Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carrier'.



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
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • 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
    • Outdated Mods
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Found 192 results

  1. [IDEA] Carrier-focused scenario's

    Greetings, folks. I had this idea in mind for a while now, which would include a Scenario / Operation meant to be added to the weekly Ops that rotate including Killer Whale, Narai, etc. Basically what this idea of mine includes: * A tier VIII & IX Carrier-oriented operation which allows all nations, and all ship types/classes with tier VIII and IX. * Battle of Midway-styled operation, from Japanese point of view (So a fully offensive scenario where the player team will attack an island and has to fight heavy resistance). * Up to three carriers per player team. * Some allied AI ships, including at least one CV, which will aid in the player team's attack, and also help with immersion. Objectives could be: * [MAIN] Support the landing ships that have to reach the island with a certain amount of infantry still alive. * [MAIN] Destroy the Aerodrome(s) on the island. * [SECONDARY] Destroy enemy aircraft carriers in the vicinity. * [SECONDARY] Destroy particular enemy ships that are pushing certain positions and flanks of your fleet. * [SECONDARY] Destroy a certain number of fortresses and bunkers in the vicinity of the island. Key Strategies could be: * Carriers have to support and cover the team in pushing up the defences and holding off air raids from the island's Aerodromes and aircraft carriers. * Aerodromes and AA emplacements (Forts maybe?) have to be destroyed as quick as possible for best allied CV efficiency. * Battleship- and Heavy Cruiser-players should focus on fighting on-shore emplacements while the Destroyer- and Light Cruiser players should focus on fighting enemy ship hordes. I've always wanted to see a more carrier-oriented scenario as in, where it's oriented about carrier-players. Also, because this scenario should include the higher tiers (VIII and IX) it should avoid a lot of problems with new CV players that don't know how the game works with CV meta. Nothing against new CV players though, but the Training Room and Co-Ops can be used to learn how to play CVs. I just love to see carrier-tactics and communication between CV players, which can't be achieved in the current state of the game since you can only have a division with one CV (which I understand due to balance. I wouldn't want a Random Battle with CV Divisions against me...). So I thought to lay my idea in front of the community, so I could get some feedback, and see what you guys think about such an Operation. Cheers, and let 'em have it! FIRE! ~ Sirion.
  2. Hello, "normal" player here since closed beta. Even though I don't play carriers much (only a few games to "know my enemy"), as a former chess player for me it's all about balance and gameplay. So since I've seen all the rise and decline of the carrier gameplay through the years, I make some suggestions here so that we start seeing carriers more often (like every game hopefully) but in the same time balance them so that their existence in a game does not become a frustrating experience for the rest players. First of all, lets see what are a few "issues" about carriers: 1) Every ship category except the CVs has some short of risk vs reward. The DDs must get relatively close to torp (and even closer if they want to torp more successfully) and they risk getting spotted (radars, planes, other DDs..). The cruisers, kinda the same as DDs, while being in danger of getting citadeled. The BBs can be seen further away than any other ship and so everybody wants and can burn them. (Exception to this rule is Moskva (why does a CA have worse concealment than BBs? so f*cked up) and Conqueror (why such an OP concealment? again, so f*cked up). Anyway.... 2) If one carrier player is better than the other, most of the times game is decided right then, from the get go. It's the only ship that skill difference makes such a big impact in the game. Furthermore (or at the same time...), in higher tiers, you see many "unskilled" carrier players, just "parking" their fighers idle at a spot or hovering above a ship, unable to multitask all their planes and just focusing on playing their torp planes and bombers, with result, the skillful player can spot better, can support AA better, can area deny better.. or rather far better than an unskilled one. - Furthermore, if you lose your carrier because he yolo-d or he was unskilled and didn't move when the enemy pushed his side and got spotted or the enemy CV killed him etc you now face a situation that you must rush all the way or every minute that passes the enemy CV will gradually kill everybody with nothing you can do, completely destroying the gameplay in the cases you lose your team's carrier. (and again, many players don't move because maybe they are too busy multitasking so many planes that they completely lose their map awareness?)...Anyways... 3) They are very leathal. Nothing you can do when there's 3 torp planes and 2 bombers coming at you. Carriers can so easily (if skilled) one-shot a ship. Nobody wants to be one-shotted (aka: deleted). So, here are some suggestions of how we can improve all this, in my opinion: 1) Risk Vs reward: Every ship in the game... has range. Carriers in reality... have range (of how far the planes can operate) and all the more so, during WWII (limited range). So give carriers RANGE. Make them having to follow fleet to operate in their active range or hide behind some island (like US cruisers) to be within range. In this way you increase their risk but also indirectly force them to be very active in spotting their area (to spot DDs that can spot them), forcing unskillful players to use their fighters more efficiently... 2) How can an unskilled player cope up with above change? We already said that they can't multitask so well already. Well then.... ---> REDUCE NR of PLANES. 5-6 planes are too many for the average Joe to multitask and play successfully and that is what makes a skillful player make such a difference. Better have high tier CVs have less planes but the average players can play them all relativelly ok then so many planes with the unskilled players parking them idle. Better have CVs with (example) 1 fighter plane, 1 torp plane, 1 bomb plane each, but the average Joe can multitask and play them, than 5-6 planes where half of them sit idle. - Of course adjustments to dmg, survavability etc should be made in this case, while maintaining some difference in playstyle between various countries. So ok, make one country'splanes more survavible, the other's more leathal, give one CV more armor, the other better concealment etc. If you decide to go that way, you know what to do... 3) With the above change, we can also balance #3 issue - the lethality - through the adjustments and the reduction of planes. Furthermore, when all the above changes are done and balanced, we can have more than 1 carrier per team in each game because they will both have range issues and their lethality will be reduced and ofc at the same time you have to increase the credit making coefficient (past nerf) of the carriers to give players a bigger insentive to start playing their carriers again. Again, nobody likes to be one-shoted. Nobody likes to be attacked again and again from a ship 40+km away with nothing he can do about it and nobody likes to have an unskilled CV player in his team while the enemy CV player is devistating. If you don't change that, better remove carriers from game altogether! I could write more but that's all the time I want to afford from my Saturday afternoon in this essay :p Hope I helped, Stugga
  3. This was originally a Reddit post to take stock of the current situation with carriers. Uniquely to this class, many high-skilled players are dissatisfied with the very existence of carriers. Personally, I first agreed with CVs mixing up the game and there being plenty enough counter play opportunities. But as I got better I realised that those "counterplays" generally weaken one's gameplay a lot by denying many of the normal effective choices. CVs hardcounter concealment based playstyles and force players to stick together, which does not work out well in random battles. On the other hand I also unlocked every tech-tree carrier with a super unicum rating and therefore have some insights into the complaints that CV players have, especially regarding divisioning and the state of anti-air. CVs are balanced on a much higher power level than any other ship class This is a simple fact that many CV players don't want to acknowledge since it is seemingly contrarian to their own perception of AA being too powerful, but in reality both points are valid at the same time. As it stands, CVs are the number one class in spotting (by a laughable margin), dealing damage (even though a few individual ships like Conqueror are ahead... for averagely skilled players at least), and dealing killing blows. They dominate every statistic - they even lead in average XP by about 15%, despite having extremely diminished multipliers compared to all other ship classes. Without those multipliers, the difference in XP would be astronomical and show much better how superior CVs truly are. Ultimately, CVs have a much higher impact on the win rate of their team than any other individual could have. CVs' biggest strengths don't even show up in the stats. While players generally fawn over damage numbers, win rates, and experience as measurements, spotting and zoning are concepts that are extremely difficult to quantify in World of Warships. DDs for example always were at the low end of all the usual stats, and yet were the most impactful class at the very least until radar became as powerful as it is now. That is largely because they give their team the spotting advantage, and because their torpedoes are an immense threat that force the enemy into suboptimal plays even if they never score a hit. You will frequently find superior forces turn around because noone is willing to push into the enemy destroyer who could both permaspot and torpedo them. But CVs, which already are at the top of damage, kills, and experience, also are the masters of spotting and zoning. This is why they are played even in competitive, which is filled to the brim with AA. They have the ability to threaten enemies with spotting and instant kills across the entire map. It doesn't matter which flank you're at, the single enemy CV can still threaten you. CVs enhance the radar problem While currently all community talk seems to be focussed on radars alone, the presence of a CV makes radars more potent. The frequent spotting of both torpedoes and DDs by planes makes it much easier for cruiser players to track the enemy DD's location. Carriers often force CVs to use their smoke to drop vision, which then makes them easy targets for radars. While in a CV-less game it is often possible to use the fact that enemy radar cruisers do not know when you are within their range for a while, this becomes exponentially more dangerous when there are planes on the map. And the same positions that you may use to evade enemy radars will often isolate you from your AA allies and therefore make you easy prey to a cross drop. The balancing of other ships is done without CVs in mind. CVs break the balance. This especially affects two factors: Concealment and AA. Many concealment-based ships like Shimakaze have virtually no counterplay to CVs besides falling back to their team, even though the entire gameplan of a concealment-based ship is designed around the polar opposite, of finding those far-up positions. This also affects many cruisers, as for example IJN or French cruiser players may gamble for non-CV games to use hydro for aggressive moves. The fact that CVs are exceptionally good at spotting enemy torpedoes adds insult to injury. These ships are perfectly fine in non-CV games (sometimes even on the weaker side still), but the presence of a CV just flat-out destroys their impact on the game. As for AA specialist ships, WG knows that these ships also have to be viable in non-CV games. And with ships like Montana, Des Moines, Worcester, and Minotaur they certainly accomplished this design goal. The problem is that this makes them ridiculously powerful in CV games (even though the fact that they're often stealth reliant counteracts it to some degree). Theses ships are often designed to be less powerful in straight-up confrontations as a payoff, but still have their tools and tricks to stay relevant when there is no CV to counter. And in a tragic twist for DDs, AA ships also often carry radar with them - partially because both radar and AA are commonly found on more modern ship designs, and partially because radar is also frequently balanced by the exact same payoffs that ships trade in for their AA. This falls back to the "CVs enhance the radar problem" point - DDs are truly fucked in those games. Active counterplay to CVs is awful. Since CVs already counter concealment based playstyles, your only option is to stick to other allies - which often leads to terrible lemming train games. The level of play it takes to spread across the map and be safe against CVs is far beyond random teams, especially since random and ranked battles have far fewer AA specialist ships than competitive. As far as evading an immediate drop goes, it's an incredibly shitty situation. Skill alone doesn't let you dodge a cross drop or dive bombers. Often even doging a CV will still get you killed as you are forced to broadside the enemy team while being spotted. This is quite unlike doging for example BB shells or torpedoes, as good players can prepare their positions in a way that angling against the incoming threat will also give them a save position against the rest of the fleet. As mentioned in the balance section, the CV presence affects some ships worse than others and forces them into severely diminished, powerless roles. There is no real way to counteract CVs with skill, only being close to AA helps. Your only alternative is to gamble on the enemy CV not being good enough to notice you at all, which is often a statistically viable approach but awful in terms of gameplay. It's pretty much like detonations: if you win your dice roll you are fine and get to play as normal, but if you lose it you simply die. AP bombs are some of the worst mechanics in the game. I mentioned some about counterplay, and dive bombers are even worse at this. While torpedo bombers allow for some degree of doging and minimising damage, dive bombers are pure clicking and there is no evading a capable drop. Now for the old USN monster HE bombs this already could get pretty ugly, but most players simply prepared for the inevitable 10k blast plus multiple fires. With AP bombs the ugly was turned up to 11. The fact that you can simply leftclick a ship and delete it on the spot is just ridiculous. Players get punished purely for bringing the wrong ship. Their total power balance is completely irrelevant, the design itself is awful and needs to go. CV divisions are absolutely broken. The main problem here is that only the players who division with the CV know for sure whether there will be a CV in their game or not. So they get to bust out the most insane AA they can find and get a guaranteed major advantage. No other type of division can reliably replicate the winrates that a good CV division can. But there are some even worse divsions by abusing tier differences. Some divisions "anchor" their surface ships by queueing with a lower-tier CV. A T5 CV with two T6 BBs for example is practically immune to getting T8 matches, so the BBs will never be bottom tier. Other divisions do the opposite: Queueing a T9 CV with T10 AA guarantees the AA advantage even harder, and will easily defeat even other CV divs. The only real counter to a good CV is another good CV. This is quite unlike any other ship class. No matter if you are in a destroyer, cruiser, or battleship, you have the means to impact any other enemy ship class, and therefore directly outcarry a good player on the enemy team. Unless that player is a CV that is. The most you can do to that is to deny a small area, if you even are AA specced to begin with. If you truly want to check an enemy CV's ability to spot and assassinate people at will, you need to be a CV yourself. The result of this can be seen in player winrates. CVs have the most hilariously lopsided winrates of all classes. There are almost no "average" CVs. The vast majority is deep in the red (an incredible part of it below 40%), and a significant part of the rest at super unicum winrates. Also WG already acknowledged the problem with the removal of manual drops on low tiers (however shitty of a "solution" that is) and by making CVs the first class that was perfectly mirrored in tier and number. And hands down, many games between two good CVs start by both devstriking a DD on the other team. Whether those DDs missplayed or not, this is still a level of influence far beyond that of any other ship class. So how can all of this be fixed? The answer most certainly would not be to simply increase AA or nerf plane health. CV players are right in their criticism that there is a huge amount of total death zones in the game already. CV gameplay is already unbearably binary between easy kills and no-gos. If WG were to maintain the fundamental CV mechanics, they would probably have to dramatically change CV loadouts. A few CVs are much less bad on the mentioned issues than others. Essex for example is unable to cross drop and relies on its dive bombers for damage, meaning its much worse at spotting. It's also more balanced towards an AA role than towards dealing damage, meaning that both CVs are less effective than usual. For a CV it is almost hilariously bad. But the solution here shouldn't be to bring Essex up, but to bring all the other CVs down to this level. To diminish their ability of spotting by making them rely on every single squad to deal damage. AP bombs should just be removed entirely. There is no reason to have them in the game. They make it strictly worse. They are not very enjoyable for most CV players either with how situational they are. CV queueing also definitely needs to be fixed. I am not sure why WG still allows for tier differences in divisions at all, but they should be removed for CV divisions at a minimum since these abuses are fairly common already. Another CV queue issue is the double CV matchmaking on low tiers. Having a T6 CV vs Saipan is one of the dumbest experiences in the game, especially since Saipan is already a hardcore sealclubber as T7 CVs are pretty much either premium CVs or total noobs. But of course WG announced a full-on rework. Speculations go towards a more "action oriented" playstyle that could revolve around closer micromanagement of fewer squads. First of all this would reduce the oppressive spotting power that CVs currently have. It could even go as far as CVs not sharing their spotting with other ships anymore, akin to spotting in a cyclone. But there could be other goodies in there that make patterns of counterplay clearer. For example the gameplay could revolve around having to strafe the enemy AA with fighters to make it easier to bomb them, which would give the target a clear warning and some time to improve their position. Or AA could be restricted in its firing arcs while being stronger when they do have a good angle, giving targets more options in positioning against incoming air attacks.
  4. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  5. The Tonder Airraid

