Jump to content
Server restart - 20/06/2019 Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aa'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 54 results

  1. aN00Bis_6VI6

    AA Modification 1

    I am somewhat confused by the explanation for the AA Mod 1 upgrade for ships, it states: "+2 to number of explosions produced by salvos from medium- and long-range AA defenses". I am taking it two ways: 1) Basically an extra 2 flak burst per AA sector 2) Each flak battery produces +2 bursts, thus; Yamato with 6x127mm AA-batterys can produce up to 12 extra flak bursts per sector. I am believe it is actually the first option as having an extra twelve bursts per sector would be OP or at least a lot more challenging, yet I could be wrong. Can someone clarify this please. Thank you.
  2. I'm still scratching my head about the AA / CV rework and how it impacts Hood, which I used to run as an AA boat. The in-game info panel tells me nothing - clicking the individual mounts just shows the guns, doesn't give me info about which range-grouping each corresponds to; and looking at the info breakdown for those range-bands isn't massively helpful. A look on the WOWS fitting tool shows the close-range AA DPS is incredibly low, with rockets not apparently creating flak bursts nor making the base close-range DPS much better than KGV. Wiki is still recommending Advanced Firing Training, and saying the defensive fire consumable applies to the rockets with a x2 modifier which is still significantly less than KGV's base if we're to accept the short-range DPS value given. Could someone please explain to me what the hell is going on? Because as far as I can get a read on it, AFT is now "meh" for the Hood because it doesn't improve the close-range rockets' continuous damage, BFT is more appropriate because it DOES synergise with the defensive fire consumable - but is probably still a waste because the improved AA is lacklustre anyway; which makes both the AA upgrades on the ship redundant because it's no longer fit for purpose as an AA specialist. Is this about the size of it?
  3. DeviousDave02

    AA rework suggestion.

    FORWARD: This idea is entirely a case of IMO - I realize it's probably not to everyone's liking or taste and will in all likely hood be ripped to shreds and have over a dozen flaws pointed out but 'hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained' So please, no - 'OP CV PWEASE NURF/BURN IN A NUCLEAR FIRE' or 'DD CWY BABY, GIT GOOD' comments... ...There's literally a dozen+ (and growing) other threads for that. THE SITUATION: So after watching dozens of You tube videos on the CV rework game play, playing CV's and lurking on here and the STEAM forum I came to the conclusion that the AA rework, kinda doesn't really work to well. The issue (IMO) is that it's entirely damaged based which leads to awkward game play issues in that some ships have AA that just shreds aircraft while other ships AA would have trouble fighting off a weather balloon. This leads to an all or nothing approach to AA, either your AA is strong enough to make CV's cry and run away or.. well.. yeah.. the words 'sitting duck' springs to mind. There is no/little in between here as hurting a CV's squadron doesn't really help (or at least feels like it doesn't) as some of the damage still get's through unimpeded AND the CV has more/regenerating planes to throw at you while you (the surface ship) have finite HP that doesn't come back. You end up being chipped to death with (what feels like) no counter play other than turning. Of course CV's argue differently as sitting staring at your deck waiting 2 minutes for your lazy hanger crew to ready one ****ing TB plane is pretty vexing (been there) This leads to the current situation where surface ships want AA to shred, while CV's would rather it just scratched the paintwork slightly and this leads to the 'blobbing' game play everyone knows and hates as everyone groups up around the highest power AA ships and pray to RNGesus that it will protect them. And then we have the sector reinforcing mechanic, which boosts AA on one side of the ship at the expense of the other side. This highlights the 'damage focus' issue AA has as ships with high AA power don't really need to use this in anything other than extreme circumstances (or if they want that bomber squadron over there to reeeallllyyyy go away) while low power AA ships will not be saved by it as their AA is so weak it really doesn't make much difference (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but at tier 4/5 - reinforcing feels like it does sweet **** all if I'm in a poor AA ship) THE IDEA Move the value of AA away from just pure damage and blowing planes from the sky, obviously AA focused ships would still be better at AA duty but weaker AA ships should still be able to effectively defend themselves from air attack. My thoughts on this are to place more emphasis on the correct and skillful use of the reinforcing mechanic to deter air attacks. This could be achieved by toning down AA damage on high power AA ships while boosting AA damage on the really low performing AA ships (with a net loss to AA power), removing the 150% (I think, correct me if wrong) AA damage boost from reinforcing and then introducing 'perks' or stat changes to the AA system that activate on the side of the ship that has been reinforced. Note: for this idea to work, ALL ships should be given short range AA, including ship that currently have NO AA (just pretend the crew have ran out on deck with rifles to shoot at the passing planes) PERK IDEAS Perks would be based around the idea of disrupting an air attack or making accurate striking harder for the CV player if they attack from the reinforced side. values given are just rough ideas and subject to change based on feedback. HEAVY AA: Increase RoF by 10% Increase Flak generation by 50% of maximum Flak Decrease accuracy by 25% Barrage - adds an AoE effect to the long range AA zone that deals very low constant damage to aircraft in it - adds graphical effect of mini AA explosions and smoke bursts all over the sky while in this zone - possibly add fake flak clouds above and below the players position. The idea is that this creates a visual 'wall of doom' that makes flying in that direction unappealing to the CV player by increasing the amount of flak as well as spreading it out more. Overall your more likely to clip a plane formation doing some damage but less likely to score a massive blow by having the formation play through multiple Flak clouds at once. note: The increased Flak is based off of the Flak generated after modifiers are applied - so if your ship normally generates 8 Flak clouds per attack you would generate 12 Flak clouds on the reinforced side however with captain skills/ship modifications you could in theory up the Flak generated to 10 Flak clouds per attack in which case you would generate 15 Flak clouds clouds on the reinforced side. MEDIUM AA: Increased RoF by 10% Accuracy decreased by 10% Zero in - for every (x) seconds spent under fire from the reinforced medium AA guns the accuracy/hit chance of these guns increases by 5% topping off at a 50% higher than standard hit chance. This effect will linger on the planes as a de-buff meaning even after you leave the reinforced side it will still apply for a few seconds before negating back to 0% (so if the surface ship swaps reinforced sectors fast enough/turns to put the aircraft back in the sector the medium AA guns will be firing from the value they were at when the planes first left instead of starting from 0% boost again) Crippling blow - Very, Very low chance per hit of causing the struck plane to immediately break off from the attack/squadron and start to climb to safety before returning to base - aircraft that are forced to break off have a massive damage reduction applied making it far harder for them to be shot down. The idea here is that medium AA guns create a zone that is very dangerous for aircraft to lurk in as the longer they stay, the more likely they are to get hit and either get shot down or possibly forced to fly back home. This puts a soft limit on how long a CV's squadron can spend lurking around a ship before it gets into real trouble. LIGHT AA: Range increased by 1-2 kilometers Panic - (same as the old panic effect) short range AA guns cause a panic effect on aircraft within their area of effect. This panic effect causes the targeting reticule to slowly start to expand, becoming less accurate (similar to if the plane was maneuvering during an attack) and reducing accuracy gain. The reticuel will max out at 40 - 50% accuracy (If your below that it will slowly degrade back to this value, if above then it won't decrease any further than this) with maneuvering causing the effect to increase. Hold the line - Increases Panic effect by 300% and removes the 50% limit allowing accuracy to drop back to 0% against remaining aircraft in a squadron that have just dropped munitions. The idea here is that short range AA is your ships last line of defense that focuses on reducing the accuracy of an attack against you and gives the best chance for avoiding damage by quick rudder control. (also helps to reduce cheesy drop tactics) CONCLUSION The overall idea here is to give surface ships the ability to handle air attacks without needing to blow every last plane from the sky, and to allow WG to balance AA without sea-sawing between OP AA and can't shoot down a kite AA by introducing useful perks to reinforced AA that could be further improved with ship modules and Captain perks (I imagine the community could come up with some fun ones) And hell, you might even consider actually giving the lower tier CV's some teeth so they can hurt things in a reasonable amount of time.
  4. Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I have returned once more to propose a ship for the consideration of the public and of course, wargaming. Jeanne d'Arc Right now that ship is the French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc, a schoolship of the Marine Nationale between 1930 and 1964. History In game In light of her moderate characteristics, I am going to propose a few "game-mechanic-based" improvements. First off, characteristics: Survivability Armament: Anti Air Maneuverability: Concealment: So here we are. A somewhat slow, fragile, gun and AA-based cruiser that outdoes the Duguay in terms of gunnery and AA, but falls behind in speed (even with a boost) and hitting power, not having any torps at all. I hope you like this proposal, feel free to discuss/suggest. Here are a couple of pics of her https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jeanne_d'Arc_(ship,_1930) Cheers PS: I was planning on writing up Suffren and Colbert this evening, but it's 0400 already, so you'll have to wait a little for those two (both destined for T7) Sources: world-war.co.uk navypedia netmarine.net navweaps.com
  5. Chassadhi

