UnterSeeBot

T and Cake?

Cheshire has a great heal, can bow tank moderately well when top tier, farms bbs and enemy cruisers with superb HE, has one of the best AA suites of t8, can play medium range kiting at 13-15km quite well. Also has last resort torps. Players don't like it, because the AP is not very good, it eats citadels very easily when showing too much waist/tummy, limited artillery range at 15km, not very exciting to play, very sluggish acceleration and turn rates.

I own and have played all 4 a reasonable amount, Bayard despite the IFHE rework, is the standout best of all. Both the most fun to play (let that Reload Booster rip!) and the most effective if you are familiar with t8+/-2 random battle gameplay. But as others remind us ^^ my tech tree t8 favs are Mogami 155mm and Cleveland.

ouch. Weekends.

I hate to see ships locked behind Steel, or the RB, but locking a CV behind competitive steel token grind (Clan Battles) is quite sick, a corporate middle finger to all those players who have vociferously opposed the presence of CVs in Clan/Ranked. It will be interesting to see the reaction (if there is any). As for FDR I am sure it will be more than effective in Clan, and Ranked, where low plane speeds will be less important than the ability to drop tactical nukes. Like Stalingrad back in its early months, FDR owners will use it to seal club Tier x random battle taters, until it is slowly reigned in by other changes to the game. WG likes to setup one playerbase faction to crap all over other segments of the playerbase. Bombs away! Paolo E sounds more like a curiosity.

secondary middle finger, hope they rage quit in disgust/

I live for the thrills. My ambition is to sink a Graf Zeppelin with Asashio's secondaries (there are problems with this, so I'd settle for a main gun kill) I always play Asashio close to the enemy, if possible flanking them. Torps, and guns. I am hopeless, 100% potatoe in dd vs dd fights, always have been, so I try to avoid them, and play according to what I am good at.

in battle with cvs, if I am in a dd, I'll always pray for a gap In fact I was just trying to sink the enemy Midway with my Asashio, just now, .. me now : this does show one think I dislike, normally a t8 dd that takes 60 k + dmg off a tier 10 capital ship (such as a bb) has a major influence on the battle. Except when the it is 60+k off an enemy CV, and I fail to sink it/ Come on WeeGee, at the very least a CV that has lost 80% of its hp, should suffer some sort of a handicap. Maybe perma steering loss? the good news, we won anyway :

the dds track/wake suggested he may have been thinking just that (dir. Henri) But I'm no mind reader. If I were in that situation smoke, plead team for help (be ignored) rage at friendly cv, call @El2aZeR a cv noob (I wouldn't really), then as the enemy bombers would be visible circling (spotted by allies), wait for a break in their pattern and rush towards the Henri/Kremlin/Bourg bubble. I might be sunk anyway (and rage ctrl Q!), but the enemy CV would probably lose the entire squadron to allied AA, which would be better than nothing at all. ofc the totally soul destroying nature of that poor dds gameplaying experience, is why I think CVs are inappropiate for WOWS, and that air power needs to be represented in game, some other way. it doesn't matter at a certain point that the DD made a mistake, there was no way he could have had fun in that encounter with the enemy CV. I don't mind losing, being sunk as long as I have a sense of "I went down fighting and I gave as good as I got", WG devs don't know/understand this expression.

moving away from is not wholly true. AA was not far from his position. If he has smoked up and called for assistance, who knows, the Richthofen was close enough to spam fighter drops, the Kremlin, Henri and Bourgogne might have changed heading, the Shima might have made a more serious effort at dodging HE bomb drops, so many "could have done this and might have done that". Perhaps you would have got bored of camping smoke, (ok maybe not). The Shima was in a bad position the first place; clearly, and you were in a very good one (to sink him).

Everyone can visit the stats to see the breakdown. 200+ battles in RTS Ryujo for example with a 70% WR! The point is, it is a mixed picture, (maybe an alt account too?) Looking at global stats, is misleading. Look for 100 + battle stats in the ships in question, offers a more reliable view.