    Hi Fellow ship history fans For those in the neighborhood, there is an reenactment, with planes, of the Tonder Airraid on the 22. of July What is the Tonder airraid? well it's the first ever air attack carried out from a carrier. Hence I find rather relevant for WoWs :) (also I want Royal Navy carriers) Event link: Toender Airraid From Wiki; "The Tondern raid, officially designated Operation F.7, was a British bombing raid mounted by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force against the Imperial German Navy's airship base at Tønder, Danmark, then a part of Germany. It was the first attack in history made by aircraft flying from a carrier flight deck." A bit more reference info: Wikipedia: >>LINK<< A private page: >>LINK<< Sincerely Worgenstern
  6. IJN Hyuga-hybrid carrier, battleship

    Hello everybody, I have put together history and possible implementation of battleship Hyuga in World of Warships. I've had 2 optional hulls. First hull is standart battleship hull and the second is the hybrid carrier hull. Please keep in mind that this is just fan made, not official news of upcoming new ship. Also I apologize for any grammar mistakes, english is not my native language. This article has 2 parts: 1) History of the ship 2) Possible implementation in the game- Hull A - Hull B IJN Hyuga Ships of the class: -Ise (1917) -Hyuga (1918) History Creation Hyuga, named after Hyuga Province, one of the traditional provinces of Japan was laid down at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries shipyard in Nagasaki on 6 May 1915 and launched on 27 January 1917. Hyuga was the second and last Ise-class battleship built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the 1910s. The Ise class was designed as an improved version of the preceding Fuso class. The twelve 45-calibre 35.6-centimetre (14 in) Type 41 guns of the Ise class were mounted in three pairs of twin-gun. The hydraulically powered turrets had an elevation capability of −5/+20 degrees. In 1921 the elevation was increased to +30 degrees and then to +43 degrees during their mid-1930s modernization. The ships' secondary armament consisted of twenty 50-calibre 14-centimetre (5.5 in) Type 3 guns in single mounts. Anti-aircraft defence was provided by four 40-calibre 3rd Year Type 8-centimetre (3 in)anti-aircraft guns in single mounts. The ships were also fitted with six submerged 53.3-centimetre (21.0 in) torpedo tubes, three on each broadside. Modernization During the ship's modernization during the 1930s, their forward superstructure was enlarged with multiple platforms added to their tripod masts to create a pagoda mast. Both ships were also given torpedo bulges to improve their underwater protection and to compensate for the weight of the additional armour. The boilers on each ship were replaced by eight new Kampon oil-fired boilers. The turbines were replaced by four geared Kampon turbines with a designed output of 80,000 shp (60,000 kW) intended to increase their speed to 24.5 knots (45.4 km/h; 28.2 mph). The fuel storage of the ships was increased which gave them a range of 7,870 nautical miles (14,580 km) at a speed of 16 knots. In 1931–1933, the AA guns were replaced with eight 40-calibre 12.7-centimetre (5.0 in) Type 89 dual-purpose guns. Two twin-gun mounts for license-built Vickers two-pounder (4-centimetre (1.6 in)) light AA guns were also added while the pair of 14 cm guns on the upper deck were removed. the torpedo tubes were removed and the Vickers two-pounders were replaced by twenty license-built Hotchkiss 2.5-centimetre (1 in) Type 96 light AA guns in 10 twin-gun mounts. Their displacement increased over 55,100 tons. The crew now numbered 1,376 officers and enlisted men. Career Although completed in 1918, she played no role in World War I. Hyuga was then assigned to the 1st Battleship Division of the 1st Fleet. Captain Kinzaburo Mimura relieved Nakegawa on 10 November. An explosion in No. 3 gun turret killed 11 crewmen and wounded another 25 during an gunnery exercise on 24 October 1919. Hyuga accidentally collided with and sank the schooner Hiromiya Maru, killing two sailors aboard the sailing ship, on 21 July 1920. On 29 August, the ship began the first of numerous patrols off the Siberian coast and in northern waters in support of Japan's Siberian Intervention against the Bolshevik Red Army. The ship aided survivors of the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake in September 1923. From the early 1920s through the late 1930s, Hyuga often cruised off the coast of China. The ship was overhauled in 1927–1928, during which her forward superstructure was enlarged and her aviation facilities improved. Beginning on 27 March 1932, she patrolled off the coast of China after the First Shanghai Incident, together with her sister ship Ise and the battlecruisers Kongo and Kirishima. Beginning on 24 October 1934, Hyūga was drydocked at Kure Naval Arsenal and underwent an extensive reconstruction and modernization that lasted until 7 September 1936. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the ship ferried two battalions of the 3rd Sasebo Special Naval Landing Force to Port Arthur, China, on 19 August 1937. On 30 June 1940 Hyuga served as the flagship for the Emperor of Manchuoko, Henry Pu-yi, during his state visit to Japan. Together with Ise, the ship was transferred to the 2nd Battleship Division of the 1st Fleet on 15 November. Start of the Pacific War When the war started for Japan on 8 December, the division, reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu and the light carrier Hosho, sortied from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands as distant support for the 1st Air Fleet attacking Pearl Harbor, and returned six days later. Together with the rest of the 2nd Battleship Division, Hyūga pursued but did not catch the American carrier force that had launched the Doolittle Raid on 18 April. In May 1942 while conducting gunnery practice, the breech of Hyūga's left-hand gun in her No. 5 turret exploded, killing 51 crewmen. The turret was deemed not repairable and was removed. Plate of armour was welded over the barbette and three triple mounts for 2.5 cm AA guns were installed there. While under repair, the ship was fitted with one of the first experimental Type 22 surface-search radar sets in the IJN, but it was removed shortly afterwards. Hyūga and the rest of the 2nd Battleship Division set sail on 28 May with the Aleutian Support Group at the same time that most of the Imperial Fleet began an attack on Midway Island. The division was composed of Japan's four oldest battleships, including Hyūga, accompanied by two light cruisers, 12 destroyers, and two oilers. Conversion to hybrid carriers The loss of four Japanese aircraft carriers during the Battle of Midway in June severely limited the ability of the IJN to conduct operations and alternatives were sought. Plans for full conversions of battleships into aircraft carriers were rejected on the grounds of expense and, most critically, time. The IJN settled on removing the rear pair of turrets from the Ise-class ships and replacing them with a flight deck equipped with two rotating catapults. The ship's No. 6 turret and the barbettes for No. 5 and 6 turrets were replaced by a hangar surmounted by a flight deck. This was not long enough to permit the launch of aircraft or their recovery. Two catapults were installed and the existing crane was moved to the flight deck. This was fitted with an extensive system of rails to link each catapult, the storage positions on the deck and the "T"-shaped aircraft lift that moved aircraft between the flight deck and the hangar. It had a capacity of nine aircraft, with eleven more stowed on deck, and one on each catapult for a total of twenty-two. Aichi E16A and Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bombers were part of Hyugo's air group. During the conversion, all of the 14 cm guns were removed and the ship's anti-aircraft suite was heavily reinforced. The eight 12.7 cm Type 89 guns were supplemented with four additional twin mounts and the existing 2.5 cm Type 96 AA twin-gun mounts were replaced by 19 triple-gun mounts for a total of 57 weapons. These changes increased the ship's overall length and reduced her displacement to 40,444. The rebuild was officially completed on 18 November. Hyuga served as a training ship for most of the first half of 1944. On 25 February, Battleship Division 2 was assigned to the direct control of the Combined Fleet. On 24 May, the ship's light anti-aircraft armament was reinforced with 24 additional Type 96 AA guns in eight triple mounts. On 7 June, a pair of improved Type 22 surface-search radars were installed. On 23 June Hyugo conducted their first catapult training. Two days later, Hyuga became the flagship of the Fourth Carrier Division. In September, six racks of 30-tube 12.7 cm anti-aircraft rocket launchers were added. Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards After the Americans began attacking Japanese installations in the Bonin Islands on 10 October 1944, the aircraft of the Fourth Carrier Division were ordered to prepare for combat. On 14 October they attacked the aircraft carriers of Task Force 38 near Formosa with little effect and heavy losses. The ships of the Fourth Carrier Division were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet. The Main Body's role was to act as decoys to attract attention away from the two other forces approaching from the south and west. All forces were to converge on Leyte Gulf on 25 October and the Main Body left Japan on 20 October. By the morning of 24 October, the Main Body was within range of the northernmost American carriers of Task Force 38 and Ozawa ordered an air strike to attract the attention of the Americans. The Americans were preoccupied dealing with the other Japanese naval forces and defending themselves from air attacks launched from Luzon and Leyte and could not spare any aircraft to search for the Japanese carriers until the afternoon. On the morning of 25 October radar picked up the first of five American airstrikes at a range of 125 nautical miles. Fragments from near misses by bombs damaged the ship's anti-torpedo blister and she developed a 5° list that was easily corrected. The American submarine USS Halibut spotted the Fourth Carrier Division at 17:42 and manoeuvered to attack, missing with six torpedoes at 18:43. Despite being spotted by American submarines en route, the division arrived safely on 27 October. After leaving the island the following day, they were unsuccessfully attacked by the submarine USS Sea Dog before their arrival at Kure on the 29th. Between 29 October and 8 November, the catapults were removed to improve the firing arcs of No. 3 and No. 4 turrets. Hyuga and Ise departed on 11 November, loaded with troops and munitions for Manila, capital of the Philippines but were diverted to the Spratly Islands. They arrived on 14 November and their cargo was unloaded. Reinforced by the battleship Haruna and three cruisers, the sisters proceeded on to Lingga Island, near Singapore, on 20 November. They remained there until 12 December. They departed for Cam Ranh Bay, French Indochina, where they were on standby for an attack on an American supply convoy. The attack was cancelled on the 30th and the ships sailed for Singapore where they arrived on 1 January 1945 before continuing on to Lingga. On 6 February, the division sailed for Singapore to participate in Operation Kita. The sisters and the light cruiser Ōyodo were loaded with critically needed strategic war supplies (oil, rubber, tin, zinc, and mercury) and 1,150 surplus oil workers to be ferried back to Japan. The division sailed from Singapore on 10 February and was spotted by the British submarine HMS Tantalus the following day. On 13 February the submarine USS Bergall unsuccessfully attacked the ships as did the submarine USS Blower. Later that afternoon, Oyodo launched one of her floatplanes which spotted the submarine USS Bashaw on the surface about 22,000 metres ahead of the convoy. Hyuga opened fire with her main guns and forced Bashaw to submerge. The convoy reached the Matsu Islands, off the Chinese coast, on the 15th and was unsuccessfully attacked by the submarine USS Rasher. The convoy reached Kure on 20 February, having evaded or escaped pursuit by twenty-three Allied submarines along the way. Final role The 4th Carrier Division was disbanded on 1 March and Hyuga was reduced to first-class reserve. From this time until the surrender of Japan, Hyuga was anchored in Hiroshima Bay without fuel or aircraft. More than 240 American carrier-based aircraft from Task Force 58 attacked Kure on 19 March and the ship was hit by three bombs, killing 37 and wounding 52 crewmen. Her anti-aircraft guns claimed to have shot down a single Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber during the attack. Re-designated as a fourth-class reserve ship on 20 April, Hyuga was towed to a new position within Hiroshima Bay and heavily camouflaged. She was later attacked during the bombing of Kure on 24 July and was struck by 10 bombs that blew off part of her stem, destroyed her bridge and started major fires. Over 200 sailors were killed and 600 wounded by the attack. Progressive flooding caused the ship to