Tatsfield

Thank you guys! I had seen that slider but because it says "Water Transparency" and not mini map transparency, I never thought to try it. I've been play for two years thinking what a good idea it would be to be able to see through the bloody map! Lost in translation but my fault for not experimenting with the controls.

Is there some way to make the mini map somewhat transparent? At the moment it sits in the bottom right corner of the screen and for me to see the detail I need, I enlarge it but that obscures my view. I cannot find any controls to make it semi transparent and wondered if there was some sort of bolt on mod that would do it. If so can someone advise how that would be done? It seems like a fairly obvious thing that you might want but WG don't seem to worry about the map obstructing battle views.

I'm not a beginner but sometimes my problems seem somewhat basic so I tend to ask the questions here. I have noticed that sometimes when I choose a cammo for which I will have to pay, the game drops the cammo at the end of a battle even though I have opted for automatic remounting. This doesn't happen with free cammo from awards etc and it doesn't seem to happen if I leave the dodgy gold payment option switched on, which I don't like to do because I rarely have gold and when I do I have better things to do with it than waste it on cammo. Is there a reason that this happens? Is it something I'm doing or is it a quirk of the game to spend my gold automatically if I was foolish enough to leave it lying around?

My go-to cammo is Type 5 which doesn't need gold but I'm paranoid about having my gold syphoned off without me noticing, which happened before with signals, so I always enable auto resupply of all cammo or signals but turn off the tick box which ambiguously talks about "Resupply using in game currency if unavailable" which didn't mean anything to me until it transpired it means take gold if its there. But recently I found that if I had been using some fancy award cammo and wanted to change back to Type 5, sometimes enabling auto resupply just didn't work unless I tick the "gold theft" box! At the moment I have no gold so it's safe to leave the box ticked and the cammo resupplies and charges credits as it should. I just wondered if anyone else had encountered what feels like a glitch favouring the auto spending of gold, although not on Type 5 cammo, but I didn't see any reason to have this box ticked at all at any time.

The number of planes that a CV can launch and that can be shot down is part of the arcade game appeal that has been built into the game. DDs launch huge salvoes of torps and in a recent game when under air and DD torpedo attack I counted over 32 torps in the water heading my way. Like facing huge implausible shotguns pumping out masses of huge pellets. It is this aspect of the game which is frustrating. Less torpedoes with greater damage from slower and more vulnerable aircraft would be more realistic and less frustrating but it seems to have been decided that the game is not to be realistic but have lots of exciting multiple death and explosions because that is what the public likes. I'd love to avoid CV games because I don't enjoy them but It's my choice to play the game, so I have to put up with the things I don't like as others may enjoy them.

I prefer simple to complicated and so I like Standard Battle where we have our base, they have theirs and it's an obvious fight. Our base needs defending, it remains our base and their base needs attacking and is theirs until we capture it. All the other modes are more like paintball than naval battle and Epicentre is the most complicated of them all. I can't say I actually understand all the nuances of the Epicentre rules and as a BB captain I tend to stay outside and lob shells at anything red that comes into range. But that's because this is a simple strategy that I can understand. The minute I venture into the circles, anything can happen and nothing that happens seems obvious to me apart from the fact that I die in a huge swarm of unavoidable torpedoes. I don't understand why others don't like Standard Battle but perhaps it's because in Standard Battle the failure to play as a team is all to obvious, while in the other modes anything that you do can be portrayed as your tactics for the game. I'm only too happy to take an aggressive stance if cruisers will cover me against unstoppable DD torpedo attacks and aid my AA against torpedo bombers. But left to my own devices without assistance from smaller craft, I revert to sniping from the range suited to large guns. With Epicentre, it's a foregone conclusion that I'm going to be at the edges for most of the game and only charge into the centre if the DDs and most of the cruisers have been sunk. What would level headed tacticians advise me to do otherwise and I'll give it a go!

I find that torpedoes are trivialised in the game. In reality captains fire few torpedoes and they have much more serious effects on the targets. In WoW torpedoes fly around like confetti, salvoes of 16 seem possible but in reality a skipper would hesitate to launch more than two or three. Torpedoes really take a long time to load and the number available on a sortie are relatively few. So I would like to see the numbers of torpedoes capable of being launched reduced by reducing the number available and extending the time needed to load them. To compensate for the lesser numbers and the reduction in hit likelihood, the effects of torpedoes should be far greater. In reality one torpedo can sink a huge vessel and two torpedo hits are usually the death knell of any ship. I'd like to see torpedoes made much more serious weapons; big shots and not shot gun pellets. With less torpedoes flying around, DD skippers would clearly be skilled or not. Torpedo plane pilots would have to take real risks and the reward for making a torpedo hit would be greater. There would be more doubt about the outcome of torpedo attacks and more damage when they were successful. The repair time for torpedo hits would be far greater and victims would suffer greater damage. Those who enjoy arcade type games obviously like dozens of missiles flying about but I like a more historically based experience. I'm not sure what WG seek to provide . They worry about reality in ship design but like aspects of arcade gaming to appeal to younger players. Torpedoes seem to reside in the latter case.

