Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cv'.

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 624 results

  1. Hello dear forum users. As most of the regulars know, we had a CV rework discussion for a long time on top of the page. After almost a year, we removed the pin on it, to allow new and more topics emerge and have discussions about it. After months, the discussions about the CV related topics, had diluted down to a handful of subjects. So, in order to keep the forum clean, this will be the place for further CV related discussions, such as but not limited to; General interaction between surface ships and CVs, New developments on the CV mechanics, CV related MM issues, CV influence over different tiers, Discussions about individual CVs, Tactics, captain builds, counterplay, AA CVs in competitive mods. Please remember, all the forum rules are in place and try to stay away from personal discussions, arguments, stat shaming, etc. and try to keep it constructive!
  2. Aixin

    About Graf zeppelin

    I brought Graf Zeppelin (no mistake I did it on purpose.) I noticed that it is not on the level of a normal T8 CV. I don't regret my purchase as I have fun in Graf but it's unfair if someone who is not good in cvs in Graf can't do much other than using his secondary guns as main guns. To showcase why Graf Zeppelin is worse than all other T8 CVs I will compare it to the others. I will exclude British cvs as they are almost on the same level of being useless as Graf is. Rockets: 12 planes on deck 8 in a flight group and two in attack run. My opionion: they are decent vs anything that is no dd but vs dd you most likely hit one or two rockets for 2k dmg on average. With all other cvs on T8 I could do 2 - 8k in one attack run vs dd's. Most likely it will be around 4k for each attack(other cvs) Torp bombers: Good vs both cruiser and battleships low alpha but you got turbo planes so you can attack more often than other cvs. They are the only plane type which actually is good. Dd hunting is not one of their strengths due to the high speed. You can't make last minit adjustments therefor you need to catch dd's off guard when you want to hit them. I have no complaints with them. Bombers: low aplha due to only two bombs. 14k alpha... Just to compare enterprise has 35600. Then enterprise bombs hit where you aim them but Grafs bombs can do the weirdest things. You can attack from no matter what angle with Graf but you most likely won't hit and if you hit its like 50%overpen 10%pen 20 % citadel and 20 %bounce. That being said.. In 40 Graf games I just scored a handful of double citas I just can remember two times but It could be more (not much more tho). That being said.... Please make bombers more reliable give it one more bomb and keep the trollish nature.... Or make them more accurate and keep the two bombs or make the alpha 11k per bomb so it actually hurts if they hit. So much for the planes. All in all I believe graf has it strengths but they are all in secondary rubriks thus making the overall performance worse than that of another cv. For example it has good secondaries, the plane speed is awesome, but what kind of use has the plane speed if almost every bomb misses? For torps that's okay even tho the alpha is low. The planes in general are not very tanky more like the Japanese planes. Means if they stay longer than a few seconds in a strong aa ships range they will get shot down quite Quickly. (can't imagine how it must have been in aa godmode patch 8.6). Lets compare the flight group to other cvs... Graf zeppelin: Rockets : 8 in air 4 in reverse =12 Torps 9 in air 5 in reserve=14 Bombers 8 in air 4 in reserve =12 Total 36 Ryujo: Rockets 8 in air 4 in reserve=12 Torps 8 in air 12 4in reserve =12 Bombers 8 in air 4 in reserve=12 Total 34 As we can see here the number of planes is just slightly higher than on a T6 CV. For regeneration: Graf Zeppelin : Rockets: 75 seconds Torp: 76 seconds Bomber:87 seconds Total number of planes in 20.mins: 16 " new" rocket planes 15 "new" torp bombers 13 " new" bombers Total amount of planes 80-4cuz you can't use all at the same time means 76 planes for gz. Ryujo: Rockets 55 seconds Torps 69 seconds Bombers 65 seconds Total number of planes in 20 mins: 21 "new" rocket planes 17 "new" torp bomber 18 "new" bombers Total amount of planes 90-4. There you got it. Graf Zeppelin is even worse than a T6 CV when it comes to plane numbers. However I get why gz is a T8 (speed) I don't know why graf is obviously the worst T8 CV in the game and is even when it comes to numbers and thus striking power with high tier aa worse than a T6 CV. Ryujo can hit reliably with gz its pure luck when it comes to rockets and bombs. So that's my opionion with a little bit of data. Feel free to share your opionion and if we are lucky WG can solve this problem. Even tho I don't regret my purchase I am certain that 90% of this community would regret it. So don't buy it unless it's "buffed" a bit to be a T8 CV not only on paper, or you are sure that you want it with its rather unique gameplay. Looking forward to the result of the question. Hope this is okay here because I put quite much effort into this text and it would be a pity if it got deleted :) thanks in advance.
  3. Hallo, dies ist der Versuch, die Verbesserungsideen zum CV-Rework zu sammeln, die in diesem andern Thread ziemlich untergehen: Daher wollen wir hier nur die Ideen sammeln, bitte keine allzu ausufernden gar keine Diskussionen dazu und kein Hickhack, wer blöd ist und wer nicht !!! (EDIT: siehe Postings von floribe2000 = lieber gar keine Diskussionen, wahrscheinlich ufert es sonst eh immer aus; leider unterstützt dieses Forum keine einklappbaren Unterthreads, sonst wären Rückfragen leichter handelbar) Edit (floribe2000): Keine Diskussionen, da diese extrem schnell eskalieren bzw. ins Off Topic abdriften (siehe CV-Diskussionen). Diskussionen bitte im allgemeinen CV Thread. !!! Wer eine gute Idee dort drüben hatte - bitte gern hier nochmal schreiben !!! @_Riko_ hat einen guten Anfang gemacht! Ich zitier ihn hier mal (weiß nicht, wie Zitieren zwischen verschiedenen Threads geht). Also, er schrieb: Meines Erachtens funktioniert das jetzige Gameplay der CV nicht, weil die Spielweise der CV sich zu stark unterscheidet von den anderen Klassen, die sich alle ähnlich spielen. Darum wäre mein Vorschlag, die Spielweise der CV an die der anderen Klassen anzugleichen. Das könnte als ein Beispiel so aussehen: 1. CV selbst bleibt wie er ist. 2. Die Raketenflieger werden gestrichen. 3. Die Geschwindigkeit der Flugzeuge darf 70 Knoten nicht überschreiten. 4. Man hat nur 8 Flugzeuge an Bord, - 3 Torpedobomber - 3 Sturzbomber - 1 Aufklärer - 1 Jäger 5. Alle Flugzeuge haben einen TP Schnitt von 10 000 HP 6. Man erhöht die Kontrolle über die Flakabwehr, es soll möglich sein, effektiv der Flak auszuweichen. ( mindestens 50% Chance ) 7. Man fliegt nach Angriffen manuell zum CV zurück. 8. Flugzeuge an Deck bekommen eine Reparaturmannschaft 9. Aufklärer können nur Spotten ( fürs ganze Team und nur in einem bestimmten Radius, wenn sie ihn verlassen, gehen die Schiffe wieder zu ) 10. Torpdeo- und Sturzkampfbomber können nur für sich spotten 11. Jäger können Supporten, sonst nur andere Flugzeuge bekämpfen. ( hier wäre WoWp Ähnlichkeit ) 12. Flugzeuge, die abschossen werden, werden nicht ersetzt. Im Paket nimmt so die Frequenz der Lufteinsätze ab, die Wertigkeit der Flugzeuge nimmt zu, das Einsatzspektrum wird erhöht und ebenfalls die Kontrolle über die Flugzeuge. Jetzt muss man natürlich die Schäden balancen. Würde man das so machen, wäre man eher in der Spielweise der anderen Klassen als jetzt. Beispiele sind nur grob. Nochmal ich, Chassadhi: Am meisten gefallen mir ja die Torpdeo-Bomber aus Punkt 10! Ist das der Duft für harte Seemänner??? Willst auch Du bei jeder Meerjungfrau gut ankommen? - Dann nimm auch Du das neue ‹Torpdeo› - der Duft, der Meerjungfrauen provoziert!
  4. How to survive the constant HE spamming from over the island's while you're in a BB. What skills to take and what to do and not to do.
  5. pompeyrk