    Idee: Anti-Flugzeug-Tarn Skill?

    mir fiel eben beim Chinapfanneholen eine kleine Idee ein - die das CV-Dilemma vielleicht schnell (und programmiererisch unaufwendig) lösen kann: Ein Kapitänsskill - und zwar nicht Tarnungsmeister, sondern ein weiterer Skill - der die Sichtbarkeit durch Flugzeuge nochmal deutlich senkt (mindestens um 50%?) … Es könnte ruhig ein 4-Punkte-Skill sein, so dass er echt was kostet und es einem echt wichtig sein muss, ihn zu nehmen. Die Idee dahinter: Man kann ja schon jetzt Flugzeuge aktiv kontern, indem man seine Flak verbessert - warum soll man Flugzeuge nicht auch passiv kontern können, indem man seine Unsichtbarkeit verbessert? Der Spieler, der bisher seine Skillpunkte nur in die Flak stecken konnte, um was gegen Flugzeuge zu tun - hätte dann noch eine zweite, andere Auswahl: die Heimlich-Methode :-) (die soll ja lebensrettend sein :-) - dies könnte gut sein für japanische DDs ... - oder für Leute, die das Spotting seit 0.8.0 zu belastend finden, und die mal wieder gerne mehr vorfahren können wollen - für CVs wäre evtl. hilfreich, dass es dann weniger Flakfestungen gäbe, weil die Punkte fürs Flak-Build fehlen Ist doch eine gute Lösung - schnell programmierbar - um das CV-Dilemma zu entschärfen? Jeder, der das Spotting seit 0.8.0 zu doll findet, kann das nun auf privater Ebene lösen --> indem er einfach umskillt, wenn ihm das so wichtig ist. Gleichzeitig wäre der neue Skillpunkt als 4-Punkte-Skill teuer, so dass man dafür auf was anderes Wichtiges verzichten muss, sich also entscheiden muss. P.S : :Das gleiche gilt nicht nur für den Kapitänsskill - sondern auch für Module: statt Flak-Modul sollte man auch ein Tarnmodul-gegen-Luftaufklärung verbauen können …
  6. RamboCras

    Zoning, does it work?

    Hi, I am fighting with the zoning, even when I have a full AA spec'd Montana, if I have no other AA ships near, the first flight always comes through without loosing a plane (yes I know, not very realistic, but WG has dropped realism when schoolgirls became commanders and we had haloween & space camo's. With the consequence that the planes are now on my 50% side for their return run. Are you guys also switching zones during the raids? I know on my Groz that pays off since the switch is very fast (5sec). I find it very annoying to do since often I am also in a battle, ducking evading whatever the planes dropped on me and meanwhile also not trying to give a broadside or ramming into something. In that sense, I like the old Manual AA better click on a torpedo squad and usually shred them in my Montana or seriously disturb their drop (with full flack focus more realistic than everything surviving IMO).
  7. TL;DR Could someone tell me how much "official" aircraft speeds are scaled up in game, please. SHIP SPEED SCALING As I am sure we all know by now, ships in-game travel far faster than their stated speed. For example in a recent game in my Anshan, I covered 31.62km at an average speed of 96.3 knots. The official unmodified speed of Anshan is 38 knots. I've checked the forums, Wiki and Reddit and most answers seem to think that the official speed is scaled up by a factor of 5 or 6. AA CALCULATIONS I'm trying to do some calculations of the theoretical damage done by flak in each aura (Short-, medium-, and long-range). I want to work out how much time an aircraft will spend in each aura. I'm aware that there are factors which modifiy this, but for now I simply want to apply the stated speed of an aircraft - which I can get from the WIKI or the game - to the actual speed in-game.
  8. ABED1984

