Fasterpoint

I don't play World of Warships very often and will play less and less as game improvements continue on this path. It seems that the Wargaming team messes up everything they tweak over time. As for example the control of the aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers must be played from the map view, controlling the tactical battle. As it was done when the game was released. If I wanted to play with airplanes manually I would play in War Thunder. By the way; Who has been the genius that has occurred to eliminate the use of aircraft carriers as air protection for the fleet and has turned the fighter squadron into a consumable? Don't you know that one of the main functions of an aircraft carrier is to provide air protection to the fleet? But now I want to address the issue of "fearsome submarines" that seem to give surface ship players so much trouble. 1st- I would like to know the name of the Wargaming employee who decided that it would be a good idea for a level 8 submarine to be submerged for a maximum of 3 minutes in a battle of maximum 20 minutes. 2º- Who is the genius who is paid too much, who came up with the idea that to recharge the batteries of the submarine, the player would have to spend several minutes on the surface: without speed, without armor, without anti-aircraft artillery and without the ability to hide from enemy radars. (A floating dead duck). 3º- Who is responsible for devising some rules of the game, which turn off the sonar marking of a submarine on the target, without any reason, randomly and always at the most inopportune moment? (And don't tell me that otherwise the submarines would always hit the target with their torpedoes, because it's false. Players can maneuver to avoid the torpedoes.) 4º- Who is the owner of that awakened mind, who devised some rules of the game on the way in which the batteries are depleted with the submerged submarine, without taking into account the speed of the submarine? (In real life the more powerful a diesel submarine's engines are, the faster the batteries are discharged and vice versa.) 5º- What marvelous mind came up with the fact that with the active sonar of a destroyer, the submarine is always located in immersion without being able to do anything to avoid it? 6º- What brainless person has come up with the great idea that depth charges damage the submarine when it is on the surface the same as if it were submerged? I would like the person responsible for these decisions to answer my questions. If before I have not decided to close the account and uninstall the game from my computer. I got 27 torpedo hits on targets in one battle with a Salmon-class submarine and only three ships sunk. In this game there is something really wrong with the torpedoes on the submarines. This is absurd. Game; Salmon-class submarine Enemy Izumo-class batleship. The player has managed to dodge up to 6 attacks from my torpedoes, even though he was marked with double sonar signal over the hull on each of my attacks. I finally managed to sink him but after he badly damaged my sub (bare 1000hp remaining health from a total of 14700hp). The sinking was achieved with torpedoes without sonar guidance, I getting as close as possible in a kamikaze attack, at periscope depth and constantly attacked by aviation from Izumo. Conclusion: It is not necessary to give the enemy player an advantage by turning off the sub's sonar signal on the target ship randomly and for no reason. If he is a good player, the enemy can dodge homing torpedoes even though they remain targeted by the sub's sonar. Creating absurd added advantages by the game without justification only succeeds in pissing off the submarine player.

For tastes there are colors. Now one submarine can very easily be knocked out of battle. It is enough to patrol with a boat or better with planes in the place where the submarine has submerged and in 3 minutes or less it will have to surface. Then there's Kaputt. The problem for players who also have to control the flight directly from their planes is that they get bored of waiting and tracking the submarine. The submarine does not have the speed to get very far from the area in 3 minutes, assuming that it is not discovered with half-charged batteries. In this case, in less than a minute and a half, the dead duck will be afloat again without being able to do anything to defend itself against the planes, which can keep it under control while the rest of the boats attack it, since the submarine will not be able to submerge more than a few seconds

I was one of the first to participate in World of Warships tests when the game was released. I played a lot with aircraft carriers when their controls weren't well defined yet. It made sense that carriers would play similar to artillery in WoT. Players who are more into tactical battle than direct tank vs. tank or ship vs. ship had the chance to play artillery in WoT and aircraft carriers in WoWS. Before the modification of the controls of the aircraft carriers, the player could direct the tactical battle, collaborate in the attacks and protect the rest of the team with the fighter squadrons. You could even maneuver the carrier directly at the same time you were running the squadrons. I challenge you to try to do the same now. However; stupidly the game developers decided to change the controls of the aircraft carriers and they have only managed to ruin the experience. I have already mentioned it before. Whoever wants to play flying planes in a naval war game can play War Thunder which is much more rewarding. Due to the changes with the aircraft carriers I decided to cancel the wargaming account and uninstall the game. However with the introduction of the submarines I decided to give the game a try and I opened another account just to test the submarines in the game. At first it seems that Wargaming was on the right track. Unfortunately once again with the changes they have ruined the experience of playing with submarines. Especially with the bad habit of the game, of canceling the sonar mark on the target randomly, for no reason. If you don't understand my objections, that's your problem. But I have no doubt about it. If it is not broke, do not fix it.

An arcade game can be well designed or poorly designed. Overcomplicating the controls in an attempt to make it more realistic is also not a good idea. Some games have a pro level to fly warplanes in dogfights and it's crazy. There are not enough keys on the keyboard for so many controls of the plane. Wargaming should try to keep the balance of the gameplay. Do not make it extremely simple to avoid straying too far from reality. But also not make it complicated to spoil the game experience. If a player wants a flight simulator or submarine simulator, there are already other games on the market. As you have well commented this is an arcade game.

Well; I think that Belarus has the same number of aircraft carriers as the number of: destroyers, cruisers and frigates. Lacking a navy hasn't been a problem for Wargaming. They have made the rest of the warships in the game have a good control and are playable. But the errors in changes on gameplay of aircraft carriers and submarines has been enormous. Much more professionalism is expected from the workers of a company with experience in onlinegames.

True, the aircraft carrier Riga. Flagship of the Russian fleet. The Russian Navy lacks aeronautical tradition and experience in this type of warships. Anyway, Wargaming is a Belarusian company. Not Russian.

It's true. I agree. But I think the reason for the change in the handling of the aircraft carriers has been the protests of some players. As I understand it, people complained that carrier players were not using fighter's squadrons correctly to intercept bombers and torpedo airplanes. This happens because Wargaming want to please everyone and finally game crashes.

I don't really care if they answer my questions. There would be no change in control of the submarines. The incredible thing is that the Wargaming team was able to make such extremely stupid decisions in the changes of aircraft carriers and submarines. My comment is to express my outrage for a game that promised a lot at the beginning and is turning out to be more and more disappointing.