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
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 96 results

  1. Hello fellow gamer people, I am writing this as I'm more than a little concerned with the current state of the game in general, the direction it appears to be going, and several other concerns regarding things like customer service and transparency. It may end up being a long post and maybe in more than one part, and, just to be clear, these are only MY opinions, you can agree or disagree as you see fit and I welcome constructive comment, however trolling because you haven't had enough attention today will be reported. First, a brief description of myself mainly for insight as to where I'm coming from with all this. I suppose I'm a whale, probably a Blue Whale If I'm going to be honest. Over the years I have given Wargaming a lot of money, thousands most likely, ok not likely, It's a fact, since starting playing tanks nine years ago I have spent?, invested? money, though I'm not going to think about that too much, but I game a lot. I'm also a bit of a Cliche, I'm 52 and live with my parent's, although I'm not In the basement, and am not antisocial, I do have friends and like a drink once or twice a week, but due to circumstances and family health issue's I'm back home and have a lot of free time. I've played games and built computers for 32 ish years ever since 4mb of ram was a big deal. I'm not an expert on gaming but I have a lot of years In the area. So, on to the meat of the subject, Wargaming, what are they doing, why are they doing it, and are they doing it for us?. Well, and again, my opinion, no, no they are not doing it for us, or if they THINK they are, they are not listening. I'm going to break it down, firstly by game type, then class and at the end I'll touch on the business side of things I suppose. So Game types, Random: I actualy have very few issue's with random, other than camping and skill level's of some players It's not too bad, with a couple of exceptions, but I'll address those In the class section. Co_op: Sorry but shouldn't we rename this DD-oP?, trying to get anywhere with , let's say, a bb Is 90% of the time (random % pulled out of thin air) pointless, by the time you get to engage half the time, the game is over and the Destroyer's have gobbled all the Exp, not a go at Destroyers, but the Mechanics of the game mean rushing forward and torp'ing is the way to go. How to fix? *&%@ if i know. Ranked: It's painful, I have seen people defending it, but as a reasonably skilled player who is just not good enough to carry hard I find ranked horribly frustrating. The amount of games in the last sprint I've lost due to players either rushing straight in and being sunk in the first two to three minutes, Going off alone down a flank in a BB....and getting sunk in the first two to three minutes, or sitting in a position that they are unable to make any difference to the game, until team is dead and they are outnumberes etc....... well a lot of you know what I'm trying to say. As of right now, ranked does not reward you as a player for playing the game, it relies on a team effort, and trying to get a lot of the players to work together Is Impossible. I've ranked out then next time never got passed rank 9 etc. Completely Inconsistant. Clan Battles: Borked, CV's, Stalin Rico's everywhere, etc. Only just started playing CB, but first impression's, while ok funwise, I just don't get some WG decisions. So CV's, why am I unimpressed with them in Clan Battles, well they completely take away using the Element of surpise / positioning. CV in game? yup, Flank from an unexpected place/angle to try get an advantage? nope, you were spotted four day's ago by planes that can perma spot you while you can do nothing to mitigate it, now that's a GREAT game design . So, coal / steel ships, you know I wouldn't give a flying If It wasn't for the simple fact that Wargaming don't even attempt to balance, and I know some of you are going to say I'm wrong, but let me be blunt, IF I'm wrong, why the hell was everyone who had them, using them?, how many other ship's did you see, how many Henri's, Mino's?, Ibuki's?, not many from my experience. While I'm not expecting every ship to be practicle, having only 4 or 5 being the Go To ship's just scream's Imbalance to me. I'd like to know what the % WR of CB's with CV's in was and then have skill level like for like factored in and a nice big bar graph putting out as well. I don't have issue with CV's being in game(See class DD's later for further comment), but honestly think they take too much away when It come to Clan battles. Sceanrio: no problems other than they should reset rewards each cycle of each scenario. So Class next I guess: Battleships: At some point Wargaming were going on about trying to get BB's to be more active in the game, everyone was sat at the back, hiding behing Islands and sniping, Battleship brawling was only happening late game when pretty much everything