antean

Sorry, ZWC, I had no motivation to read your wall of text.

I did this in my NA account just so I could have my own 'clan flag' in the game. Still waiting WG ……………. grrr ... grumble ... WTF is taking so long ... JFC! … Get off your butts!

Good effort, jfkennedy2, but your 'ratings' are illogical. I did not read about all the ships you link, however, I did look at your T2 & T3 DD suggestions. What!? A 1934 build for T2? A 1940 UK build for T3? What!? I'm sure Scandinavia (Den, Fin*, Nor* & Swe) had ships more in line with pre WW1, WW1 & post WW1/pre WW2 that the main tech tree lines have. You need to do more research into the early modern time period for these nations, imho. * Fin & Nor, perhaps, would have to be represented by Ru & Swe ships for low tiers 1, 2 & 3.

For the end of 2019, what alternate Carrier line would that be Sparviero? The RN line has already been introduced. What other nation had any kind of CV line besides Jpn, US & UK? From what I've read the Ita Cruiser line (which is good, finally an Ita something besides an occaisional premium offering). I'm impressed with all the fan based work here on Ita ships. All these suggestions means WoWS developers/researchers can draw on free assistance to build Ita tech tree lines. Time for WG to get off their butts & actually offer three full Ita tech tree lines.

Only 'balance' WG follows is (their) 'account balance'. Well put, Panocek, well put. LOL

It is only logical that the more individual skill you have, you will have an advantage with your WR. In my NA account I have a marginal 48% WR due, in the main, to learning how to play (some would say I still need to learn a lot, lol). In EU account here I have a decent 56% WR due, in the main, to now having a better base skill level. Random Battles (which is all I play) MM is another whole Can of Worms topic. The only other thing one can do to assist in obtaining a decent WR is to division as much as possible with, of course, decent (or good) players. Hence, I agree with Excavatus, individual skill does affect your individual WR.

….which, imho, is your first misstep (read: error or mistake) &, btw, I like your description/wordcoin 'garbagefire' (lol) - that's a big thumbs up!

No problem, at all, Cpt Barney, no problem, at all

Here, Tirande, I have no CVs & never will. In NA I sold all my CVs including my GZ. The old CV play style was engrossing & challenging. Now it is not. Hence, I re-assigned all my CV Cpts to other class type ships. I suggest you do the same & not play the, imho, FARCE CVs at all (as a form of protest to WoWS).

There's a port at either end (same as the Suez canal). Re: Ports (in general) I would prefer it if all ports were offered (to choose from) instead of a rotating choice depending on someones whim at WoWS. Even more preferable, would be the option to have every ship in your port to have it's own choice of port (but we can suspect this idea will go over like a lead balloon).

I'm Commander of 'First International Fleet' (1IF) in NA, lol.

& we all know WG is immune to 'powercreep virus' now don't we?

If you mean scrapping the CV rework altogether, sadly, no. I'm sure some do although I blame WoWS management more for this particular contention. It is that to be replaced by pure F (fantasy)

Read Colonel Pete advice above which is highly accurate. The GS is not a big Destroyer nor should you be thinking first of its torping ability. The GS guns are it's raison d'etre, although slow reloading. I think the GS can shoot up virtually anything (DDs, Ca/CLs, BBs & ofc CVs , lol). I would add that you will need to consider switching between HE & AP as the targets change. You also need to maneuver very well for your GS to be effective/survive.

Can the answer be because that player believes the CV rework to be fundamentally broken? This does not preclude that player from becoming a good player of that ship type. Is this so difficult for you to understand? It is not to me.

Wow! you ought to be interested in this player reporting, EURL Guy. To date, you have had 57 replies to your topic which I divided into four categories, For, Against, Neutral & Indifferent. Some posts are from the same player so some bias may be in the results. However, no matter how these replies are categorized the result is an overwhelming vote that the CV rework is a Failure. I suggest, EURL Guy that, in the interest of player feedback, you send these results to WG/WoWS Management. For (the CV rework): 2 Against (the CV rework): 46 Neutral (AA comments): 6 & Indifferent: 3 The other interesting comments were (to the effect) "I'm not spending any more money on WoWS" or "I'm no longer going to play WoWS" (which amounts to the same thing). I'm no expert but I have been following the various CV threads since the CV rework and my conclusion from this limited group of Forumites (which I would say are passionate about WoWS - I know I am) is that WG/WoWS has succeeded in producing an ABJECT FAILURE of a CV rework.