sink in shallow water over the next several days and her crew was ordered to remove all easily accessible weapons. Hyuga was unsuccessfully attacked by 24 B-24 Liberator heavy bombers on the 29th and abandoned three days later by her crew. She was removed from the Navy List on 20 November 1945. Her wreck was raised and broken up by the Kure Dockyard of the Harima Zosen Corporation from 2 July 1946 to 4 July 1947. IJN Hyuga in World of Warships: Class: battleship/hybrid battleship or hybrid carrier Tier: VI She would be a premium ship, purchased by dublons or free XP. Her Hull A is similiar to Fuso, but Hull B is like nothing else in WoWs. Hyugo-Hull A (after second reconstruction (1934-1936), but before Hyugo was rebuilt to hybrid aircraft carrier) General characteristics: Lenght: 215.8 m (708 ft 0 in) Beam: 31.75 m (104 ft 2 in) Draught: 9.45 m (31 ft 0 in) Displacement -loaded: 42,001 long tons (42,675 tons) Maneuverability: Engine power: 60,000 kW (80,000 horsepower) Maximum speed: 24.5 knots (45.4 km/h; 28.2 mph) Turning circle radius: 750 m Rudder shift time: 15,1 sec. Armor and hitpoints: Hitpoints: 57,500 HP Armor: -belt (maximum thickness): 299 mm (11.8 in) -strake: 100 mm (3.9 in) -upper armoured deck: 55 mm (2.2 in) -lower armoured deck: 30 mm (1.2 in) -turrets: -face: 254 mm (10 in) -roof: 76 mm -casamate armour: 149 mm (5.9 in) -barbettes: 299 mm -conning tower: 349,25 (13.75 in) Torpedo damage reduction: 36% Main armament: Main armament: 6x2 356 mm/45 41st Year Type Caliber: 356 mm (14 in) Rate of fire: 2,14 shots/min. Reload time: 28 sec. Rotation speed: 3,2 deg. per second Firing range: 21,81 km Maximum dispersion: 226m HE shell: 356 mm HE Type0 Maximum HE shell damage: 5,700 Chance of fire on Target caused by HE shell: 25% Initial HE shell velocity: 805m/s HE shell weight: 625kg AP shell: 356 mm AP Type91 Maximum AP shell damage: 10,200 Initial AP shell velocity: 775m/s AP shell weight: 673,5kg Secondary armament: 1) 4x2 127 mm/40 Type89 A1 -range: 4km -rate of fire: 12 shots/min. -reload time: 5sec. -HE shell: 127 mm HE Type0 -maximum HE shell damage: 2,100 -initial HE shell velocity: 725 m/s -chance of fire on target caused by HE Shell: 8% 2) 16x1 140 mm/50 3rd Year Type -range: 4km -rate of fire: 7,5 shots/min. -reload time: 8sec. -AP shell: 140 mm AP Type2 -maximum HE shell damage: 2,700 -initial HE shell velocity: 850 m/s Anti aircraft defence: (1943 configuration) Long range (5km): 4x2 127 mm/40 Type89 A1 Medium range (3km): 10x2 25 mm/60 Type96 Twin mod. 1 Short range (2km): none Concealment: Surface detectability range: 18.5 km Air detectability range: 11.92 km Consumables: -Damage control party: -90sec. cooldown -infinite charges -Repair party: -citadel repair: 10% -healing: 0.5% of maximum hit points per second -duration: 28 seconds -cooldown: 120 seconds -charges: 3 -Spotting aircraft: -duration: 100 seconds -cooldown: 360 seconds -charges: 3 Hyuga-Hull B As hybrid carrier (1945) General characteristics: Lenght: 219.62 m (720 ft 6 in) Beam: 31.71 m (104 ft 0 in) Draught: 9.03 m (29 ft 8 in) Displacement -loaded: 39,805 long tons (40,444 t) Maneuverability: Engine power: 60,000 kW (80,000 horsepower) Maximum speed: 25,5 knots Turning circle radius: 750 m Rudder shift time: 15,1 sec. Armor and hitpoints Hitpoints: 57,500 HP Armor: -belt (maximum thickness): 299 mm (11.8 in) -strake: 100 mm (3.9 in) -upper armoured deck: 55 mm (2.2 in) -lower armoured deck: 30 mm (1.2 in) -turrets: -face: 254 mm (10 in) -roof: 76 mm -casamate armour: 149 mm (5.9 in) -barbettes: 299 mm -conning tower: 349,25 (13.75in) Torpedo damage reduction: 36% Main armament: Main armament: 4x2 356 mm/45 41st Year Type Caliber: 356 mm (14 in) Rate of fire: 2,14 shots/min. Reload time: 28 sec. Rotation speed: 3,2 deg. per second Firing range: 21,81 km Maximum dispersion: 226m HE shell: 356 mm HE Type0 Maximum HE shell damage: 5,700 Chance of fire on Target caused by HE shell: 25% Initial HE shell velocity: 805m/s HE shell weight: 625kg AP shell: 356 mm AP Type91 Maximum AP shell damage: 10,200 Initial AP shell velocity: 775m/s AP shell weight: 673,5kg Secondary armament: 1) 8x2 127 mm/40 Type89 A1 -range: 4km -rate of fire: 12 shots/min. -reload time: 5sec. -HE shell: 127 mm HE Type0 -maximum HE shell damage: 2,100 -initial HE shell velocity: 725 m/s -chance of fire on target caused by HE Shell: 8% Anti aircraft defence: Long range (5km): 8x2 127 mm/40 Type89 A1 Medium range (3km): - 31x3 25 mm/60 Type96 Triple mod. 1 - 11x1 25 mm/60 Type96 mod. 1 Short range (2km): 6x1 30-round 12.7 cm AA rocket launchers Air group: Fighters: Mitsubishi A6M2 -speed: 162 knots -average damage per second: 44 -loadout: 60 -hitpoints: 1210 HP (Althought Hyuga didn't originally have A6M2, I think that only one type of planes is inadequate and giving her Aichi E16A reconnaissance floatplanes just for spotting (without any armament) isn't good enought. A6M2 can do spotting and can attack smaller groups of aircraft.) Dive bombers: Yokosuka D4Y2 -speed: 139 knots -maximum bomb damage: 4600 HP (HE bomb) -hit points: 1,400 HP (I nerfed Yokosuka D4Y2 stats. Shokaku has Yokosuka D4Y2 dive bombers at tier VIII. For balancing reasons i nerfed them to be comperable to tier VII planes because Hyuga can face tier VIII opponents and she has total hangar capacity of only 22 planes...) Hyuga can't have any torpedo bombers because she has short flight deck (and heavy aircraft need long) and torpedo bombers in combination with 356mm guns would be devastating combination. Flight control mod: 1st flight control mod: - 1 fighter group - 1 dive bomber groups This is more balanced control mod. 2nd flight control mod: - 0 fighter groups - 2 dive bomber groups This is for aggressive playstyle. Hyugo would have (just like any other IJN carrier) groups with 4 planes in each of them. I think that she can't have more than 2 goups of planes. The higher claim on micro-management would be only for the best players and loosing 2 turrets for 3 groups of planes is little bit too good. Hangar capacity: 22 planes Special feature: Every aircraft carrier in the game, when is set on fire, can't launch/receive planes (if you don't have Captain skill-Emergency Takeoff). This would be a problem for this ship. If you want to play this ship at 100%, you need to use your guns and planes. For this to happen, you have to stay idealy in second line. Here you can be exposed to fire. There you can be set on fire by HE shells. Because this is hybrid aircraft carrier, I think that I have a solution for this problem. The only way to disable launching planes by being on fire, is to be set on fire on the stern, where the hangar and catapult is located. This way you can still launch planes even though your bow or middle section of this ship is on fire. Controling the ship: Following text has some controls same as normal aircraft carrier in WoWs. The reason why I am writing this so detailed is simple- to fully understand the controlling of this ship. This ship would have 2 mods- battleship mod and aircraft carrier mod. 1st mod- battleship: Hyuga would be just like any other battleship. You control ship with WASD keys (turning, increasing/decreasing speed), aiming with your guns and firing with them. Your air group would be controlled by AI. It will target the nearest visible vessel with dive bombers and attacking the nearest palnes with fighters. If you press CTRL+ right clicking on the enemy ship (left click is for secondary armament), you will specify a target you want to attack and AI will follow these orders. Same apllies for fighter and enemy planes. Other way to give orders to group is by selecting it, by pressing key 3 or 4 (key 1 is for loading guns with HE shells, key 2 is for AP shells) and clicking on the minimap. The selected group will fly to the area and stay there. If you want to go from controlling air group back to operating with your guns, then you simply press key 1 or 2 and it will switch back. With this method selected air group will stay in ordered location and it won't attack any ship (in case of fighters-enemy planes). For attacking a ship you must select the ship manualy (CTRL+right click on the enemy ship). If you want to return your air group for resupply, then you press F, this however will happen automatically after consumption of all amunition. This mod allows you to better control your ship and fire your main guns by your self. 2nd mod- aircraft carrier: After pressing key M, you will look at the large map and control your ship just like other carrier in the game. However, there are few differences. Main battery will be controlled by AI and will fire at the nearest visible enemy ship in range, that isn't in cover (behind island,...). You can, again, specify target for AI by pressing CTRL+right clicking on the enemy ship you want to attack (CTRL+left click is for secondary armament). By pressing key 1 or 2, you will change the amunition for AI. By pressing key Q (aircraft carriers have this under key 1, but this one is already used...) and clicking on the map, you will activate auto-pilot. This mod allows you to better control your planes and do the manual drop for dive bombers or fighters. For return to 1st mod, you press key M again. Special function: If you don't want to AI fire your guns (28 sec. reload time isn't short), you can press R key. After pressing the key again, the AI will resume firing at the nearest enemy ship. This function is for someone who likes to aim him self. AI control guns at long range aren't that accurate after all. Concealment: Surface detectability range: 18.5 km Air detectability range: 11.92 km. Consumables: -Damage control party: -90sec. cooldown -infinite charges -Repair party: -citadel repair: 10% -healing: 0.5% of maximum hit points per second -duration: 28 seconds -cooldown: 120 seconds -charges: 3 Summary: Hull A Hull A is for any player. It's not difficult to control it or know, how to play with it. The IJN Hyuga is really close to Fuso: -same amount of main guns of the same caliber in very similiar layout -speed, turning circle radious and rudder shift time are almost the same -concealment is practically the same -same amount of secondary guns However, there are few minor differences: -Hyuga has smaller caliber secondary guns with faster reload -Hyuga has slightly better armour and 400 HP more -Fuso has better AA medium range defence Hyuga, just like Fuso, has more smaller caliber main guns than other tier VI counterparts. She has large health pool and great torpedo protection. She can keep up with other friendly ships and has good agility. She also doesn't have great AA defence and has large pagoda mast which is easily set on fire. Hull B Hull B is for experienced players. If hull B would be implemented in game, she would be the most difficult ship to play while 100% using every benefit of this ship. The micro-management is key to success. Thanks to her battleship status, she could be in games, where no aircraft carriers are and take advantage of it. Hyuga can spot enemy ships for your allies and you, enemy torpedoes approaching to your ship or reset the cap while you are on the other side of the map. Her ability to launch planes will be stopped only by setting the stern on fire (unless you take Emergency take off for your captain). She is also the only "carrier" that has Repair party consumable. If we compare Hull B Hyuga to other battleships: -Hyuga has the best AA defence -Hyuga has less guns than Fuso, New Mexico, Normandie, Dunkerque and Arizona -Hyuga has low caliber guns -Hyuga has good health pool and torpedo reduction and agility From this compariso we can see, that if Hyuga wants to stay competitive, than she needs to use combination of her guns and aircraft. Playing the Hyuga will be difficult and will take time to get use to it. However, this battleship can offer unique and rewarding gameplay. IJN Hyuga could be implemented in WoWs but I think that she would be only in Hull A variant. Hull B variant probably won't be implemented in game, thanks to difficult gameplay and balancing reasons. (It is also the strangest looking battleship I have ever seen) I will be glad if you leave your comment below. I hope you enjoyed this article and have a nice day. Resourses: Informations: wikipedia- Japanese battleship Hyuga Book- Encyklopedie Válečných lodí od 2. světové války až po současnost, Robert Jackson, Naše Vojsko Book- The Encyclopedia of Sea Warfare, from the first ironclads to the present day, Oliver Warner, Spring books, a Salamander book Pictures: Wikipedia-Japanese battleship Hyuga Blueprints-ships-Battleship Hyuga
  7. As title says.. I recently came back playing the game and it's the only premium ship I want that I miss.
  8. Now, this is one thing which has pissed me off for a long time now so it's time see what other players think. There's a few things which have finally been fixed in this game which have plagued it for some time. HOWEVER When a carrier has been killed and it's planes just hover there permanently, usually beyond your ships AA range, (even within AA range this can be a damn nightmare if you have weak or non-existent AA for example). Personally I think this is game breaking and the planes should be destroyed or simply fly off once the carrier (or ship if it's a spotter plane) has been destroyed. Thoughts?
  9. “CV” —