else was dead or one team was done for and out of options. Well, that hasn't worked has it. BB's now camp like they forgot to weigh anchor, and to be honest I can't really blame them. New ships introduced make It pretty much suicide to push early to mid game (though I personally do try now and then for lol's), Smolensk, Worcester, Halland etc. have pretty much turned the game into a campfest, which Is not as fun, also certain BB's just seem to be inferior to others due to power creep, or unique flavour (Thunderer armour / Citadel anyone). Cruisers: I think they are probably best class in game at moment, they do pretty much everything at least to a decent degree, and some of them excel in certain areas. Want a Denial ship, Smol, Worcester etc. AA Des, Salem, Utility, Stalin, Des, Moskva, an answer to every problem lies somewhere In one of the MANY cruisers and with the new lines we have even more to choose from. They can wreck BB's, hunt destroyer's, provide AA, I can't think of anything that they are bad at, with a few expcetions pertaining to specific cruisers. The only issue I have with them Is again that some just seem too powerful when compared to others of same tier. CV's: Currently I think they are the equivalent of Arty in World Of Tanks, I don't think Wargaming truly know what to do with them, got close(ish) to having them balanced and then gave up. Spotting Mechanic Is just bad, being perma spotted and not being able to do anything about It Is just a bad Idea and takes so much away from the game as far as strategy is concerned. I think AA on some ships needs BUFFING (yes, I said it, so sue me) I also think that Ships detection range from the air should be equal to the LR AA umbrella of the ship being spotted and that ships should be able to detect the plane's at Maz AA range, so spotting has some cost. I also thin MM needs looking at, If you have ever been a bottom tier DD and had to face a CV two tiers above you, well yeah that's fun, sure you can stay at the back and hide with the cruisers / bb's, but isn't that the complete opposite of a DD's purpose (generally, yeah we have exceptions). I played a French DD the other day as an experiment for several games, no smoke and meh AA, every time I had a CV in game, well, It was bad, and If the CV was two tiers higher, It was bad, but not for long.... DD: Over taxed and soon even more so. CV's are a nightmare, Radar is everywhere, Hydro, sub's on the way (oh lord I hope not) I think, again with exceptions, that DD'ss are the hardest ship to play at the moment and when/If Sub's come then, well I don't know, will people just stop playing them?. Teams want you to spot or cap but at the moemnt your life expectancy a lot of the time Is pretty short if you even attempt, it. "Cap C" ok I'll go cap C, oh damn, planes incoming, no problem, I'll smoke up he will never see me , Oh damn, radar from a cruiser 12k away, behind an island....with a Smolensk , oh and look, those rocket planes are coming back, It will be ok, happy thoughts, happy thoughts, happ..."Return to Port?" ho hum. Subs: not played them, don't want them, special game mode please thanks. From what I have seen on YT etc at the moment, they are nowhere near balanced. I am still trying to figure out as of now what a BB is suposed to do In a one on one with a Sub, Raise a white flag?. My answers to some of the problems that >I SEE< : I'd get rid of Radar and bring a little tension back to the game, "what's behind this Island?, I don't know, should I go look????? ewwwww what to do!!!", give more ships Hydro maybe to counter lack of radar, get rid of proximity spotting, above changes to CV spotting, Change MM so dd's are not uptiered with CV's two levels higher and deleted in first couple of minutes (or) Change rocket dispersion V DD's maybe, make them harder to hit, take cv's out of comp gaming. I would also like to see WG go back and balance ALL ships so they all serve a purpose, probably not realistic but hey. Zao, Henri, Mino to some extent are under played, anyone wonder why. Possibly look at rewarding active play and penalties for innactive play. Stop releasing ships that skew balance badly or are a bit silly in a specific are. Wargaming: Firstly, they are a business, they are not here because they love you, they are here to make money, and I am fine with that. What I'm not fine Is the downright vile methods they use to get that money. Loot box gambling In the Armoury for progression is just BAD and a horrible money grab, the whole PR fiasco was offensive and again IMHO an intentional money grab by WG, I truly beleive If the stink that was created regarding It hadn't occured they would have carried on with the concept. The current Dock Isn't as bad, In fact I look at It as simply a way to get a discount on a ship If I want to. I don't mind things like the Xmas Box's got to say, they are far enough away from the game itself to be out of mind, but something that you are actively taking part in via missions... another story. Premium