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


  • 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


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 59 results

  1. ColaholicA

    Suggestion: Reworked CV Spotting

    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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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...
  6. Will you keep playing World of Warships after update v.8.0. goes live? Vote and share your opinions :) !
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. Hi everybody! I started this thread very recently on the NA server and decided I should share what I'm doing with the EU server too. Anyways, with WoWS coming out in the near future I figured it would be awesome to learn a bit about some of the ships that are going to be in the game. Hopefully in the upcoming days and weeks I will be able to put up more episodes for all of you to enjoy. These videos are purely for educational purposes and there will be absolutely no ads on these videos. Enjoy and tell me what you all think ^_^ Episode 38 - The Other Scharnhorst / Shinyo Class Carrier Episode 37 - Gnevny (Gremyashchy) Class Destroyer Episode 36 - Nagato Class Battleships Episode 35 - Invincible Class Battlecruisers Episode 34 - Andrea Doria Class Battleship Episode 33 - Fuso Class Battleship Episode 32 - Baltimore Class Heavy Cruisers Episode 31 - USS Olympia Episode 30! - HMS Ark Royal Episode 29 - Langley Aircraft Carrier Episode 28 - Kaga Aircraft Carrier Episode 27 - Admiral Hipper Class Heavy Cruiser Episode 26 - South Dakota Class Battleship Episode 25 - HMS Dreadnought Battleship Episode 24 - John C. Butler Class Destroyer Escort Episode 23 - Montana Class Battleship Episode 22 - Scharnhorst Class Battlecruisers Episode 21 - Northampton Class Heavy Cruisers Episode 20 - Flower Class Corvettes Episode 19 - Nelson Class Battleships Episode 18 - Allen M. Sumner Class Destroyers Episode 17 - King George V Class Battleships Episode 16 - Iowa Class Battleships Episode 15 - Lexington Class Carriers Episode 14 - Mogami Class Cruisers Episode 13 - Littorio Class Battleship Episode 12 - Deutschland Class Panzerschiffe Episode 11 - Kongo Class Battleship Episode 10 - Bismarck Class Battleship Episode 9 - Fletcher Class Destroyer Episode 8 - Queen Elizabeth Class Battleship Episode 7 - Yorktown Class Aircraft Carrier - Part 3 Episode 7 - Yorktown Class Aircraft Carrier - Part 2 Episode 7 - Yorktown Class Aircraft Carrier - Part 1 Episode 6 - Pennsylvania Class Battleship - USS Arizona Episode 5 - Admiral Class Battlecruiser - HMS Hood Episode 4 - Yamato Class Battleship Episode 3 - Essex Class Aircraft Carriers Episode 2 - New York Class Battleships Episode 1 - North Carolina Class Battleships
  12. 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!
  13. Note to Mods: I've put this carrier-focused topic in the Gameplay forum because I would like a broad response from the player base, rather than just comments from carrier players on the carrier forum, because whatever happens to carriers affects everyone. Introduce carrier-based search/reconnaissance aircraft. Carrier based search planes would deploy as single units (like spotter planes) but they would operate differently. Unlike spotter planes, the carrier player would control their movements. Also unlike spotter planes, the search plane would not enhance the shooting range or accuracy of any ship. It's real purpose is to find enemy ships and "escort" them. When the search plane spots an enemy ship, the carrier player would assign it to follow that ship and it would then circle the spotted enemy ship continuously until ordered away, or shot down. Crucially, the search plane must not be vulnerable to the spotted ship's AA - we would assume that it's flying high enough that it can circle the enemy ship at a distance great enough to keep it out of range. Only the spotted ships team mates would be able to attack the search plane, or the spotted ship's own catapult fighter, if it has one. I can image several players won't like this idea, but guess what? It was just as annoying in real life. Several examples come to mind, such as the Kondor aircraft that shadowed the Murmansk convoys: those convoys would often try to use their escorts to set up AA ambushes for the Kondor to drive it away. Other solutions were to carry catapult fighters! Given that catapult fighters don't turn up in lower tiers, perhaps carriers with search planes would be a mid to higher tier feature. Search planes are the missing piece in the carrier airgroups and would have the following effects: 1. It would allow carriers to perform what is supposed to be one of their primary functions both in real life and in the game - scouting. They don't do that at the moment because of the risk of losing squadrons, and because their team mates don't value that function. This is because... 2. It would allow carrier players to scout without having to send an entire squadron, or risking that squadron to enemy attack. When you've only got one or two fighter squadrons, losing one on a scouting mission can make you horribly vulnerable to an enemy carrier, as well as preventing you from mounting any more scouting missions. 3. Because they no longer risk losing a major part of their offensive/defensive capability, carriers wouldn't be shy about sending their search planes off to find targets for their own squadrons, but also to directly support their team by, for example, locating and shadowing enemy ships. Those who believe that destroyers are currently too stealthy should support this, because a search plane could seek out and shadow a destroyer. A destroyer that is visible at long range is no threat to a competent battleship player. Meanwhile, the shadowed destroyer would need to fall back to its own team to get help from their AA to drive off or destroy the search plane, thus promoting team play on both sides! 