    The Asashio situation is set, no more good to be done further fussing over it. Time to focus on the only thing I truly care about, CVs. It would be best that we write whatever we want to write, and say whatever we want to say, this time, before WG finishes the wip on the CV rework. For once they finish this rework it is unlikely they will do another. The purpose of this thread is two-fold. One is to gather ideas from the forums on what we should examine whilst considering this CV rework. From what perspectives, using what methods, asking what questions, gathering what data and insights, would an analytical approach to the intention of CV rework benefit from. Two is to gather personal ideas on what is the most definitive, representative, singular and final view of CV you hold. What is your version of the definitive CV experience. What in your imagination is the concept of the CV. What is your most symbolic experience in the old CVs. What do you hope for in the new. What will you carry on in memory to the new. I myself will be preparing a writeup akin to a mini-version of notes. It will be subject to some of the same standards, but will be exclusively focused on CV in context of this rework. It will be a bit tasking so I should probably not waste any more attention cracking jokes and ranting sarcasm for a while. Seeing which aspects of the CV the people on the forums believe is important will also help me in defining my own plan and approach to the concept, while reading on the experiences and memories of fellow CV players will possibly provide insight and inspiration. Thus I would like to invite you to please kindly post your “last words” for CVs, and your “final say” on this concept, in this thread. I personally wish this collective memory of CVs to be exempt from meaner, rougher thoughts, as well as dismissive treatment in its characterisation, if possible. We need not patronise nor objectify WG in this either; as ideally concepts are just concepts, pure and ideal. Remember the CVs as what not we had managed to make of them, but as what they deserve to be, and what their portrayal carries collectively and ideally, timeless and final.
  10. There was a time where other classes pervaded the games in numbers that were simply too large to manage. Carriers and destroyers both have had their day of dominance. There are things that pervade the class, the developers, and the community at large that makes it so that battleships are such a problem where carriers and destroyers never were. The Battleship Class The problem with battleships has escalated to the point where event the most virulent defendants of the status quo can't even pretend that there isn't a problem anymore. Admittedly this was like waiting until we have to start rowing to work before we start cutting down on coal power plants, but progress is progress. Wargaming's slow and iterative changes to the class could most charitably be seen as a way to not cause the class collapse formerly seen in the carrier class and uncharitably seen as the development team having some perverse sexual attraction to battleships (glass houses, I know) but the change is welcome regardless. Carriers and battleships both can be played without employing different tactical considerations depending on targets and both essentially exist outside of the hard counter system that means that most cruisers are incredibly weak towards battleships and that destroyers are incredibly weak towards cruisers but that battleships aren't particularly weak towards destroyers. Even in the context of 'anti-battleship' cruiser lines like the French or Russians, the damage that the cruiser does to the battleship could be returned with interest with just a few lucky shots should the circumstances conspire towards it and the same could be said about carriers if the matchmaker was particularly vindictive that day. Many similar issues exists as, depending on the game circumstance, explicitly AA based cruisers could be ripped to pieces by carriers. There is a battleship plague problem however and not a carrier plague. Whilst this could simply be traced back to the fact that battleships are easy to play whilst carriers aren't, the problem is often more difficult than that and solving the issue by introducing artificial difficulty to the battleship class as an equivalent to the lags and UI errors of the CV class will fail to address the core of the issue. By making the interclass interaction more similar to that between carriers, destroyers and the other classes, battleships would be able to be brought in line. Whether or not this is desirable however is another matter. Currently, Wargaming's approach to re-balancing battleships is very much focused on how battleships interact with the other classes. The spotter plane nerf meant that they did not have the 5 minute resistance to torpedoes that the twin catapult fighters once offered. The changes to smoke mechanics meant that they would not be able to ambush cruisers and destroyers as easily. Among the changes closest to the top of the priority list was the ability of battleships to cause catastrophic damage to destroyers and their ability to use just one ammunition type for close to any circumstance. War Gaming has also stated that they objected to the excessive survivability of battleships. The issue has been raised multiple times and the changes that are being made are slow but there. This might be controversial but I do not see the ability for battleships to one-shot destroyers, never have to switch ammunition type, or even survive better than the other classes as the primary cause of the problem we see. I think the remaining issue with battleships can't be solved by changing the ways that battleships interact with other classes as much as it would likely need to come down to the options that other ships have in dealing with battleships. Whilst this may sound pedantic, it very much is and I don't know why you thought it was possible to read something written by me that doesn't collapse into pedantic arguments over terms that ultimately just ends with me declaring victory over whoever I was arguing with despite the fact that everyone who gets stuck in an internet argument has already lost. Anyways, on to the main topic. Carriers, destroyers & the Problem of Choice Wargaming largely depends on the classes to balance each other and this has led to endless grief for everyone involved. Apart from battleships. Obviously. Destroyers, battleships, and carriers all depart from the general template and have benefits that are essentially technically exclusive to them. At their worst, the game degraded into cheese tactics beyond comparison. The Shimakaze's wall of death is remembered to this day, the wall that dooms even the most agile of destroyers and covered the maps from border to border. Then of course there was the Hakuryuu with her quintuple Kamikaze attack, the name not coming from the fact that you could use her planes to commit suicide against enemy ships as much as from the fact that her torpedo bombers carried the payload of five Kamikaze class destroyers. There were various eventual nerfs to those ships, but even whilst it lasted they were not nearly as ubiquitous as battleships are as a class in the present day and that is largely due to the fact that conditional population control mechanics are built into the game to manage the numbers of carriers and destroyers in such a way that battleships simply aren't. The Lesson No One Learned Battleship players, more so than players of any other ship class, are fundamentally selfish and are encouraged to be selfish thanks to the game mechanics. This might not be a revelation to most, but the selfishness of the battleship and the way that game mechanics works makes it so that it promotes battleships. For those unfamiliar with game theory, it could be best simplified as a way to predict the actions of selfish and perfectly rational agents. Humans aren't perfectly rational, but over a large amount of time and with the smallest level of self awareness the actions of even an online game like World of Warships could be approximated as rational. Players can observe their own results and apply what they've learn, and so players will slowly move towards the state of maximum profit for minimum effort. Players without the imagination to do this could always just copy the tactic of players that do. When discussing the balance between battleships and other classes, the topic does often steer towards the things that other classes outdo battleship in. Destroyers are far stealthier than battleships, could go the entire game without being spotted, and could carry games on literally 1 point of HP. Cruisers have significantly better DPM, tools like radar, defensive fire, hydroacoustics, smoke screens, and a plethora of other things that could be employed for the team's benefit. Carriers have unparalleled reconnaissance abilities and the ability to herd the entire enemy fleet. Next to all of that, it may superficially seem like better armor and more health would be a small thing. This however is just an obfuscation of the issue. I would like to make one last note. When I look at battleships, I can't help but see the very worst parts of carrier gameplay back when full strike carriers were still a thing. Facing another full strike carrier is rare, but when it happens it was quite memorable. I grinded through the Lexington in full strike configuration back when she still had that. I faced another strike Lexington on Northern Lights one battle. We all but ignored each other, flying our bombers past each other to bomb the enemy into oblivion. It was a constant damage race and that game I won by a sliver. If I had lost that match, I would likely have blamed the team for their failings and posted a screenshot online so I could have a laugh about it. I managed 170k that match in a tier X game but I did essentially nothing to protect the team from the enemy. I didn't scout in order to maximize my cycle time and I didn't communicate with the allied team whatsoever. When writing this, I couldn't help but think back to what I did back then and how much it reminded me of the things I wrote here. Battleships reaped the benefits of cruisers, destroyers, and carriers. I reaped the benefit of my team staying in between the enemy and myself and used them as an expendable shield to farm damage. The game is ultimately selfish and comes down to how much players can personally get from the game and changing a few values on a few ships will not change that.
  11. Strike Groups - 16 Team Tournament

    Strike Groups A unique gameplay mode not currently offered in Warships. Currently Carrier gameplay is either solitary 1v1 or unorganised 2v2 (Tier 7 and below) matches in random battles. In “competitive” game modes Carriers are excluded from Clan Battles and in King of the Sea, the Carrier is relegated to a glorified scout unable to effectively strike (until very late-game) due to the hostile Anti-Air & Defensive fire nature of Tier 8-10 gameplay. There is no gamemode similar to the Battle of Midway for example with organised Strike groups battling it out against each other. So lets make our own then! In this 3CV1BB game mode, the Strike Group must learn to work together in the chaotic battle-space on April the 28th 2018! The Gameplay ruleset is a little different from anything done before. Team composition: Teams must consist of three carriers and one battleship All ships must be Tier 7 Maximum of two Premium ships allowed per team Each premium must be unique (ie one of each only) Hiryu and Saipan must played in a “Balanced setup” Hiryu 2-2-2, Saipan 2-2-0 Teams that bring 3-1-2 or 3-0-1 setups will forfeit that game! Tournament format: (Glossary; Game = Single battle between two teams, Round = Best of 3 played games) 16 teams in a single elimination format tournament on the European Server Each round of the tournament is played in a Best of 3 games format Maps: Both teams play as North and South on the map “Okinawa” Tiebreaker (1-1 score) games are played on the map “Ocean” Game format: Battles take place in the "Training Room" Game mode is “Standard Battle” with 20 minutes gametime Teams must take screenshots of the match result to help resolve any disputes At least one member of a team must have replays enabled to help resolve any disputes Teams can swap lineups after each game Teams can “gg” to admit defeat in a game Game Victory conditions; Sink all enemy ships Capture enemy base Win by ingame points if 20 minutes gametime expires If a Draw occurs (equal points after 20 minutes) neither team scores a point If score is 1-0 and a draw occurs neither team scores a point. The team with 1 point wins the best of 3 (tiebreaker is only for 0-0 or 1-1 scores) If first game ends in a draw, the winner of the second game wins the best of 3 (tiebreaker is only for 0-0 or 1-1 scores) If the second game results in a draw the Tiebreaker is played (ie 0-0 score after two games) If a tiebreaker game ends in a draw the winning team is decided by most enemy planes killed In the highly unlikely event a tiebreaker ends in a draw and both teams have equal enemy plane kills… I’m going to flip a coin. Teams signup: Teams can sign up via our Discord, or in this thread (only requests after 7th April 09:00 CEST will secure a position in the tournament) Sign up is on a first come basis Teams sign up as either from a Clan group or a custom named team (ie multiple teams from one clan or members from multiple clans coming together to form one team) Teams can be no larger than 5 players (4 active & 1 reserve) Teams that sign up must provide a roster of their members No player can play for more than one team/clan Discord: Discord is the main platform for answering questions and posting updates for teams. At least one of your team members must be available on discord. You can join using this link Rewards: Thanks to WarGaming for providing prizes to the top three placed teams First place is awarded a Tier 7 Premium Battleship or Aircraft Carrier of choice Second place is awarded 25 x FTW Camouflage + 25 x Hydra signal Third place is awarded 7 days premium (bonus code) Schedule & Stream: Entire tournament takes place over Saturday the 28th April 2018 First Round starts at 14:00 CEST with the Finals ending no later than 20:00 CEST Estimated Round Start times can be found here Challonge Tournament Bracket Link can be found after we have 16 signed up teams (I hope we get 16!) Most of the tournament will be casted & streamed by Farazelleth (ie me) @ twitch.tv/farazelleth Anyone else wishing to cast additional games please feel free to get in contact. Signups will open on Saturday the 7th of April at 09:00 CEST Please read the rules fully before registering
  12. Fragen zum CV spielen