ships, the prices are ridiculus, I have never seen a comment from WG regarding the pricing they use, but as hundreds have said before me, having a single in game ship costing the same as AAA title, and in some cases a couple of AAA titles, Is greedy, and let's be honest, they seem to knock them out at a insane rate, what is it, when you include reskins? One a week, two?. And yet how often do we see a new maps released?, game modes?. Yes they give stuff away, but a fair few have been pretty awful, others some are older ships that many people may have already bought...they ain't stupid that's for sure. I don't know If they even take note of feedback, LWM is probably the most level headed and does some pretty amazing and detailed reviews and has commented a lot on what she thinks a particular ship may need, both buff or nerf to be a good, balanced ship but do WG listen? do they care? do they try to give us, the gamers what we want or is it more of a case of they give us what they SAY we want, I don't know, I am starting to come around to the idea that a lot of it is just hot air and smoke. When I first started playing, the game was totaly different, far more balanced and after the way Tanks has gone downhill, a breath of fresh air, but now I'm starting to think that that was just the hooks going In before they reverted back to same old same old. I hope I'm wrong, the game isn't broke beyond repair, it just needs a little nudge here and there. Oh yeah, Wargaming, out of interest, you know those server transfers you promised NA to EU for world of tanks, like over two years ago, you know, the subject you point blank refuse to acknowledge on your forums any more in World of Tanks? well as you refuse to respond on THOSE forums how about someone reach out to them from here and find out WTF is going on? you now, customer service, valued customers, transparency, Integrity, honesty and so on??, I mean I know Wargaming didn't do a complete U turn and just not tell the customers, that would be a completely shameful way to treat the player base wouldn't it? just asking anyway, probably a metric tonne of spelling mistakes and punctuation error's and trolls have probably smelled blood and are crawling out from under the bridges, but I'm trying. Srgt_Misfire Deep Impact EU "I may be old n slow kid, but I still sunk you"
  2. Necro_von_Cortex

    French Carriers

    People have requested Bearn since the addition of the french techtree, or rather since the addition of Dunquek... dunkerque? dunkirk? and then the follow up tree. Carrier gameplay is a seemingly sensitive topic a sh!t ton of people getting bu!thurt about, rather than enjoying what the game has to offer (I've played for 5 years and still like it). Carriers were, are and will remain as an active part of the game. In The Developers Defence - It takes atleast 4 very diffrent CVs, France only freatures 3 real ships/projects. (that I know off, It wouldn't be the first time WG made up somehting.) - The carriers available are rather underpowered for Tier 8 or more. - Heavy-ish armour With the question aside and up for debate, let's see what we are missing out on. Dixmude (IV) A british escort carrier of the Avenger-class, transferred to the french navy in April, 1945. + Overall light carrier, it's an escort CV, not a full fleet CV nice for a low Tier. + Powerful AA for Tier 4, perhaps even OP. (rated at about 19) - Small strike group. - Slow, she doesn't have turbines. Bearn (VI) A carrier built on the Normandie class doing the 1920's. She was scheduled for replacement in the 1930's but stayed in service till the 1960's. Doing the 2nd world war she would go to America in 1944 for a refit. !OBS! Bearn has been up for debate on various other posts, though the most recent one I've seen was before The update which we do not speak. Bearn features 3 hulls, with Hull A being her original 1920s layout, Hull B being her 1944 american refit and a premium version being her 1938 layout which is just a Hull A with better AA. + 1938 & 1944 configuration both have nice to good AA with a rating of about 30 & 61. + Nice secoundary defence with 8+6 guns. + Enough armour to defeat 140mm HE guns on the flight deck and more on the sides. +/- Long service life, there is room for a lot of aviation innorvations or cross national loadout. (Premium hull could have better planes) - To quote Drachinifel "To be perfectly honourst, the less said the better" Joffre (VIII) A project from the late 1930's, the carriers Joffre & Painleve were planned to overtake for Bearn. The outbreak of the war resulted in neither of carriers seeing completion, with Joffre reaching 28% while Painleve was never laid down. + The speed of a light cruiser. + Heavy-ish armour for a carrier. - Nice quality but underwhelming quantity of AA guns, this is be anulled fighters or a potential refit which might have happent if the ship ever saw service. Edited conclusion: They won't be here before 2022 if at all and several other carriers are "available".