    indomitable out of sync/lag

    Are there any known issues with cv indomitable i have all cv but only indomitable lags when using rockets almost as if its out of sync i appreciate it may be my internet but only happens with indomitable for a few weeks now .
  6. Bonjour à toutes et à tous, Avec le nerf des futurs CV utilisant des Bombes et Obus AP, il sera encore plus compliqué pour nous "généreux utilisateurs de CV" de monter dans les scores de dégâts moyens pour atteindre les objectifs d’emblèmes 2, 3 et 4. Je propose donc de baisser le seuil de dégât moyen à atteindre en CV sur chaque palier. Je rappelle que le quatrième emblème se situe à 130.000 dégâts moyen et ceux sur les 100 dernières batailles effectuées en CV de Taille 10. Je créer donc ce topic pour connaître l'avis de la communauté (pour le moment francophone) et ainsi je l'espère faire tomber cette demande dans les mains des devs :) Merci de votre lecture et de votre participation AtteroProject Ma devise en CV : "Donner la vision, protéger mes alliés, tuer les DD en priorité et aider à la suppression de navires cachés est mon credo !" (tous ça avec mes 20 doigts et mes deux claviers) Merci de ne pas me signaler à chaque fin de partie sa fait baisser mon Karma et après Wows me donne moins de cadeau :(
  7. Varate_me_k_as_Klaiw