    Hallo WoWs-Kapitäne, ich fahre zur Zeit vor allem Schlachtschiffe und ein bisschen Kreuzer und DDs. Ich würde aber auch sehr gerne Flugzeugträger spielen. Bisher habe ich erste Erfahrungen mit den CVs in den Coop-Gefechten gesammelt und bin inzwischen bei den Amis und den Japanern auf Tier 5 bei den CVs. Eines vorneweg: Ich bin sicher nicht der beste Spieler, will aber lernen. Ich habe noch nicht viele Gefechte und vieles ist sicher Ausbaufähig. (allen voran die Situational Awareness und die globale Taktik) Leider sind viele Guides hier ziemlich outdated, deswegen stelle ich hier mal meine Fragen zu den Carriern: - Welche Nation sollte ich als Anfänger spielen? Die US CVs oder doch die Japanischen CVs? Die Amis haben anscheinend eine bessere Luftüberlegenheit, machen dafür aber kaum Schaden an gegnerischen Schiffen. Bei den Japanern ist es genau umgekehrt. Fahre ich die Bogue, dann mache ich nicht genug Schaden um meinem Team helfen zu können. Wenn ich aber den japanischen Tier 5 CV spiele, dann verliere ich meine Flugzeuge und kann auch keinen Schaden machen. Ich weiß also überhaupt nicht, was ich hier wählen soll? - Welches Setup soll ich im Falle der Japaner wählen? Leider gibt es auf Tier 4 und 5 keinen manuellen Drop mehr. Und strafen können die Jäger auch nicht. :-( Viele Grüße Sebi
  13. Problems with CV controls?

    Since 0.7.2 update CV controls produce really weird issues for me (did not play CVs when 0.7 hit so no idea how it looked on relase): - generally less responsive than in 0.6 - problems with drawing selection box over squadrons (fails to select all squadrons in the box or does not draw box at all) - it seems I can not remove squadron from a takeoff queue (as I remember it was possible by right clicking, or am I remembering that wrong?) - yesterday at the end of my third match in Ryujo, I lost capability to do >>anything<< with left mouse click - could not order squadrons, check different screens in post match report. LMB did not work in port either (had to kill game via task manager) - this happened after the mini patch. Do other captains have similar problems? Trying to figure if its problem with my laptop, or just WoWs.
  14. Fanmade Carrier Splitt (CV and CVE/CVL)

    Hi all My friend Seefelder and i were thinking about the Carrier gamplay and came up with an idea, to split the Carriers in two new groups: light/escort Carrier and Carriers. This fanmade gameplay will come up with 3 full sets of CV / CVE/CVL Techtrees. USN, IJN and Royal Navy. The Gamplay would be like this: Light/escort would take the lead as supporter and hunter, while the Carrier would mainly strike. This means light/escort Carrier would have more fighters then the Carrier. The fightersquadron on Carriers will be reduced to 1 group. Airsplane configuration Light/escort: 2 to 3 fighters and 1 to 2 dive bombers/torpedo bomber (depending of its tier) Carrier: 1 fighter, 1-3 dive bombers and 1-3 torpedo bombers (depending on its tier) Techtree USN US CV Splitt (CV and CVE/CVL) Ship tier Tier IV Tier V Tier VI Tier VII Tier VIII Tier IX Tier X Ship Name Long Island Charger Casablanca Sangamon Commencment Bay Independence Wright Note CVE-1 CVE-30 CVE-56 CVE-26 CVE-105 / AP-Bombs Uptiered CVL-22 / AP-Bombs CVL-49 / Saipan Class / AP-Bombs Configuration 2/1/0 2/1/0 2/1/0 2/1/1 2/1/1 2/1/1 3/1/1 Hangar 26 28 (Original 30) 30 (Original 28) 32 34 36 (Original 33) 42 Ship Name Langley Bouge Ranger Lexington Wasp Essex Midway Note Downtiered Downtiered New Configuration 1/1/1 1/1/1 1/2/1 1/2/2 1/2/2 1/3/2 1/3/3 Hangar 26 33 76 78 95 100 137 IJN IJN CV Splitt (CV and CVE/CVL) Ship tier Tier IV Tier V Tier VI Tier VII Tier VIII Tier IX Tier X Ship Name Hosho Zuiho Chitose Shinyo Ryuho Ryujo G18 (Ryusho) Note Techtree Change Techtree Change CVL CVE 1943 as Build CVL Uptiered CVL Project CVL Configuration 2/1/1 2/0/2 2/1/2 2/1/2 2/1/2 3/1/2 3/1/2 Hangar 24 30 30 33 36 48 48 (Project 42) Ship Name Taiyo Hiyo Hiryu Unryu Shokaku Taiho Hakuryu Note New CVE New and to balance Downtiered New Configuration 1/1/2 1/2/2 1/2/2 1/2/2 1/2/3 1/3/3 1/3/3 Hangar 30 (Original 27) 40 (Original 54) 73 75 (Original 73) 84 90 (Original 82) 100 Royal Navy RN CV Splitt (CV and CVE/CVL) Ship tier Tier IV Tier V Tier VI Tier VII Tier VIII Tier IX Tier X Ship Name Argus Hermes Unicorn Furious Majestic Centaur Colossus Note New and to balance New and to balance Configuration 2/0/1 2/0/1 2/1/1 2/1/1 2/1/1 3/1/1 3/1/2 Hangar 22 (Original 18) 25 (Original 20) 33 36 37 42 48 Ship Name Eagle Courageous Audacious Illustrious Arc Royal Implacable Malta Note New and to balance Configuration 1/1/1 1/1/2 1/1/2 1/2/2 1/2/2 1/2/3 1/3/3 Hangar 30 42 (Original 48) 60 65 (Original 55) 72 81 108 What do you think about it.
  15. Propsed CV gameplay chances