  3. Necro_von_Cortex

    Carrier Philosophy

    Over the last week I've been written articles/posts about vessels, mostly about carriers which could be in the game. (of which people have confirmed, german CVs are on the way.) But the debates have come from people with various opinions. I've been surpriced over just how diffrent others opinions could be to my own sometimes. This is why I would like to ask: "What Defines A Good Carrier?" In my judgement of a CV, I by-pass planes, as the developers can stuff whatever plane they want on whatever ship with whatever loadout they want in any update they see fit. After the update which we do not speak, you can really just throw planes at ships till they die, there are no limit and no rationing but you are limited to 1 group at a time, an unavoidable bottleneck for damage potential. Specially, as you have to travel with the planes all the phucking way to target. The way I judge a carrier - Does she have the speed to run from island to island? (starting at 22kts) - Does she have the armour to survive? (starting at 25mm all around armour) - Can she defend herself efficiently? (Secoundary guns worth talking about?) - Can she take on planes? (fighters + AA) * Concealment is of value, but it's easy to guess where she's hiding and enemy planes are all over you. * The relevance of AA has been reduced as now fighters are phucking everywhere. (sometimes I just fly around near the enemy CV to spot it for allies cause I can't be bothered with feeding the enemy XP) As an example, let's take a look at what Langley has to offer. - She can barely move ½ way over the map before the battle is over. - She has no armour, it's a converted cargoship with no add-on. - 2 guns pr side, I have 2 kills with them over the last 5 years. One was another carrier, we both ran out of planes and met up in the middle. - AA is perhaps the best for tier IV CVs when upgraded (Hermes has FlaK effect though) but it has a lot to compensate for. Another example with Hermes - As fast as that other tier IV carrier. - DDs will barely hurt her with HE shells below 130mm. - 3 guns with 270* I have little exprience with tea ships. - FlaK effect + the longest range of the 3 CVs and starts out with these guns on Hull(A). (already way better than Langley in any aspect) I love that old veteran, but if Langley is the minimum requirements for a CV, why do some people question why a ship like Bearn is more than worthy of a tier IV? I noted her on my article as worthy of Tier VI because when we compare her to Langley, Hermes and that jap one Höshö - Her speed is just fine at 21.5kts, (21.7kts is the average of the 3) - She has more armour than any of them and can withstand 140mm HE shells. (by the 1/6 penetration rule) - Her original Hull has nice self-defence 8x1 -155mm L/55 M1920 + 6x1 - 75mm M1924 her 1944 refit would trade it off for AA. - Her original AA suit is better than Horse-shoe (B) but still sucks, from there on it will be buffed 10 fold with each refit. THE PLANES! THE PLANES! CVs lost the potential to dominate and do anything truely usefull other than giving the enemy XP after the update we do not speak of The developers can put what they want on it, the ship saw service till 1967 and went to Murica for a refit... she can have anything, from biplanes to jet aircrafts if they want her to. (if she was ever equiped with an arrest gear that is) This post is about what defines a good carrier, not a good plane, for the sake of overcoming diffrences. We play the same game under the same conditions, we should have simular understandings and experiences although the quantity and quality of it might be variable.
