Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carriers'.



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
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 74 results

  1. MaxTNT

    WoWp collaboration?

    I was just wondering that with the whole carrier rework coming up if there was any kind of collaboration with World of Warplanes in the works? Seems like the perfect moment to co-promote both games... A shared ingame event or perhaps something along the lines of a shared bundle: - 1st Carrier Division: - Tier VII Carrier 'Kaga' - Tier V Fighter 'A6M3' - Carrier Division 17: - Tier VII Carrier 'Saipan' - Tier V Fighter 'XF4U-1' Or perhaps even a British bundle to promote the new carrier line: - unnamed Premium British carrier (I'm sure there'll be one) - Tier VIII Fighter 'Seafang' Anyway, let me know your thoughts...
  2. I've played four top tier games this morning, three of which were lost due to CV players not having a clue. One numbskull in a Taiho even sailed straight into an enemy cap circle and was gunned down by a Tirpitz who was about 5 k away ... and no this wasn't a connection failure as I watched him sail around islands to achieve this. Whilst I can understand and maybe even laugh at new carrier captains doing silly things at tier 4, my sense of humour evaporates when the same thing happens at tier 10. I'm not a fan of Carriers and don't enjoy games when they are present. In my opinion these ships are too powerful to be put into the hands of one player and can dominate or lose a game all on their own. I dread to think what Wargaming has in store for us with the coming update ... but if the 'carrier content' continues to overide good gameplay and fun I can imagine a lot of players walking away from an already troubled game.
  3. Dirty_Dunc

    Restrict CV's to one per team.

    Regardless of the upcomIng carrier update, I'd like to say that I think two CV's per side is too many and should be restricted to one carrier per team. In my opinion these games are not fun, occur far too frequently and even when your on the winning side it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. These games currently occur mostly at low tier where most ships are world war 1 vintage and have no AA guns to speak of. The whole situation is compounded when flawed matchmaking puts a novice against a veteran CV captain with thousands of games under their belt and a 19 point captain to boot. I've currently gotten to the point where by if I see more than two CV's in the player queue I just cancel and wait until the number drops because these games are so horrendous.
  4. Bavi0014

    Carrier Rework Round 3. My notes.

    Carrier Rework Round 3... Feedback from me and what I think needs to be improved. I don't know where to post the feedback from the rework but I just did it here After being apart of the Rework testing then I found out a lot of stuff for the people wondering. 1: The Torpedoes were very different... USA having the best.. The carriers of the 2 nations of course were very different from each other... USA of course focused on the Fighter squadrons... With them having a highly damaging one or a lot... The problem though was that when you reached the last tiers of each carriers in the rework between IJN and USA... Then it clearly showed that USA was easiest to play... IJN was lacking A LOT to be balanced with the USA Carriers... The IJN didn't have a change in how many torpedoes it could use at attack one over the course of all the carriers it had in it's tech tree... It was always 1 per plane... While the American torpedo planes had 2 on each plane..and a lot of planes used while attacking... Sadly enough then the Japanese side needs to be fixed on their way of carriers... Even if the Japanese focused on the torpedoes then it should be shown in the gameplay of the Japanese Hakuryu 2: The fighters were very different in the end The fighters were fine in the start.. each side had a balanced term of rockets that they used each time... and it was great.. You couldn't see any difference between each other until the Tier X carrier... The fighters for the Hakuryu of course was just as the american side... But of course then due to Americans focusing on fighters then yeah... But it still had a big difference between each side... The americans used A LOT MORE rockets than the Japanese did... which was also a probem 3: Bombers Gladly then the bombers were fine... Both sides were balanced and yeah 4: Planes used in an attack Even though we see the amount of planes used in doing an attack.. then Americans use a bit more... I think the Japanese still does more damage..but this should be optional In general then it needs improvement for balancing.. What we know so far then we already know that the Americans focus Fighter planes.. even though the British should do that... And that the Japanese should focus on torpedoes.. even though they don't... They pretty much focus on nothing it seems as... I of course show no hate towards Wargaming... But this is mostly my notes to what needs to be improved Oh and uh.. A lot of stuff that I have written here might be wrong.. Since I haven't tried the rework in some time since they closed.. but yeah... I hope balancing will be improved... It's a problem which needs to be fixed as quick... Bugs: I have only encountered around 3 bugs.. but can only remember two 1: When spectating someone's carrier and not squadron.. then I have seen that some planes take off from a group.. out in the sea and gets teleported onto the runway of the carrier.. a bit weird and hard to describe but yeah.. 2: When I spawned in then the camera was just stuck to the air at where I was spawned..and not the carrier.. but when I spawned in my squadron then it was fixed. Improvements: 1: When spectating a person's squadrons.. then we need to be able to see it up close.. since when I spectate then it's mostly almost from a far... Maybe make the camera a bit closer 2: I have also found out that you can use the mouse to move... instead of WASD... The mouse though needs to be 360* in movement since it seems that you have to look forward and use the (around 80*) degress of angle that you can move the squadron wtih mouse 3: When spectating carriers then we should also be able to see all the squadrons on the carrier instead of there being none.. a little boring 4: And the last one is pretty much is to make the planes on the carriers to have their back wheel onto the carrier..instead of floating.. I of course know it's gonna be done in the publishing of the carrier rework but yeah... And for those that read all this long text,... Good job!
  5. 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
  6. I own the ranger myself, and often find that the Hiryu is capable of dominating with it's two fighter squadrons able to counter your fighters, while attacking your strike group or utterly decimating your fighters while your strike group tries to run. Carriers aren't played often, so less people run the AA defensive fire ability, and no sensible/sane CV captain will fly over one of these ships (ie: Cleveland, Atlanta etc). And often times you're left circling your aicraft around not being able to do much or they end up destroyed, or you have to sacrifice your fighters just to squeeze one full strike group through, before losing 60-100% of your strike aircraft. It's utterly unbalanced from Tier 5-8 with carriers, and I've seen many people say this over the years as well. No update seems to have an answer or solution to this & IJN carriers are just out right better in this tier, before USN carriers become competitive at Tier 9 and 10. Feel free to vote in the poll, post your findings, opinions, thoughts and such below. It'd be good to see some positive change result from this thread so carrier gameplay is actually balanced again, rather than being an RNJ slog hoping you're against another Ranger while playing yours.
  7. Hia folks, sorry if these are noob questions, have been out of the game for severall months... I have my eye on the british carrier line (yes, I know we are still a long ways off from that). For that I was thinking of training up a captain so as to switch him when the CV comes up. Is this a good idea? What are the problems with it?
  8. Grelot