    I like playing CVs, but i honestly believe that it was a mistake of WG to bring fleet or attack carriers into the game.... the whole concept is just to op in itself. A single essex class CV could wipe out a whole flotilla after all. The large carriers changed naval warfare for ever. Similiar to submarines they flipped the concept of "bigger guns equals stronger ship" on it's head. If WG had decided to just use light or escort carriers the problem would most likly not be such an issue. But since we have these large carriers in the game, we need to work with them somehow. In my opinion i think the CVs are pretty good balanced up till and including tier 6, the light carriers independence and ryujo. Those ships can have a great impact on the game, but can't single handenly mop the floor with half of the enemy team. There is quite a harsh limit of what they can do. Starting with the attack carriers on tier 7 this class receives quite a meta shift. A single ship is now able to at least counter a good part of the enemy team all by itself or wipe them out completly. And the player's skill is far more essential on these tiers then before. Even in a match with 4 CVs if there is just one far better player on one team the enemy CVs will be rendered useless and in most cases either quite some BBs or DDs, too (depending on the CV/plane setuo used). While it is nice to feel powerful in these ships, it IS damping the overall fun of the game. At least in my eyes it is no fun what so ever if no one can do something against you. I do not believe that I'm a great CV player, maybe a good one but definitely not one of the unicorns out there. And even I still have a avg 55% win ratio in my CVs, heck even in my losses I usally was able to at least challenge the enemy CV if not being able to counter him/her completly. With less and less CV players I think WG really needs to address this issue sooner rather then later. But I don't waste my time here on ranting about it so here is a list of some of the key problems of CV gameplay I see in this game and a few suggestions to address them. Maybe some will find their way into the game, but at least I can get some peace of mind ;) 1. Too many squadrons on tier 7 and above: This is a problem mainly because of 2 reasons: It is an incredible skill wall. If you can handle all the micro management of your squadrons, then you can contribute a LOT to your team. Even as a bottom tier CV, you still spot enemies or wipe out targets of opportunity. But if a CV player is unable to pass this wall he/she is mostly dead weight to your team. No other class has such a high player skill requirement and such an impact if this is not met. Even a bad BB player can still land quite some DMG or at least be a meat shield. Even a bad DD player can still spot or land torpedo hits. But a bad CV player will be rendered useless failry early in the match and remains a points pinata for the the enemy team afterwards. This gives the CV the ability to be nearly everywhere on the map at the same time. A CV is able to perma spot all the capture circles or enemy DDs. This counters far too many plays by the enemy. It makes flanking or setting up an ambush quite hard or downright imossible for the enemy team. My suggestion would be to simply reduce the number of squads to not more then ~4. Maybe increase the size of planes per squad, but definitely limit the number of "arms" for a CV to use in the match. I personally believe I can handle the current amount (at least I'm telling that myself^^), but I often witness the enemy CV struggeling to manage all of his/her squads at the same time, especially if the are on different parts of the map. 2. DMG output: Yes a CV is suposed to punish the enemy. I can agree on that, but starting with tier 7/8 a CV can punish several enemies at the same time. I don't have much of a problem to take out 2 BBs with a single wave in a Shokaku ( to avoid further toxic comments on this: yes i can agree, that I probably was lucky on this or am just over estimating the capabilities of this ship). This is simply to much from a gamplay standpoint. It may be historically somewhat accurate but not really good for the game. I still would like to take out an enemy BB in one go. IF it is alone and only ONE enemy ship. The striking potential of a CV can simply wipe out a whole flank all by itself. This really needs a nerf. Simple suggestion: re-balance the DMG output of the strike planes. Reduce the torpedo DMG, increase the HE bomb alpha DMG and significantly reduce the DMG potential of AP bombs (around cruiser AP level should be more then enough). Generally limit the the average combined DMG of the whole strike wave to an amount equal to the average HP of BBs on the same tier. 3. Inter action with ship AA in combination with limited plane reserve: This is a problem mainly for inexpierenced CV players. With the current only-DPS-based AA system, a CV player needs to know the AA capabilities of ALL the ships he can meet in his CV. This again is increasing the skill requiert of the player or he will loose most of his planes without being able to do anything siginificant. Of course any ship needs to be able to defend itself from air attacks, but the way it is right now, 2-3 failed strikes render the CV useless for the team, since most of his planes will be shot down at this point. This again is a unique problem of this class. No other class has to worry about it's attacks not hitting the mark, which is simply a bit unfair. My suggestion would be to do ONE of two things: Remove the limit for plane reserve completly and INCREASE all ships' AA DPS. This way the enemy can defend his/her ship better from the air attack while at the same time the CV player doesn't need to worry about his reserves the whole time. REDUCE all ships' AA DPS and implement a system that with a higher AA raiting the ship can reduce the accuracy of the incoming strike planes. So for example coming in the AA range of a Des Moines will reduce the strike accuracy of a torpedo strike to the same amount as if the defensive AA consumable was used at all times. The consumable could increase the AA raiting/DPS of the ship by ~20-30% to make it still effective. Using this approuch the CV's strikes become less effective while at the same time failed strikes will be less punishing for the CV player. 4. Drop mechanic: Simply put: Auto-dropping a strike is only doing anything significant if the enemy is not paying attention at all. And especially for inexpierenced players it can be quite hard to correctly manual drop a strike. This again is only increasing the skill wall for the CV player while all other classes have aim assists on all their weapon systems. Simple suggestion: Additional markes in the drop UI could help a lot. An activation line for the torpedos can help a player to gauge the drop location better and a simple marker where the enemy ship will be if it continues to sail with the same course and speed after the dive bombers have commited to the drop could also help the CV player. I hope WG will think about these suggestions. If anyone has some other suggestions please do tell them in a constructive way ;) Edit* For all those who think I shouldn't speak on this: Newsflash: I'm allowed to do so. This is a forum for disussions not any development directive or anything. If you think I'm not skillful or experience enough in CV gameplay: Fair enough. I can see your point and would love to hear YOUR thoughts on this. What would you change? Or if you don't think it should change WHY do you think so? Are all those who keep saying that CV gameplay needs a rework just stupid/wrong? Maybe be constructive for a change. Just try to keep the drama/toxicity down a notch or two. Regards, Deus3x
  16. Me explico, llevo un tiempo viendo y jugueteando con los blindajes, y sin duda, hay cosas que o no están bien puestas, o bien son las bombas AP las que no están funcionando correctamente. Pasemos a la realidad, para poder suponer qué es lo que sería esperable. Una bomba AP, por supuesto, es una bomba con unas particularidades en el recubrimiento de dicha bomba y en la espoleta, para primero, permitir que penetren en ciertos materiales duros y segundo, que para que traspasado cierto umbral la bomba detone. Las bombas AP, realmente llevan menos cantidad de explosivo que sus equivalentes terrestres, pero es a cambio de que lleguen a donde deben, o donde realmente puedan hacer daño. La mortalidad de una bomba depende de su tamaño y peso, que deriva en una mayor o menor cantidad de explosivos, su forma (aunque salvo bombas especiales las normales ya están suficientemente "desarrolladas") y por supuesto del tipo de explosivos (al igual que pasa con los torpedos, el cambio del material explosivo a otro mucho más potente, por supuesto, pone en riesgo medidas que fueron pensadas incluso para bombas de mayor tamaño, pero no tan mortales, ya no digamos cuando sí son de esos tamaños. Por definición, es mejor, una capa gruesa de blindaje superior, a varias de inferior tamaño puestas consecutivamente una detrás de otra, como si fueran una sola, que totalicen el grosor anterior. Las bombas AP, pueden llegar a ser mortales, a veces porque impactan en lugares vitales (estaciones de control de daños, puentes, sistemas eléctricos, munición), a veces porque producen incendios interiores que son difíciles de controlar y a veces porque su acción directa o uno de esos incendios pone en peligro la viabilidad absoluta del navío, como almacenamientos de munición o las calderas; y a veces, al igual que la munición AP (que también detona) causan daños en mamparos que deberían reducir daños de inundaciones o frenar incendios, en estos casos pueden provocar inundaciones por daños en el forro del casco (si uno se fija, suelen estar espaciados creando una doble compartimentación en él, para que uno de los dos lados absorba la mayor parte de los daños el otro se quede intacto o mayormente intacto o con vías de agua a ser posible menores). Además, las bombas AP que por un casual no hubieran detonado hasta llegar al agua (normalmente porque la velocidad ha sido tan poco frenada que el tiempo de detonación les hace llegar hasta ahí, suelen organizar vías de agua muy peligrosas, porque causan extensos daños en el forro del casco que también suelen afectar a toda la estructura de la zona impactada, a veces incluso más peligrosas que si estallan sobre el forro (aunque si una llega a ambos sitios, es bueno ir rezando) Buena parte de los daños que producen, suelen ser en la estructura principal y en las cubiertas inmediatas a la cubierta principal destruyendo un montón de elementos y de equipos necesarios (que por algo, suelen estar puestos en dichos navíos). Como las bombas AP deben ser capaces de dañar tanto navíos como sobre todo, navíos menores (DD, Submarinos, mercantes...) están diseñadas para intentar pasar por ciertos grosores, pero asegurarse que explotan, en estos blancos, aunque eso les reduzca capacidad mortal, en navíos de mayor entidad. Crear una bomba que fuera tan obtusa de reaccionar solo ante blindajes inmensos, posiblemente no reaccionara ante el resto de objetivos ni siquiera cuando hubiera penetrado por todo el navío e incluso posteriormente en el agua, lo cual, la haría absolutamente inviable para cualquier otro objetivo, aunque dejaran un surtidor de agua interno que obligara a cerrar algunos mamparos. Por contra, algunas bombas AP no suelen detonar, por fallas de fabricación, o por daños en la propia bomba (aunque suene irónico) y si no son afectados sistemas clave, como la cuantía de explosivos sobre el total del peso de la bomba, no es tan elevada, los daños pueden a veces considerarse no tan temibles. Pero no nos llevemos a engaño, la mayor parte de los navíos hundidos por la aviación en la WWII lo fueron por bombas AP, no por torpedos lanzados desde aviones; algo especialmente cierto en navíos no blindados militarmente. Para contrarrestar lo de arriba: Por supuesto, se trata de poner tanto blindaje como sea posible, entre la bomba y las zonas críticas, a ser posible, creando una "pre-zona" de suficiente blindaje para que frene lo suficiente la velocidad de caída de la bomba y active la espoleta, para que detone entre ella y alguna cubierta de las protegidas de verdad, sin poder afectar a las zonas críticas o que dicha explosión o incluso bombas que lleguen tan al interior, sean frenados por estos blindajes intermedios. El porqué no poner toda la cubierta con un grosor inmenso, que haga que detonen las bombas superficialmente, es porque los requerimientos de blindaje necesarios para detener una bomba AP se disparan al no haber una superficie que haga que la espoleta se active o en su defecto, frene la bomba. Además, dicha cubierta suele tener una superficie mayor, lo que obligaría a gastar todavía más tonelaje que sin duda debería quedar libre a cambio de algo (menos blindaje lateral, menos armamento, menos velocidad, o menos de todo lo anterior) y por si fuera poco, cuanto más se eleve una gruesa plancha de blindaje sobre el mar, más inestable se crea al navío y más peso es necesario darle para contra-restar esto lo que deriva en mayor calado y mayores necesidades de propulsión, con lo cual, todavía menos tonelaje queda disponible... así que blindados si, pero lo justo y necesario sólo en los lugares que merece la pena. Lo importante, en último fin, es evitar que la bomba detone cerca del forro del casco, por lo peligrosas de esas inundaciones y porque de producirse dichas inundaciones en las calderas, una entrada masiva de agua podría derivar en explosión de la propia caldera, o su inhabilitación, que acaban dejando al navío con movilidad reducida y peor, que lleva a la pérdida de energía eléctrica (lo cual no sería grave si no fuera porque afecta a la capacidad de la tripulación de luchar contra en incendio o de ponerse a salvo, sea porque los tripulantes no ven, porque las bombas de achique no funcionan o incluso las bombas de los grupos de presión anti-incendio tampoco funcionan. Afortunadamente los navíos militares, cuentan con diversos intentos de blindaje (algunos más afortunados que otros) y con bastantes sistemas redundantes para tratar de paliar que unos desaprensivos traten de echarlos a pique. Lamentablemente los navíos no militares o los simples transportes, dejan de contar con algunas de esas medidas, no por la mala leche de sus diseñadores, sino porque llevar de todo ello en abundancia suficiente, los haría dejar de ser transportes viables. (¿de qué serviría un transporte del tonelaje del Bismarck que pudiera llevar únicamente el 13% de su tonelaje en carga?) Situación actual en el juego: En el juego, hay algo raro, conforme mayor es el blindaje intermedio interno (mayores daños parecen asumir los navíos). O algunos de los que mejor aguantan las bombas, tienen capas de blindaje no mostradas en el diagrama de blindajes (que si, algún caso hay). Por contra, contra menores son los blindajes y menos capas tiene el navío más reducidos son los daños... es como si en el juego, las bombas causaran sobre-penetración a través de todo el blindaje, incluso en el forro del casco y se perdiera sin hacer mayores daños (incluso menores que proyectiles que sobre-penetran el navío de lado a lado. salvo que en este caso, las bombas no detonan en el forro o en el agua justo al traspasarlo, simplemente se pierden. Por contra hay navíos profusamente blindados que asumen daños de cuantías extrañas que maximizan los daños que cada bomba hace. No se si esto es porque se considera que cualquier bomba que estalle ahí ha pasado y ha generado un impacto en la ciudadela, o simplemente, porque se asume que esa explosión interna parada por el blindaje "anti-bomba" es el que hace el máximo de destrozos posibles al navío haciendo el daño máximo, aunque realmente no haya llegado a superar la propia cubierta blindada que en última instancia debe proteger al navío de esos daños. Evidentemente, estaría genial añadir un porcentaje de bombas defectuosas (je, incluso puede que la habilidad de intendencia redujera la posibilidades de esto, añadiendo otra habilidad a las deseadas por los CV), pero si con los torpedos que si que eran realmente poco fiables, esto no pasa, como para esperarlo en bombas. Lo que cabría esperar en el juego (la sugerencia): Que las bombas AP que impacten en cubierta puedan dañar y destruir elementos como torres principales o secundarias, a coste por supuesto de su capacidad de perforación (posiblemente los ataques se queden ahí, sin mayores daños que la inutilización de estos elementos (y otros menores como AA, en estos casos, sin perjuicio real de su perforación) Es que las bombas AP hicieran menos daño en los navíos con blindajes interiores gruesos si el de cubierta es suficientemente elevado para no ser traspasado como "papel". E ínfimos en aquellos cuyas cubiertas más exteriores permitan detonaciones "externas" . En estas detonaciones "externas" no crear incendios (o si se idease un sistema de gravedad de incendios estos serían los leves) Que las bombas AP, hicieran daños críticos afectando a sistemas como propulsión o control o incluso detonaciones si superan el blindaje superior de la ciudadela (curiosamente son las HE, las que suelen producir estos efectos, pese a estallar en el exterior del navío, cuando esas bombas deberían estar desterradas del juego salvo para cosas puntuales como ataques a tierra). En estos casos, que apareciera como "ciudadela" y causara una gran parte del daño de la bomba e incluso inundaciones si incluso el forro del casco es "sobrepenetrado" (que recordemos, suele causar una explosión o en él o justo debajo de él) Que las bombas al causar tuvieran probabilidad de causar incendios en los casos que no superasen dicha cubierta anti-bombas pero superasen las superiores a ella; realmente la posibilidad de incendio siempre existe, pero cuanto más interna es más peligrosa, porque su control tambien es más difícil y porque afecta a sistemas necesarios para controlarlos, pero si superados los último niveles de blindaje ya se va a recibir el daño completo de la bomba algún crítico y puede, si la bomba todavía ha ido más abajo que una inundación. Resumen: En cubierta principal, daños o destrucción de elementos blindados (torres secundarias o primarias, en las primarias, si habría que considerar si la bomba se ha limitado a estallar en la propia torre o si la ha sobre-penetrado totalmente y va hacia los pañoles de munición) sin daños adicionales (bastante suele ser perder esas torres) (los AA y otros elementos menores serían dañados, pero no supondrían mayores diferencias la bomba pasaría al siguiente nivel. Bombas detenidas en la estructura o por debajo de la cubierta, pero sin llegar a las siguientes cubiertas inferiores 10% de daño Bombas detenidas por cubiertas blindadas intemedias 20% daño y posibilidad de incendio Bombas detenidas por la cubierta inferior blindada, (la de la ciudadela) 40% de daños y posibilidad de incendio. Bombas que detonen más allá de la cubierta inferior blindada (pero aún relativamente lejos del forro del casco): 80% del daño máximo de la bomba, posibilidad de daños críticos como propulsión, gobierno, detonación (sólo en los lugares donde efectivamente haya munición) y probabilidad alta de incendio. Bombas que exploten sobre el forro del casco después de penetrar la ciudadela 100% del daño máximo posibilidad de daños en propulsión, gobierno y posibilidad de inundación. Bombas que sobre-penetren el forro, 100% daño de la bomba posibilidad de daños críticos como propulsión o gobierno e inundación (esta obligatoria) Agregar un daño específico a los CV: ¡Fuel alcanzado! este daño podría ser tratado como uno o dos incendios inapagables (hasta que trascurriera su contador) o que saltaran el máximo de incendios del CV. Esto posibilitaría dos cosas, la primera, que los CV de la RN y la KM y tal vez, alguno de otras naciones (los tier X) tuvieran un porcentaje menor de que se produjera este daño y sin embargo en los IJN y USA "brillaran" en toda su extensión (literal y figurativamente hablando). La segunda; que la habilidades de reducir el tiempo de incendios y de inundación o la acelerar el tiempo en que está disponible la habilidad del control de daños (alerta alta creo que se llama), fueran habilidades también utilizables por los CV para maximizar su supervivencia, sobre todo en CV IJN y USN (y en otros que vendrán que tengan una configuración más pareja a ellos) Consideraciones finales Soy consciente que estos cambios podrían ayudar más a los acorazados que a los DD y cruceros, pero si el área de bombardeo fuera de un tamaño suficiente, los DD evitarían buena parte de los impactos así como les ocurriría a los cruceros y en menor medida a los acorazados que deberían acarrear buena parte de los impactos (si bien, cuanto más preparados estuvieran para ellos, más podrían aguantar (acaso no se supone que eso debería estar pasando ahora). Otra posible medida, posiblemente mucho mejor, es que el tamaño del circulo venga definido por la velocidad, así como por las maniobras del navío y por su AA... que parece que no, pero estorba y hace soltar las bombas a alturas o velocidades no adecuadas, más que causar el derribo del avión (esta última opción sería más deseable, porque haría blancos fáciles a blancos inmóviles o lentos y difíciles a los muy rápidos (esto sumado al comportamiento de daños, haría justicia a lo que se espera de los transportes) y a los acorazados con buenos blindajes y disposiciones superiores, les haría "tanquear" impactos, aunque también ser un imán para ellos... los que peor parados salen son los CV, pero también ayuda a establecer diferencias nacionales, beneficios por las distintas cubiertas blindadas y que diablos, su trabajo es no ser alcanzados por bombas AP, para eso tienen cazas. También se podría valorar opciones como reducir el daño de las bombas, pero creo que sería mejor dejarlo y basarse en que a veces hay daños menores de lo esperados, dejando a San RNG la cuestión de si la bomba ha llegado a una de esas secciones críticas y ha causado el daño o una variación de él, lo que añadiría una variabilidad a los daños y pocas veces serían sus máximos aunque si la combinación adecuada de eventos de daños extraordinarios. O sea, realizados los cambios se podría ajustar mucho. Incluso puede que quedase bien, "efectos especiales" como el no poder usar la tecla de los equipos de reparación de daños por "x" segundos, o el de lanzamiento de aviones, hidroacústicas, radares... dependiendo de la zona alcanzada: hidro-acústicas y los equipos de control de daño podrían ser por causas más internas; radares, control AA (consumible) aviones, por otras más externas, aunque no parezcan haber casuado daños remarcables al navío, añadiría variedad y posiblemente diversión... y lo mejor, no creo que sean muy problemáticas ni difíciles de implementar. También un acercamiento a estos daños o esta forma de funcionar de las bombas AP, ayudaría a hacer más necesarias o al menos deseables algunas habilidades más para las diversas clases, haciendo más variado el universo de posibles variaciones en cada navío que uno podría encontrarse. La verdad que sería genial ver el nuevo y futuro motor gráfico del WoT aplicado al WoWs que permitiría ver como se derrumban las estructuras del navío, los mástiles y las torres directoras de tiro al recibir suficientes impactos o impactos de cuantías suficientemente elevadas y que estos daños tuvieran efecto sobre el manejo del navío.... pero supongo que esto es demasiado pedir hasta que haya 200.000 jugadores de media en el servidor. En cualquier caso, si que creo que es necesario que WG revise la forma cuando las bombas causan daños y que daños, porque me temo, que algo no está muy bien calculado. Un saludo :)
  17. So basically I just got out of a game where we I played a full upgraded Langely IV vs another. I've got commander skills for air fighters etc. so as far as I could tell my plaens can't be any better meaning that the opponent can only have worse or equal air fighters, however he 26-0'ed me in the air. He literally destroyed every single aircraft I had with his first squadron of fighters. (The first initial battle was a 6v6 fighter over a mountain with no ships from either team engaging in the battle. I lost all 6, he lost 0. Then he went on to wipe my bombers, wiped my remaining 4 fighters while I had assist from a cruiser in the fight and my torpedoes. He never resupplied once shooting down a total of 26 aircrafts, without losing a single plane. What am I doing wrong?
  18. Please help me with Aircraft Carriers

