Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bomber'.



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 14 results

  1. Randathamane

    So, The carrier rework then...

    Here is a simple poll for the community regarding the aircraft carrier rework. Simple question, is it better now or has it been broken?
  2. Hallo Freunde, ja ja ja ich weiß das alte Leid und es wurde bestimmt schon ein paar mal deswegen rumgeheult. Wenn ich ein Spiel starte z.B. mit der Dunkerque und zwei Minuten später kommen zwei Torpedobomber-Staffeln und setzen die Torpedos so, daß ich nichts daran ändern kann von 4 Torpedos getroffen zu werden, ist das mehr als frustrierend. Das bedeutete in diesem Fall Spielende. Ja ich habe abgedreht, ja ich hatte volle Kraft vorraus, ja ich habe Abfangjäger rausgeschickt, ja ich habe die Bomber markiert - keine Chance. Laaaangweilige kacke. 1 Torpedo ja 2 Torpedos crap happend ja auch OK Ja ja der Mann des CV hat ganz toll die Torpedos gesetzt. Stimmt. Spaßfaktor minus drei und tiefer. Das führt nur dazu, daß man wenn man 2 Torpedobomber-Staffeln sieht am besten direkt aus dem Spiel rausgeht........
  3. Feldmarschall76

    Torpedobomber

    Mal ne Frage, wie kann ich den Abwurf von Torpedos so verzögern, daß sie nur 10-20 Meter vor dem gegnerischen Schiff runter kommen? Ist mir so passiert, und ich konnte selbst mit einem Zerstörer nicht mehr ausweichen. Coole Sache, denn ich spiele auch ab und an Flugzeugträger...... Grüße
  4. RamboCras