    An Idea about AA on surface ships

    After watching this commentary about CVs I came up with an idea about AA on surface ships, Which is:- How about we have the option to personally control the AA while making our artillery gun controlled by AI ?? We can switch which type of armament we want to control and play with. https://youtu.be/_d319aOO4mU?t=596
  9. Dear fellow warship captains and game responsibles, as we are currently encountering a lot of problems due to the changes in CV gameplay and their respective balancing issues I gave those problems some major thought and this is what I was comming up with: The concept and necessary steps: 1) Set standard values for CV planes according to the respective nation, duty and tier 2) Use those standard planes in conjuction with quasi-restriced matchmaking for CV's 3) Balance AA around the standard planes Ad 1) First of all I would start assigning standard values for CV planes according to the nominal tier they are going to be used at. This includes but is not limited to plane specific values like hit points, plane speed, damage resistance, ordonance damage values etc. Once CV plane parameters for each tier, nation and plane type have been set we can move on to 2). Ad 2) Currently top tier CV's are often devastating versus lower tier ships and low tier CV's can be entirely powerless versus high tier ships, which is mainly due to the power increase (or drop) that the ±2 matchmaking is creating. This has been the reason for many complaints from both the CV captains ("useless carrier") as well as the ships on the receiving end ("useless AA"). But how can we ease this issue a little? My solution would be to use the standard value plane idea as per 1) and introduce quasi-restricted matchmaking for CV's, making them weaker while being top tier and increasing their power while being low tier. How could this work in game? Once teams have been assigned the server checks the CV's tier position for the given battle and assigns the appropriate plane tier and values. Example: a) Shokaku in a game where T6 ships are present as the lowest tier => T7 plane values are used (CV planes are downtiered to lessen impact) b) Shokaku in a game where T7 ships are present as the lowest tier => T8 plane values are used c) Shokaku in an entirely T8 game or scenario => T8 plane values are used d) Shokaku in an T9 battle => T8 plane values are used e) Shokaku in a T10 battle => T9 plane values are used (CV planes are uptiered to highten impact) Note that the actual planes models do not necessarily need to change, however the CV's will always use the respective plane tier and plane stats as explaned above. For example if a full researched T6 Ryujo were to meet a full researched T8 Shokaku in any single battle, both CVs would be using T7 plane values, i.e. the Ryujo would be using B5N2 Kate torpedo bombers with T7 stats and the Shokaku would be using B7A Ryusei torpedo bombers with T7 stats. So you might ask yourself, if both CV's are using the same planes, what is their difference and why should I level up? One answer to this is to have the CV's balanced against each other not by the planes they use but by other no less important factors like the number of planes within each squadron (e.g. T7 Ryujo 8 vs T7 Shokaku 12), the number of ordonance used per attack (e.g. T7 Ryujo 2 vs T7 Shokaku 3) or the flight deck plane respawn rate (e.g. T7 Ryujo 50 secs vs T7 Shokaku 30 secs). Ad 3) As a result of our conceptual changes to CV's and their planes the spread of planes that can meet any individual ship (or vice versa) will be reduced from a maximum of 5 tiers to a maximum of 3 tiers. Sticking to our example a Mogami will no longer face the T6 planes of a Ryujo and the T10 planes of a Hakuryu, most probably easily swatting the T6's and struggling hard with the T10's, but will just face T7 to T9 planes (±1 spread) which in theory should allow for much easier plane versus AA balancing than we can do now. I know that this concept is not entirely foolproof and has its own drawbacks, especially if there is just a minority of low or high tier ships within any single battle (a lone Amagi in an otherwise T6 and T7 battle will up the planes of a Ryujo and a lone Aoba in an otherwise T7 and T8 battle will lower the planes of a Shokaku), however I do consider these drawbacks minor in comparison to the balancing problems we are facing now (and have been facing in the past) and that the benefits of using quasi-restricted matchmaking for CV's are worth giving the idea at least some consideration. What do you think? @MrConway@Sub_Octavian
  10. Chassadhi

    CV rework rework ??

