Tatsfield

So so strategic planning is clueless but arcade aircraft are not. So even language is to be reworked in this new age of WoW.

I suppose "super fun" just about covers the whole sorry exercise. May the heavens protect us from "super fun".

Sadly I expect that the rework will find favour with the "fast fingers" brigade. CVs are now much more like other vessels to use as attack systems but they lose most of their strategic thought and planning features. The attacking aircraft are more like other ships' torps and the defending fighters are more like automated secondary armament. The CV player now has to spend most of his time fast fingering to attack other vessels but he has little ability to plan long range strategies and use his wits as much as his armament. I currently do not like the way the CV planes now have to be directly WASD controlled but if I persevere and improve my play I suppose I will like CVs as much as any other type of vessel as they have become much more like any other type of vessel. I will really miss the ever changing chess game that CV operation used to be and if the majority of players felt like I do about the rework, it would fail, but in truth the majority of players play vessels other than CVs and so they may just accept the new CV play as part of the way they play their current vessels. So CVs could actually become more popular with more players. Real time strategists may have to look elsewhere for their amusement and since there aren't that many of us, we will hardly be missed. I just wanted to represent the views of a CV player who liked working almost exclusively from the Tactical map in the way that a real CV skipper would. I didn't sign up to this man's navy to be a pilot or a squadron leader. I wanted to be a CV captain but now I have to try developing a split personality and being both at almost the same time, but not at exactly the same time because the game doesn't allow you to be both simultaneously. I'm not bitching about the rework and would hope that no one finds anything in what I've said to take exception to. It's hardly a flaming issue. If I can't cut it with CVs now the rework is up and running, I have a sneaky hope that other CV captains will be as bad at this as I am and I'll get an easier ride as a BB captain! Over time a new type of CV player will evolve and I'll go back to having my BB sunk or blown up from under me even more often. I flew an entire battle without getting to launch a single weapon and having all aircraft in my squadrons blown out of the air simultaneously. I couldn't wait for someone to find my CV and sink it to me put of my misery. I'll sell off my CVs and use the extra Free XP I gained on the rework deal to buy other sorts of ships. I'm sure our Latvian friend will flame this posting but I sincerely think that WG don't want naval strategists to play this game. They want shooters. You don't have to be a skilled player to enjoy playing WoW and you don't have to button your lip because you're not a naval ace. I really think that the sort of players who previously enjoyed playing CV will leave the game, which is sad but they are the minority and democracy is the governance of the majority. I posted this in another thread about discontent amongst CV captains and almost immediately a moderator closed the thread be cause it wasn't "positive". I do not understand if an honestly held view is "negative", why it should be throttled to support a "positive" view that I do not hold nor could I support, but then I don't have the power to arbitrarily close topics!.

Sadly I expect that the rework will find favour with the "fast fingers" brigade. CVs are now much more like other vessels to use as attack systems but they lose most of their strategic thought and planning features. The attacking aircraft are more like other ships' torps and the defending fighters are more like automated secondary armament. The CV player now has to spend most of his time fast fingering to attack other vessels but he has little ability to plan long range strategies and use his wits as much as his armament. I currently do not like the way the CV planes now have to be directly WASD controlled but if I persevere and improve my play I suppose I will like CVs as much as any other type of vessel as they have become much more like any other type of vessel. I will really miss the ever changing chess game that CV operation used to be and if the majority of players felt like I do about the rework, it would fail, but in truth the majority of players play vessels other than CVs and so they may just accept the new CV play as part of the way they play their current vessels. So CVs could actually become more popular with more players. Real time strategists may have to look elsewhere for their amusement and since there aren't that many of us, we will hardly be missed. I just wanted to represent the views of a CV player who liked working almost exclusively from the Tactical map in the way that a real CV skipper would. I didn't sign up to this man's navy to be a pilot or a squadron leader. I wanted to be a CV captain but now I have to try developing a split personality and being both at almost the same time, but not at exactly the same time because the game doesn't allow you to be both simultaneously. I'm not bitching about the rework and would hope that no one finds anything in what I've said to take exception to. It's hardly a flaming issue. If I can't cut it with CVs now the rework is up and running, I have a sneaky hope that other CV captains will be as bad at this as I am and I'll get an easier ride as a BB captain! Over time a new type of CV player will evolve and I'll go back to having my BB sunk or blown up from under me even more often.