    CV's Nerfed once again

    Bravo WG..continue destroy your(how many month's your developers needed to chance the CV playstyle?) CV'S....first you make the captains (and me) to stop playing DD's (upper tier i mean)... Already me and many many others we have stopped for a long time from playing our CV's too!!!...And now...do you really believe that your balance problem solved when CV's nerfed once more? BUT OFCOURSE....you cant tough you precious russian ships that you make...."our company addressed to the whole world but we are Russians"...and Russian ships should have EVERYTHING eh? like Smolensk...everybody else in the game knows that this ship and your "new russian cruisers" is desperately unbalanced!Their fake captains laughing in our face cause you let them...but we pay some money every month you know...we pay to fight,and some time we won,some not....but we dont pay the money just to see every 11 year old 'captain" gather 250.000 coal and the find a rock and destroy the battle to the other 23 players!!! I cant believe you dint know all that. BUT NOOOO..."lets nerf the CV's"...why not...pitty WG....at 2016 you were a promising company...atleast then you tried keep some balance...even at your russian ships!!! PITTY
  8. Thetiror

    IJN CV Akagi

    Bonjour, bienvenue sur ce topic sur l’Akagi Ce topic a pour but de parler et d’échanger, les références sont en bas de pages Je propose ce Cv en tant que freemium car Wg n’a pas prévu pour l’instant une 2nde ligne CV. Sache avant toute chose que l’Akagi n’a pas été annoncé par Wargaming même si on peut trouver des photos issues de l’alpha en (ALPHA) : https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/history/midway-duel-of-aircraft/ Historique : En 1920, le Japon souhaite doter sa marine avec des croiseurs de bataille dans son programme de défense appelé « flotte huit-huit » comprenant 8 cuirassés et 8 croiseurs de bataille. En 1922, le Japon signe le traité Naval de Washington qui eu pour conséquence de convertir les coques de croiseurs de bataille en coque de porte-avions. La construction de l’Amagi et l’Akagi avait déjà construit à ce moment-là. Le 1er septembre 1923 eu lieu un tremblement de terre, la pose de la quille (6 décembre 1920) dans le Kure Naval Yard eu commencé 3 ans plus tôt. Le 9 novembre 1923 commence la conversion en porte-avions au chantier naval de Kure. Ce n’est que le 22 avril 1925 qu’il devient officiellement Akagi ("Château Rouge" d'après Akagi-yama qui est une montagne dans la préfecture de Gunma). C’est à Yokosuka Naval Yard qu’il sera terminé. Il possède alors un triple pont d’envol. Le 1er avril 1928 est formé la 1ère division (Dai Ichi Kōkū sentai) comprenant le Kaga et lui-même. Du 1er décembre 1931 à décembre 1932, il subit une première refonte. Le 24 octobre 1935, une nouvelle modernisation a lieu afin de supprimer le triple pont d’envol au port Sasebo. Cette dernière se termine le 31 août 1938. Le 10 avril 1941, il devient le navire amiral de la 1st Air Fleet. Il est attaqué par 3 Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless de l’USS Entreprise (CV-6). Le 5 juin 1942 est sabordé par les destroyers Arashio, Hagikaze, Maikaze et Nowaki. L'épave du porte-avion Akagi a été retrouvée par le vaisseau d'exploration RV Petrel le 20 octobre 2019. Elle repose à 5000 mètres de fond. Carrière : Seconde guerre sino-japonaise : 1937-1940 Attaque sur Pearl Harbor : 7 décembre 1941 Bataille de Rabaul : 23 janvier 1942 – février 1942 Raid aérien sur Darwin : 19 février 1942 Invasion japonaise de Java : 28 février au 12 mars 1942 Attaque dans l'océan Indien : 31 mars 1942 – 10 avr. 1942 Bataille de Midway : 4 juin 1942 – 7 juin 1942 Akagi lors de la bataille de Midway (4 juin 1942 – 7 juin 1942) Caractéristiques : Longueur : 260,68 m Largeur : 31,2 m Tirant d’eau : 8,7m Déplacement : 42 000 tonnes (après refonte) Équipage : 1 630 hommes (1942) Machine : 19 chaudières à vapeur Kampon 4 turbines à vapeur Puissance machine : 133 000 ch Vitesse maximale : 31,2 kn (58 km / h) Dissimulation : 12.7km pour la surface Armement possible dans le jeu (à partir de 1942) : Artillerie et armes antiaériennes : -6 × 203 mm L / 50 : 12 s de recharge : 10km : dispersion 128m -12 × 120 mm L / 45 : portée 6km : précision 80/100 : dégâts 150 -28 × 25 mm L / 60 Typ 96 : portée 2,5km : précision 85/100 : dégâts 389 Formation proposée : 4 escadrilles : 4 escadrilles : 1 roquette AP : 4 passages de2 2 torpilleurs : 1 passage de 6(*2) 1 torpilleur : 1 passage de 6 1 bomber HE : 2 passages de 4 Ou 1 bomber HE : 2 passages de 4 1 bomber AP : 2 passages de 4 1 bomber AP : 2 passages de 4 Les torpilleurs larguent leurs torpilles en étant sur une seule ligne, les torpilles sont tirées en ligne droite Les bombes HE et AP ont le patern traditionnel japonais. Les roquettes ont le patern japonais. Soit Ou Camouflages possibles : A6M2 Zero: Aichi D3A: Nakajima B5N ‘’Kate’’ : Consommable du navire : Equipe de contrôle des avaries + chasseur+ smoke italienne La raison de la smoke italienne : lors des essais en mer, ils ont réussi à générer une fumée suffisamment dense pour pouvoir se camoufler en rajoutant un combustible dans les chaudières. Déblocage : 800k ou dockyard permanent pour le débloquer Merci à Skyld et PhoenixSama et SkyCarrot de l’aide pour la rédaction du topic Je compte sur toi pour me donner ton avis avec des commentaires construits afin de pouvoir faire évoluer le topic. Merci de ta bienveillance. Bibliographie : http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/84211-die-ijn-akagi-flugzeugtr%C3%A4ger/ https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/101947-ijn-shinano/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8U3rkTXAlM http://www.maquetland.com/article-1178-japon-ijn-akagi http://forummarine.forumactif.com/t4494-japon-porte-avions-akagi https://ship.fandom.com/wiki/IJN_Akagi http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/battle-of-midway-ijn-aircraft-carriers-kaga-and-akagi-discovered.html
  9. Hello there, I wonder if it would be possible to implement a "partial recall" function when playing as a Carrier. Being able to press "G" (currently reserved for Depth Charges) to instantly send one strike group back to the ship instead of having to manually drop the ordnance would be a godsend.
  10. Coronus1963