    hallo, ich möchte nochmal meine aktualisierte Meinung schreiben: Das CV-Rework ist kein Fail, sondern schön gemacht und geht in die richtige Richtung - und, WG, ihr seid gar nicht so weit weg von einer schönen Lösung für alle, finde ich^^ Ziel wäre für mich ein Gameplay, wo die CV einzigartig, speziell und schön genug bleiben - dass jemand im CV spielen will UND auch die andern Klassen ihren Fun behalten - damit jemand gegen CV spielen will Dabei sollte nicht eine ideale Wunschwelt zählen (CVs erzwingen nun Teamplay ⇒ also GIBT es Teamplay), sondern die real-existierende Spielerschaft (viele klumpen planlos hinten rum...). Hauptproblem ist für mich das exzessive Spotting. Ich weiß, es gibt die nun-bleibt-mal-ruhig-der-CV-hat-doch-jetzt-nur-noch-1-Staffel-ist-doch-alles-okay Fraktion, aber andere (CV-Könner) sagen: ja, ich KANN ein ganzes Team und seine DDs spotten und nutzlos machen ... Drum würde ich die Klassenphilosophie des CV so ändern dass er kaum noch spotten kann ihm aber die hochmobile Flexibilität bleibt Das ist zwar ein radikaler Schritt, aus meiner Sicht aber der Schlüssel, um das CV-Rework zu einem guten Ende für ALLE zu führen. Dem CV bleibt immer noch als einzigartige Klassenrolle, dass er so mobil und schnell wie kein anderer überall hinfliegen und eingreifen kann (wo jemand anders was gespottet hat). Schon jetzt geht WOWS ja den Weg, dass Flugzeuge nur eingeschränkt spotten können: eigentlich ist es ja widersinnig, dass man für Flugzeuge HOCH OBEN weniger zu sehen sein soll als für andere Schiffe! - aber der Spielbarkeit zuliebe hat WOWS es so gemacht. Die Sichtbarkeit durch Flugzeuge sollte nun noch drastischer eingeschränkt werden (und evtl. kann man beim Tarnmeister-Skill noch zusätzlich sagen: Sichtbarkeit zur See -10% und Sichtbarkeit aus der Luft -70%) ... Das alles nicht nur, um den DDs wieder Spielfreude zurückzugeben, sondern auch, weil durch das jetzige flugs-einmal-über-die-Map-geflogen-alles-aufgedeckt ein wichtiges Spielelement von WOWS völlig flöten geht: die taktische Positionierung = und das ist ja schade, das ganze Spiel um ein wichtiges Element ärmer zu machen ... Die zweite wichtige Änderung der Klassenphilosophie des CV: er muss wieder Federn lassen können (nur begrenzt viele Flugzeuge haben) Der CV hat ja immer schon - prinzipbedingt - den fiesen Vorteil: ich-kann-euch-hauen-aber-ihr-mich-nicht-haha! Warum WG das im Rework jetzt noch gesteigert hat, dass man ihm nichtmal mehr die Flugzeuge nehmen kann - versteh ich gaaar nicht!! JEDES SCHIFF im Spiel muss abwägen: Wenn ich austeilen will, dann muss ich auch einstecken können - soll ich? (ja, jetzt könnte einer sagen: für eine Shima oder Mino gilt das nicht - aber die sind durch ihre Zerbrechlichkeit gebalanced, finde ich). WOWS ist ja schon öfter vom Austeilen-ohne-einzustecken weggegangen (Schießen der BBs ausm Nebel; oder die Zao, die schießen konnte, ohne aufzugehen) - daher finde ich: der CV sollte wie jeder andere Krieger auch vorm Kampf abwägen müssen, weil er eben dabei auch was verlieren kann (seine Flugzeuge). Das führt gleich zur Flak: sie sollte natürlich so gebalanced sein, dass es weder Monsterflak gibt, die gleich die ganze Staffel killt - aber auch keine Hilflosflak, die gar nix abschießt ... Es sollte einfach ein angenehm ausbalancierter Mix aus allem sein: Flak stark genug, damit das Schiff eine gewisse Abwehr/Rache hat Flak nicht zuuu stark, damit der CV eine ausreichende Durchkommchance hat Ausweichenkönnen (den Torps), gut genug, damit das Schiff Schaden verringern kann Treffenkönnen (mit Torps) gut genug, damit der CV Schaden machen kann Schaden (der Torps u.a.), wenn sie treffen (häufige kleine - oder wenige große Treffer?) Zeit bis zur Wiederkehr der Staffel Ich fand den Mix aus all diesem, den es pre-Rework hatte, eigentlich ganz gut ... Zur Flak vertrete ich diese Philosophie: einfach/halbautomatisch für den Schiffsspieler skillig/anspruchsvoll für den CV-Spieler sollte sie sein. Wenn ich mitten im Kampf gegen den DD links und das BB rechts stecke, dann will ich nicht auch noch kompliziert nach oben kucken und an der Flak rumfummeln müssen: ahh, die Torpbomber sind jetzt links - linke Flak verstärken! ahhh, jetzt rechts - rechte Flak verstärken! ahhh, jetzt doch wieder links...! - Drum fand ich das alte "Staffel anklicken" eigentlich besser. Oder statt der O-Taste (Flak links/rechts verstärken) könnten wir die T-Taste (gesamte Flak kurzzeitig verstärken) bekommen = somit wäre T eine Grundfertigkeit jedes Schiffes wie jetzt schon R. Also ein einfacher Flak-Knopf plus das Torps-Ausweichen ist mir eigentlich genug für den Schiffsfahrer (der ja grad mit andern Schiffen auch noch kämpft) - aber der CV-Kapitän, für den darfs gerne anspruchsvoll-skillig sein (denn der hat ja volle Konzentration darauf, einen geschickten Anflug hinzukriegen, außerdem ist das seine Berufskunst). Z.B. könnte die Schiffsflak automatisch zufällige Bursts raushauen, und die Staffel muss diesen Wolken dann ausweichen (natürlich so balanced, dass das nicht zu schwer und nicht zu einfach ist). nochmal kurz zusammengefasst: im Spotting seh ich das Schlüsselproblem es verleidet nicht nur DDs das Cappen, es entwertet auch Positionierung CVs sollten daher kaum spotten können, aber immer noch schnell sein das ist immer