Thanks for your advice. I'll give the GN a go at close quarter work and see if it fares better. My experience ran counter to what you said but that may well be down to my poor skippering rather than the ship. It's just funny that I found the ship much more fragile close up than its predecessor, the Bayern. But it's certainly worth giving it another go and seeing if I can improve its performance.

OK I'll persevere with close up but I had noticed that the GN is very vulnerable to torps. I also run the Bayern which can take torp after torp and repair, can fire eight shells close up as against the GNs six. Even the ship description of the GN says that it has thin side armour. so my take was that it has very high velocity flat trajectory main guns which I find very accurate and the shell size is large so a few hits are very telling. But since I'm getting very strong contrary advice, I'll give the GN a go close up and personal and see if I can get the results that you are suggesting. Thanks for taking the trouble to advise.

Recently started playing Gneisenau which has torps. Don't get too excited about it. Firstly it launches a salvo of only three fish at a time which is hardly torp spamming material, secondly it has tissue paper side armour and really suffers from being hit by retaliatory torpedoes if it closes to torp launching range of other torp carrying ships and thirdly, having only 6 main guns of huge calibre it is best suited to standing off and sniping rather than getting into close combat. I'm not sure why the Kriegsmarine opted to have the tubes installed when the ship was refitted. I suspect that in real life it was because this ship was originally more concerned with sinking unarmed merchantmen than entering combat with heavily armed naval vessels. It's fast but I usually get sunk if I get too close to DDs. Of course that's also because I'm a reckless and less skilled player!

I play CV explicitly for the RTS experience. I enjoy it. If I want to see explosions, shoot at things and race around the board, (see I'm still thinking RTS), I play other classes of ship but for a mental exercise and real time decisions which if fluffed loose you the battle, that's what was so good about the old CV play. If you think from this that I'm a great CV player, I'm not. But I really enjoyed the RTS. Now I suspect that I'll drop CVs, and then drop the rest of the game as I don't enjoy the First Person Shooter aspect of naval gunfire battles. All sound and fury and appealing to the juvenile streak in games players but not for me. When I think how hard I worked to grind out my Essex and that I'll hardly have time to enjoy the opportunity of flying two fighter squadrons at the same time any more. In fact I won't be flying any fighter squadrons as I understand they will become robot consumables. How sad for the concept of skilled and heroic naval fighter pilots. They are about to be come a sort of air to air kamikazi missiles. I know most players don't like CV players and take the opportunity to let them know it in no uncertain terms when they don't get from the CV that to which they think they are entitled, but now they are going to become CV players for the FPS effects and the naval "chess player" strategists will all retire gracefully.

Apart from myself all the command officers in the clan have not played for over 100 days. There is no activity on the clan's site and no one responds to personal messages. Belonging to this clan is pointless and I don't know what I should do. Is there a way to just leave the clan? Is there a way to evict the non playing members and try to revitalise it? There doesn't seem to be any options in this area and all the clan topics are about people wanting to join clans not leave them! The clan is called Twisted Paradox and the paradox is that I'm stranded in a clan that does nothing. Perhaps that's why it's called Twisted Paradox!

I'll preface what I have to say with this statement. I'm not a great player and I enjoy just playing and learn game play techniques slowly, but I like the game. I decided to play CV as I really like the strategy element of the game. The other classes are just very complicated first person shooters and at my advanced years my reflexes are slow! So I put up with continuous criticism from juveniles who just want to see things explode, I struggle to explain the difficulties in flying single fighter squadrons against multiple fighter groups and just sometime I really enjoy making the right tactical decision that brings me a successful air strike. If I fail to protect some trigger happy surface ship I get insulting abuse but rarely get any recognition when I do something right. That I understand has been the way CV game play works. I choose it as it's a sort of real time 3 dimensional chess match with ever changing pieces on the board. I also find some AA cruisers virtually impossible to approach and have been know to lose the TB squad and two DB squads without scoring a single hit! But I still like the play concept. The rework is going to change all that. It is going to dumb down the strategy aspect of CV play which is mad as CVs have always been a chess master style strategic component of sea warfare. I love playing the tactical map rather than the the open battle screen. I suspect that all the hard work I put into CV play is going to be wasted in the rework. The only thing that is likely to change is that CV play will attract loads of 15 year olds looking for more explosions and the opportunity to put even more insulting language on the chat screen! I am about to upgrade to the Essex but perhaps I'll conserve my FreeXP for some other class of vessel if CV play is going to become less cerebral and more visceral. Hope I haven't offended anyone but it is nice to be able to talk about CV play with other players who like the class.