    CVs economy

    Hi everyone, I'm a main usn Cv player and I just unlocked the Essex (first usn ship with 2 fighter squads. wow :D ), but I still need credits to buy it so I started wondering how to optimize my net income while playing, even on other ship lines (I'm already premium). Maybe I'm not a noob anymore since I enjoy my time on the Lexington (I'm going against the tide when everyone complain that 1 fighter squad is not enough) and I usually win the skies and can deal a good amount of damage to enemy ships (60k when happened a bad match and 100-130k), and recently few times happened to carry my team. The point of this topic is the following: even after my best battles, my net earning is really ridiculous, in a bad way, I'm lucky if I can get 150k credits after spending 70k or more credits into maintenance. So I landed on my Nicholas where I have near 0 experience and sometimes it gets me 200k-250k net earnings. Is the carriers economy broken? Does the situation get better with Saipan? (I still have no premium ships) Am I stupid? I'm really interested in listening more experienced captains advise.
  9. Hi All, I've just started on the USA CV line only got the T1 carrier. I have got the Teir 1 fighter captain upgrade, and bought the upgraded fighters. But no matter what CV i am playing againsy, be it a T1 IJN or US CV, i find my fighters are loosing battles like 6-1 or 6-2 every game, even against bombers it's a 50/50 whether my fighters win most of the time. I saw about Strafing on various guides, but thats not available till T6 right? Am i missing something really obvious i need for fighters to be effective? Many thanks Stoned
  10. To all of you out there, Let me start by making it clear that I do not want to remove CV's. In my opinion CV's are an essential part of this game and should never be removed as such. I do suggest a change in the operational mechanics of CV's. Although I do have an opinion on how planes behave in game, such as "the little effect of AA on drop pattern of bombers, unless defensive AA is used" or the "near 90 dgr turns for (torp)bomber squads", this is not what I wanted to put up for debate here. Much more important issues with CV's start with the players themselves. In every ship class players are able to initiate some actions manually. Priority firing of secondary guns, - or AA guns on a single target for example. The effect of those actions "tweak" the ships performance in a way that might give you an edge in combat, in combination with your captain (level and skill set). The effect of this "tweaking" is - in my opinion - fairly limited on the overall course of the battle. There is one exception. No other ship class has such a big impact on the gameplay like the CV does, especially higher up the tiers. Skills such as strafing and dropping bombs/torps manually are essential if you wish to succeed. The effect if you know how to use these to your advantage can pay off for your team. The performance of planes that are operated automatically by a player is terrible. It is basically impossible to kill DD's, even BB's have a good chance of dodging and fighters are also not as effective compared to strafing. Every player is able to use the same manual options to use a CV. They are equal for everyone. This brings me to the core of the problem with - mainly - CV's. The performance CV's in battle are relying heavily on the basic skills of the player. With good CV players on both teams, this is not really a big issue. When there is a good CV player is facing a unicum CV player, it might be tough, but at least you have a chance as a team. When a "lesser gifted" player is operating a CV versus a good or unicum player, usually the outcome of the battle is already set. You will lose. Maybe not always directly due to the CV's actions, but indirectly because a more skilled CV in general know what to do. Spot ships, deal damage on - or kill dangerous players/ships. I believe a game is lost 9/10 times that way. The impact that a CV has on a battle is too great when personal skills are too far apart. Far more impact than any other ship class. For me, this really ruins any fun I experience from this game with a CV present. Regardless on which side the "lesser gifted" CV player is on. With an increase of games that has a CV present, I believe that this is why "actions" should be taken. This brings me to what needs to change. Instinctively, I would say, remove that what creates such a great difference between players. Remove all the manually operated features for every CV player. Having that said, I also believe that is not the right solution for the problem. Why do players who are able to use CV's have to suffer for those who can't use a CV to its abilities? That makes no sense and feels highly unfair. On the other hand, having a "lesser gifted" CV player in your battle also feels as if RNGsus takes a dump on your head. Lately, I see RNGsus taking a dump "a bit" too often. That is why I started this thread, to start a discussion on how Aircraft Carriers can keep their role in mainly random battles. Maybe a min XP threshold for T8 and up CV's to enter random battles (and only be able to play Coop battles if you don't reach this min xp threshold)? Or maybe something else? I'm curious for your responses and possible solutions!
  11. SmokyButtons