4. Players would see the direct benefit of having a carrier on their team - at the moment most players feel that carriers just play their own game and don't get involved with their team unless they see a destroyer coming their way, at which point they start screaming for help. But this request for help is often resented because other players can't see what the carrier has ever done for them, and in many cases they are right - the carrier often doesn't appear to be helping fellow team mates at all, but is usually focused on killing the enemy carrier above all else. While this is useful, this is not always the best way to win a game. Zombies Switch the Fighter Barrage from air-to-air to air-to-surface In other words, turn it into a strafing attack against ships, but remove the ability to barrage other squadrons. Just stick to the existing dogfight attack. Why introduce a strafing attack? 1. Because this would be an excellent way to attack ships, and really fun against destroyers and cruisers. There is no way a strafing run could sink a ship (not unless it was down to extremely low HP, of course) but it would be a good way for a carrier player to accumulate more damage and would give the carrier airgroup more flexibility in terms of the types of attacks and strategies it could use. In fact, adding strafing attacks to fighters could, in addition to search planes, make the carrier more willing to scout for his team because the scouting fighters could do something useful (and profitable) when they found the enemy. 2. Carriers configured for AA wouldn't be as totally useless as they often are now. Once they've achieved 'clear skies' what's left to do? Sure, they can scout but if that's all they can do, the carrier player is going to get bored and lose interest, and this is perfectly understandable. With a strafing option, they can actively contribute. 3. It would also mean that fighters aren't just easy damage points for enemy ship AA. Fighters could fight back! (I'll come back to this idea of easy damage points later - it's a big problem.) Why get rid of the air to air barrage? Because it's completely counter-intuitive. It's even more counter-intuitive than the fact that crossing the T gets you killed! The latter we've all learned to adapt to, but I still struggle with the idea that a massed formation of aircraft can be obliterated by a single enemy squadron simply because the massed aircraft chose to fly close together. Massed formations are ALWAYS stronger in defence and attack. If a single squadron of fighters is supposed to be able to destroy large numbers of enemy fighters or bombers just because the enemy are flying close together then the Battle of Britain would have been over on day one. Similarly, the USAF and RAF bomber raids over Germany would have been utter failures when the Luftwaffe fighters returned the favour. In the time period of the game, bombers flew together because it worked. They provided mutual protection. So they should be able to resist a fighter attack, not be completely destroyed by one. The danger of fighter barrage means carrier players must send their bomber squadrons off on long routes around the map on their own, and then they're more vulnerable to ship-based AA, instead! This is part of the reason why other players can't see carriers helping them much. The carriers are too busy just trying to stay alive! And finally, another idea from a very recent thread, but which I'm including here, again because it's all part of the same topic, and because the answers on that thread gave me some more ideas... Introduce zombie aircraft When a carrier is sunk, his planes go into some kind of autopilot and just circle until the end of the game. There are two problems with this: 1. It's silly. Why are we supposed to assume the pilots have gone brain dead because their carrier is gone? The opposite doesn't happen - if a squadron is shot down, the carrier player doesn't lose control of the carrier. Essentially the carrier is a single unit which can split itself into smaller units. Surely the carrier player is still in the game until all of his ship units are destroyed? 2. The current situation gifts more damage points to the enemy. Orphan planes can still be shot down after their carrier has been sunk, but the carrier player is no longer able to counter this by manoeuvring his planes away from danger. He's the only player who is rendered helpless in this way. So orphan planes are a potential points gift to the other team, which is an unfair advantage. If those planes had all been aboard the carrier when it was sunk, the other team would not have got the additional points for those planes. They can, however, get them after the carrier is sunk and the carrier player is unable to help his own team by attacking or keeping his surviving planes out of harms way. We've all seen noobs suicide because they were low on health and wanted to finish it, and been annoyed at this because it benefits the other team. Here we have almost the same situation, but through no fault of the carrier player. Possible solutions: 1. The carrier player doesn't die in the game until his last planes are dead or their ammo expended (note, this could include fighters if strafing is added!). After his carrier is sunk he can still control his remaining airborne assets, but he is fighting on borrowed time because he can't recover and rearm. He also can't scout because we can assume that the carrier was passing search information along to the rest of the team. 2. After the carrier is sunk the player is allowed to target his remaining planes at the enemy, but that is his last command - no manoeuvring. Just point and click on a target. 3. The planes revert to AI control and behave as they would if this were a co-op battle. 4. The planes all crash into the ocean BUT the enemy team do not get the points for their destruction. Those are the arguments. Time to vote!
  14. TheMeanKitten