    I'm hoping to have a civilized discussion about current high-tier CV gameplay. I'm not suggesting anything that would be yet-another-rework - I'm sick of those. I'd just like to see some consistency other than consistent losses and salt mine MM. I'm on a ~20 battle Essex lose-streak right now. CV mechanics seems to have become very heavily RNG-based. I don't want to have ships that are there as a nice fantasy only to make you lose interest and incentivize grinding other branches. I don't claim to be a good CV player, (going by overall stats, I guess I'm average - save me the "git gud kid" lecture, skills an practice will only get you so far on a less-than stellar PC with the current net-code and UI fluidity). However, I get thrown into matches where (1) my strafes are extremely ineffective, from every angle, while the enemy decimates me even on head-on strafes with few planes in their squadron; (2) my planes get chewed up by outer AA auras while the enemy seems to be able to loiter above multiple targets to line up good runs. I can't go spot because even destroyer AA wrecks my planes in a matter of seconds; I can't do much damage because even average T7 battleship AA widens my drops. If this was a flash in the pan, offset by meh games or ones where it's the other way around, I'd say "screw it, grind through, wait it out" - but loss after loss after loss it's the exact same symptoms from different people. I know that (1) people play strangely when they're focusing on weird achievements and that (2) the still new Steam users are making their way up to top tiers and they're offsetting baseline competence and may be throwing the meta off, but come one! Most of the time it feels like a combination of insane RNG disparity and a good deal of de-sync: I get pings of 30-37 ms, but enemy planes often dodge my strafes at the last second and I lose 3 planes as soon as their strafe appears to start (and I try to be tricky, but it's like they have a sixth sense or they see things a fraction of a second sooner). Visuals are jerky, even on reduced graphics (medium / DX9 / small object animations OFF). FPS drops when side-scrolling or setting up manual attack runs. (For the record, I'm running an AMD FX 8350 with 8GB DDR3 and an AMD Radeon HD 7850 - I keep my software up to date, clean and light - no bloatware utilities, no snake-oil optimizations, etc). I seem to be doing OK with mid-tier CVs like Hiryu or Saipan, it's higher tiers that seem to be a constant pain. On my Essex, I dropped from decent matches and a ~50% win-rate to constant utter sh*tshows and a 42% win-rate. I sold my Lexington, even though I bought her permanent camo, because of pretty much the same experience, constant up-tiered MM to T10, and not wanting to have my stats and memories with her tarnished (plus I needed the captain on the Essex). I know there are probably plenty of things I'm doing wrong, but for the last few dozen high tier games I'm getting punished ridiculously, while the enemy teams seem to get a pass. I suspect WG gathering much richer player-performance-related data than stat-tracking sites do, to then use for match-making. It would make sense. I figure it's well within the realm of possibility that seemingly equal teams are pitted against each other in fact in a way that one team has a clear situational advantage: (1) more competent players who are likely to lane with decent AA cover everywhere (2) better spotting, better charging, better surviving DDs (3) more accurate, more aware, quick-to-click-planes, competent hydro- and radar-using cruisers (4) non-campy/non-potato/non-lemming BBs. I started using Matchmaking Monitor to figure out what the hell is going on, but I don't mean to sound like a stat-whore. In fact if anything, MM seems to have tilted scales based on much more than the superficial stats gauged by tracking sites: below-average players charging better, benefiting from reduced damage, have better AA RNG while even our average or above average players do nothing but camp and disperse from the spawn and then are force to play defensive. Just to be clear, this would be par for the course if I'd see this randomly, every now and then, on any ship, but I get this almost constantly in CV, to the point where running in a division doesn't seem to balance anything either. It doesn't matter where I spot, it doesn't matter who I protect, it doesn't matter who I bomb, it's most often like an uphill battle while our team's just there for target practice. Could we PLEASE have lesser RNG variance for CVs??? At least for those that have lost their different loadouts. It used to be the case that you were at the mercy of MM due to the choice of loadout you made before hitting "BATTLE", but now you're at the mercy of MM setting you up for an "R"NG roast.
  19. Hello, My name is Jessica, I'm a girl, and I'm seeking a new (preferably British and full of non-toxic younger players) clan, in which I can help and participate in their carrier section. As far as progress is involved, I am currently, I am playing at Tier 10 with my Midway. Regarding the IJN carriers, I am resting at the Tier 8 Shokaku right now, and I own the Kaga as my only premium carrier. I have had previous experience with this game, around a year and a half ago, of which I was around T9, following the american carrier line. I do in fact own other ships too and am trying to improve with my battleships and cruisers. Hoping to some time in the following months participate in the LOTS tournaments. Information you might want to know, may include: Current WR: 58% (1,176 games played) Current Carrier WR: 62% (574 games played) Fair amount of experience in RTS Above average statistics which are on the rise, currently I do in fact take my influence from Farazelleth ^-^ More detailed view on my statistics: https://eu.warships.today/player/551389691/J_JSH OR https://wows-numbers.com/player/551389691,J_JSH/ As soon as/if the carrier community are able to participate in clan battles, I am defiantly willing to play! In the mean time, I'm happy to join in any training room clan battles. I will always be willing to take advice from other carrier players in the clan and share my advice too, in order to help each other improve. Preferably looking for a Well arranged but attractive clan among the Typhoon league, full of players willing to play but also have a bit of fun. However, I'm perfectly fine with joining a High Storm clan too! I am able to use Discord and Teamspeak ^-^ I hope I am taken into consideration by some wonderful people, and thank you in advance! Good luck and fair seas, ~Jess Discord: J_JSH#9169 Note: I suffer with a bit of a mental history, which I prefer not to talk about online but am probably required to say that I do have problems with being shy around large groups and random spikes in my mood due to my bipolar disorder. I hope this doesn't effect anyone decision too much, thanks <3
  20. Whats wrong with carriers in Op Narai?

    I been farming operation Narai alot this week and there seems to be a recurring theme to do with aircraft carriers. I wanted to open the subject to the community and see what other peoples experiences are on this. Before I go on I have to make one thing perfectly clear: I am not in any way attacking aircraft carrier players, the class itself or any player in particular! In the screen shot below you see that the aircraft player came second from bottom on experience., only got 2 kills and shot down 17 aircraft. This seems to be every time a CV queues for this particular operation. So if they arent getting the kills and they arent shooting down planes... theyre not even doing a high amount of damage without getting the credit for the killing blow because if they were they would get more XPs. Again I need to stress the point that in most games, I do not consider the aircraft player to have done badly. In fact in this particular game I thought the CV did very well. So what gives? I know there are issues with CV's and its probably going to be a sensitive subject for some people. Remember Im not pointing any fingers or blaming the players. I just want other peoples input, Id especially welcome the views of CV players.
  21. My idea for an addition to the IJN aircraft carrier tech tree, which includes some (in my eyes) sadly, left out carriers. I think the addition would enrich the carrier game play, you wouldn’t meet the same enemy again and again which is kind a boring sometimes. The numbers besides the name are the number of aircrafts, the bolt one the in game number and the other one the historical, which can diverse. Shinano is a bit a special case although only having an own air group of 47 it was planned to be a forward refuelling and rearming station for planes of other carriers (finally the marking mishmash of the planes would make sense ) and so was able to accommodate up to 120 planes (at least some sources say that, others go with less), so you could easily bump her up to tier X but I didn’t really found another suitable tier IX, to fill the gap. IV 21/24 Hosho V 30/30 Zuiho VI 48/48 Ryujo Hiyo 48 VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu Soryu 71 VIII 84/72 Shokaku Akagi 81 IX 75/83 Taiho Shinano 47/72-83 X 100 Hakuryu The addition would branch of from the Zuiho and start with the Hiyo a converted passenger liner (Kashiwara Maru) commissioned in July 1942 sunk during the battle of the Philippine Sea, June 1944. Next up is the Soryu at tier VII the “sister” ship of the Hiryu, the first IJN carrier to be planed us such from the beginning, commissioned in 1937. She fought, as part of the first air fleet’s carrier division 2 (together with Hiryu) in several battles including Pearl Harbor and Midway where she was sunk, June 1942. Her air group consisted of 63 aircrafts plus 8 in reserve equalling a total of 71. With 34 kts she’s also capable to swiftly reposition, which is always nice. And she just looks great On tier VIII we got the Akagi, which was converted from the battlecruiser Akagi and finished 1927 having three flight decks. In 1937-38 she was reconstructed losing to of the three flight decks and so increasing the aircraft capacity to 66 plus 15 reserve giving a total of 81. Probably being the most famous Japanese carrier of the Second World War, served as the flagship of the First Air Fleet. She led the attack on Pearl Harbor and other battles and was sunk in Midway, June 1942. The Akagi is one of the ships I had absolutely no doubt we would see in the original tech tree. At tier IX sits the Shinano being the conversion of the third Yamato-class Battleship Shinano, probably the most impressive carrier during the Second World War, certainly the largest. Commissioned in 1944 she got sunk only 10 days later hit by four torpedoes of USS Archerfish will traveling from Yokosuka to Kure to finish her fitting (which also included finishing waterproofing and adding missing counter-flooding and damage-control pumps). Not really fast but considering her Displacement (which results in HP) and Armour she should be quite a sturdy ship. As above already mentioned her air group can have a wide range, I would go with something between 72-83 aircrafts, depending how important the sturdiness factor is considered to be (in my eyes rather unimportant at this tier). From the Shinano we would get back to the main line and to the Hakuryu. This addition would in my opinion not only include some interesting ships but also reduce the dullness of having the same CV as opponent again and again. Character wise there wouldn’t be a change from the already included IJN carriers. thanks for reading, tell me what you think about it and don’t hesitate to point out faults. After some responses I made a little Update to the tech tree: IV 21/24 Hosho V 30/30 Zuiho Chitose 30 VI 48/48 Ryujo Hiyo 48 VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu Soryu 71 Unryu 63 VIII 84/72 Shokaku Akagi 81 IX 75/83 Taiho Taiho-Kai 75 X 100 Hakuryu Shinano 47/90-100 It now splits of from the Hosho to the Chitose, a conversion from an auxiliary to a high-speed seaplane carrier. After Midway she was converted to a carrier and commissioned as such in January 1944. She was sunk in the battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. She would play pretty similar to the Zuiho. Instead of the Soryu or as a further addition we got the Unryu at tier VII. Being similar to the Hiryu design she was finished in August 1944, with additional AA and protection. She was planned to embark 57 aircrafts plus six in reserve totalling 63, though it’s most likely that she never had a full air group due to shortages. In war she transported aircrafts and high-priority cargo to the Philippines, till she got hit by two torpedoes from USS Redfish and sunk December 1944. Like Hiryu and Soryu she has a nice top speed of 34kts. In game I would give her around 70 planes like Hiryu. At tier IX we got the Taiho-Kai (design G-15) an improved Taiho, mainly better AA and protection, carrying 53 to 75 aircrafts sources differ her. Those ships were part of the Modified 5th Naval Armaments Supplement Programme drawn up in September 1942, the first of the five planned was due to be finished in 1948. After Midway other faster to build carrier programmes got priority and the date got shifted back. In August 1943 all five ships were cancelled. Although similar to the Taiho, surly an interesting ship which allows us to place the Shinano, with a bigger air group, at tier X, were such an impressive ship belongs.
  22. Hello, My name is Jessica, I'm a girl, 16 years of age. I'm seeking a new (preferably British and full of non-toxic younger players) clan in which I can help and participate in their carrier section. As far as progress is involved, I am currently, I am playing at Tier 9 with my Essex, although I am only around 40,000 xp away from hitting my Midway. Regarding the IJN carriers, I am resting at the Tier 8 Shokaku right now, and I own the Kaga as my only premium carrier. I have had previous experience with this game, around a year and a half ago, of which I was also around T9, following the american carrier line. I do in fact own other ships too and am trying to improve with my battleships and cruisers. Information you might want to know may include: Current WR: 58% (1094 games played) Current Carrier WR: 63% (545 games played) Fair amount of experience in RTS Average stats which are on the rise currently I do in fact take my influence from Farazelleth ^-^ More detailed view on my statistics: https://eu.warships.today/player/551389691/J_JSH OR https://wows-numbers.com/player/551389691,J_JSH/ As soon as/if the carrier community are able to participate in clan battles, I am defiantly willing to play! In the mean time, I'm happy to join in any training room clan battles. I will always be willing to take advice from other carrier players in the clan and share my advice too, in order to help each other improve. Preferably looking for a Well arranged but attractive clan among the Typhoon league, full of players willing to play but also have a bit of fun. However, I'm perfectly fine with joining a High Storm clan too! I am able to use discord ^-^ I hope I am taken into consideration by some wonderful people, and thank you in advance! Good luck and fair seas, ~Jess Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/JKJSH/ Discord: J_JSH#9169 Note: I suffer with a bit of a mental history, which I prefer not to talk about online but am probably required to say that I do have problems with being shy around large groups and random spikes in my mood due to my bipolar disorder. I hope this doesn't effect anyone decision too much, thanks <3
  23. CV player skill is polarized