    World of warships CV improvements

    World of warships CV improvements, I have played CV’s for awhile now, while the gameplay at lower tier is okay, Higher tier play is more akin to micromanager game play more than strategy! I have a few suggestions that would make CV gameplay much fun and engaging, 1 Do away with alt attacks, get fukus back on the strategy game, instead give all type of planes an alternative modes of fire, Like give Dive bombers, high alt bomb drop, where there is reduced accuracy, but they less DMG from anti air! Torp Bombers could have early drop, where they drop farther away and take less flak Fighters should have the ability to strafe a target ship, doing a small amount of dmg, low fire chance, but good chance of temporary disabling some anti air! 2 CV’s should have limit control range where they can give orders to planes, they should still be able to send planes outside that, but just not give them new orders, and once they orders are done, they should return! 3 Lastly all CV should have unlimited Fighters planes, never losing the ability to stay in the fight, and give a more dynamic play, squads of other planes, should be replaced with 3 planes squads of fighter planes, as they are lost! All this lead to CV be more engende in the fight, and more fun and dynamic to play, and a better balance between Anti Air strong CV’s and Bombers based!
  12. Does anybody else think that the Hakuryu is outclassed by the Midway? Even the hanger on the Midway is bigger. Midway - 136 units. 2 fighter squads, x7 aircraft with skill. Hakuryu – 100 units. Either: 2x fighter squads, x5 with skill. 4x fighter squads, x5 with skill. Either way, the fighters on the US side do more damage and by far have alot more ammo. I’ve got to admit. I’m finding playing Tier X Carriers annoying, because you know that the Midway is almost certainly a win card in the right hands with maximised skills. And since the introduction of the fighter sweep? It's made things even worse, because the US fighters are more suited for it. Well that's what I think.
  13. Thracen

    T10 CVs, for or against?

    So I think most people that trawl these forums know my stance on CVs. I think bottom tier CVs get screwed and top tiers get free farm save for 4 or 5 ships in the game. I think in most cases CV players have too much match influence making the rest of the team spectators in their own defeat of victory. The worst, and only unforgivable sin is they just suck the fun out of games. You position well for a 2 on 1, you blow the hell out of the cruiser and you're just about to do your hero pass against the Yamato, incoming CV, you can't manoeuvre and you get deleted. This game is all about positioning, you cannot position against a CV, they have global range and countless attack vectors. Their ability to spot ruins DDs if they just don't flat out delete them and the only threat comes from RNG secondaries a potato can learn and avoid and enemy fighters, which might not even exist due to strike loadouts. People say just sail in a group, this works if you have enough collective AA and you don't have ships shooting at you. Some matches have no AA cruisers, and even those that do have too few and none of those cruisers play well alongside a yamato or a kurfurst, for starters they don't have the range, shell velocity or survivability. The same goes for DDs and cruisers, how long does a Hindenburg last on a cap when his gearings smoke runs out ? Anyway, I want to put an end to these salty rants of mine, so vote. Are T10 CVs fun or are they not? I can then take the results and shut up, either vindicated or proven wrong. For the topic discussion, if anyone can tell me what's fun about playing against a T10 CV I'd be glad to hear it, I fear whatever the results I'm going to have to learn to deal with these RTS interlopers.
  14. USSARIZONA_2015

    How to Play The New Essex?