He could have survived, and played area denial, until other opportunities arose. Still afloat he still represnted a potential threat, which you and the rest of your team would have been forced to consider. Afloat he represented battle points (30?). Losing a cap in the 1st few minutes of a game is sure, not good, but it is not match losing levels of not good. Losing a dd in the opening 2 minutes of a battle is in 90% of cases, "Game Over." Even an AFK dd player is worth more afloat to their team than sunk. There is plenty of could have done this and might have done that (by you, me and other critics) but that's the problem with these examples, hence Training Room. BTW I am not a unicum Shima (or dd player) player, and only have one battle in mine. But I'd make myself available as a training room target (i'm sure you could find more interesting/capable players) if required.

true, but why is nobody using the training room to back up their assertions? We need to test specific factors to exclude the arbritary and the luck, to advance any argument on this topic, in a serious manner. if not everything anyone says here, is too easily torn apart with a "but .."

it is a mixed bag, including some RTS, very good 80 battle rework Midway WR but meh dmg and ok PR. But that is besides the point, in the example that @El2aZeR provides, the enemy dd was not that experienced in dds, and did make some evident mistakes (I could have added, a dd in a battle with CVs should wait to see which direction the enemy cv is scouting 1st too, unless they are ready and confident enough to evade a CV air attack)

So indeed, you did wipe the floor with this enemy Shima, with 2 He bomb drops, within the opening minutes of the battle (first blood). Basically you won the battle in my favourite "CV" way, at the start by neutralizing enemy dds/obtaining a dd advantage. But more effectively and efficiently than I would usually manage. But... the enemy Shima, in a battle with CVs; was not within any allied AA range (as shown in the minimap), did not deploy (or attempt to) smoke, and was at reduced speed when you hit him (squarely and very nicely I must say), made minila "jUstDodGe" efforts as seen in the screenshots with the dds wake. Your enemy "unicum" dd was not a difficult target, indeed, you were on your 1st scouting run, and you saw the golden opportunity, (which you took). The enemy (33 battle unicum dd) dd made a rookie mistake. I think really this is why we need a training room set up of equally able players. Your target, while a decent player, only has 30 battles in a Shima, and no more than 60 battles in any individual dd. I dare say you have more than 60 battles in your Midway? but what is a normal game? Random games are truly random, and subjective experiences. At least in a training room we can reduce/eliminate unwanted variables to a one on one context, maybe try a best of 3 encounters. they do, which is why a training room setup is the only way to get some sort of objective answer stripped of the "lucky".

thanks! do you have a replay we can watch?

but I want examples of a unicum cv player wiping the floor with a unicum dder. This is what needs to be shown here, and to others. Maybe somebody could set up a duel, to see how long a unicum dder can survive vs a unicum cv player, in the Training Room. Because all we are showing ourselves, are subjective experiences of battles, which are easily shot down by other forum users. How many examples of the opposite have I shown here? Me in a dd sinking a cv - and the replies = "the cver was a potatoe" ok, fine, but then we need to all strive for greater objectivity. We need to see examples : players of equal skill/ability level, face off in cv vs dd scenarios.

well yeah, CVs have to be balanced for all levels of (in)competence, from tomatoe to deep shades of purple (this is especially true for premiums). It doesn't help balancing for one ability level, the power/influence curve needs to be stretched for all levels. Given the underlying game design for CVs gives them so much passive and potential power/influence, i am not sure this is possible. As for skill gaps between CV players and others, I don't think it fair to use the argument of a unicum CVer deleting a tomatoe DDer, examples should at the very least, (unless for humurous purposes) compare similar player skill/ability levels. e.g unicum CVer vs unicum DDer. Yes, CVs will always screw someone over, but more or less effectively. But let's be honest, some players make themselves easy targets : Khaba rushes cap at start of battle, and then STOPS!* I mean these sorts of players would probably be sunk very quickly by another warship or have negligible influence on battle outcome anyway. edit : *I did this once