  4. Necro_von_Cortex

    German Carriers

    While looking around I stumbled over a project titled "Flugzeugträger I" and figured "why is it not in the game?" From there on one article lead to another. After the carrier update it only takes 4 ships to have a full CV line, while Germany has 5 CV projects (proberly more I don't know about) In the developers defense - No CV project would be complete, even Graf Zeppelin never completed - Germany may not have sophisticated enough designs available. (only up to tier VIII) - Limited variation of airplanes and very limited striking power. Advantages of german carriers - Opportunities to add more uniq ships. - Open designs, as most of them are paper projects. - Carriers are build on hulls of diffrent vessels, each one with it's own character. - Even early CVs have good AA (on paper.) So with the question out of the way and up for debate, let's have a look at what we are potentially missing out on: Flugzeugträger I "Preußen" (1915) (IV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_I_(1915) The first german aircraft carrier, designed on an unfinished ship, Ausonia. The hull was scrapped in 1922 but did establish plans for converting the cruiser SMS Roon into a seaplane carrier. Note: the name is made up to not get confused with the 1942 design. + It's german. +/- The carrier has a total of 29 planes of mixed breed. - 10 of the planes were fighters. It leaves the CV with small squadrons. - No practical aircraft available in 1915. Note: Her armament is open for interpretation with suggestion below 12x1 - 13.25mm TuF MG 18 6x1 - 3.7cm SockelFlak 2x1 - 10.5m c/06 8x1 - 15cm SK L/45 This would leave her with an Art. rating of 6 and and AA rating of about 18 Flugzeugträger I "Das Reich" (1942) (VI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_I_(1942) A design for converting the S/S Europa to an aux. aircraft carrier with room for 42 planes in one hangar. The design had several issues and the vessel was captured by the US army and used as a troop transporter. Although the overall dimentions would overgo Graf Zeppelin, she would only have ½ the engine power to move. Note: the name is made up to not get confused with the 1915 design. + A major upgrade over "Preußen" including modern aircraft. - Big target and "no armour added". - 1 rudder and poor acceleration, bigger than Graf Zeppelin and ½ the engine power. Jade & Elbe (VI) 2 passenger vessels of simular dimentions, planned for conversion with only Elbe getting started on it, although halted within 3 months. +/-Add-on armour would be used on the hull and flight deck but too thin to stop 127mm shells. - These are small, slow Aux. CVs with limited striking power. (19-21kn) Weser (VIII) The cruiser, Seydlitz of the Admiral Hipper class. Production stopped in 1943 and was never finished. + Heavier than average LR AA. + High speed and some armour protection. - Minimum striking power Flugzeugträger II "Totenkopf" (1938) (VI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_II A paper project for an aux. carrier and the last german designed carrier. She would never be finished in her intended role but converted to an AA cruiser by the french navy in 1956. Note: the name is made up. + 1938 till 1956 will leave with potential cross national refits. +/-Weak powerplant although still able to go 32kn. - Stuck with the same planes as any other german CV project. Edited conclusion: They are coming in the future
  5. As the title says: why were most of CVs removed? I didn't play when they were removed so I was wondering why the change was made and when was that?
  6. I don't know whos bright idea was putting 2 carreirs in a tier 8 battle , but Sir i congratulate you , you should apply yourself for audition for Dumb and Dumber 3 not only would you win the Oscar for the dullest man alive , but you would also go into the Guinesses book of world records for a one.