    DD - Flak

    Wird die Stärke der Flak auf den DD´s vielleicht nochmal überprüft? Zur Zeit nimmt mir das den ganzen Spaß am CV Spiel. Ein einzelner DD kann mir sämtliche Staffeln vom Himmel holen ohne das ich die geringste Chance habe etwas gegen ihn zu unternehmen. Vor allem bei den neueren DD´s , auf Quasy allen Tier Stufen, kann ich gegen als CV Praktisch nichts mehr ausrichten. Bei vielen komme ich gar nicht mehr dazu die Raketen auszulösen da der DD meine Flugzeuge abschießt bevor ich überhaupt in Reichweite bin. Das gleiche mit Bomben, die fallen in Winkeln das es kaum noch möglich ist einen DD zu treffen. Manchmal habe ich direkt den Eindruck die Bomben oder Raketen fliegen Ausweichmanöver um ja nicht den DD zu Berühren. Wenn ich dann mal in Reichweite komme und die Raketen abfeuere.... dann Spreizen Sie die Beine und Hüpfen über den DD hinweg... bloß nicht berühren. CV gegen DD ist zu einem reinen Frustspiel verkommen. Es ist, mit Verlaub gesagt, zum Kotzen! ES ist schon soweit das ich am überlegen bin meine CV´s zu Verkaufen und die Premium CV´s zurück zu geben. So... mal den Frust raus gelassen. Meine Bitte an Wargaming..... überprüft noch mal das Flak/DD - CV Balancing!!!!!!
  11. Schorch62