    Midway TB, 1 squadron

    Hi, Upgraded my carrier to Tier 10 (mostly by playing battleships), watch some instruction video's and noticed that in all of them, there were 2 squadrons of Torpedo bombers. However, from the different selections, I can select, none have 2. I can only choose between 1 or no squadrons of TB? Has this been changed in some update?
  5. Hello. My name’s th3freakie and I’ve been playing World of Warships (WoWS) ever since WarGaming allowed us to buy our way into the Closed Beta with a Gremyashchy. I’m not the best of players nor the most experienced, but I’d still like to think of myself as a long-time committed casual. I’m also first and foremost a fan of Strategy Games. The recent announcement of changes to AA, Captain Skills and Carrier Loadouts has caused quite a lot of discussion over the topic of Carrier Gameplay and air power as a game mechanic in WoWS. As someone who first fell in love with this game by playing CVs, I figured I’d share some of my views on the topic, and hopefully nudge the game’s course just a tiny bit closer to perfection. So, in this post I’ll talk about different game philosophies that can be applied to the way CVs are executed, and how I think WG is currently using the wrong one. Which is another way of saying all of you crying over CV being OP or UP are completely and utterly wrong and WG should listen to me and only me. Carriers are special – how? Carriers in WoWS have their own mechanics, camera mode, and set of controls. It’s not hard to understand why. The rise of naval air power was a crucial development in the time period covered by the vehicles in WoWS, and leaving it entirely out would deprive the simulation of elements which were absolutely essential. AA would mean nothing, sheer pure size would be an even greater advantage that it is now, and so would stealth. Making a modern naval warfare game without air power would be a poor experience, so WG had to find a way to make it work. Yet the specificity and of air power made it hard to handle with the basic game mechanics that have been evolving around what was first introduced in World of Tanks. Players couldn’t control only the CV itself, as it wouldn’t have enough impact on the game, but they couldn’t control the individual airplanes either, since they’d have too much of an advantage over everyone else. Unlike in their previous games, WG was now faced with the challenge of using vehicles not as the player character himself, but as tools of the player. So the idea of making CV gameplay an entirely different genre was quite a brilliant one. It solved the Air Power problem in a balanced manner and attracted fans of different genres to the game. This worked on me well enough that my most played class in the beta was precisely CVs (which at start were only available in the USN tech tree). I wasn’t particularly good at it, partially out of noobness and partially out of preference for Air Superiority, but I had fun anyway. Carriers are a problem now – why? Reading the forum, this is easy to answer. Carriers are completely overpowered and, at the same time, are also so broken that they are useless, and also there’s not enough of them around. Simple, right? Now some of this is naturally the age-old issue of Rock complaining about Paper, and some of it is legitimate grievances about specific mechanics and changes, but taking a step back and looking at it with some temporal perspective, we see the arguments against carriers are getting louder and the number of carriers is getting smaller. There are two apparently contradictory trends here that don’t seem to make much sense. I am convinced that they do make sense, though, and have the same root: the conceptual divergence between the Strategy Game Carriers are, and the Action Game developers have been treating it as. Now what are strategy games about? Let’s nick Wikipedia for brevity’s sake: “a video game genre that focuses on skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. It emphasizes strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration.” Does Carrier gameplay fit the bill? You have to plan ahead which airplanes to bring, where you are going to send them and in what order to fly them. You have to choose which targets you’ll attack with your limited and slow-reloading squadrons, and where you’re going to sail your huge and fragile base. So yes, a strategy game indeed. A top-down, old-school 2D RTS with very few units under your control, no resource gathering, unpredictable friendlies and kind of a slow pace, but that’s still a strategy game. Yet the development of Carrier gameplay has been moving away from the Strategy genre, with the introduction of manual torpedo drops, then manual dive bombs, and now manual strafing. This is, of course, following the book of good game developing, giving the players more options, abilities, actions. It shows WG is paying attention and trying to do something about Carriers. It just so happens, unfortunately, that those abilities I mentioned are not characteristic of a Strategy Game, but of an Action Game. Once again stealing from Wikipedia, we’re talking about a genre that “emphasizes physical challenges, including hand–eye coordination and reaction-time.”. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, it is what most of WoWS consists of, after all, but it is a different type of game, requiring different skills and attracting different people or mindsets. The problem here being, Action Game abilities in a Strategy Game run contrary to the natural balance of Strategic decisions, because they make the outcome of decisions based on an extra, mechanical or otherwise physical, test. They do not present choices, since not using them is clearly sub-optimal. They instead present further actions or tests you must complete to get the pre-determined desired effect. What ends up happening is that the game developers have to choose between having a failure to pass the test mean no results at all, rendering the strategy meaningless and without effect, or have failure still produce some results – which then means passing it will be so important as to again overshadow the Strategic decisions. The plain obvious example I’m thinking of, and you’ve all guessed by now, are manual torpedo drops. They make torpedo bombers quite possibly impossible to balance. You can make torpedoes weak, in which case the only way to affect the battle is to ace the manual drop and get 6 hits, meaning only (rare) excellent players will be fulfilling the CV’s role. You can make torpedoes strong, in which case good players will win games by themselves and CV’s will be the only relevant factor. If you try to find a middle-ground, most likely that will only cause you to suffer both problems at once. Yet this is also true of the more recent manual straffing, currently absolutely devastating when done right and absolutely crippling to self when done wrong. It turned the decision about how many fighter squadrons to deploy and where rather meaningless when compared with the mechanical skill at executing straffing properly, which is now the main decisive factor. “That’s exaggerating”, you say. “Aren’t you’re forgetting the strategic element is still there when you decide where and when to use this fantastic/useless abilities”, you retort. “What an excellent and well-groomed beard you have, th3freakie, mind