    (inb4 someone calls captain obvious on the title) It is rare I make an effort to focus on a specific point in my posts. So there is no TL;DR for this one. I recently played some WoWs after a long break. During my games, something I observed was that the players playing CV in my games were mostly from one of three types: 1. Total noob. Doesn't move the CV for the whole game. Makes the most random decisions in what to strike or not, and doesn't listen to advice. 2. Below-average Dumb player. Moves CV, sends planes to cover allies, tries to manually strike a good target. For the first wave. Then any semblance of coordination vanishes after that, they leave planes hovering unattended all over the place, doesn't react with urgency to enemy strike planes heading to allies even though allied ships spotted them incoming miles away, and their fighters are literally just hovering nearby too, and doesn't really listen to advice or requests for spotting (or are too "pre-occupied to help", or just don't know what spotting means), and loses all their planes striking an AA-covered target while failing the strike anyways because they approached from a bad angle. They don't even start running when an enemy DD goes at them, they just keep their CV camped against the rock (I mean, running should be a natural reaction). Maybe they just gave up. They still keep sending planes to auto-bomb the DD to no effect though. Luckily the DD is so dumb it launches torps at the CV, misses, dodges CV drop but then circles around to wait for its torps to load. Teammates yell at it to shoot the CV, so it does, with AP. But without much gusto either (like, it shoots 2 salvos then just gives up). "God, just shoot it, you're a Lo Yang..." Teammates cry Edited and wonder aloud what they are witnessing. "Ranked, gentlemen." I reply. DD: (first response for the whole game) "[response edited for privacy]". So these players are mostly left to their own devices, striking this target or that, but completely unpredictable and unreliable for the team. 3. Unicums. They proceed to spot, strafe, Edited DDs, then wipe out the opposing CV in two strikes. Not very fun for the opposing team to play against at all, especially when their own CV decides to take the no-fighter loadout. In other words, the people who play CV are either ppl who are actually skilled enough and comfortable enough to dominate in CV, or total clueless nubs who don't give a damn about their performance. Most average players with self-awareness or self-responsibility shy away from the CV, not even because they are that unskilled at it, but because they are tired of the toxic experience of CV MM and gameplay, and the lackluster appeals of playing CV. I used to remember CVs on teams being mostly dependable and fairly skilled, back 1.5 yrs ago, and I remember CVs mostly being such a large threat in CBT and the earliest stages of the game (almost 3 yrs ago), that ppl would purposefully huddle up, cover each other with AA, advance carefully, when there were CV present in the game, because not doing so almost guaranteed getting on the bad side of both the enemy CV who will decimate you and then your teammates, and the friendly CV, for making it very hard on him to try to protect you. In other words, they still took this game as one that should be played as a team game, one with respect to its design, with strategic and tactical depth, and would be a better experience if friendly and cooperating with the team. Nowadays, ppl don't even care. Least of all, the CVs. Both the atmosphere of the game, and the actual gameplay, is far from ideal. Even though ppl say glhf and such, it's more a formality than anything else. And only happens in ranked, where the same players recognize each other over conescutive games, but never in randoms anymore. And even in ranked, there is no "gg". Even amongst the consecutive players. "gg" just isn't fitting to be in this game anymore, due to a complex combination of many factors of cultural, emotional, personal, and structural problems. This saddens me. (I mean, ppl in this game once tried to perform just so they wouldn't hurt each other's feelings. They "had enough EQ" to recognize, and be nice, to the CV who was already in a pressured spot for taking the most crucial role for the team. In some ways, this was the environment my CV experience accumulated in, and to this day I still swear by the ideal of playing CV to support/protect the team. Yet, the grim realities I observed more recently cannot be farther from this cheery vision.) Of all the games I played, few and rare did ships move up to support the DDs, at least within danger range. Ships tended to not want to be any closer than anyone else for fear of being focused. At this rate, DD gameplay will suffer some of the same dilemmas as CV, for being a bad experience. Even though it will be much less severe, as DDs are not yet designed into a corner like the CV warranting dire measures such as mirrored MM, and they are still generally appealing, in the sense being a "desirable" ship experience for their torpedoes and stealth, while the CV on contrast faces tough skill barriers, team focus and criticism (I imagine some less social ppl wouldn't even stand that spotlight pressure regardless of skill), and a generally frustrating experience (same for some ppl who absolutely flip out at frustration). The desirability of BBs and CAs, as reflected in actual data in one of my polls earlier, supports this observation. Thus I hope the point of being alert for potential vulnerabilities and shortcomings in the game design based on hypothesizing the experience for DDs based on generalizing from CVs, will be point taken and considered. And that this may reflect deeper, core flaws in the design philosophy of this game which will be harder to pin down, and even harder to address, but should not be dismissed if we still are to believe in and wish the best for this game in the future. Musings: I recently made a troll topic about how the "great player diaspora" which saw drops of 600k to the about 40k we see today, could be partially in a representative theory how CV gameplay was a symbolic turn point in "falling short of expectations". I also mentioned that the reason it was so lethally potent, was that it was dual-angled and a self-reinforcing process of aggravation. While that theory (and post) was troll, this one is not. Of my conclusions since playing again, CV gameplay has taken a turn for the worse since I remember, and the self-reinforcing and aggravating conditions may already be at work for the present issues at hand. The lowering of CV population, and this polarizing-skill phenomenon, as well as general criticism popping up regularly on forums, could be interpreted to support this hypothesis. I really hope that whatever overhaul or CV changes WG is planning, will prove to address deeper issues such as this. Back at the beginning 2017, when they first considered overhauling CV, I though it was just to optimize the mechanics and experience. But nowadays, it is clear that such a thing by itself would no longer be sufficient, by far. If it were only mechanics to be designed, they'd better be state-of-the-art mechanics nothing short of genius, to be able to turn this situation around via only subtle, intricate and precise changes in game mechanics, eventually shifting back the paradigm to something more ideal. I recently read an idea of creating "legacy" WoWs server of CBT just like World of Warcraft, but to be honest, even that will not achieve the time-machine level changes to re-enact the high expectations, eagerness, community spirit, and moral of players back then. I've binged myself on enough ranked and randoms for a while now, and will likely take another long hiatus from WoWs. This concludes the "1.5 yrs later" line of thought and posts. (Which there wasn't much of anyways to begin with, so nothing lost here XD and please don't take me too seriously.) Edit: I realize that in some cases DD ap may be desirable against a CV, especially a camped one against a rock, and while it is good to be vigorous and nitpick on the details, pls don't nitpick on the details this once and focus on my point. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.
  24. CV as support class

    There were lots of good points in the original thread on the current CV meta, and how unbalanced it was. There were also some interesting concepts, including one from me, on possible directions for CV. However, the one I liked best was someone's concept on turning CVs into a support class; greatly lowered alpha damage potential, but better in everything else. However, that would mean a completely new playstyle, even a complete overhaul on what is a CV in WoWs. Many mechanics will have to be changed, such as the normalizing of AA. New mechanics and systems will have to be designed, such as scoring for the CV, to balance it for surface gameplay, and allowing non-mirrored/tierlocked CV MM. Thus I would like to invite discussion on how and what could a CV do if it is no longer focused on alpha damage as a class. 1. What new mechanics needs to be introduced. 2. What existing difficulties needs to be adapted to, or overcome. 3. How this could be historically sound. Later on I will provide my own concepts on these points, similar to in the original thread as well, but better. But because I am not solely pre-occupied by this concept, and it is more demanding than the original "man-made spectacle" attempt (don't bother with reading it, it is already outdated), it will take some time. Please provide your own discussion for the time being. If there is any request or direct feedback please do not hesitate to notify me. I specifically request insight into historical references. Such as: How many CV planes in total operated in one strike at a time. How many per CV. What is the composition between fighters/bombers/torpedo-bombers. How long does it take for them to ascend to cruising altitude, and to descend to strike. Difference in strike protocols between DB and level-altitude bombers. What is the strike percentage against different ship classes, historically. How successful were they for each ship class. What is the historically accurate values for surface AA engagement ranges. What were the visibility ranges for plane-to-surface spotting, and surface-to-plane spotting, and plane-to-plane spotting. What were specific characteristics in such interactions. How does surface-based strike planes factor into all this. and etc. Cheers and thanks. Edit: If you are new to this thread I have already concluded it here. Further Edit: The conclusion above on a new CV playstyle works best if envisioned with addition to ideas presented in this thread:
  25. carrier balance suggestion.

    the carriers need more love and maybe become a little more forgiving so more people will play them. I got a suggestion that will make deleting a battleship nearly inpossible but still balance it out bey making the planes last longer. maybe instead of making AA more prominent make the planes harder to kill but still easyer to desperse. the battleships where actually very well protected from the smaller payload of of the carrier planes. so the carriers can do nearly no damage to the torpedo protection of a battleship but can still do alot of damage to a cruiser (that can dodge more easely). so carriers need to hit the nose or tail of the ship to do damage and cause a flood. so for example grober currywurst: 25% torpedo protection /78% airdropped torpedo protection (on the belt only and also variate the bulge so most protection in the center). and then balance it out by making planes harder to kill. carriers will be able to play a whole game with there squadrons + do alot of damage with floods/fires etc by making a hit on the nose or aft a near certain flood. then ofc the only problem will be the DD,s wont be able to kill the scout constantly lighting them up. u can solve this by making the planes more velnerable the longer they are near the same target. wy woudnt AA crews learn the habits of a pilot after staring at his acrobatics for an extended period of time :-D
×