noch eine einzigartige Klassenrolle: der fliegende DD, der schnell überall eingreifen kann Flugzeuge sollen wieder begrenzt sein - damit der CV wie jeder andere auch abwägen muss: mach ich jetzt den Angriff oder verlier ich zuviel? Flak sollte weder hoffnungslos zu stark noch hoffnungslos zu schwach sein Flak sollte eher easy für den Schiffsfahrer sein (T-Taste?), aber durchaus skill-erfordernd für den CV ========================= und das originale EP jetzt hier: ========================= sorry, ich hab eben wieder paar Gefechte hinter mir, die zeigen, wie die neuen CVs wirken: Vorfahren wird sofort bestraft, Hintenbleiben und Camping noch mehr belohnt :-( ... Ich hatte wirklich Hoffnungen ins Rework - finde auch die Reduktion auf 1 Staffel den richtigen Weg - und mir ist etwas unklar, wieso trotzdessen die Flugzeuge gefüüühlt dreimal nerviger sind als zuvor: vielleicht, weil sie viel schneller sind? oder weil sich die CVs nicht mehr gegenseitig mit Jägern in Schach halten? Ich finde daher, dass das CV-Rework-Rework mehr sein muss, als an paar Schräubchen zu drehen (irgendwo Flutungschancen zu ändern) ... Ist ja schön, wenn die CVs Fun haben - aber für die andern Klassen soll doch auch Spaß bleiben! ich fordere daher: entweder, dass es ein Häkchen gibt "möchte gegen CVs gematcht werden oder nicht" = dann kann man ja sehen, wie viele die neuen CVs als Bereicherung empfinden - der Spaß sei ihnen gegönnt! oder: Die Flugzeugzahl muss wieder begrenzt sein! Schon vorher galt ja: Man kann den CV nicht töten (weil er safe steht), man kann ihm nur die Zähne ziehen (seine Planes abschießen) - aber jetzt kann man ihm ja noch nichtmal mehr die Zähne ziehen!! Der CV hatte ja eh schon den fiesen Kampfstil: ich-kann-dich-hauen-aber-du-mich-nicht-haha! Das jetzt noch mehr zu betonen - ist absolut der falsche Weg!! Das Gleiche mit der F-Taste: jedes andere Schiff muss sich überlegen: "wenn ich ihm auf die Nase haue, dann kann auch er mir auf die Nase hauen - also überleg ich zweimal!" Es ist unfair, dass ausgerechnet der CV das nicht muss: er kann einfach einen Angriff starten - und wenns zu brenzlig wird, schwupps mit F wieder raus da! Von mir aus kann F ganz verschwinden. Wer einen Streit anfängt, muss auch einstecken können - und nicht simsalabim sich davon stehlen! wo er eh schon den Vorteil hat, dass man nicht ihn selbst beschiessen kann, nur seine Planes! wieder Flugzeuge abschiessen statt Flugzeug-HP runterballern! Für meine Flak ist es besser, wenn ich von 5 Planes eines ganz abschieße, weil dann ein Torp weniger kommt - anstatt von den 5 Planes gleichmäßig 20% runterzuballern, das ist für mich doch irrelevant! CVs sollten nicht mehr spotten können! Ja, klingt krass - aber ihnen bleibt ja weiter als einzigartige Besonderheit, dass sie so schnell wie kein anderer überall eingreifen und hinfliegen können (wenn jemand anders was gespottet hat). So wird für DDs das Cappen wieder spielbar und der wer-vorfährt-wird-schnell-gespottet-und-bestraft Effekt verringert sich allgemein. Oder man könnte die Spotting-durch-Flugzeug-Ranges drastisch verkleinern (besonders für DDs) - vielleicht sogar Spottingrange < Flakrange, damit der CV Schaden nimmt, bevor er spotten kann, damit auch hier gilt, was für alle anderen Schiffe gilt: wer was erreichen will, muss dafür etwas riskieren ... Speed der Flugzeuge auf 100 Knoten reduzieren! Damit wären sie immer noch 3x so schnell wie die meisten Schiffe, aber der CV müsste nun auch etwas mehr über kluge Positionierung nachdenken, und der DD, der C cappt und weiß "der CV war grad bei A", hat etwas mehr seine Ruhe... (dieses beides - Spotting und/oder Speed der Flugzeuge reduzieren - könnte man auch mixen) T-Virus für alle, statt O-Taste! Ich bin einer, der möchte, wenn er grad eh mitten im Fight steckt, nicht auch noch immer nach oben kucken müssen und kompliziert die Flak managen! Warum nicht ein simpler Knopf, der kurzzeitig die Flak verstärkt = T-Virus? Statt dass man mit O die linke/rechte Seite verstärkt (und als Malus dann hat, dass die andre Seite schwächer ist), lieber mit T die gesamte Flak verstärken (und als Malus ist sie dann hinterher 'ne Weile schwächer). Der Skill ist dann: wann ziehe ich diesen Knopf, wann nicht? Das würde mir völlig ausreichen. Wenn jedes Schiff statt O dieses T bekommt, dann ist halt T eine Grundfertigkeit jedes Schiffes, wie jetzt schon R. Damit löst man auch das Problem, dass man immer nicht weiß, ob man Hydro oder DefAA mitnehmen soll. oder: die Fähigkeit "Jäger herbeirufen" jedem Schiff geben, nicht dem CV = damit man nicht auf dessen Gnade/Umsicht angewiesen ist. (Das sind dann die Schutzengel, obwohl die automatischen Schutzengel, die nur vorfahrende Schiffe beschützen, und damit Camper bestrafen, auch cool wären). Bei all diesen Ideen geht's mir nur darum, das CV-Gameplay zu retten: Also dass genug Einzigartigkeit übrig bleibt - damit jemand im CV spielen will UND sie nicht zuuu nervig sind - damit jemand gegen CVs spielen will! :-) Dazu ist mehr nötig, als ein bißchen an Flutungsschancen herumzuschrauben - denke ich! Wenn man von einer Klasse höchstens 1-2 in die Runde schicken kann - dann ist das ja schon der BEWEIS, dass mit dieser Klasse weiterhin was nicht stimmt, sie immer noch übergroßen Einfluß aufs Spiel hat.
  11. Leo_Apollo11