What happens to Commander XP when earned by a commander in retraining? I'm retaining my one and only 19 point commander and I wondered if deliberately earning him Commander XP would accelerate his training. I have Zulu Hotel signals. Should I make a point of flying them from his command or should I avoid so doing? I'm prepared for a long haul to bring him up to trained status and I blush to say I don't buy gold.

Thanks guys. I can see that I can shuffle my 19 pt cmdr to my premium ship where he doesn't retrain and earn elite CXP . I overlooked this capacity. All along I've been just moving my best cmdr up to the new vessel and all the others stepping up through the fleet with a junior taking on the vacancy left at the bottom. That meant that they were all retraining! At a low level this didn't seem to be too arduous but as the cmdrs come up through the ranks the retraining becomes longer and longer. I was worried that the Zulu Hotel signals would be wasted on a 19 pt cmdr who couldn't actually advance any more and didn't know if they would speed his retraining. Now I understand that CXP earned through battles including the extra which ZH signal gives actually reduce the training, I can easily train the 19 pt cmdr as well as advancing my lesser ranks. Thanks again for taking the time to look at my query. I like commander skills but they do need to be tailored to the vessel being commanded. I tend to stick to BBs so it's not too difficult to identify the better options.

Can someone please translate this drivel into English. What on earth does it mean?

Why is the permanent cammo for the USS Pensicola some strange "space ship" design. I never play the space games and think this cammo looks ridiculous on the ship. The silly green lights will make people think I'm some sort of space cadet and the square gun barrels are embarrassing. I would like to have a permanent cammo on this ship as it saves credits and provides extra bonuses but why do I have to have a design made for 8 year olds? Is there a more realistic version of this cammo and if so, how do I access it?

I got two containers and I didn't even suffer any inconvenience.

In the past I accumulated large hordes of credits merely by playing and I always had sufficient for anything that I needed to do. Recently my credits started to reduce rapidly to the point that at one stage I didn't have enough to service one of my ships! I am running a T9 BB and a T8 CV, although I've stopped using that. Can anyone advise me why I use so much credit? Is there something left switched on that uses it needlessly? I know I have wasted Doubloons by leaving economic signals on automatic resupply but I don't do that any more. Sorry if I am asking a dumb question but the change in my credit situation is so dreadful that it is going to hamper my play. Can anyone advise?

Just updating my credit situation. After receiving a very generous gift of the USS Arizona and also grinding out the USS New Mexico, I'm back into T6 BBs and even after purchasing new vessels my credits are around 14M. So I'm no longer destitute and I have rediscovered the charm of the mid tier BBs. My latest game strategy is to develop cruiser capability and to that end I have purchased USS Helena and also will get USS Pensacola when I have a few more Free XP, so that I will have T7 light and heavy cruisers which are a very different game play to heavily armoured repairable BBs. I still get sunk too often to want to boast about it but from time to time I find myself as a high score survivor on a winning team and that makes all the losing and effort worth while. Thanks again to everyone who gave their advice. See you in battle! I'll be the one on fire and limping along but stacked with silver!

Can anyone explain why in the Tech Tree, Pensacola is listed as costing 33,000 free XP but when I go to purchase it I am asked for 41,100? It doesn't really matter to me but I am just curious as to why there is this discrepancy. Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks, I dismissed Omaha from my intentions as I'm not sailing it and never looked at it again once purchased. Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks for your answer but it's a too cryptic for me. I haven't chosen any modules. In fact until you opt to research the ship you can't activate the module options at all. So why does the program demand 41,100 Free XP when the Tech Tree asks for 33,000 Free XP. Can I not research the ship at all for 33,000 Free XP. Sorry to be dense but the answer is not self evident to me.

Since little else is historically accurate, what does it matter what flag the ships fly. In any case they are all flown from the wrong halyard. National flags are flown from the jack staff at the stern not from the main flag halyard which is for command pennants and courtesy port flags. Wouldn't it be more informative if players could choose to fly the current national flag of their choosing, not for historical purposes but to identify their own nationality if they so chose. Worrying about historical accuracy when ships of all nations, historical allies or enemies sail together and fight a fleet similarly composed seems a little OTT. Why would anyone want to quote historical accuracy in order to fly the swastika and all the horrific evil which it represents? Sounds suspect to me.