    Enterprise vs. Graf Zeppelin

    Which one is better and why?
  15. Hello everyone! It's recently come to my attention after the latest patch that i seem to be unfairly matched against two aircraft carriers and also i seem to be getting messed up by enemy bombers all of the time. Its annoying as hell because i used to get 1000-2000 xp a game using my carrier before the patch, but now im getting 300xp a game ;_; I hope wargaming fix this soon. I don't mind the grind, but its the bad rewards i get now for doing the exact same thing as before. Additionally, people in matchmaking don't seem to be very supportive when it comes to the carriers, yes, i get the odd game where a battleship protects me and we win, but it seems that everyone is having fun with the run and gun idea while i get torps in my back like salt being shook onto food. p.s. Carriers also suck for not getting actual fixed wing aircraft (which are not biplanes) until tier 7 -_-
  16. There is way too many carriers with way too many airplanes in the game. The whole map is littered with airplanes and there is no way to hide or run,,,,, Also reload of aircraft at carriers seems extremly fast still...??? Limit number of CVs in a random battle to 1. or limit number of planes and reloadtime.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. StratisV

    Warships' Types

    Where can I find other types of Warships for the german navy.??
  20. Ahoy captains ! I would like to ask you how to handle incomming torpedo bombers. In most situations i have been attacked by 2 squadrons and i play cruisers, hence i will elaborate on this situation. But i'm pretty sure it applies to BB too, If you are being approached by 2 TB squadrons, there are still few options. 1. Turn towards closer squadron, it drops torpedos to your front and cause no harm , but second squadron drops to your left or right and hits. Evasion not possible because of torpedoes running paralel to your ship from first squadron. 2 Turn away from closer squadron. . They drop torpedoes behind you and these will miss if you go in straight line. Second squadron drops torpedoes to your left or right and will surely hit, unless you decide to turn ,likely hitting torpedoes from 1st squadron. We can still hope enemy will fail to execute attack properly: 3. Both squadrons attack as one, from same position -> you can evade, in samve way as attack of single squadron. 4. Timing is wrong and you have chance to avoid torpedoes of first squadron and then manever yourself in relation to second squadron, hence allowing to avoid second attack too. In conclusion i fail to see any option how to avoid properly executed TB attack. I'm really looking forward to anyone who can explain to me what i'm doing wrong.
  21. 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?
  22. ...that when you see a carrier roflstomp, you're all "OMG WHY?!" No, I don't play CVs. I just like them really a lot. One could say that I have a carrier fetish, if one was a bit kinky. I've noticed that in these parts a lot of people don't like carriers, giving these beautiful behemoths such lovely epithets as "sky cancer" and demanding that CVs get "nerfed" or "removed from game..." I have a name for these people, nothing offensive, I just call them NOT Alpha testers. You see, the NOT Alpha testers, unlike us YES Alpha testers, have not witnessed WoWS gameplay that is completely void of aircraft carriers. While most of the people who oppose CVs would probably imagine such game play as some serene nirvana in which battleships and cruisers could calmly exchange gunfire and not worry about the sudden onset of torpedoes delivered from whatever nameless bomber squadron, I, having seen it firsthand, simply know better. WoWS game play with carriers out of the equation was, quite simply put, kind of meh. Just try to imagine the following: Firstly, at the start of every battle all the ships scatter all over the map, turning the battle at hand into a series of isolated duels which entail a great deal of unnecessarily prolonged maneuvers. Once those isolated duels come to their inevitable conclusion, the winning parties from one team begin to scan the map to find the winning parties of the other team. Now, at this point we enter a period known as "the long voyage". It's basically one big chunk of the battle during which absolutely nothing is happening. You just glare at a bunch of friendly ships as they travel to the last known location of the enemy ships. Of course, there are always a few of those strong-willed individuals who don't think much of the minimap and would much rather "go toward some meaningless island over there" because the voices in their feeble minded heads tell them so. So even if the bulk of the two teams would meet before the battle timer ran out in order to resolve their differences over a cup of coffee and a few high explosive shells, the game would still end in a draw because of some BB beached on a remote island somewhere. Of course, there were also situations in which battles ended in a definitive way practically at the start. Some overzealous DD would usually sneak into your cap whilst you were casually steering toward the enemy formations. Most players would turn around toward the cap immediately only to realize half way there that they had no chance of reaching the cap in time. And so the battle ended, giving out a rich bounty of two-digit XP rewards to all the parties involved, including that base capturing DD. But the most special battles by far were those were entire teams set course toward opposing sides of the map so that by the time they finally found each other, the battle's timer was practically all timed out. Here, have another draw. I had 15% draws in Alpha, and the worst part was the fact that even those battles in which I won or lost could be just as frustrating. And