Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bombs'.



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 7 results

  1. This proposed consumable "Evasive Maneuver" is an idea I picked up from @naztb and then refined it a bit more. If you like it or want to add additions, feedback and your constructive input is very welcome. If WG implements such an idea, then please no more CV OP complaints :D - Consumable "Evasive Maneuver" - Reduces ship turn radius by 50% - 3 charges - 12 seconds active - 90 seconds cool down To give everyone a chance, I wouldn't mind if any ship can fit it. Could also solve the "Too much radar/smoke/acoustics players" problem, if it would be implemented in the way that players have to make their choice of either taking the "Evasive Maneuver" consumable or Radar/Smoke/Acoustics instead.
  2. Hi all, have some suggestions for the CVs 1. Add Smoke bombs consumables to planes to switch the Fighters consumable. One smoke plume that last 30 sec. Pretty good for Clan wars. 2. Airplanes can spot only in front of them! Player must keep the airplane pointing in the ships direction in order to keep him spotted. View area can be balanced 60 degrees to 90 degrees. This should make the CV players choose between roles spot or attack, and @ same time give dds a chance to hide. What do you think?
  3. 0.8.0.3 Random Match Replay - See the game from the world of the CV pilot, to perform better on sea level :) Its an average 120K damage game...I got sunk haha ! Will see that I upload some 200K & 300K matches of mine with version 0.8.0.3
  4. Hi all! o7 Now that the USN CVs have got AP Bombs which have proven to be very effective and competitive when it comes to loadout choices, I have been asking myself why the japanese line does not get something like that? Here is what I propose: Deep water torpedoes as an optional loadout. Pros: Pad damage stats and WTR (the only metric for skill you need) More BB Dev strikes for YT compilations Inadvertently hurt cruisers more (similar to AP bombs) Forces you to not drop DDs so you dont have to feel guilty about being a crap CV player who farms dmg instead of killing the ships that matter Revive tier 8-10 CV sniping now that there is one shot potential (a brilliant and deeply (lol pardon the pun bois) missed part of CV gameplay) Cons: Makes HE bombs redundant, so WG pls add AP bombs to IJN loadout too thanks Planes have to fly lower to drop the torpedos lower in the sea so they will get hurt more by AA yes this is how it works trust me Other than that, none. Please do this before fixing the broken UI, AA creep or any of the issues CVs whine about for no reason at all (spoilt brats) Yours truly, MiniBrit <3
  5. As we all know on CV line we have BIGGEST dis balance in whole game (not looking premium CVs), not a single line of ships is so brutally dominated by other nation like USA CV-s compared to IJN ones. if we look WR cross tiers we have this situation t4 - 54,7% IJN vs 53,9 USA t5 - 53,27% IJN vs 50,37% USA t6 - 53,56% IJN vs 50,77% USA t7 - 50,50% IJN vs 45,72% USA t8 - 53,53% IJN vs 46,77% USA t9 - 54,72% IJN vs 46,20% USA t10 - 53,58%IJN vs 47,81% USA it is total domination and case of worst balance part in whole game......as stated not a single line of ships is so useless in game as USA cvs. I will not go into reasons, we all know it, it is philosophy of "need for different playlist" and TB vs Bmbers sty of play.....or reliable high dgm vs rng small ones and no "fix" to reaload time of whiped fighters and TB to IN side will change that....because problem lies in TB vs Bombs part LETS TALK ABOUT BOMBERS! and failed tries by WG (kudos for trying ) Dive bombers will never never be implemented with "skill drop"...it is impossible for this type of weapons. big fiasco of KM Zeppelin finally showed that....WG have no tool right now to implement competitive bomber play (or maybe they have - later about that) While torpedos can be "played" around with activation time, drop patern and so on because you aim on side of ships and there are more than 10 - 15 seconds window to hit good drop with BOMBS you just can not do that because you must attack from head on to have best (still small) profile of ship and you lose "perfect" spot in only 1-3 seconds depending ruddershift. When you lose your "perfects" spot you just can not hit crap. Bombs are and should be only DOT dmg or specific anty class dmg (AP) that "hurts all BBs and not only KM....for that i would lower dmg much (like form 8k to 4 k on big e) so you can not oneshote stuff but would increase penetration and citadels for all BBs nations, so you would have good constant dmg to BBs and 0 to other classes with bombs. we all know WG wants to improve USA cv line and AP bombs looked promising but tests shows (big E) that they are one trick poney - killers of KM bbs.....and we have (tommorow) NEW BBS line and percentage of KMs will go down so as efficiency of AP bombs (for sure some of KM BBs palyers will shift to new line).....so AP bombs are BIG FAIL It seams that rework on USA line and KM will must be shifted from AP bombs to torpedobombers...while AP bombs were good idea they are bad in practice BUT HEY THERE IS ONE GOOD SOLUTION!!!! (no idea why WG just dont implement that) give option that planes on reaload chose AP or HE bombs......than you would have valid nuke (ap) and dot (he) option and more strategic play and alot of problems would be solved and we would have clear line and different play with IJN (TB) vs USA (bomb) play....WHY WHY IT IS SO HARD TO IMPLEMENT???? This dis-balance is "weakest" link of this game, it is totally broken that you do that to one whole line.....it would be more far to remove it (make obsolete) than to have it on tree- P.s Why o why WG you are talking about 3-th line of full CV? as we have totally broken game there really is not place to third line before USA fix or removal from game.
  6. Hello everyone! It's recently come to my attention after the latest patch that i seem to be unfairly matched against two aircraft carriers and also i seem to be getting messed up by enemy bombers all of the time. Its annoying as hell because i used to get 1000-2000 xp a game using my carrier before the patch, but now im getting 300xp a game ;_; I hope wargaming fix this soon. I don't mind the grind, but its the bad rewards i get now for doing the exact same thing as before. Additionally, people in matchmaking don't seem to be very supportive when it comes to the carriers, yes, i get the odd game where a battleship protects me and we win, but it seems that everyone is having fun with the run and gun idea while i get torps in my back like salt being shook onto food. p.s. Carriers also suck for not getting actual fixed wing aircraft (which are not biplanes) until tier 7 -_-
  7. Hey Forum I am a passionate carrier player myself and I thought, why not limiting the range at which Planes can do manual drops in a relative distance to the carrier? By that I mean that you can only order a manual drop (of torps or bombs) if the plane is within 20km of your carrier. If the plane is further out you can only order it to auto-drop its payload. Logical/Story-wise: It's a bit like with the radios in World of Tanks, since the plane is that far out, it might be out of radio range and you cannot give that exact orders anymore. Implementing this would mean that carriers cannot sit idle at the border of the map anymore and dominate the battlefield, they would have to go with the fleet or hide at a spot "within" the map to be effective. At those spots they would be a bit more vulnerable but would also provide more benefit to the team because the planes would be faster in resupplying. You could also implement another module for carriers, the radio or air-craft control module, thats up to you. This module could increase the range at which manual drops can be ordered. This change would not "[edited]" the low to medium skill carrier players because they do autodrops anyway regardless of the range, they wouldnt even notice it. But it would balance things a bit for the more skilled carrier players as they couldnt abuse the map and their infinite range anymore. What do you think? Cheers Noray
×