This is a very uplifting thread. Helping others and appreciating their shortcomings is something often lacking in random battles where abuse and unpleasant behaviour is common. I didn't realise what a poor player I was until a stream of foul mouthed team mates explained all my problems, mainly concerning my sexual preferences and my mother's morality! This hit me quite hard when I moved from co-op to random battles but here on the forum manners and consideration of lesser players is of a much more acceptable level. I would advise persevering with random battles as there is no substitute for human play reactions. I found it a very very different game from co-op robots and despite the name of co-op battles, there is less co-operation than in random ones. I also have found that it pays to be less ambitious. Hot shot skippering tends to get you sunk. I know that only too well! I also find that while higher tier enemies can steam roller you, higher tier allies tend to work to better plans and call for your co-operation as part of their game plans. Above all I've found that it pays not to worry too much on the outcome of any particular battle. It's only a game and pleasure is what you are seeking. Trolls and bullies just don't seem to have discovered that yet. Ignore them as there are some decent players with whom you will be able to relate.

In all the online games I've played over the years, there are always accusations of cheating by players who suffer defeats or disadvantages in the game. I've always assumed that, as in this case, the problems encountered were due to the nature of the game play rather than cheating, but can anyone say if there is any appreciable occurrence of cheating/hacking in WoW and if so how it manifests itself. I've never complained about cheating as I always assume that most players on the board are better than me. Well, many of them take the time to tell me in no uncertain terms how bad/inexperienced I am and I tend to believe them!

I really don't understand why vessels have to fly any flags at all. And the ones that are flow are flow in the wrong place on a vessel. The national naval ensign of a vessel is flown from the jack staff at the aft of the vessel. National flags flown from the top gallant are courtesy flags of the nation of the port at which a vessel is berthed. If we have to fly incorrect flags as high as possible, why not let the player fly the flag of his own country which would be selected in his profile. Thnen you could see who players were. We all know the Bismark is a German vessel, the flag does nothing for us. Anything that stops ignorant 15 year-olds having wet dreams about the swastika has got to be a valid policy!

As a CV player I find that regardless of whether the aircraft selection button actually selects a squadron, it makes the same sound. So if it doesn't actually work you still get an audible message which leads you to think it has. This leaves you with the wrong squadron or perhaps the ship selected and when you click on the tactical map to send what you think is one squadron to a vector, the last thing you had selected takes the command. I like to assemble all my attack aircraft to blitz isolated vessels and it takes a little fast selective clicking and adjusting to get them into a battle group and if the damn select keys don't work every time it makes a real mess of my operation in real time. It is also possible that the CV is accidentally left to sail off into danger. CV operation is complex and like playing the piano under fire and having these keys work so poorly makes me a worse player than I already am! If the key only gave an audible warning when it actually operated, it might draw my attention to the fact it hadn't worked but preferably I'd like the things to work when you click them. Do any other CV players find this? During battle the CV seems to get the blame for everything that goes wrong and it doesn't help if sometimes I make a bad play because of these keys. I'm used to the insults but I am interested if others have noticed this problem and if WG can look at the way the buttons work. Perhaps with the new CV evolution none of this will matter. PS, if you feel you have to send insulting messages about my choice of vessel, my game play, CVs in general or any other offensive content, please don't. As a CV player, I get enough of that during game play!

Totally unnecessary graphics glare on the tactical screen obscures the games communications window text. This doesn't happen in every map but on some maps I cannot read what my team mates are saying and that causes problems. The glare on the surface of the sea is just eye candy and serves no purpose. Hasn't anyone, including WG programmers, ever noticed this self inflicted injury? Can it not be either removed or moved to a place on the screen where it doesn't coincide with the comms window?