    Hello there fellas, A couple weeks ago I posted a topic asking people on how to outplay the IJN Taiho in a Stock Essex, But with the Arrival of the USN Cv changes, Its time I ask the Question on how to play the "New" Essex. At the time of posting this, This is how my Essex is Decked out with, Hull: A (Stock Hull) Fighters: Vought F4U-1 (Tier VIII) Torpedo Bombers: Grumman TBM-3 (Tier VIII) Dive Bombers: Douglas BTD-1 (AP Bombers) (Tier IX) Consumables: Premium Damage Control Party II and Defensive AA Fire II Upgrades: Slot-1: Air Groups Modification I Slot-2: Damage Control System Modification I Slot-3: Air Groups Modification II ( For keeping my fighters alive) Slot-4: Steering Gears Modification III (To Avoid Air Strikes and Torpedoes) Slot-5: Air Groups Modification III (For Keeping my strike package from dying faster) Slot-6: Concealment System Modification I Captain Skills: First Row: Aircraft Servicing Expert and Dogfighting Expert Second Row: Torpedo Acceleration Third Row: Torpedo Armament Expertise Fourth Row: Air Supremacy (This is a MUST have skill, no questions asked in my opinion.) (Side Note: I don't have any skills geared towards AA, so its basically stock AA) So, is this a good Build? or is there something I'm doing wrong? I was thinking about switching Air Groups Mod II with Flight Control I (But to be honest, I don't mind the waiting time of re-arming your planes, as it allows me to think of my next plans of action.) and Air Groups Mod III with Flight Control Mod II, just Because I think the Fighters are TOO SLOW (It can't catch ANY of Taiho's Aircraft if they are on the run.) But I'm thinking that Air Groups Mod III is Crucial for your Torpedo Bombers, since they already go down like the Berlin Wall. Also, In my opinion, I also think the AP bombs are quite nice, but I also would like to know what you prefer, HE or AP? I Appreciate any Opinions, Tactics, or Advice that will help me become a better Carrier Captain :) . Until Next Post, -USSARIZONA_2015
  15. Hello everyone. I could not find a topic that discuss potential german carriers, not one that was active atleast. So i wanted to refresh abit the forum with alittle bit of this and that, and maybe learn something from others around, seeing as im not really that well informed on the subject. Current Iteration Suggested Plane Tiering The planes is a WIP with some potential candidates and others who were planned for operations. If you have any good information about alternatives and better suggestions drop a comment. Tier 4: Ausonia, Flugzeugdampfer I, 1915. A conversion based on the passenger ship Ausonia, which was supposed to go to Italy but never saw fruition. It was supposed to carry 13-19 aircraft depending. It was a design that was suggested in WW1, and it could reach 20 knots. Type: Aircraft Carrier Displacement: 12,585 metric tons Length: 158 m (518 ft) Beam: 18.8 m (62 ft) Draft: 7.43 m (24.4 ft) Propulsion: 2-shaft Blohm & Voss geared turbines 14,000 shp 1,500 tons of coal Speed: 20 knots Aircraft carried: 13 or 19 seaplanes 10 wheeled aircraft Tier 5: Oswald Boelcke, paper project A 21,000 ton concept for a carrier. Type: aircraft carrier Displacement: Design: 11,400 long tons (11,600 t) Length: 255 m Draft: 8 m Propulsion: Diesel 175,000 hp Speed: 34 knots Range: 18,000 kn Armament: 8 x 15 cm 12 x 10.5 cm 14 x 3.7 cm 12 x 2 cm 6 x 53,3 cm Torpedoes Aircraft carried: 32 Tier 6: Max Immelman, paper project Thanks to Lastbutterfly for this paper project carrier. The Max Immelman was a aircraft carrier that was suggested for construction, but never saw fruition further than a suggested design on paper. It could carry 32 aircraft in total which fits well as we go up the tiering in carriers. It seemed to be a very balanced carrier in general, with great speed and a decent aircraft number. Type: Aircraft Carrier Displacement: 35,500 tons Length: 245 m Beam: 24.4 m Draft: 5.6 m (18 ft) Propulsion: Diesel Engine 210,000 hp Speed: 34 kn Range: 18,000 nm at 10 knots Armament: 16 x 15 cm Casemate guns 16 x 10,5 cm AA guns 18 x 3,7 cm AA guns Aircraft carried: 32 Tier 7: Europa, Passenger ship Europa conversion. Another passenger ship that was planned for conversion. It was much larger, but a part of the same auxiliary carrier program that selected the Gneisenau and Potsdam in WW2 for conversion. Did not see fruition due to instability. It was planned to have 42 aircraft, and could reach 26.5 knots. Its large size would make it a big target for other carrier players, but it also had tons of anti air guns that could balance this issue. Type: Aircraft Carrier Displacement: Design: 44,000 t Full load: 56,500 t Length: 291.5 m Beam: 37 m Draft: 10.3 m Propulsion: 4-shaft Blohm & Voss geared turbines 100,000 shp Speed: 26.5 kn (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph) Armament: 12 × 10.5 cm AA guns 20 × 37 mm AA guns 28–36 × 20 mm AA guns Aircraft carried: 42 Tier 8: Peter Strasser, Graf Zeppelin Class. The sister ship of Graf Zeppelin, she never saw fruition. In theory she would have less of the issues that plagued the Graf Zeppelin due to being built later, when the Graf Zeppelin was finished with the "teething" issues. Seeing as Graf Zeppelin also became a tier 8 premium, this is the ideal choice for tier 8. Displacement: 33,550 tonnes Length: 262.5 m Beam: 31.5 m Draft: 7.6 m Propulsion: Geared turbines, 200,000 hp Speed: 35 knots Complement: 1,720 crew 306 flight personnel Armament: 16 × 15 cm SK C/28 guns 12 × 10.5 cm SK C/33 guns 22 × 3.7 cm Flak SK C/30 guns 28 × 2 cm Flak SK C/30 guns Aircraft carried: 43 Tier 9: Ernst Wilhelm, carrier conversion of Bismarck Class Battleship. Unfortunately no pictures of this one, seeing as it is a completely theoretical addition. The ships length, speed and armoring would make it able to take a beating at this tier, while at the same time having more than 50 planes, and a decent speed of 30+ knots. Tier 10: Manfred von Richtofen, Carrier conversion of H-39 Class Battleship. No pictures for this one either alas, seeing as it is yet another hypothetical conversion of a H-39 class into a carrier. Even more armored, larger, and the speed of yet again 30 knots, it is a behemoth that can take a beating, and hold even more airplanes. Note: Decided to remove the flight deck cruisers as they are nowhere near possibility of addition. If you have any feedback or such do tell, i'd love to hear or learn new things. Because the best way of learning new things is to get people to point out the wrongings.
  16. HMCite

    Air Craft Carriers

    Air Craft Carriers are the seriously ignored class of Ships in the game. These are the reasons Why 1- In lower tiers its playable, but as one advances , the insane AA makes it impossible for CV players to maintain interest in the game. 2- Every now and then Buffs are coming for different ships except for CVs 3- New ships/lines being introduced are having such insane AA. Others have Defensive AA. 4- Every Player has the ability to increase his captain skills to Be able to increase his AA DPM by basic , advance and Manual skills, yet CV doesnt get any Captain skills for improvement of Squaderent health and endurance. 5- BBs and cruisers who are AA specked are already untouchable, add to that new DDs like KIDD and Grozovoi and US DDs Defensive AA, so CV can actually have no impact in the start of the game. 6- CV does spotting, Defends allies and also at times harldy manages to strike on enemy despite all defensive AA and enemy CV AA planes and at the end the Reward for CV is the worst in all the ship types. 7- New changes to DDs AA is further Humiliation to CVs. Either CVs need to be buffed or AA needs to be nerfed with good rewards at the end If wargaming keeps the same trend , one day people will say, remember when there used to be CVs in the game??
  17. purpletrain0000