  7. Hello there folks! Recently I've been playing a few low tier games in order to work on some new (for me) ship lines. While in Tier 4 Matchmaking there have been 1-3 Carriers on either team per match. As a Carrier main myself I have no issue with CVs in general, however, there are some MAJOR issues at Tier 4. The primary reason for this is the (almost) complete lack of AA defenses on ships which make all surface ships practically defenseless against aircraft. For the sake of my own curiosity, I decided to repurchase the Hosho since it has been quite notorious in its use as a "Seal Clubber" since the buff to its Torpedo Aircraft. And oh boy I wasn't disappointed! Not only is the Hosho Ridiculously strong at Tier 4 due to her damage potential, but there also is NO COUNTER to her since AA of ships are severely lacking and Carriers can't even put up Fighters to cover their allies. On top of all this, a lot of the players at this low tier are fairly new to the game, and playing against these blatantly overpowered Carriers isn't fun whatsoever, even for experienced players (And frankly they're quite boring to play as well). How are the newcomers supposed to want to stick around when they keep getting farmed by a Class that they have no counter towards? For all they know this issue could just keep getting worse the higher in the Tiers they climb. At higher Tiers, the AA-capabilities of ships at least make striking grouped up enemies a very costly endeavor. What I would do long term wise is Remove Tier 4 Carriers from matchmaking and instead have Submarines of Tier 2-4 as the "extra" class introduced during the lower tiers and have Carriers being introduced to the players at Tier 6 onwards where AA defense is more noticeable. This would also make sense from a historical point of view since Submarines have been used operationally far longer than Aircraft Carriers. This might have all kinds of balance implications we don't know about since Submarines are still in testing, but at least submarines were part of the equation when the earlier ships were built (Even though the earliest incarnation of Anti-Submarine Warfare may have been a bit flawed since it consisted of sailors in rowboats trying to destroy periscopes with hammers). I do think that the Carriers at Tier 4 are important for their historical value (being among the first carriers operational in the world) so keeping them in the game somehow would be preferable. Maybe they could be part of an extensive CV tutorial each player gets access to or have them present in Operations etc. Or turn them into Tier 6 Premiums with unique mechanics to offset their outdated equipment. TL;DR: Remove Carriers from Tier 4 and have Submarines be the extra class introduced at the earlier stages of the game (these were also historically operational long before Carriers). Introduce the CV class starting at Tier 6 where most ships were designed with the knowledge that aircraft was (a new) part of naval warfare since at these Tiers AA is more present as a counter to Aircraft.
  8. I'm wondering what Wargamings' stance is regarding the current state of the Graf Zeppelin. My own opinion is that her Dive Bombers could use a buff since the AP alpha is the lowest per strike among the Tier 8 CVs on top of having a very RNG heavy drop pattern. Does Wargaming have any information that they could share regarding Graf Zeppelins' performance compared to her peers? If some kind of buff is warranted would it be possible Engine-wise to add HE Bombs to the bomb loadout? A pair of wing-mounted 50KG bombs could make the bombers feel less RNG-based due to more bombs dropped on target.
  9. kjkb1980_o7

    Slot 4 Upgrade for Aircraft Carriers

    Hi guys, I'm curious to know what people's opinions are on the best slot 4 Upgrade for Aircraft Carriers please, i.e. Torpedo Bomber Modification 2 or Bomber Modification 2? My current thinking is Bomber Modification 2 as I think that Dive Bombers generally spend more time in AA fire than Torpedo Bombers. Also, Torpedo Bombers on Tier VIII+ Aircraft Carriers have the Repair Consumable to heal health. However, my exceptions to this rule are Kaga, Saipan and Ark Royal as they drop more Torpedoes than other Aircraft Carriers at their respective tiers so I want to maximise their survivability. Does this logic make sense or do I need to rethink? Would love to know your thoughts. Thank you guys.