I, for one, hope you are 100% correct. ROFL. With the old CV play there was a modicum of 'balance'. With the new CV rework there is a continuing FARCE - WoWS hasn't even yet got the odd tier CVs in the game. ROFL.

Alert!!! The mere suggestion of a nerf and the WoBBle may go unstable.

The BBabies won't like you, El2aZeR, for pointing them out for a nerf.

Exploits? Will any 'exploits' be removed/repaired? I suppose so but not, ofc, before everyone & their dog has gotten plenty of exploit gains. Only then will they disappear for good. Good post & thread, btw, El2aZeR, at least, you are trying to point out the CV rework flaws that require 'fixing.' Or is it the other way around - you just spreading your 'joy' to others (lol)

You don't have to be sorry for your opinion, Excavatus, it is as valid as anyone else's. CVs (the new or reworked ones) are fundamentally broken & unable to be balanced & have no place in this game. I detest the new reworked CVs. It is my firm opinion that the old RTS style CVs worked & were balanced & had a place in this game. We also had all tiers from 4 to 10 represented. The whole argument against RTS CVs appears to revolve around OP CV players dominating battles. WoWS did not prevent anyone from being a decent or good RTS CV player if that player chose to learn RTS CV play. By the time WoWS decided to chuck RTS CV play that CV play was well balanced. Now we have a continuing, imho, slow motion Horror Show for how much longer who knows? 4+ years of excellent RTS CV work down the drain all because WoWS for some unfathomable rationale decides to radically alter CV play. How has this radical alteration gone? Not very well , at all, imho. How about all the problems the CV rework has created? Radical alteration of AA builds. How DDs got affected (read disadvantaged)? How missing odd tier CVs affect battles? How +/-2 MMs for CVs works badly? How CVs now, basically, barely move & stay far in the rear & manage to 'survive' so well - all rather farcial effects of the new play. I've sold all my beloved old style RTS CVs (in NA where I had CVs) even my GZ. I will never play the new reworked FARCE version of CVs. This is my opinion re: OP post above - 'the CV rework has failed every test it was set'. * Personally, I would prefer WoWS reset the game to RTS CV play along with the way play was for all the other ship classes before the CV rework. The new CV rework is a disaster.

What did any intelligent player actually think would happen when you have these reworked CVs with endless planes? The counter was going to be 'mounting every AA gun you can' and/or 'play AA heavily equipped ships'. The above quote is worth repeating & it is from a Beta Tester. It is my firm opinion that the CV rework is the single 'DUMBEST ALTERATION' WG has made, to date, to WoWS.

There's two ways to look at this topic fyi. One is to whether one has success 'playing' the new CVs - here I have 0 success since I refuse to play them (other than in the early 'testing' phase). Two is to whether one has success 'playing against' the new CVs - here I quite enjoy sinking every new reworked CV I possibly can (with fellow team assistance ofc).

Well, Cobalt Killer, if you aren't going to get an Atlanta where you could transfer your Cleve Cpt to & you aren't into BB play then the Scharnhorst may not be for you either. You say you like Cruiser & Destroyer play. I suggest buying two things with your 20-25 pounds; 1) whatever premium Cruiser or Destroyer listed in either the Tech tree lines or in the Premium Shop that you think you'd like (read up on them first). You have many lines to choose from these days apart from the USN. You are British (I assume). Why not a premium UK CA/CL or DD? 2) make sure you purchase a 10 pt Cpt of the appropriate Navy from the Arsenal - for T6/7 you require a minimum (I'd advise) of a 10 pt Cpt. Figure out exactly what you will need to buy & how much it will cost. I'm thinking a T6/7 CA/CL or DD & required 10 pt Cpt will be within your budget. Make sure whatever premium you buy it has decent AA capability (& check what the upgrade slots will offer you, as well, since that is all you can change build-wise, that is). Otherwise - what you should buy premium-wise is entirely up to you. GL to you. 0>

Not here but in NA where I sold my premium CV, I will just spend my refund doubloons on any new premium ship I might desire, that or use the doubloons to change some exp to free exp. Additionally, selling a premium or tech tree CV will give you plenty of credits and/or free exp which, again, can be used for any new tech tree advancement desired. For example, I plan on obtaining the Gangut Ru BB (for historical reasons) and, quite probably, the Sovetsky Soyuz (a half historical ship that might have been completed). I do not plan on obtaining any of the strictly 'fantasy' Ru BBs but go ahead, grind through them all if you want to (your choice). Back to the topic - to refund (sell) or not to refund (not sell) the Saipan. I recommend refunding it (selling it) if one is not happy with it after the FARCE (imho) CV rework.