    "Discussion on AA mechanics"

    Hi all, Thus far I found this one as one of the most informative infos around regarding new AA... From Reddit: "Discussion on AA mechanics" : Just a few observations about current AA mechanics and skills. Feel free to contribute any knowledge you have gained playing. Relevant statistics : Short range AA, continuous only. Medium range, bulk of flak damage but has a large but mostly irrelevant continuous component. Long range, most just flak based with slightly fewer than medium range. Flak burst count, medium and long. The amount of flak bursts is extremely important and is part of the consideration for taking AFT or not. DPS of the flak also should be considered. EDIT : Hit chance. This is still alittle up in the air but anything above 80% chance seems to be more than sufficient to land flak. I personally feel like super accurate flak might be a detriment as its more easily baited out by carriers but below 80% is too inaccurate if you have fewer flak bursts. Edit again : size differences in the different AA ranges. Auras no longer overlap. If all your AA damage is on long range and enemy planes get below that range your AA dps will plummet. Hood and Hinden are 2 examples of ships that have this issue. Hindens long range aura only had a 1.2km margin of damage with a mediocre mid range aura. Continuous AA seems mostly irrelevant with flak burst provided the largest bulk of your AA performance. 500k module AA mod 1. This increases the amount of flak bursts by 2 and is a must have for every AA build. If you are not investing in AFT it is STILL worth taking as the base flak damage seems decent across the board for most ships. This is especially true on ships with very few flak bursts like Gearing. BFT affects continuous AA only. Not your flak burst. Which means its only worth taking on ships with high short and medium range AA. So stuff like Texas. AFT affects flak damage only, 15% is not a lot but it is worth taking on ships with large amounts of flak burst. 6+ medium and 4+ long range seems to be the amount that looks worth it. Having 2000+ at tier 10 on flak damage is also where I would say investment is worth it. Manual AA does not seem worth it on ANY ship AT ALL for 4 points. It only affects continuous AA when you use sectors and improves your sectors swap time by 20%. So once again since its only continuous AA, ships with good short and medium are the only ones that benefit from MAA. Even then I would not recommend spending 4 points on it. I would AT MOST spend 2 points. MAA seems to have swapped completely from effecting long range AA the most to ONLY short and medium which is quite the bad change in my opinion besides the fact that it is too expensive for the gain. The reduced sectors swapping is also mostly irrelevant as continuous AA is mostly underwhelming and preswapping sectors based on your angling and the position of the enemy vector is more than ample time to prepare even considering the poor performance of continuous AA. I find the current AA mechanics quite interesting and nuanced, but the system needs a LOT of work on a per ship and per skill basis, the fact that BFT and MAA have very limited use is quite depressing but the potential is there if the balancing is done well. Leo "Apollo11"
  12. Yes, hard times for people receiving lots of CV attacks - More patches will surely come from WG. However, if the next team ship of yours is 5 or more KM away...Its too far away to receive effective AA protection. I call anything further than 2.5 KM apart "Lonely cruising". Also, If you have a friendly CV nearby - See it as nearby swimming battle platform ( like in the past ) and remember my 2.5KM recommendation. Identify the ships around you which have strong AA ( Jean Bart as example ) and if you stay within 2km distance you have better chances of survival. Happy WoWs everyone, pew pew :)
  13. Genie_of_the_Lamp

    How does the AA Zone work in this case...?

    Can WG explain how the AA zone around the ships work in case a squadron just comes straight to the bow of his ship? Or a stern. Many AA guns are not pretty well situated that they can fire on that target because structure is blocking it. (just liike your aft guns cant fire on targets in front of you Question: When a squad comes straight from the front. Does your AA deal equal damaga to that group of planes when they come from the broadside?? I ask this because its Obvious to me that on a broadside more AA guns are able to fire in that case then otherwise. I fear players can be in a dilemma too... By trying to keep a squad in their "most strong AA zone" they have to turn the broadside of their ship to keep it that way.....but at the same time the enemy squad will have a better target; especially torpbombers. So this is a thing I need to know whats best to do when to.
  14. Redfoxrommy

    Suggestions to improve ship aa def.