I think I'm now aware why I didn't understand your advice. I'm not talking about any effects seen on the battle screen. I'm talking about the tactical map accessed by pressing the "M" key. The RMB and camera has no effect on the background to this map. The glare which can incapacitate the text window is only present on some maps and at some times but it is merely a graphics eye candy effect and serves no purpose and is not actionable with any keyboard commands. Players have no control over the tactical map graphics. I'm asking that WG remove these glare areas as they serve no purpose other than to in capacitate the readability of the text window. This problem is most felt by CV players who stay in the tactical screen for most of the game Other players may never need to access it and see all their comms text on the battle screen. This may not matter so much when the revised CV operation system comes into effect but currently between juggling with aircraft attack handling, ship movement and tactical reconnaissance, there is little time to look at the comms window and it being obstructed by the silly glare graphics makes it worse. Now got a picture. Glare in lower left corner but it can be anywhere in that area and often on comms window. I don't think there is any workaround that other players might suggest. I'm hoping WG read this and consider toning down the decorative graphics on the tactical map screen.

I'm glad there is a solution to this problem; if only I understood what that meant . Please take pity on an illiterate and explain exactly what I have to do to remove the glare from behind the comms window. Thanks.

This sounds quite reasonable and I've no argument with it. As the OP I merely wanted to find a way of escaping from the "dead" clan so that I can resume my playing life with another clan, if I can find one that wants me. The oil was actually never mine as it went straight to the clan, so I don't feel any real sense of loss leaving it behind, just relief to have found how to leave the clan! Anyone can continue to discuss this matter but as far as I'm concerned, I've achieved what I needed to do. Thanks to Commander_Cornflakes for his help and to the rest of you for your interest.

I think I was the biggest contributor of oil since I was playing every day for months while the rest of the clan seemed to be in hibernation doing absolutely nothing! But the oil cost me nothing and as you can't take it with you, other clans aren't looking for it as an entry requirement. I do think that dead clam lead ership is an unacceptable feature of the clan system and WG should allow some form of leadership challenge to allow clans to be resurrected but they are hardly going worry about it so I'm not going to either.

Thank you. I'm now a free man!

I was looking for help and assistance in navigating the pitfalls of the game but this thread has turned into a one man hubrisfest which may make the individual in question feel self satisfied but actually destroys the usefulness of the thread. Left alone in front of a computer keyboard without the real presence of others can feed the aggressive tendencies of those with mild psychopathy. Forums and gameschat are two areas where such people launch into insulting behaviour that they never would outside the virtual world. I doubt that much more of use will appear in this thread now.

I also didn't understand the meaning of "in game currency" and assumed it meant ordinary credits which is how I have always covered resupply. So when I also was given some dubloons I thought I'd save them until I found something for which I needed to use them and then they were all gone. Now I can't complain about it because if I do, some smartarse will insult my IQ and humiliate me in public. So I'll say nothing.

The OP seems to have disappeared and what he may have said has evaporated into cyberspace. I hope that others here don't thinbk I'm whining. I do tend to play BBs and I recognise that I'm not as skilled as many of the players I meet at mid levels. However I don't really mind how many times I get sunk. It is a game. I think there are two types of approach to combat games. Shooters and tacticians. Most games tend to be aimed at the former and it is not easy to find other players who appreciate the latter. I like evading interception and sneaking into an enemy's base to cap it. The game hardly rewards me for that even though it's the stated prime object of the game. It is the second object of the game, destroying enemy ships, that reaps rich rewards. I can live with that but6 as a lone wolf player, it's hard to find team mates who would play a more cerebral game rather than looking for shooting and mayhem. I have recognised where clever opposition has lured me into a killing zone and appreciated that thesee players know what they are doing but team tactics with 11 strangers seems difficult to achieve. I still would like to see torpedo bombers not welded together to form one huge 6 engine single pilot controlled plane that has the abilitys of a modern helicopter, but if other like it, I'll haver to put up with it. :-)

