battleships ships like the Tirpitz which is one of my favorite ships and the Imperator which is my penultimate seal club will be hurt and my performance will be affected. I would no longer be able to roam the waters, completely free from any worry or fear from any other ships and I am fine with that. I am willing to sacrifice my own enjoyment in one class of ship in order to gain back enjoyment in the other classes. Unlike the cretins who demands endless buffs to battleships even now, I want all classes to be enjoyable and quite frankly I have a far better understanding of the game than someone who has only ever touched another class outside of the battleships because they needed to pass them to get to the battleships. Creationists don't want evolution taught in school. Scientists don't want creationism taught in school. The problem isn't that the BBaby brigade is demanding changes to the game, the problem is that the changes they demand are unwarranted, self-serving, substantiated by provably false premises, and ultimately destructive for the game. Then they should just go play Atlantic fleet, or take up building plastic models. That way, they can also have their precious realism. Compared to actual naval combat, World of Warships is insanely fast paced and tactical. A game like this requires players to think and plan far faster than twitch shooters. The CBT player base are also provably loyal to the game whilst this new potato crop is only arguably so. Considering how high the average damage and win rates of newer ships spikes after the release of a new line, it's quite clear to me that it's not the potatoes who are freeXping their way to the top of the branches. If they are, then they are not doing so in anywhere close to similar to the numbers of players who are actually skilled and good at the game.