Uglesett

Didn't they announce even before it was available to purchase that the radar range was an error and would be changed?

Erm. I think it was mentioned a while back that the origin point of the small calibre fireworks are randomized, but the tracers for the shrapnel bursts actually originate from the vessel. Could've been changed since then, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No offense, but claiming something is good advice when it's blatantly bad isn't exactly going to get you a smooth forum experience. It doesn't really matter if you're deliberately trying to mislead or not. If you were honest about going for bad builds for the lulz, you'd get far less flak than you get now for pretending that your advice is actually good. Not being able to defend yourself against aircraft in a CV is pretty much never a problem whether you build for it or not.

At best, your argument can be rephrased as "I prioritize builds that are situationally useful over ones that are always useful", and while that may make you feel good about yourself when it pays off, it's still not a particularly smart way to play. Something that works 90% of the time is a better choice than something that works 10% of the time.

My experience so far is that for a CV to go after the other team's CV is "mainstream". Doesn't make it smart.

And since they have a stupidly large patrol area, they tend to catch enemy squadrons more frequently as well

That's probably because even against a CV that hasn't put anything into defense, it's just an utterly stupid way of wasting your planes and damage potential. Nothing pleases me more than an enemy CV that goes against my own, because between long turnaround time to hit a target that's usually furthest from them and my CV's own CAP (the AA is a sidenote, it's the CAP that does the job), their damage is generally negligible, and meanwhile I do a lot more damage to their team.

And what about it? What point are you trying to make? Aside from the fact that you don't factor tick rate into it, you're not proving in any way that AA damage from multiple vessels is not cumulative.

100% - 10% = 90%

Yes, now if you actually read that, you'll find the sentence I quoted to you earlier.

And how would it have been different if they'd reworked the RTS gameplay instead?

It is a cumulative effect! It's just not quite as powerful a cumulative effect as it was before. Jeeze.

No it didn't, they just introduced a "diminishing returns" mechanism where additional ships only contribute a portion of their continuous damage value to the aura.

. <- The point o <- you / | \ /\ They reworked the premium CVs along with the non-premiums. They could have instead reworked the RTS concept into a changed RTS concept, and reworked the premium CVs along with the non-premiums. (And again, there is nothing except fear of a portion of the user base throwing their toys out of the pram that's stopping them from actually nerfing any given premium)

And yet, here we are and the Enterprise uses the same "action" gameplay as the non-premium Lexington...

CV rework says "hi". There's nothing stopping WG from nerfing or changing premiums. And if they were to rework the fighter mechanics, they would have had to look at that. Yes, that was the problem. Strafing was fundamental in making it possible for one CV to completely shut down the other. You know, this whole "skill gap" thing that they wanted to fix with the rework...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Yes they can. But getting into a new position takes less time, so the overall map presence is at worst roughly the same. No, but as soon as you take turnaround time into account, then you realize that they can sink the same amount of ships in the same amount of time. Which is a problem, they should be able to. You traded an unreliable one-shot possibility that could be countered by active maneuvering for reliable, consistent damage. Overall, you can kill DDs far more effectively now than before.

RTS CVs were broken but fixable. Mostly what was needed was to rework the fighter mechanics (I think strafe was a mistake) and do something about the AP bombs. Even if you had cruddy AA, you usually had some counter play options in terms of maneuvering and positioning. A DD or agile cruiser could mitigate CV damage far more reliably than they can now.

And again, in most ships this has little to no value against all three other classes, and in the long run you get better results from picking skills that make you more effective against surface targets. The AA buff from BFT should be a separate one-point skill to be worthwhile.

Are you, though? Cruisers like Worcester are fairly easily citadelled through the bow or aft by large calibre guns, especially at close ranges. Whereas side on shots at those same ranges tend to overpen.

But still not value for money. You will in the long term do better by using those points on other skills that work on all three other classes.

What's the concealment of the Worcester? 9-point-something? Trying to open up the distance by more than 4 km while exposing your round little butt to Yammie's 18 inches is just asking for it. Whereas if you show broadside at that range, you're likely to eat mostly overpens, and you can at least get some decent damage off before being killed. Heck, you might even manage go get close enough that she can't turn her guns to track you.

You genuinely don't have to be particularly good to pull this off. Case in point: I can do it reliably, and I'm distinctly mediocre. If you know where to find the "S" button, you have more than enough time to adjust your attack after the DD is respotted.