Thanks for following up. I'm now not using high tier ships and concentrating on T5 and T6 vessels and the credits are starting to slowly build. |I'm also looking for awards of credits rather than other items. I'm contemplating raising my levels of US ships and making use of an elite US captain who is languishing in the USS Lexington which I'm not using at all because I hate the new carrier regime. He has been trained in carrier ops but still way exceeds any other US captain on my books. I need some credits to work up to a T5 US vessel. On the downside. My performance with my once familiar T5 and T6 KM BBs is under par. I suspect that it's because I am closing to rapidly with enemy vessels because I'm not comfortable with the reduced gun range with which I now have to work. Also I suddenly find difficulty in leading my aim the way I used to do without thinking and find I'm missing a lot more than I used to do. However, luckily I enjoy playing the game regardless of whether I'm successful or not and have a thick skin when hassled by irate team mates who expect more of me! Current plan is to build some credits and research either KG or US cruisers. I don't enjoy DDs as I seem to fail to take evasive action and get sunk all to quickly and all to often. Perhaps I just can't walk, talk and chew gum at the same time!

So I've dropped T9 FDG and T8 Bismark from my primary ships. I've put their captains into T6 Bayern and T5 Konig and brought T5 Acasta into primary. I'm contyemplating bringing in a US ship with my T8 Lexington captain but he is 18 ranked but angled as a carrier skipper, which he has been all along. I've had enough of carriers and regret I invested such effort to rise to T9 in US carriers and now hate carrier play. I just need to bring in a mid tier US cruiser and play with that but currently have not got the silver to do it. You may gather that I hate paying real money for anything so I suppose I do deserve my misfortunes! However, I am looking forward to re-educating myself and learning cruiser and destroyer play as I also have Aigle. Many thanks to all who took the time to advise me and also thanks for protecting my self esteem as a poorly performing but enthusiastic player.

Oops! Contradictory advice? I'll sit tight and see how this develops. Meanwhile there is no harm to taking my lower tier ships out of mothball.

Thank you guys for the valuable advice. The funny thing is that I always enjoyed playing the lower tier BBs and seemed to play better with them. I'm the first to admit that I'm not a good player; too impetuous and never defensive but a return to the lower tiers will not only boost my credits but offer the chance to improvfe my play.

WoW has a huge player base and the perspectives of those players about the game differ radically. It is therefore not surprising that the perspectives on the rework are similarly and hugely varied. Having read this thread there seems to be one view point that is not represented. That of the RTS enthusiast. The previous nature of the CV game was to put a RTS game into a naval FPS game. Since CVs command is really strategic, this was a good compromise but it did alienate FPS players from CV roles. I can see that WG wanted to open CVs to the vast majority of its WoW players who don't like spending 100% of the game in the tactical map. Well now they have probably alienated the RTS players like me who don't want to play at attack pilots and are almost prevented from RTS planning and strategy as their main preoccupation. It's their game and their decision as to what sort of game they want it to be. If RTS players leave the game it will probably not impact on the size of the player base as the game attracts so many FPS players and many of them will now play CV as flying the aircraft is so FPS and they probably don't care about strategy anyway. I'm avoiding all the lesser changes to the game which may or may not degrade it as I think the change in combat philosophy concerning the CV game is the major factor in removing aspects of a "thinking" game to replace it with a "doing" game. Good luck to the "fast finger" brigade. I'l just go back to BB play as I did before I discovered that I really liked the CV RTS game. I did gain a lot of FreeXP so I shouldn't complain too much!

Funnily I was just reading that when your posting notification popped up. Most of that guys comments are about damage infliction on other vessels and not about real time strategic play. If I wanted to take the role of a pilot and fly aircraft in a virtual battle, there are a lot of better air war games verging on flight simulation. The flight simulation in WoW CVs is actualy very little. The aircraft are like steerable shells flying at a predetermined height into a wall of explosions. My dislike of the new CV rework is that it calls for a shift in the skill set from war planning to attack flying. Others obviously like that shift. I don't see WG returning to having a RTS game embedded in a FPS game. I'll probably play BB and then wander off to find something else.

If we are talking about understanding, my understanding of the CV rework is that players who liked strategy and planning will have to adapt to like arcade shooting up flying where the critical skill is the flying and weapon delivery but that the real war winning skill of strategic deployment upon which real CV naval warfare is based has been phased out. In WWII Pacific naval war, it was the US admirals who won the battles, without them the flyers would not have brought in a victory no matter how well they flew.. So WoW CVs are now the antithesis of this concept as it has been dumbed down for teenage wizz bang players. I think that all the thoughtful things I enjoyed about CV play have been removed in favour of action. If that's what the market wants, that's what the market will deliver.