sharing the secret?” you implore. And I say “Maybe, no, and yes”. Maybe it’s exaggeration to say no sort of balance can be achieved, but it is certainly harder and more contentious, and never full. You’ll most likely swing wildly between UP and OP, alternatively dealing with a lack of CVs and having those that do play captained only by amazing god-like players and hard-heads who like playing it even if they don’t play it so well, or dealing instead with an overabundance of CVs, including min-maxing stat-padders who learn to 1-shot a BB every 3 minutes and won’t do anything else. And I’m not forgetting the strategic element – it’s certainly still there in CVs, just as it is in BBs and CAs and DDs when they chose which flank to take, which target to prioritize and whether they’ll cap or chase after the enemy CV. Yet the strategic element is taking second-place to the action element, and that doesn’t work well for CVs. Of course you can just assume Carrier gameplay as an Action game first and Strategy second, but then you’re just left with a weird 2D top-down Action game with weird controls. You might even say that’s what Carriers seem to be heading to. But who’s going to want to play that? Finally, you got to use those minutes right after the morning bath. Your beard and skin will be smooth and wet. I like to first brush it (or comb, I recommend brush) and then apply some beard oil. You apply the oil to your skin first, then spread it indirectly to the skin. Also you’ll be doing yourself a favor by regularly going to a local barber who can do some hot towel razor shaves. It’s good maintenance and feels amazing. So what can be done about it? Now, I don’t have an obvious cure for this. It’s not going to be a nerf to AA here, a buff to torpedo arming distance there or a tweak to chance of starting a fire with dive bombs. The best solution I can put forward is the super generic advice to bring back the Strategy. Scrap manual drops/straffing and give the players choices on how to do things – choices, not mechanical skill checks. What bombs/torpedos/ammo to load? What formation to use? Which combat doctrines to utilize? Which aircraft to send up? How much fuel to put in them (combined with a time limit to be flying)? Maybe even allow players to call reinforcements from outside the map, but at a price. Make the choice between Air Superiority and Sea Attack meaningful by making the former worth something, for example by rewarding spotting and escorting. Then scale damage done, fire chance, flood chance, etc, in accordance to average results. You’ll be able to do so without completely overpowering talented players, but still rewarding good strategists. You might even find that torps and dive bombers need to hit harder. Or, you know, get some actual professional advice and hire someone who knows Strategy games. Why are you even listening to me past the 3rd paragraph? I eagerly await the rotten tomatoes thrown by my fellow CV captains aghast at the suggestion of removing player choices and the rotten thrown by my fellow BB captains shocked at the concept of harder-hitting aircraft.
  6. ich wollt ja mal rückfragen ob das erlaubt ist
  7. Hallo Community Ich muss das jetzt einfach mal loswerden. Mich nervt gewaltig dieses passive spotten durch Jäger und Bomber. Das macht das anschleichen mit den Zerstörern komplett sinnlos und nimmt gewaltig Strategie aus dem Spiel. Es gibt Flieger, die nutzen die Flugzeuge praktisch nur zum aufdecken und greifen damit nicht an. Das macht aber die Zerstörer sinnlos und zu leichten Zielen. Entweder reduziert man die Sichtweite der Flugzeuge oder tarnt die Zerstörer besser. Das Spiel wäre insgesamt besser und ließe sich strategischer spielen, wenn das geändert werden würde. Hatte jetzt einige Spiele wo ich jedesmal beim Versuch anzuschleichen, von Flugzeugen auf grösste Distanz aufgedeckt wurde. Sobald man als Zerstörer jedoch aufgedeckt ist, wird man für die "long range" Artillerie der Schiffe der Kreuzer zum leichten Ziel. Die eigene Spritze kommt aber nicht am entferntesten auf die Distanz heran. Einfach lächerlich sind dann solche Spiele.
  8. (FYI, I have also posted this topic in NA) I had a thought one day thinking, were there any torpedo bombers that dropped 2 torpedoes at once? It turns out, such a craft does exist. It is Known as the russian Tu-2T (ANT-62T) Bomber. When the russian Aircarriers are added into the game, there will be one problem, as far as I can research, during the period of WWII, russian had NO designs on aircraft that would be Aircraft Carrier ready, regardless of their number of blue-print designs on carriers. Even when russia did acquire an aircraft carrier (The German Graf Zepplin, the only German Aircarft carrier built in WWII) it never got equipped with aircraft (as far as I am aware) and was used as a mobile command post, and later used for target practice, sinking the Graf Zepplin. This means that, when Russian Aircraft Carriers are added, all air-craft equipped to them will HAVE to be theoretical adaptations from Russian land based aircraft. So, thus, we bring in the TU-2T (ANT-62T) (Not OP in the least xP) The TU-2T (ANT-62T) was a variant of of the Russian TU-2T, which had many many variants, and serverd in the russia's forces from 1945-1947, with the first prototype to fly in 1941. Of all the variants of the Tu-2T, the "ANT-62T" was the only one equipped with torpedoes. What type of Torpedoes I cannot tell, the only factor I can tell is the External bomb carrying weight limit for this plane was 2,270Kg. Gameplay: I cannot say much on its gameplay factor, as we do not as of yet know how many planes are in a russian squadron of planes, comparitvely to Japanese which have 4, and Americans that have 6. These bombers I would guess are easier to shoot down due to their size, but would be more devestating then the current Tier X Torpedo Bomber Aircraft The Hitch :/ Currently, in game the largest aircraft on any Carrier has a wing span of 14 meters, from what I can find atleast. The Tu-2T (ANT-62T) has a wingspan of 18 meters. HOWEVER, there is a counter point to this, which may still make this aircraft viable in world of warships for its authenticity, according to the thread by mr3awsome on upcoming ships, the likely candidate for the Russian tier 10 Aircraft Carrier is the Projekt Kostrominitov (as suggested by WG's Q&A), which, in my research, would of been 300 meters long, and 35meters wide, putting it at being bigger then the Midway and Hakuryu. Which, in theory, might allow it to accommodate an aircraft 4 meters wider. The Kostrominitov: (The ships design was based off the graf zepplin, just bigger, 'cause russia) Why bring this aircraft to the game? -To give something more unique to Russia, - 'cause Russia is Stronk Sources: http://russian.warbi...up.org/tu2.html https://en.wikipedia...ki/Tupolev_Tu-2 http://forum.worldof...062015/#topmost
  9. In my last game I was driving very close (should have been around or less than 500m) to an island with a steep hill, when a squadron of bombers appeared over the island, did a little dive and torpedoed me. I didn't see any drop animation whatsoever but it felt like they must've dropped their torpedos directly after their dive, while still being above the island. Well, either that or the player in that CV was very skilled in "gaming" the current system.
  10. Anubisaeth

