tocqueville8

Well, sure. Then again, I was told to go f*** myself for dropping fighters on a DD that was capping while staying stationary in his smoke, smoke that was about to dissipate, while enemy rocket planes were circling around him... Nevermind DDs that spawn on the opposite flank as you, never ask for anything, but once they're dead they write "F.U. CV" in chat for not helping them from across the map.

So far I only got the Paolo Emilio: it's different, gimmicky, and fun. You can't just yolo first thing in every game, but if you play smartly you should survive long enough to be able to set up about one successful charge per game, on average. However, it's not a good captain trainer, at least for now. Other than that, I'd probably recommend the Ohio, which is a blend of Montana and Georgia (both of which I have and enjoy): great guns, which overmatch 30mm (typical high tier cruiser plating), good AA, great secondaries, fast-reloading heal. The question really is what you'd be getting more from a very expensive ship (RB points are the grindiest currency, arguably) that you couldn't get from the tech tree (the Vermont has 457mm guns as well) or a relatively cheap premium (Georgia is/used to be for coal). If you like HE spammers, since the Smolensk is no longer available, you could get a Colbert, but I understand it's a lot more fragile, having no smoke. Also, it's more likely to be changed in the rework (it has DD guns, so range, penetration and fire rate are more likely to be affected by captain skills). TL,DR: Paolo Emilio 1st, Ohio 2nd

I'm not sure I agree. What I find frustrating is when I'm in a T6-7 BBs, I overextend, turn away, but I can't really survive the HE spam even if I go undetected like a good boy, because the CV allows the enemy to finish me off. Without the Concealment Module, and often without Concealment Expert as well (Fire Prevention takes precedence, usually), sometimes it feels I'm spotted by everyone on the map On the other hand, at high tiers I've been playing mostly DDs recently, and my nemesis have usually been other DDs with good vision consumables (Smaland, which I play myself, and Z-52), or radar cruisers. Even with ships like Shima and Asashio, so not just EU DDs with their amazing AA, I don't find CVs to be a big issue, as long as I don't overextend (which would allow gunboats to mow me down anyway): instead it's all those Petros and Nevskys everywhere, not to mention Thunderers that can break my torpedo tubes forever even with a near miss... What I *have* found is that some T10 DDs are possibly worse than their T9 counterparts, which is very annoying. I'm talking about Gearing and especially Khaba having worse gun range than Fletcher and Tashkent. For the Khaba in particular, it makes it a lot less survivable. The Gearing could use a heal, as well. But it's not about CVs, rather the powercreep, in my opinion of course.

I thought the biggest grievance was the lack of counterplay against the strikes, the "just dodge" meme, etc. Still, I mean...that's fine, I'm just saying the original discussion I was having was about the ability to strike enemies very far away. Indeed, it is silly that all other armaments in this game have a limited range that grows with the tiers (and maps grow accordingly), but biplanes from the 1920s can go as far away as post-WW2 monsters with contra-rotating propellers...

So you're proposing to use a new "aerial spotting range" (different from both the spotting range and the air detection range) to establish whether ships can target an enemy spotted by the CV? I mean, that's fine, but it's a nerf to the CV-spotting potential, not the CV-striking-everywhere-on-the-map potential, right?

Right, because someone else could be spotting them. But then it wouldn't work like a range limitation. Also, right now CVs and their planes have different spotting radii, don't they?

At best, that makes me naive and arrogant, not ignorant. Then again, maybe it's worse... Honestly, I was interested in some feedback on my idea of a plane fuel limit, but I guess that's out the window...

What "fine band"? What "adults"? Come on...

I think I've already explained that I know the mechanic, it's just that it's seldom referenced, so I assumed the commentator was talking about something else. Why you insist on calling me an ignorant is beyond me...