  10. Hello there fellow skippers! I would like to make a repost of a discussion found on Reddit that I thought was very interesting: I personally feel that GZ is in need of a rework when it comes to the Dive Bombers. Not only is their Alpha damage rather pitiful, but the attack angle and drop dispersion makes every drop a roll of the dice. My suggestion is to give GZ her JU-87 Stukas back with a loadout consisting of the current AP bomb plus 2 HE bombs. The current 2/8 flight would be reused as well as the dive pattern and dispersion. This would make the RNG of the bombers a bit less harsh, while still keeping the unique way of attacking. The rather high alpha damage per plane would be balanced by being carried by a rather slow and flimsy aircraft. Would love to hear you guys opinion on this matter!
  11. As of currently then when I have reached Shokaku so far in World Of Warships.. I mostly was also apart of the test for the new Carrier Rework.. and I really felt the unfairness in that of how big the difference was between USS Carriers and IJN Carriers.. American squadrons always reaching their target with over half of the squad still alive and doing a fairly good amount of damage due to the amount of stuff their squadron carries and damage they do.. While Japanese squadrons have the problem of the little amount of health, the small amount of stuff they give to do damage towards ships.. and such.. Always losing under the half the health of the squadron when attacking.. And commonly the whole squadron on an attack. - American Carriers are much much more stronger than Japanese Carriers in a nutshell and has better damage and influence than their counterpart.. - But while British carriers are coming out soon as well, then it seems they are staying on the side of the Americans.. Also being strong and influential.. And mostly then the players who played Japanese carriers before the rework, never had the chance to either change nation to the American counterpart.. and get the equivalence of what they had.. _____________________________________ I'm mostly just thinking, since the rework promised the balance between each other and more carrier play... Of course then that's true, but Americans and the British are the most active ones.. while the Japanese are the ones which are slowly dying... (Or maybe even quickly).. It feels as if it's not even worth playing Japanese carriers due to the unfairness given and always having a bigger chance of not being influential as carriers are in battles.
  12. RaxSavvage

    Carrier Torpedo Planes

    plane torps utterly suck to the point enemy cruisers and battleships will hurl abuse at me for even trying to hit them, they wont even try to evade they dont need to they damage is hilariously low compared to surface torps all damage info is from the T6 furious and with a listed damage of 5200 can hit the nose of a battleship airzona in this case for only 2752 or there about and not even cause a flood i'm asking 2 things, 1 damage overall is upped, even against destroyers i'll see just over 4K damage mid point hit, the T8 and T10 have the same torp damage of 5933 which is bizzare to me but more than this the main change i'd suggest is half squadron attack wings, furious has 6 planes in a squadron so 3 on attack, implacable has 8 for 4 and audacious upped to 10 in a squadron and 5 in an attackwing. with the same philosphey to other nations.
  13. AwesomeBoat

    CV Tiers

    Hi All other lines go to t10 with no gaps, so I have a question: Why do CVs not have tiers 5, 7 and 9?
  14. Hello everyone, I recently came back to WoWs after a longer hiatus and decided to main Carriers after their rework. I am having a blast but, as with many others, I feel that they are a bit too strong now. (Although weaker than before the rework, there are A LOT more of them playing) In my opinion the primary reason that the Carriers are so strong is their unparalleled ability to spot enemy ships. The global lack of concealment hits the Destroyers especially hard since it is their primary means of survival. Currently the Carriers sits at a comparable damage potential to Battleships while at the same time having a far greater spotting potential than Destroyers. My suggestion would be to greatly reduce the Carriers ability to directly spot for their team by only having the Carriers spotting showing up on the minimap of their teammates. This would bring back a lot of the spotting role to the Destroyers. However, there are times when as a Carrier you can’t reliably strike the enemy without taking heavy losses due to them grouping up effectively (as they should be). In order for the carrier to still be useful in such a scenario I would give them a new consumable called “Radio Relay”. This consumable would enable the Carriers to relay spotting information to their allies, effectively enabling them to spot ships like normal. The duration and cooldown could be comparable to the radars available to Cruisers. The suggested rework would: A) Remove the CVs ability to keep the enemies permanently spotted. B) Bring back the majority of the spotting role to DDs. C) Make CV spotting more of a tactical tool rather than a strategic one. TL;DR: In order to nerf their effectiveness make CV spotting only show up on the minimap of its teammates unless a new consumable “Radio Relay” is used.