Perhaps a little less of the cheap shot sarcasm would raise the cooperative level of this thread? I'm a very poor player who loves the game but am generally nervous to discuss matters on the forum because there are people who like to belittle others and operate in permanent hostile mode. My feelings about torpedoes in this game is that they are not necessarily easy to deploy but in the hands of an expert payer they are too effective. An earlier poster says that in 260 seconds he launched 48 torpedoes! I doubt that in real life there is a crew that could handle 48 torpedoes and that if they could, a percentage of them would not run true or to the correct depth. I'd like to see a random failure level in torpoeo deployment which would make the game more realistic and allow longer play with less annihilation. My main bind is about aerial launched torpedoes where a whole squadrom of torpedo bombers can wheel and manouvre as is it were one entity and launch a perfect spread of up to 6 fish from very short range without having to fly straight and level to align the target. This is rediculous as in real life heroic TB pilots would have extremely high casualty rates just getting their aircraft into a position to launch and they certainly didn't fly 6 aircraft abreast. Heroes like Lt Cdr Esmonde VC flew Stingbags slow and level one by one in line astern and often died in the attampt. There was no popping up and over an island, all 6 launching simultaneously from ridiculously short range with no alignment run in and then being abole to pop up and fly away without even overflying the target as real TBs had to do. I think this game would benefit from making the killing of our fellow sailors just a little more difficult for everyone in the battle zone and driving players to complete their missions instead of always trying to sink everything on the sea. The mission is achieved far less than the annihilation of most of the ships in the battle which seems to be the way most first person shooter games play out. I think WoW could be a better game if it were actually harder to sink ships and results depended on mission successes and time expired scores. A bit more like football matches and less like robor wars! Now let'sdsee how insulting some of you can be now that I've plucked up the courage to have my say. :-)

I tend to turn off as soon as anyone uses the expression "camping". If lurking out of site and out of range gives a player some tactical advantage, it's war, so he takes what he can to give himself the edge. War is all about organising yourself to best be able to shoot the opposition in the back with minimum risk to yourself. The most skilled special forces troops are employed to "camp" in combat zones and to only attack the enemy when they can do so without any chance of retribution if possible. Running around waving a gun and screaming to let everyone know where you are is not best military tactics! It's dressed in flambouyant terms but the objective of every commander is to do the most damage for the least cost.. So why are BBs likely to stay away from close combat? Because they are at their most vulnerable there and why would anyone want to place himself in a vulnerable situation. I also shudder at the use of the expression "cowardice" . There is no courage in computer games and there is therefore no cowardice either. I tend to take my BBs into the most dangerous parts of the board and get sunk more than most because it's just a game and I don't care about that either. BBs are long range weapon systems from the days before cruise missiles. They were not intended to operate in shallow island cluttered waters and they were certainly not intended to go gunwhale to gunwhale cannon slugging. If anything the reason why BBs tend to stay out of the confrontation areas is down to the unrealistic nature of other weaponry. The ability of six torpedo planes to fly in line abreast and complete any manouvre in that formation and launch six mechanical perfect torpedoes in such a way that most BBs cannot avoid being hit is so unreal as to make a mockery of the game. Torpedo bombers were slow lumbering aircraft making long low level runs at their targets with incredible courage and tending to launch their torpedoes one by one; a pair of airfraft at a time would have been possible but less likely. The torpodoes they used were as likely to fail as succeed ; a high proportion were duds. Destroyers pirouetting to launch salvos of up to a dozen torpodoes is a tribute to the quick fingers of the game player but not of any realism. I've asked these sorts of questions before and been told that the game isn't intended to be realistic as it's not a simulator but a game. But all the criticism in this thread is about how unreal twenty minutes of BB action can be made to be. There is no way realistic BB action can take place in this game. Close quarter BBs waiting for slow turrets to turn and slow loading to happen are not going to chase into zones inhabited by impossible torpodo planes and unbelievable DDs and then dart in and out between islands. I don't blane BB captains sitting back out of range and doing the only thing that they can to gain an advantage. And then some 15 year old crys cheat and "camping" So, leave BBs as they are and remove mad uber lethal games features in closer combat situations. Make damage harder to repair, especially turrets and torpedo tubes. Make it considerably harder to wipe out fleets so that winning will depend much more on fulfilling the mission objectives. Make the game less fun for "shoot-em-up-quick" players and reward tacticians. Do not allow players to gain rewards of they cannot survive the battle. The deeds of sunk ships might benefit their team by helping them win but their captains shouldn't get high ppoints scores for getting sunk. Put less BBs into teams. Make DDs less lethal by making torpedoes more unreliable and less dominating but have more DDs so they have to co-operate to launch multiple torpedo attacks. Make cruisers the backbone of teams. Hopefully these suggestions will drive some players mad but perhaps bring some more realistic play to battles which are virtually always over in less than the alloted time, feature total annihilation and the sinking of vessels on a one for one basis until just one or two are left. Why not stop sunken vessels joining new battles until they have served a rebuild time in port because they no longer actually exist and all their crew are dead or adrift in life boats! Make the game harder and make players work to survive and achieve.