I know the mechanics. It's just that this is the first time in 15k games that someone was actually talking about the "spotting range", as opposed to using the expression inaccurately to mean "detection range". The spotting range is one of the most obscure and least useful mechanics in the game: being able to see the enemy ship on the horizon as opposed to just on the minimap is mostly (not always, but mostly) useless if you can't use your armament against it, and the stat doesn't even appear in port, nor on the wiki. It is many times less important than the surface/air detection radius, the smoke firing penalty, the weapon range, all of which are listed. I think it was an understandable misunderstanding, if you pardon the pun.

How do you define the "fine-ness" of CVs, to compare it with that of DDs and BBs and such? What's the metric? What are its units? I'm not a data-miner, but I'm genuinely interested. Pardon me, but it often seems like a player saying he/she likes/dislikes something is characterized as "an opinion", while many players doing the same becomes "a fact".

As someone who generally defends CVs form a "mechanical" perspective, I have to say I agree. There's nothing wrong with a player, no matter his/her skill level, giving a feedback on what they enjoy or don't enjoy about the game, especially one that has been reworked several times (CVs, captain skills, modules, IFHE, premium consumables, radar and overmatching availability, etc.) I try to advise worse players than myself who complain about CVs as to how to mitigate their impact, but enjoyment isn't something that can be measured on the proverbial spreadsheet, or looking at armor profiles...

You can spare yourself some of those interrogation marks. I know what it is, it's just that it's often used interchangeably with "concealment/detection range", as your concealment range is the range within which you get spotted (the passive and the active side of the spotting action). Concealment is often discussed in relation to ship stats, captain/module builds, radar/hydro range, etc., while the "spotting range" proper was ever only affected by a module no one bothered to take, iirc (5th slot, Target Acquisition Mod, which was a bad alternative to Concealment Systems Mod). And I don't think it appears in the ship stats displayed in port, not even when you hover the mouse over the "concealment" section (where else would I find it?). Hence why most people don't use the expression accurately, I guess. Plus, frankly, these are all translations to me: good as my English may be, some of the words are mixed up at my end. I've learned to use the term "Def AA (fire)", but in Italian it reads "Anti-air barrage", for instance. My point is simply that if you're going to introduce a range limitation for CVs, it should be labeled in reference to planes, e.g. "aircraft range". The maximum ranges of guns, secondary guns, torps and AA are clearly advertised. The "spotting range" would be their equivalent according to the other commentator's proposal, but at the moment it's just not advertised, and it would probably need to be reworked as well. Imho, the player should see a timer alerting him that the planes are running out of fuel and couldn't drop and make it back to the CV. The CV could perhaps make up some of that distance, but it should be possible to either recall the planes, or make them perform the strike, but lose them because they have to ditch in the ocean on the way back. Or something along those lines. Cheers.

Then it's not just line of sight that doesn't matter. I believe concealment is what the game calls "surface detection range" (and air detection range, surface/air detection range while on fire, etc.). I think I know what you're referring to, but frankly it's not something most players pay attention to, so I really wouldn't know that to say about it, it's barely affected by modules and skills afaik. It doesn't even appear among the stats displayed in port, it seems: one has to press 'H' in battle to read it... In any case, I'd rename it to reference fuel.

No no no, I did get it, I'm just saying it's even less intuitive that way. And it would make Concealment Expert (and the module) a huge nerf to the CV, as you would lose the ability of bombing (accurately) a bunch of targets. At best, it would be a tradeoff, at worse (if your CV is hiding behind an island) a nerf. IMHO it makes more sense to limit the range of the planes, period: let the CVs have whatever concealment they have right now, improvable in the usual ways, and introduce a separate radius, or better a plane timer, to simulate fuel capacity. There could be a captain skill called "drop tanks" that increases it by 15% or whatever, and maybe a module that lets you trade fuel for ordnance, or something. It's still a big nerf, especially to the loitering ability, but it would be more intuitive, I think.

I'm in favor of CVs burning like BBs, potentially detonate, and planes having a fuel limit. Possibly, I'm in favor of plane spotting for the team being just minimap-spotting, as well. As you see, that's a lot of nerfs, perfectly reasonable and intuitive as well. Cheers.