    With 0.8.0 update i played with full spec aa Adm.Hipper cru. 1 battle i try to help 2 bbs with my aa and i cant find the way to def them from air attacts.Before update i was able. so Here my solutions with/for later updates and fotfix paches. 1-Ships lose aa range upgrades and capt.skills. Give them back. So planes have to fly long time in aa auras. 2- Overlaping aa auras. When mid.range aa fires also long range fires to same range but make longrange aa not to shoot short range . 3- Pls make def aa con. replenishable and give them to all crusers in a sperate slot like clevland.(also you can give them to some dds which they are spec for aa ). 4- Down aa capt. skills from 4 to 2-or 3 level to more accessable to lowe tier ships . 5- Pls rework noncv fighter plane con. İt is very shorttime efective and low benefits now. 6- Give more dispersion to ships gun which are they shooting a ship spoted by cv planes.
  15. Genie_of_the_Lamp

    how many timmes can a squad attack

    edited
  16. Hi all, Is there a way for player to know how he damaged/killed enemy aircraft (i.e. "FLAK" and/or "Continuous damage")? If that info doesn't exist right now would that, if implemented by WG and put in UI, be useful for player and help us all to build better AA builds and better AA strategies/tactics? Leo "Apolllo11" P.S. I was away on trip and didn't play a single game against CV in v0.8.0 in "Random" - I played just 1 "Ranked" and several "CoOps" (and there are no CVs in them)...
  17. Genie_of_the_Lamp

    How to manually AIm AA now???

    Cant read it in the patch notes but is the captainperk for boosted manually directed AA (it's been nerfed from 100% efficiency to 20% anyway) now worthless?? When I see a squad I cant click on it as designated target like I can do with my sec. guns. If its gone then why is the perk still called "Manually"?????????? How can I aim my flak on a squad??? I cant see a change in the keyboard settings.
  18. I'll straight up state that I don't like the rework for lots of reasons. AA is useless. CVs are basically going to be damage farming everything else. CVs have no real way of countering or outplaying each other besides consumables which are of dubious benefit, etc. I could go on but it's all been said already. There is however one issue nobody seems to have mentioned about this whole thing. Owners of CVs and Premium CVs will get some kind of compensation if they dislike the way things are headed - because the ship(s) they ground out or paid for are being radically changed. But what about everyone else? Example 1 - Someone buys an Atlanta or grinds enough steel for a Flint. One of the key selling points of the Atlanta/Flint is it's ability to shoot down planes - thanks in no small part to DFAA. In the rework DFAA is nowhere near as good as it used to be. AA in general is nowhere near as effective as it used to be. So these AA cruisers are nerfed by proxy - thanks to one of their key roles (shooting down flying stuff) being largely negated in the rework. Are the owners of these ships going to be compensated in some way - especially if money has changed hands? Example 2 - A player has HMS Hood - with that comedy DFAA system that basically downs everything with wings in a 1.5km radius. It makes up for the cross-eyed gunners who refuse to shoot what you're aiming at and the fact that your ship is three miles long. Under the new system DFAA won't work in the same way (e.g. it isn't as good) and I don't think you can boost the range of your AA like you can now - so you are stuck with the 1.2km range cap of the rocket AA. A nerf by default. Boo. Hiss. Example 3 - Players of USN Battleships. The AA of that line is currently excellent - so much so that it is one of the key elements of the US BB line - they can look after themselves or at the very least make a CV think twice before attacking them. Given that most of the US AA is focused in the short/mid range bracket - which is pants in the rework by the way - every USN BB is being nerfed. That applies for every line where strong AA is a characteristic - the ships with already weak AA won't notice the difference. People who bought the Jean Bart (again, strong AA) will find their ship FAR less able to defend itself the day 8.0 hits. Example 4 - (Last one I promise) - Anyone who buys a premium DD. If you have played vs. the reworked carriers you will know that a DD driver's gameplay experience has gone down the toilet. Stuff the Radar cruisers - those I can deal with. Being chased around the map by a 200 knot squadron of rocket-hurling planes - that's not so fun. In each of these cases the player experience is being changed (not for the better) and the Waterline video was stunning it's avoidance of talking about the SURFACE SHIP experience. Given that most players in this game drive around in surface vessels, some paid for, others ground out by FTP means - that isn't ideal - not with 8.0 looming on the horizon. So am I barking up the wrong tree? Or do we think that WG could at least register the fact that for a lot of people - 8.0 is going to nerf their ships indirectly and make the experience of playing this game a lot less enjoyable. *For transparency - I don't own Atlanta or Flint. I do own the HMS Hood, HMS Cossack and quite a few USN BBs. =)
  19. …..Erm no. After my earlier issues with the rework and specifically the AA-CV interaction (or lack of it) I wanted to see if things were any better. I mainly went out in the Montana, Worcester and Midway to see what had changed from Round 1 to Round 2. I didn't go in any other ships - just the ones I'd previously used a fair bit in the different test phases. As a rule, I generally aimed to play as aggressively and gung-ho as possible in the CV - gunning for enemy AA cruisers and AA-strong BBs like the Republique at every opportunity. On the other hand, I would play very cautiously and passively in the surface ships - sticking close to friendly AA where possible, throwing the ship around as much as I could to throw off a CV attack's aim, etc. Here's what I've found. SURFACE SHIP EXPERIENCE... oh dear 1) Long-mid AA is stronger....IF it hits. I definitely knocked down around a dozen planes per match in the Worc and Montana - which is about four/five times more than the first PTS. However the basic issue remains. We run into a core problem with the rework AA - you can just drive around it. It really is as simple as it sounds. Anyone stupid enough to fly headfirst into flak clouds deserves to lose planes. Everyone else, just fly around it and immediately you negate 90% of the damage output of an enemy ship's AA defence suite. I noticed this both as a surface ship and as a CV player trying to attack said surface ship. 2) DFAA STILL doesn't seem to do anything? Not sure if it's a bug or just a simple lack of feedback - but my Worcester's AA seemed no different with DFAA engaged as it was without. I mean it was useless before and it's much the same now - so I suppose at least it hasn't gotten worse... The CV player gets no inkling that his/her planes are being hit any harder than usual by DFAA - it doesn't seem too different whichever side you're playing on. 3) Sector mechanic is pointless due to the speed planes move and the fact that most attacking flights will strike you and fly OVER your ship to the other (less defended) side. I suggest replacing the sector command with something more useful - like the option to play mournful music (Titanic theme for example) as your AA cruiser gets wrecked by planes. Other alternatives are available. On a serious note - it's a gimmick that doesn't really offer any noticeable benefit to you as the defending player - on a larger ship it just makes sense to ignore the thing entirely and keep all AA equally useless on both sides of the ship. 4) 2 v 2 CV games are pure hell. I don't really need to elaborate - suffice to say that your entire game feels like it is spent running away from planes. 3 v 3 CVs were not a pleasure I experienced - but I can't imagine it would be any more fun. CV EXPERIENCE...aka Farming Simulator 1) Carrier play remains the most mind-numbingly repetitive rinse-and-repeat process going. Do you get nice big damage numbers for little effort? Yes. Is it hard to do so? No. The purpose of a rework CV is to farm damage in ludicrous quantities - that's it. There really isn't much more to it than that - since countering a CV is now close to impossible and the option of supporting actions to help your team are non-existent. 2) Planes recycle quick enough to always have striking power ready. Losing planes still has no downsides - besides perhaps having to occasionally press a different button when it came to lobbing out another strike squadron. Bearing in mind I was sometimes being a berk on purpose and losing planes by yolo-ing AA cruisers - I NEVER found my Midway unable to form a full attack flight. I always seemed to have a plentiful supply of rocket planes (see below). So the stronger, effective AA (which it isn't if you drive around it) still has no real bite to your strike ability as the game plays out. 3) USN rockets really are a whole new level of idiocy. They seem even stronger now? With a flight of Bearcats and the ability to aim - you can pretty much tackle anything. DDs? Sprinkle HVARs on the poor sods and knock out modules aplenty. 3000 damage per attack run is perfectly achievable on an actively dodging DD-sized target. Hammer the superstructures of Cruisers and BBs - you get the added bonus of more damage, a few fires here and there combined with AA modules being decimated on top of that. I did 100K+ using just HVARs in most games. 4) Fighters are really, really, really, pointless. No change from PTS Round 1 - however this time I tried using them defensively over friendly ships to try and 'catch' incoming enemy air. In reality they are just too slow and dim-witted to attack enemy squadrons BEFORE they've dropped all of their ordnance on their target. Most enemy CV players kind of just flew around them anyway and I avoided most enemy fighter groups myself. We've got to the point where the opposing CV players can just flat-out ignore each other and go for surface ships all game. 5) AA is still no deterrence. As a CV player - you now have no targets that you cannot take down. AA Cruisers are no more capable than other cruisers - their reliance on long-range flak (of the 'drive around it' variety) is ironically their weakness. DDs can't do anything. USN BBs make lots of flak but fly beyond that and you don't really find yourself losing much HP. You really do have no incentive to plan your attack and select your targets in the way that an RTS CV has to now. -TLDR- So my conclusions are as follows - the CV rework is possibly the worst change to this game since it left Beta. It appears that every change up to this point from the various test phases to the most recent patch on PTS is just window dressing. The problems are everything to with the CORE of the rework - not just a few damage numbers tweaking up or down. I appreciate WG want to make the CV class more accessible, more fun and likely get more people playing it. However I think they've got it wrong. The rework will be unique in that it will antagonise everybody, whatever you currently enjoy sailing around in. CV players who currently know their craft will be treated to this new point-and-click adventure game without depth, strategy or finesse. Just fly around and bomb everything - nothing is going to fight back... not even the opposing CV can do anything to you. New players are likely to lose the will to live after a few hundred games grinding the new CVs - it will probably be more enthralling to visit the Dentist and have a few teeth extracted with some mole-grips. Surface ship players will basically enjoy being targets all game, every game. The CV will be the most powerful unit on anyone's team - everything else just serves to be rocketed/bombed/torped/immolated/flooded by the opposing CV(s). Because that sounds incredibly fun and entertaining doesn't it? If that's the 'vision' that WG have for WOWS - I'm out of here.* *I don't often post on this forum but the rework was enough of an issue to make me want to. This will be my last post on the subject, since I feel that this is all going to hit the live server whatever the player feedback tells them to the contrary. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to enjoy my last week or two of WOWS before 0.8.0 - I think I need to find another game to scratch that 'drive big stuff and make pretty explosions' itch in the meantime...
  20. Ydoum