    British CV's

    Any slight possibility that we may see another CV line in the future? The British?
  18. Hi, who would have thought that even though I am not playing I will still have so many occasions to write something on this forum. What I want to talk to you this time is this: I was linked this video by one of the users ... .... ... I want to make one thing clear I am not against carrier being released weak. I want to stress this as hard as I can, any complain I will say in a moment is not related to the power level of Graf Zeppelin, for all I care those DBs could instantly delete any ship and CV itself could have 500 planes with 0s reload. Are we clear on this? Great Why I am angry after seeing this video? The mechanic itself is undercooked. It looks slapped on the ship almost like a proof of concept. If I had idea... let's base DBs around flight time of bombs and that delay and wanted to test to most basic functionality it would look exactly like here. Here on the $50 premium ship sold in the online game. This is simply put insulting that such a half assed attempt at game design has been released and WG is asking people to pay price of full AAA game. Why am I saying this mechanic is on proof of concept stage? I read the developer blog so I do understand what WG is trying to accomplish. I am not really against this idea. I will not bash it like many here on forum because frankly I did not test it and I think idea can be rescued. So let's think what they are trying to do. Basically they want to make DBs a bit more fun, they take core concept of the TBs so challenge of prediction and apply it to the DBs. Great, now why when looking at this video and by playing this a lot of people thought it was bug? Because there was no visual indicator of what is happening. This is why this mechanic is grossly undercooked. TBs work because you have visual indicator of torps swimming in the water, their position, their status, you see their speed... you understand everything that is happening and you have number of green symbols informing you about it. Here? You lose yellow drop indicator and just... wait... wait... there is nothing on the screen. TBs are fun and exciting because you feel excitiment when you see torps swimming in water and narrowly hitting or missing ship. It is very important to build excitiment, when torps are in water we as players are waiting for them to hit, we see this inevitable collision in making. This is thrilling because we see everything. When you remove visual indicator, you remove excitiment connected with seeing something happen. You as a player are also removed from what is happening, you are disconected from what you do. This is simply put unacceptable That's why I said it's proof of concept stage. It is just the idea, without any work around it. WG is selling a ship that literally was designed from free floating ideas without any work put into making it work. THIS IS PREMIUM SHIP EVERYONE. How make it not insulting? Because I don't want to only offer negative feedback I will give rough scetch of how this could work. Let's fix worst offenders first Since you base your prediction on bomb flight time, reduce slightly approach circle. DBs don't have to fly so long in the formation so it does make sense. it would also lessen frustration from this long time of nothing on screen Create UI to support your bloody mechanism. The most lazy way to do it is to make indicator gradually change color from yellow to red. Yellow is locked, red will be hit. This change of color will give player information what the hell is happening and when he is supposed to expect hit If prediction is important then get rid off the rng from DBs. Introduce your circular drop as you wanted and talked about in devblogs, but make it that if ship is in the circle when bombs hit... then it is 100% hit. You can make it that crusiers are flat 50% hit and DDs are flat 25% hit. Whatever, just make it consistent since you ask players to actually put effort here... you have to give them something back. This is rough and is literally made after 5 minutes of seeing video in question. Final words I don't think Graf Zeppelin is bad. Model is to die for that's for sure. I also think 2/0/3 with well developted mechanics can work and can be interesting. It could be new Saipan in how ship defies and changes how we look at carriers. It has potential that Big E and Kaga lacked... But you can not release product which is in such a pathetic state and ask for money. This is insulting. You ask people to give you money for something which should be done by your internal testing teams! I am not playing game anymore and I do feel insulted by this... thing. I strongly urge for anyone thinking about buying this ship to not do so. This is horrible practice WG is doing and this should be punished by consumers. As long as Graf Zeppelin is in such a sorry state it should not be bought. Thank you for reading. Edit. (26.08.2017) One of the CC was terminated from program due to his strong opinion on this matter, because of it I want to change slightly my last message. Please do not be afraid to send ticket for a refund for Graf Zeppelin. There are limits to how bad company can handle a situation and the strongest weapon against corporation customers have are not strong words, but denial of transaction. This is second time we are having problem like that. Edit. (27.08.2017) WG officialy apologised for the situation. While I am happy we can get over it and I assume many people do, there is still a strong feeling of resentment. WG first reaction to abysmal community reaction was to push it out on other markets, put their fingers into earholes and scream "everything is fine, everything is fine". Needless blatant lies were issued as official statement, some with little to no respsect (git good) and whole thing obviously was done with premedidation. That was a very sad release and I am sad that our community had to oppose it so hard for so long before WG decided to make it right. Nonetheless I thank everyone for support and I sincerely hope we won't have to deal with it again.
  19. Which one is better and why?