It's technically correct because it's a rare occurrence they hadn't thought of, basically a bug. I understand what happened "technically": the OP was clear about it, the moderator confirmed it, and I can read English. I said it's wrong, and WG thought so as well: they've compensated the OP, as you can read a few posts above. Cheers.

I didn't mention realism, I mentioned intuitiveness. It makes no sense to me to put in a rule that says the planes are only effective at, say, dive-bombing a ship right below them, if the ship is also being spotted by the CV. The entire point of CVs is being able to strike beyond line of sight, it's what players legitimately expect. And besides, minimap aiming is a rather advanced technique: one has to look for "blindfire guides" on top players' Youtube channels to find out how it works... We can hardly complain about noobs (and not just them) not understanding angling, spotting, deepwater torpedoes, overmatch and so on, if we lobby for rules that make even less sense. I'd say a range limit for the planes makes more sense: it should be a bit larger than the CV's concealment radius (except possibly with those T4 biplanes), and both should be improvable with captain skills and modules, but not too much. Fuel limitation is intuitive; your proposal is not, with all due respect. Btw, I'm all for removing radar's ability to see through islands, but that only kicks in at T7-8, while people play CVs at T4...

I believe that's just because it doesn't come with its own port slot, so you have to buy it (for 1 credit) in order to allocate it to a vacant one. Basically, the OP doesn't get a decent compensation because he also paid for the port slot. Imho that adds insult to injury, though then again it's just a game...

Then I guess they should change that rule as well: it makes no sense.

I'm not sure I've ever tried selling a premium. What DO you get?

I'm not sure that makes sense. If you are to control the planes yourself, which has been the case since the rework, then you have to be able to see what you're dropping and where. That's kind of the point of having planes. We can discuss what the allies should be able see (how do the planes talk to the allies, so to say), but the planes themselves should not have this problem: if the target is right below them, why should they get confirmation of its precise location from the CV? It's completely counterintuitive, and new players would have a terrible time with the mechanic. Unless that's the plan... Also, with this system a concealment build for the CV would most likely be detrimental, as one would give up on dropping with any accuracy on lots of targets

I've played all tech tree CVs but the MvR, and among premiums I've only tried the Kaga (rental). Imho the Hosho is absolutely OP with the double torps, and Kaga is very strong as well as with lots of reserves and a 12 plane squadron of torpedo bombers she can always strike high tier targets effectively. However, I don't feel Audacious, Hakuryu and Midway are much better than their T8 counterparts, relative to the AA they face. I'd rather deal with T10 AA now and then in the Lexi than basically all the time in the Midway. Yes, the planes are tankier, but not that much, and having larger squadrons often just means you need to pre-drop more, and sometimes you just misjudge things. For instance, 12 dive bombers almost guarantee two strikes on a normal target, but 6 might not be enough for a single drop (I mean a 3-plane drop) on a strong AA target: so if you pre-drop once and go with 9, you'll get a strike off, which is a fair trade, but if you go with 6 you'll get nothing off, which sucks. On the same note, the Haku only drops 2 torps at once and it has huge squadrons, so it's a pain in the a** to pre-drop 8-10 planes in case you want to go for a single strike on a cluster of enemies, especially if they're close to the CV. Finally, the plane upgrades of the T10 CVs are often nothing special: a few knots to the speed, maybe 5% more hp, but a longer respawn time as well, so in fact many are pointless side-grades.

Fair enough, but I'd expect the 1M free xp, or at least the credit value of a T9 cruiser.

I think it was reasonable to assume that one would be awarded, if not the doubloon value of a T9, at least the 1M free xp, as that's what most people have to "pay" for to get an Agir. Credits are no more of a "real" resource than free xp. At the very minimum, the player should get the credits value of a T9 ship, 13 millions or whatever it is. Otherwise, one could begin to think that the 1 credit is there precisely as a disingenuous way to deny a fair compensation.