then we finally got carriers. A lot of people remember only the bad things that a carrier did to them. Like that one time when they get beached on an island, and a two full squadrons of torpedo bombers appeared to give them a nudge with their remote controlled super water thrusters, you know, the ones that were oddly projectile shaped and instead of giving your BB a nudge made it go boom boom... Or that one time that some CV decided to bomb your cruiser and set it on fire right after you had used your magical scroll of super fast repair-iness . Most human mammals are like that, they just remember the bad. No one remembers that time that a carrier bombed and killed that BB which was just about to kill one's already half dead cruiser, or the time when a CV's squadron spotted an enemy DD just as he was about to torp your ship and then proceeded to chase him away, or that time when a squadron of fighters showed up to fend off a herd of torpedo bombers that were heading your way... So I'm gonna talk a bit about all the good stuff that carriers do for us every battle, about all the useful stuff that their presence brings. Firstly, carriers dish out a LOT of damage. Ha, you thought this was a bad thing, right? Am I right? I am right, aren't I? Please say something FFS! Stop feeding my deep seeded insecurities! What?! I am not a virgin! AM NOT! I HAZ GIRLFRIENDS! LOTS of them! What? Wait, what did I say?! Never mind. Let's just move on. *cough* Let's talk about why carriers doing lots of damage is a good thing. Firstly, let's take a look at what CVs mostly target with their squadrons: 1. Isolated and quite blatantly stupid BBs - juicy snacks for both CV and DD players alike, these lumbering and drooling imbeciles honestly deserve to get sunk as their further presence in the battle can only be a hindrance to the normal battle flow. 2. Other CVs - if you really hate carriers so much than you will appreciate the fact that your own carrier is the most efficient anti-CV tool. 3. People who like to beach themselves on islands - ups, I kind of messed up there. Oh well, at least I get to look at those pretty planes doing figure eights above my ship...mhmm explodyyyy... And yes, when the three groups listed above are not present, carriers will just go for anything. And they will still do lots of damage. And that's a good thing because everything in WoWS has shittones of HP and that's why carriers are there to push things along, to keep things dynamic and fast paced rather than slow and constipated. Here are other useful things that carriers do: - Carriers use their planes to scout and spot enemy ships, most notably cloaked DDs, thus making the game more dynamic and lively. With a more dependable input regarding the location of enemy ships, you can make tactical decisions just by glancing at the minimap, instead of playing cat and mouse games. They also limit the movement range of DDs and effectively reduce torp spam... - Carriers can reset cap whores. Those battles that you lost because of just one enemy cruiser/DD that had sneaked into your cap when you weren't paying attention? Your carrier can bomb him to oblivion and thus prevent an unsatisfying loss just when you started winning. - Carriers promote TEAMWORK by forcing people to think about AA cover and things of that sort. There is a reason why most animals travel in herds. It is easier to avoid predators that way. Carriers as the ultimate predators will inspire teamwork even in the most antisocial of WoWS players. This is important because it prevents draws due to over-scattering of ships. - Carriers add much needed tactical depth to the game... Without carriers WoWS is basically a game in which you just aimlessly drift around and exchange volley after volley with your chosen foe. Without carriers you don't have to think about tactical formations, or situation awareness, or anything but your next shot. You might think this is interesting but trust me when I tell you that sort of a thing gets tedious in no time at all. - Carriers also add to the skill curve by separating the good players from the target fixation stricken dweebs, they prevent draws and static game play, they murder those WoT clowns that think they can "hide behind big rock just like with my heavy tonk.", they prevent that "long voyage" thing from Alpha I've talked about earlier, because with planes in the air there's always something to think about and be mindful of. CARRIERS MAKE WOWS A BETTER GAME! And no, we can't nerf them (much). Why, you ask? Have you ever played a carrier? Carrier game play in WoWS can best be described as playing a crappy bird's eye view naval RTS made in the year of our lord 1998. The only joy that you get from playing the carrier is exactly the ability to dominate matches and make an inherently larger contribution to the battle than any other class ever could. We don't have enough carriers as is, because carrier game play is so generally unappealing, so if we nerf carriers (too much), we might expect exactly no one to want to play carriers anymore, and no, that's not a good thing. Without carriers, this game would suck. I know that because I've already played that particular game. Gracias.
  23. adam001_

    Are carriers underpowered?

    In recent games I've noticed a terrible tendency to throw carriers into games as bottom tier ships. It makes their planes useless, as the only thing they can attack is a destroyer and enemy carrier, since all cruisers have too powerful anti aircraft guns and two tiers higher battleships are no better. I only wanted to point it out and I hope someone will do something about this problem in close future, as it is not fair to be unable to attack in any way, especially that low tier battleships often die first leaving only high tiers in the game.
  24. 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.