    DP guns and AA suggestion

    I've been thinking (don't judge). Since we do have models that rotate and elevate their guns upon aiming, in my honest opinion there should be no way of actually both firing your DP guns (be it your main turrets or secondary DP guns) and use them for AA at the same time. My suggestion would be to create a mechanic similar to disabling your secondaries and AA that would not allow you to fire your main and secondary dual purpose guns on ground targets if you're actually going for aircraft. Some of those guns would also need to have blindspots created, as some of them could not elevate 90* and not rotate 360* depending on their placement. This would further allow for more specialization, given that some AA guns were simply better designed to work as AA guns. It would probably require a damage output rework of those guns, but it would make the game slightly more realistic; especially since there are more and more ships with def. AA consumable out there, and CVs are scarce as they are. Even after the rework this could be a thing to look into.
  21. Risalan

    Combate aereo

    Hay una mecanica que no tengo clara y no encuentro una explicacion clara. Lo pongo aqui por si alguien tiene informacion adicional. AA Los cañones antiaereos (AA) no funcionan como el resto de los cañones (los disparos son meramente visuales). Los cañones tienen un alcance en kilometros y un dms (daño medio por segundo) Ejemplo el Atlanta Tiene tres grupos de cañones AA, los de 20mm (8), los de 28mm (16, en 4 baterias), los de 127mm (16, en 8 baterias) estos ultimos son a su vez los cañones principales, que sirven como bateria principal y AA. Esto sucede con cañones principales de DDs y secundarios del resto de clases (no siempre, hay secundarios de proposito dual y otros no). Pese a ser los cañones principales magicamente pueden disparar como bateria principal y AA a la vez (esto no es un simulador) En total 40 cañones AA en 20 baterias. El funcionamiento de la AA es formando una serie de circulos centrados en nuestro barco de acuerdo al alcance de cada grupo de baterias. a una distancia de hasta 2.4K causamos un dms de 195 (la suma de todos los grupos de AA) entre 2.5K y 3.7K un dms de 163 (la suma de 3.7K y 6K) entre 3.8K y 6K un dms de 133 (solo el grupo de 127mm) El funcionamiento no es como esperamos exactamente. Lo normal seria que si un escuadron de cazas de un Hiryu (VII) tiene unos puntos de vida de 1551 y 4 aviones, cada avion tendra 387.75 Eso hace que derribariamos un avion en 3" a 3.8k-6K, 2.3" a 2.5K-3.7K, 2" a 2.4K. Pero no es asi. Segun el wiki funciona como un porcentaje (parecido a causar incendios) La probabilidad de derribar un avion por segundo sera. 195/1551=0.1257 un 12.57%/sec hasta 2.4K 163/1551=0.1051 un 10.51%/sec entre 2.5K y 3.7K 133/1551=0.0857 un 08.57%/sec entre 3.8K y 6K De tal modo que cuanto mas permanezca un escuadron dentro del area de nuestras AA mas probabilidades de derribo, pero como se ve es una probabilidad, puede estar un escuadron 1 minuto o mas a distancia y no perder ningun avion o estar 10 segundos y perder todo el escuadron. (igual que con el fuego, un proyectil y producimos un incendio o 12 y ninguno) Hay modificadores de estos valores con mejoras y habilidades La modificacion 2 AA mejora un 20% el alcance (si se instala se vera inmediatamenten en las caracteristicas del barco, aumenta un 20% el alcance de cada grupo de AA) La modificacion 3 AA mejora +25% el dms (igual se vera el efecto en las caracteristicas) Igual con las habilidades entrenamiento basico de fuego +10% dms (igual se vera el efecto en las caracteristicas) entrenamiento fuego avanzado +20% alcance (igual se vera el efecto en las caracteristicas) control de tiro manual del armamento AA +100% dms de cañones de calibre mayor de 85mm sobre el objetivo designado (es muy importante destacar que si el capitan tiene esta habilidad los cañones de calibre mayor de 85mm solo disparan si el escuadron enemigo se ha designado manualmente (CRTL+Click izquierdo), los de menor disparan normalmente sin mejora) Como se dijo con las secundarias se puede establecer un escuadron como objetivo prioritario (un icono de un avion en un circulo)(CTRL+click izquierdo) en las AA incrementa el dms en un factor 1.3 en nuestro ejemplo 32 pasa a 41.6 30 a 39 133 a 172.9 Daria un total de 253.5 en lugar de 195 El consumible fuego defensivo de CAs y algunos DDs produce un incremento de factor 3, pero solo las AA de largo alcance (no especifica que es el largo alcance, pero se supone que solo afecta a los cañones de mayor alcance) 133 pasa a 399 En WOW todos los efectos son acumulativos de tal modo que si designamos un escuadron y activamos el consumible el factor es 3.9 133X1.3X3=518.7 Con estos valores recalculamos con objetivo designado y consumible AA Probabilidad 599.3/1551=0.3864 un 38.64%/sec hasta 2.4K 557.7/1551=0.3596 un 35.96%/sec entre 2.5K y 3.7K 518.7/1551=0.3344 un 33.44%/sec entre 3.8K y 6K Varias consideraciones *Marcar un escuadron enemigo incrementa sensiblemente el efecto de nuestras AA, no esta documetado el efecto concreto pero podemos deducir que aumenta el efecto contra todos los escuadrones dentro del circulo de AA no solo el designado *El consumible AA produce un "efecto panico" en los escuadrones enemigos (comentado en la seccion de CV, cono de torpedos y elipse de bombardeo mayores) *Los circulos de varios barcos juntos no suman efectos, cada barco interactua independientemente con cada escuadron enemigo. Pero es lo mismo que hemos comentado, cuanto mas este un escuadron al alcance de las AA mayor la probabilidad de derribo de un avion del escuadron, si sumamos varios circulos sobre un unico escuadron aumenta la probabilidad de derribo. *La tecla P desactiva los AA Y secundarias, esto es especialmente util para ocultar DDs (hay DDs que tienen mas alcance AA que su detectabilidad aerea pe Shimakaze alcance maximo AA 5K detectabilidad aerea 3.8K (si se dispara la AA pasa a 5.8K aerea y 7.9K superficie)) Es recomedable llevar siempre desactivada la AA siempre en estos casos y solo activarlas si hay ataque aereo, si el alcance es menor que la detectabilidad no hace falta. No hay que olvidar que el cliente vainilla (el juego sin mods) ya incluye el indicador de ultima posicion conocida, y desde el momento que dispareis y os detecte un avion o barco vuestra posicion queda en el minimapa y el enemigo sabe por donde andais. *************************************************************************************** Esta es la explicacion de la AA Segun tengo entendido el combate aereo entre cazas o el artillero posterior de los aviones de ataque funciona igual. Como un porcentaje, una probabilidad de derribo de un avion enemigo. Pero tengo algunas dudas. 1-cada cuanto se calcula el derribo?, cuanto dura la municion?, se gasta la munion uniformemente o en funcion del objetivo(dura lo mismo el ataque en funcion del escuadron enemigo, numero de aviones y tier)? 2-A los efectos de los calculos se supone que tenemos que calcular el daño medio por segundo usando el total de cazas del escuadron, no caza a caza 3-Que % de municion consume el barrido (strafing) y cuanto es el aumento de daño? Un ejemplo Cazas Zuiho Stock VI contra VI 1210 192(48*4=192) 192/1210=0.1587 (15% de probabilidad de derribo) 48/1210=0.0397 (4% probabilidad derribo) Stock VI a V 192/990=0.19394 48/990=0.0485 Stock V a VI 171.6(42.9*4=171.6) 171.6/1210=01418 42.9/1210=0.03545 Con experto en combate aereo Wiki combate aereo y AA (en ingles) http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Aerial_Combat La cuestion surgio cuando me preguntaron por que en una batalla Zuiho contra Zuiho te derriban a ti mas aviones que tu a el.
  22. I wondered how large a defensive AA bubble is, since I've got my first ship which can install it. Is it equal to max AA gun range, or even larger? Reason I ask, is because in a CV game a long time ago, our CV's fighter squadrons got wrecked by one of their fighter squadrons, whilst not being under direct AA fire. Either that guy had gone berserk on the RNG sacrifices, or perhaps it was inside a defensive AA bubble?
  23. Captain_Riley

    Iowa's 6th upgrade (for Iowa veterans)

    I've only played two matches in the Iowa so far and I have noticed that her dispersion is actually pretty good and her volleys are quite consistent, I get a lot of Citadels with her so I must ask Iowa veterans, in your opinion, is it worth getting the Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2 or is it better to get the AA Gun Modification 3? Thank you for your time.
  24. HotshotJimmy

    Consumables and AA not working

    Good evening all, I just quit a match with the HMS Hood where my defensive fire consumable (Y) and AA in general would not work. Now I am aware of the P button that can switch AA and seconadries off but this was not the issue. I have logged a ticket with WG but I wasn't recording the match. So my question is has anyone come across this bug with any of their ships? Basically a consumable not working even though you are pressing the corresponding key and/or guns of some sort not working? Because of this bug I was an easy target for the carrier once he realised I was defenseless. I am well aware of the old bug making guns useless whereby no matter how many times you click you cannot fire but I though this had been fixed. If it is making a comeback they better patch it quick. Kind regards, Hj
  25. TEMAT NIEAKTUALNY z uwagi na wersję 8.0 i przerobienie systemu obrony przeciwlotniczej
×