  20. To clarify I’m at the moment at tier VII with my Hiryu, I was there before they included this new mechanic and I’m still there now ( I know I’m slow ). And I’m sure everyone was already in a position where he was locked up in a dogfight, he just wanted not to be in and disengage from it. So you would say: “cool, now I can!”, but yeah… The problem here is that air superiority CV’s, in my case the USN Saipan and Ranger, can use this new gadget to utterly annihilate your planes and if they slightly know what they’re doing, you won’t have a chance and could just leave your planes in the hangar. It was already a challenge to have a good game against them before but now it’s more or less impossible, except you manage to sneak through and sink the enemy air superiority CV at the beginning or got the luck to play with one. I don’t know how it is at higher tiers, which carriers there profit the most from it or if it evan is a big deal. But let’s take a closer look in case of the Hiryu. For example; what I used to do in my Hiryu was that I mad one big formation with the two Dive bomber sections and the two torpedo bomber sections. That formation got a close cover on one torpedo bomber section by one fighter section. The other fighter section I used as snooper which gave reconnaissance, a wide cover and attacked enemy fighters/bombers when they were in range. Like that my bombers were more or less save, sure my fighters would (except with a good strafing run at the beginning of the dogfight) probable lose most of the dogfights but my bombers got through, because I could bind the enemy fighters in a dogfight away from my bombers. Now they can simply disengage and attack my bombers. Also close cover is more or less useless now, because if the dogfight is too close to your bombers he can make a strafing run across them. So you have to make a wide cover with both fighter sections and hope he doesn’t slips through and finds your helpless bombers. Another problem arises with the weird game mechanic were your planes don’t immediately give chase to the disengaging enemy but wait on spot for 2 sec. You can’t even give them a command to do it, they just sit there. Which not only gives the enemy plans a nice lead, which they can use to attack your bombers or really -although seldom- run away. Some smart players use this now to set strafing runs. They get stuck in with one section, try to bind as many enemy planes as possible, then they disengage wile strafing the helpless enemy fighters still sitting there, with the other fighter section. Those are the major issues with this mechanic. Sure you can say that a CV without air superiority layout could use the mechanic too, and your right but he can use it way less effective not only because he has less or/and inferior fighters but also because gaining air superiority is not his primary goal, he wants to do dmg. and so can/will assign way less attention to his fighter sections compared to somebody who practically only plays with them all game. So what this mechanic basically does; is making the air superiority CVs even stronger at their task and the attacker CVs less effective at what they’re doing and so ultimately ruins the balance between carriers completely. As I sad I’m only at tier VII, so I don’t know how it is at higher tiers but down here it just screws the balance over in my eyes. They sure only wanted the best for the game and maybe even saw this mechanic as an answer to the balance problems of carriers. But what they achieved was giving the air superiority CVs a strong tool, with which they can render an attacker CV useless. Not being able to play every second game shouldn’t be the solution and I would definitely welcome it if they would get rid of this Mechanic. Having not played the higher tiers in carriers I would love to hear how the impact of this Mechanic is for the carrier gameplay at higher tiers. And if one of you guys developed a tactic to counter this, I’m happily listening, cause I don’t really know what to do at the moment in those battles to be effectiv. P.S. sorry fo my english
  21. Short Disclaimer, Many of you who would be reading this, Take this how you want to but Im just getting this off. Aircraft Carriers. What comes to mind? The most used type in most WW2 battles. The most strongest and best Team Player, Support type ship. Aircraft carriers have been in the game since the Beta Days. Uptil now only 2 main lines are there and that too only with the Americans and the Japanese because the other trees are still getting built slowly. If you look at it, Aircraft Carriers did not really recieve many updates geared to them (over my career as a WoWs player that is). Ive played this game since the 6.0 update so im not really a seasoned person yet, but I have a huge interest in carriers as a class. Lets take a look at the current lines in game. American carriers, AS majors. Japanese Carriers, Strike Majors. Not much to say bout em. Technically, if an AS american carrier were to go up against a Japanese one, the result, by technical default would favour the American rather the Japanese, yet the Japanese beats up the American everywhere (Player wise that is). What am I implying? Im saying that, American Carriers are THE most "unbalanced" so to say till tier 9. How is it unbalanced? Well at tier 4 its fixed but from tier 5 onwards you have the oppurtuniy to be either a Plane eater and a CV dream killer, or an enemy CVs dream and let him eat up your planes but you being able to put out some more damage. Now what I mean by unbalanced. If the enemy is AS, then you dont really stand a chance if the player is good. if he is Strike, he would be smart with his aircraft and would most probably strike you immediately, taking you out would mean that he has control of the sky. Japanese Carriers are more balanced in loadouts.Defensive capabilities and strike in one package. these are just the standard ones. If premium ones were to go against each other, its totally different. tier 7. Saipan vs Kaga. Saipan has tier 9 aircraft distributed on 220 while Kaga has tier 6 ones distributed in 221. Obviously the Saipan player has the major advantage. Tier 8, Enterprise vs Graf Zeppelin (soon) Big E has tier 7 aircraft which can be buffed by upgrades from tier 9 and 10 slots. GZ has tier 8s but really bad fighters. The Enterprise would take the cake here but this is still WiP. Overall Premium Carriers are unbalanced If against other carriers or normal ships. Thus there is a major need for a carrier Rework, and Im NOT a Battleship player asking for this. No Im a Carrier player asking for this. WG, the amount of negligence put into carriers means that either you dont KNOW how to work on them or you dont WANT to. The current state of carriers in the game isnt really good. Youve got one side where people love AS, and the other side where people worship Strike. Thus, leading to America vs Japan. (Im gonna trigger many here now...) If you dont know how to balance them, just SCRAP carriers as a class. But if you are willing to work on carries, Start with the loadouts. US Carriers boast Air Supremacy but lack Damage, while the Japanese are just really all rounders. How bout making them both the same? US Carriers- Changes to Flight decks mod 2 (mk5,6,7,8,9,10 mod 2) Tier 5 - MK5 MOD 2 Current - 012 Change - 111 Tier 6 - MK6 MOD 2 current - 012 change - Im not sure Tier 7 - MK7 MOD 2 Current - 013 Change - 112 Tier 8 - MK 8 MOD 2 Current -013 Change - 112 Tier 9 MK9 MOD 2 Current 113 Change 122 Tier 10 MK10 mod 2 Current 113 Change 222. As you can see, the changing of the squad arrangement would at least enhance the amount of players using these fight decks. Tier 10 Midway has 222 due to the fact that she has a large Hangar and would be able to work with it. Anyways, If you agree/disagree, do tell.
  22. Recently it has come to my attention that when my planes take-off they seem to go straight into formation, seems to be a bug of some sort. I have noticed it on both the IJN and US carriers (EU Servers) after the most recent major patch 0.6.8.
  23. Ishiro32