(

to my mind this is the heart of the problem, it is both objectively true, and psychologically too (the feeling of being oppressed from above many surface ship players feel during a battle with CVs, the utter confusion of trying to play 3 or 4 dimensional chess, with the opponent making 4 simultaneous moves! It is the source of so much resentment - statistics of player "reports" must show this) This is a good definition, and comes down to the notion of "having control over a situation", which ties in with the common feeling of being oppressed, of having nowhere to turn, nowhere to hide. Some kinds of CV attack by some CVs can be more easily mitigated (partial counter) than others. I may hurt my own argument that partial counters to CV air attacks do exist, by admitting my most successful dd games in a match with CVs having been by guessing enemy CV squadron choices and moves, and then sailing my dd in the opposite direction. (I don't try to counter, I try to avoid having to even try!) Because when spotted by a CV, forced to decide if its more important to try to dodge the rocket attack, incoming slavos of HE from a cruiser, and a torp spread from an enemy dd, we all die a little inside. Enterprise is overpowered, they should have nerfed it along with all the other premium CVs when they had the opportunity. The decision to not touch its configuration by Devs, is .... try deleting a Benson in one go with Kaga's rockets. I see this quite a lot nowadays, dds staying close to a blob, screening for enemy dds/spamming torps as area denial. It makes for very static gameplay. I think they exist, maybe I am wrong in my assessment, many here disagree with the idea that partial counters might exist. Are existing partial counters sufficient? Clearly not. So... if dds had a direct counter to CV spotting, would that help? I and others have suggested some sort of jamming consumeable to break targeting based on indirect (CV) spotting. Would also help in context of radar spammy battles too. I am not sure that any effective and intuitive (i.e make some sort of coherent, logical sense) proposal is acceptable for devs, after all, if it were, why haven't they already done it? the influence of dds in end game scenarios is why I always seek to gain a dd advantage for our team at the start of battle, either by neutralizing at least one enemy dd, or by neutralizing at least one source of enemy radar. Even with radar, rdf and german hydro, dds remain the second (?) most influential class on battle outcomes.

ok, back to semantics. what do you mean by a "counter"? Do you have an example? Does a counter have to be absolute, or partial? let's create a level playing field for this topic, define the terms. I won't call anyone ignorant because they dislike playing against CVs, least of all a moderator. Likewise I'd appreciate it if such terms are not used because you don't understand or accept another player's view. I understand that many many players hate having to play against CVs. Me too in certain circumstances. But I am also, very often, perfectly comfortable with the presence of CVs when I am commanding a cruiser/bb/dd.

this is not quite fair. narrowly categorizing commentators can only render discussion even more rigid, unbending and ideological within the obscure world of WOWS CV threads. It prejudices the way comments are interpreted, and favours minima/maxima positions. thankyou. 4) bis, also wants CVs removed for obscure reasons that nobody here is interested in. To be treated with suspicion!

You have a double hat on this thread. But I think me and @Europizza can sort things out with a farting competition and a box of matches.

this is a rather serious accusation where I live. I prefer to be accused of farting (which I shall now do!) Somebody challenging your thinking, making you doubt something you hold to be true, does not by itself meet the definition of gaslighting. if it were so, life would be miserable indeed, everytime you had an argument. here is a list I borrow from Wikipedia of indicators of possible gaslighting (I doubt it is comprehensive) My bold.

there is some good sense to this. Active Radar (and Sonar) do give away the position of the user, making them detectable, in real life. This seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion. In WOWS, a sort of radar/hydro locating RDF which only activates on the ships that are within the radar/hydro zone would be nice. I"d like a more radical solution to all forms of detection : Jamming : to scramble radar/hydro/ship to ship communications/map information, CV spotting info relays. but I can see your "radar detection direction indicator" proposal being more acceptable to many players!