  15. The wiki pages for all aircraft carriers in the game seem to be a mess of information relating to mismatched versions of the game (RTS info still present mixed up with rework info). I was wondering if there's a reliable up-to-date source of information for putting together equipment and CO skills for the reworked carriers – especially the four premiums currently on sale, but also the Brit non-premium line (Hermes and Furious in particular) that was recently on early access. I am guessing that "just go for the carrier-specific skills and upgrades, duh!" is order of the day, although with both Saipan and Enterprise occupying the same tier, I am curious if there is a big distinction between how you'd run them. I'm guessing enterprise as the AP dive bombers as prime candidate for buffing, maybe Torp-bombers on Saipan? Anyone got any ideas?
  16. I'm still scratching my head about the AA / CV rework and how it impacts Hood, which I used to run as an AA boat. The in-game info panel tells me nothing - clicking the individual mounts just shows the guns, doesn't give me info about which range-grouping each corresponds to; and looking at the info breakdown for those range-bands isn't massively helpful. A look on the WOWS fitting tool shows the close-range AA DPS is incredibly low, with rockets not apparently creating flak bursts nor making the base close-range DPS much better than KGV. Wiki is still recommending Advanced Firing Training, and saying the defensive fire consumable applies to the rockets with a x2 modifier which is still significantly less than KGV's base if we're to accept the short-range DPS value given. Could someone please explain to me what the hell is going on? Because as far as I can get a read on it, AFT is now "meh" for the Hood because it doesn't improve the close-range rockets' continuous damage, BFT is more appropriate because it DOES synergise with the defensive fire consumable - but is probably still a waste because the improved AA is lacklustre anyway; which makes both the AA upgrades on the ship redundant because it's no longer fit for purpose as an AA specialist. Is this about the size of it?
  17. I think most of us agree that there is very little interaction between airplanes and surface ships at this moment. With the RTS carriers we had the option to use DFAA which caused a panic effect and we had the option to focus on specific squadrons, both of which were taken away. Hence this topic, can we come up with some ideas to add some interaction again, e.g.: Bring back the panic effect of DFAA, manual control of AA guns and etcetera. Depending on how serious the reactions are I will do my best to add the best ideas (most thumbs up) in this first post. Greetz Lemon Suggestions Fix AFT. (doesn't really add more interaction though :P) Give DFAA her panic effect back.
  18. Hello fellow captains, not really a newbie here, but I started my career as a CV captain more or less 2 days ago and cannot figure out some issues... so maybe the experienced air jockeys can give me a hand here: 1. If I strike with my US DB squadrons and really want to do just a single pass in order to conserve planes, do I press RTB right after the strike or do I fly out my bombers manually? Any benefit to that? (Evading flak, taking a more optimal route away from AA ships...) 2. Is it just me or is the pre-strike aiming reticle of the Midway's rocket planes (Tiny Tims... will change that, unreliable stuff) a bit too far out? About half a second to a second at normal flight speed? On the Langley and the Ranger those were more or less spot on, but I tend to overshoot a bit in the Midway's fighters... 3. I think I will figure that one out with experience, but: Does accelerating and decelerating still work while in a strike animation? I think it does for the RFs and TBs, but what about the divebombers? Can I slightly adjust my reticle when reaching up and diving down to strike? In the direction of my flight axis, not perpendicular to it ( that obviously works....)? Thanks in advance, CV newbie Mechthart out
  19. 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...
  20. Will you keep playing World of Warships after update v.8.0. goes live? Vote and share your opinions :) !
  21. Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history? Share your opinions! Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects. If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps? I am puzzled!
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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!
×