    Carrier state: Calling out devs

    Hi there, Ishiro here. This isn't gonna be my long well thought wall of text. This time I just want to comment on something I were not saying before, but now I feel confident enough to put those opinions on public forum. I am not playing this game for a few months already, but I guess I still have few words to say. So let's go!! I think the continuous problems with CVs and comments DEVs make regarding this class are a proof that they lack the ability to fix it. I think the incompetence of the team responsible for that aspect of that game has to be directly called out. Lead developer should be ashamed of the horrible performance his team is showing. Rant in spoiler Last thing I want to say is that I fell insulted regarding recent premium Carrier releases. WG few months back said they will not release another premium unless they feel comfortable with the class. The changes between that time and current day are laughable. Alternative control scheme (which is just key rebind), removing manual drop on low tier and very questionable of AP bombs introduction (which really are just rng dmg tweak more than anything else). I might miss something, but that's all there is to it. There was no rework, nothing was solved. This is so cynical and pathetic that I lack words and is reason why I decided to write this. This is how I see it: I come to a store and ask for apple (carriers) WG gives me rotten apple. I say to WG, it's rotten After two years they come back and say they wouldn't sell me rotten apple.Then they proceed to paint all apples red with paint and then they put them back on shelf with a new "fresh apples" sign. The hell am I looking at. The moment you ask for money is the moment all gloves are pulled off. So Developer team, since you ask people money for Carrier experience you designed I want to say: I am not angry, just sad because I wanted to love your game, carriers as asynrchonous gameplay element was extremely unique and appealing. I knew it was hard to do so I gave you time and I gave you benefit of the doubt. I am deeply dissapointed with your efforts. I no longer think you are even capable of fixing this situation if you keep this watered down directionless attitude. If you are content with current state so be it, I am sure collectors will buy those ships just for the high quality models alone, but it's still vey low. I might come back to playing game when you really fix it, but for the moment I guess I will remember your team as a failure and dissapointment... Happens.
  24. Buenas gentecilla. Me ha picado el gusanillo y me he comprado el USS Langley después de muchísimo tiempo sin jugar Portaaviones (aunque solo he jugado el Hosho). Bien, pues lo primero que he notado con el Langley a diferencia del Hosho, es que apenas tiene aviones en la reserva y que no hacen tanto daño como su contraparte japonesa, lo cual se traduce en poca experiencia y creo que los jugadores de CV me darán la razón en que mejorarlos a base de XP sin tirar de libre, es un proceso muy, muy lento y poco gratificante. De modo que, he aquí mis primeras dudas: ¿Cómo he de jugar los portaaviones de la USN? ¿Cómo creo esas famosas "plantillas" que he leído alguna que otra vez? ¿Cómo puedo asegurarme de maximar el daño que pueda hacer con mis torpedos y bombas? Y esta la pongo a parte: ¿Qué habilidades de capitán le pongo?
  25. dasCKD