    Expert Rear Gunner

    I have a question for fellow CV players. Do you take Expert Rear Gunner captain skill? How good that skill is actually? I know it costs 1 point however I'd rather save for something else if it is not too good a skill. Tried using search but haven't found any topic about that skill, except one where it was discussed which planes are affected by it.
  11. So I started to Play with an aircraft carrier lately and experienced some crazy things I'd like to ask about: I mean it's simply logic that fighter planes from T4 Carrier lose against the one from T5 actually, but how can one T5 Fighter shoot down Torpedo Bombers and shortly before it shot the torp down, 2 of my fighters engage him. Result: 1 torp and 2 fighters shot down - and guess what: they're mine. How does that work? Second one, it was some sort of the other way around, two of my t5 fighters vs one of a t4, both t5 got shot down actually, and no, there was nothing else like AA or something. Third one, trying to give the Torpedo Bombers order to attack: Usually they start directly within a few seconds (2-5s) I guess, but then there are a few Players who seem like are able to block them from attacking (I had this Problem with the same Player three times). You give them the order to attack and they just start wasting time, flying around doing nothing so the supposed target can easily escape. It doesnt even work with changing attack Position or anything. So is it just Buggy as hell or are there any Bugs or similar ppl abuse? Ty and Sail Ho!
  12. Hi Guys I thought I'd encourage an constructive discussion here that would benefit both CV and DD drivers. My problem lies with taking out enemy Carriers on open water in any non-IJN DD. No matter how hard I try, or how far I have to chase the CV I just cannot keep up with the rate at which they can spam torpedo bombers, especially if there's more than one and even worse if they're Japanese. Sooner or later I end up catching a few, and lets be honest a DD can only take one without sinking, assuming it's on full HP. So far my tactics have pretty much consisted of waiting until detected and then spamming HE as fast as I can reload while closing the distance as quick as I can. I hardly ever make it within 4-5km to launch torpedoes. So... Am I doing it wrong? Should I be gunboating it more, keeping my distance and forgetting about torpedoes for the most part? Please refrain from historical discussions or OP/UP claims.
  13. First time poster here, I wanted to talk about the American CV air group changes with the release of 0.3.1 For those who are unaware, American carriers used to be able to field 2 waves of torpedo bombers as well as 1 or 2 groups of fighters and the higher tier US CVs could also field an additional dive bomber wave. But with 0.3.1 this has been changed to only allow 1fp, 1tb, 1db and if you want multiple fighters you have to sacrifice your only TB wave. If you decide to go full bomber cv (not something I'm really a fan of) then you only gain extra DBs not TBs. You have to wait until the Essex (Tier9 now) and go full bomber CV air group before you get a second TB wave. I'm curious as to what the Dev's thought process here was, can anyone explain? As a predominately carrier player I pride myself in being able to Torpedo bomb really well and enjoy the fighter plane and torpedo bomber gameplay. Why do 2 waves matter? Its basic angles and being able to guarantee atleast 1 wave will hit an enemy ship hard. The first wave will make the target move in a certain way that the second wave will 75%+ of the time get a full broadside or if the target does not react you hit with both waves (always fun). I often don't just kill large targets either I enjoy going after those pesky Destroyers chasing you down but it really requires a second wave to be successful unless the target is playing poorly. I know the Japanese carriers have multiple waves of TBs on all tiers plus you get atleast 1 wave of fighters so at the very least I can still continue my style of gameplay just with another nation. I'm just wondering if the changes to American CV's are designed to make them more FP/DB focused. TL;DR Reducing TB waves from 2 to 1 on American Carriers, why?
  14. So i have been looking at these planes fly around in air.. Ive noticed some very strange flying.. I was chugging along in my Cleveland and I was attacked by some torpedo planes. Point is, they where flying around me like gravity had nothing to do with the matter. I mean, they came over me, did a 180* turn in a split second and blasted my side with torpedoes from about 60 meters range.. Uhm.. what is going on here? Is this meant to be possible? Or is it something thats going to be fixed? I mean it looks plain silly, and I could look up some stats on those tropedo bombers.. and the turntime was certainly not 1.5 seconds
×