    Missiles on carriers

    Before you ask: yes, I am completely insane. What of it? I'll keep publishing these until the psychiatric services catches up with me. I also noticed that I am not getting the reception I want, and so I made changes to the article title. Not only am I insane, I'm also a shameless Edited. It is a common sentiment that USN carriers should be given better dive bombers in order to distinguish them from the IJN counterparts and to make them viable again. It is really not a controversial statement to say that the American carriers are outclassed by their Japanese counterparts. A certain YouTuber, (Notser I think it was, it could be any of them really) stated that the accuracy of USN bombers should be buffed. Yeah, it probably is Notser. Buffing the accuracy of the USN dive bombers to bring them in line with their IJN contemporaries, is after all about the worst thing you could possibly do to buff the USN carriers. This thread is about torpedo bombers, why they're such a good weapon system, and what missiles has to do with any of this. Missiles This is the point where I take a few sentences out of this post to gloat about how missiles are already in games in the form of ship artillery and how everyone is Englishing wrong. Everyone knows what I mean when I say missiles though: those things that release fires from one end and big explosions on the other. By replacing USN dive bombers with missile squads, I believe that it would allow for USN carriers to shine again. Missiles have to be handled extremely carefully however. Much like carriers themselves, the introduction of missiles has made large caliber ship artillery largely obsolete. Below is my detailing as to how missiles can be handled as plane squads, how it could be introduced in such a way that it emphasizes the skills of gameplay comprehension over raw mechanical prowess, and how to could be balanced in such a way that it won't entirely break the game. Figure 2, missiles! Air dropped torpedoes in many ways has given a very strong template in what terms of attack pattern is somewhat acceptable in terms of in game design. Whilst many players complain about the various aspects of AA and how it's skill-less, I disagree with this sentiment. The basics of ship to carrier interaction is relatively simple: a carrier wants the perfect drop so they have to place their plane within the AA aura whilst a ship wants to exhaust the carrier. It therefore comes as a conflict between two sides. A carrier attempts to get into the perfect drop position as soon as they possibly could, whilst the ship being attacked is trying to delay the enemy carrier's drop for as long as possible so planes get shot down. As torpedo bomber attacks are quite obviously telegraphed and requires a quite extensive runup, I think that it is a good system of ship interaction. A large number of problems comes from how AA is arranged and the idea of AA ships and non-AA ships in the game. The foundation holds firm however. A carrier can only drop from so many angles to maintain effectiveness. A ship needs to stop them from getting that perfect angle for as long as I can. A dive bomber has no such thing. Attack command The combat attack pattern behind the missile strike fleet that I've designed is based upon the foundation laid by the torpedo bomber drop. Whereas the Japanese carrier torpedo attack has an inverted drop, the imagined American missile drop has a spread drop. The attack pattern is the same in concept with a longer run up, meaning that the missile attack will have a longer telegraphing period. The expanding spread is a placeholder. It might be more appropriate, given some rudimentary testing, The torpedo power is augmented in this example, but only in the region of around 1k points. The primary difference in missile and torpedo performance in this design is the smaller effective region. All other commands are the same, and the missile impact zone is calibrated to ship height. This point will be more clear later on in the system description. Figure 3, missile drop reticle In terms of performance, missiles are obviously going to be faster than torpedoes. In this case, I scaled back the speed to something far within the ability of most smaller ships to evade, being slower than the fastest torpedoes in the game but without the possibility to further augment the speed. Whilst the missiles themselves would be incredibly difficult to dodge, it would be possible to dodge the missiles by turning in advance the moment the missile aircraft begins telegraphing the attack. The powered missile will fly straight from the point of launch in a straight line until it hits the water surface and becomes inactive, following similar attack patters as the ballistics of a very flat arced artillery salvo albeit at a far lower speed. In this case, the 6(7) squad dive bombers will be replaced with a 4(5) squad strong one, meaning that it would be significantly easier to shoot down this new missile attack squad compared to previous dive bombers. It is also much more difficult to catch destroyers in a crossdrop as the missiles will have to be dropped in far faster succession than torpedoes. It will act like torpedo bombers, the missile flying a short distance until it hits the target then explodes. This means that the use of these missile strike squads will take direct player skill instead of depending on luck and perfect mechanical skill. It also means that players under attack won't get screwed just because they were unlucky, but neither will they get a free pass just because they were lucky. Much like torpedoes, the flight path of missiles is fixed and can be anticipated for. Angle of approach & impact You might have noticed the red and yellow boxes before. Whilst these boxes would likely be invisible in the game, what they are is another balancing characteristic of the missile. You might rightly note that a projectile flying at 75 knots dropped that close to a destroyer would be impossible to dodge even in autodrop by a destroyer considering how awkward the angle will be. That is why the red zone exists, sitting squarely around the center of rotation that sits in the middle of the autodrop command. Whilst taller ships will get hit whilst in the red zone, destroyers are short enough that missiles will fly over them when they're in the red zone. The missiles flies in at a shallow angle. In the yellow zone, the missile will hit and explode against anything. In the red zone however, the missile has a chance of flying over a ship and not detonating. This means that drops on destroyers will need to be performed from longer away which provides improved protection and evasive options to destroyers under the attack of a missile armed carrier strike squad. These zones are not as rigid as presented in this example; the missile is probably best modeled as any other shell in the context of the game. The fixed zones are here purely for representative purposes. Damage performance You might have noted that the missile alpha damage is higher than the alpha damage of the torpedo and rightfully worry about what this might do to the game. The missile is a HE warhead however, meaning that it will do HE damage. When hitting a target, it would do around 30% of the stated alpha damage in a standard penetration. A torpedo, launched even against the belt of a ship like the Yamato, will still do 45% of the listed damage. This means that the missile will do typically less damage compared to a torpedo of identical alpha performance. The other balancing factor is the fact that missiles are HE warheads, meaning that they will set fires instead of causing flooding. Fires, whilst infuriating, are far less debilitating than floods. The missile performance compared with the fact that the spread widens and there are less missiles in the first place, will mean that the damage will tend to be lower than that of the current dive bombers. In exchange, the missiles will be far more reliable and leave a far clearer method for target ships to evade damage or to lessen the impact of the coming damage. The 94 mm of HE penetration is set as such because it would prevent citadel penetrations to ships of tiers 7-10 by HE missiles, at least without IFHE. Depending on the impact of missiles, it might be necessary to prevent missiles from being able to receive the benefits of IFHE. The missiles can shatter modules and cripple exposed modules like an HE shell would. Missiles on ships Seeing as how my ideas would not be likely to get implemented due to how pathologically averse WG seems to be to logical game design, I thought it might be fun to come up with an idea that almost certainly would not be implemented. Nevertheless, it was fun conceptualizing the missile and imagining how it could be balanced to fit in the game. I thought it would be a good idea at least. Not completely comically broken, but it would stop USN carriers from being completely annihilated by their Japanese counterparts. The speed of the missile might need addressing, but otherwise I am quite happy when it comes to how the missile system could fit inside of the game. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.
×