    Suche Mentor für CV

    Ahoi Bevor es soweit ist, daß der erste Tier 10 CV im Hafen anlegt, möchte ich mein Spiel mit den Fliegern noch deutlich verbessern. Dazu gehören vor allem folgende Punkte: - wie Flakwolken richtig dodgen? - wie als Low-Tier ein Top-Tier Schiff richtig und erfolgreich angreifen? - Umgang mit den europäischen Flakmonster-DD´s, wie sind die angreifbar? - effektiver Einsatz der Jäger - wie komme ich auf hohen Schaden und versenke Gegnerschiffe? - situative Entscheidungen, nur spotten oder lieber angreifen? - spezifische Eigenschaften der Nationen der CV´s - welche Raketen bei den Schlachtfliegern mitnehmen? - Kapitänsskillungen - für CV sinnvolle Mods, beispielsweise für bessere Sichtbarkeit des Zielmarkers - wohin mit dem eigenen CV? - alles was meinem Mentor sonst noch einfällt Ich habe von den japanischen und amerikanischen CV´s alle von Tier 4 - 8 im Hafen, von den britischen Tier 6. Und die Kaga als Premium. Ich wäre auch bereit, mir die britische Hermes wieder zu holen. Die deutschen CV´s werde ich bei erscheinen sofort mit Tier 4 beginnen, allerdings befürchte ich da wieder mit CV´s überfüllte Warteschlangen. Genug "Übungsmaterial" ist also vorhanden und kann nach Wahl meines Mentors eingesetzt werden, wenn sich einer findet. Am liebsten wäre es mir natürlich, wenn ein CV-Unikum der Marke "CV OP" mir beibringen könnte, was er (oder sie) weiß und kann. Lernbereitschaft und Wißbegierde sind bei mir massenhaft vorhanden, aber: ich bin keine 18 - 25 Jahre jung, sondern gehöre mit Baujahr 62 schon zur älteren Generation und lerne nicht mehr ganz so schnell wie vor 30 - 40 Jahren etwas Geduld sollte mein Mentor bitte mitbringen. Ich kann nicht alles sofort umsetzen, sondern brauche dafür eine Weile. Aber dann sitzt es auch! Kommunikation: TS 3, kein Discord. Manchmal komme ich mir mit einem CV wie ein Anfänger vor, der vorgeführt wird. Ich weiche einem Häufchen Flakwolken aus, nur um damit voll in die nächsten Wolken rein zu fliegen, die direkt vor mir aufpuffen. Ich weiß nicht, ob es da bestimmte Muster gibt, die man lernen und damit trollen kann. Mit dem Motorboost spielen hat mich da schon ein wenig weiter gebracht, aber ich rassel immer noch in zu viele Flakwolken rein. Ich bin mir auch immer wieder unsicher, wann ich mit Torpedobombern zum Angriff ansetzen sollte - möglichst frühzeitig, um einem Teil der Flak zu entgehen, oder doch besser im letzten Moment? Fragen über Fragen! Wer möchte mir helfen?
  12. Currently every game I play i find CVs. Really it's killing the fun to find that amount of CV players are willing to play this awful ship class. Can WG put this annoying Sh!t class in a world of its own like Submarines?
  13. MexicosBocianos

    Tier 4 HMS Hermes

    HMS Hermes pierwszy brytyjski lotniskowiec zaprojektowany od podstaw do pełnienia roli okrętu lotniczego. Ukończony w 1924 roku okazał się jednak zbyt mały i powolny aby skutecznie spełniać swoje zadania u boku trzonu floty. Ze względu na małe możliwości bojowe wykorzystywany na drugorzędnych frontach. Okręt został zniszczony przez nalot japońskich samolotów pokładowych z lotniskowców Akagi, Hiryu i Soryu 9 kwiernia 1942 roku w pobliżu Cejlonu. W WoWs występuje na tierze 4 : Pozdrawiam
  14. 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".
  15. 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
  16. Let's take a look at what WG has been telling us in the past three years with some of the changes they made. stealth fire - completely removed because 'WG says it's is unfair to get farmed by invisible targets with no counter-play. smoke firing - nerfed by adding a detection penalty because WG says it's unfair to get farmed by invisible targets with no counter-play radar and hydro on half the high tier ships - because WG says it's unfair to get farmed by invisible targets with no counter-play Yet, at the same time, they are adding an entire second class that is based on the concept of being on a different layer (but this time under water instead of in the air). The main issue with that is that you get farmed by invisible targets and have no counter play against it. Can anyone explain how this makes sense? WG is saying that on one hand you should be able to see your target and have a fair fight, while on the other hand CV and subs are rooted in the opposite concept. I don't believe counter-play is effective when you only have depth charges on certain ships and acceptable AA on even less. The rock-paper-scissors philosophy that the game is built on, is apparently thrown out of the window as soon as it suits the devs. We all know that subs probably get added to the main game, so no need to point out that it's a separate game mode for now.
  17. I keep wondering if there is a way to Implement CVs into the Game without them being Insanely Overpowered or them effectively just being a Guided Artillery. And alot of Ideas are there. But thanks to just how different CVs are from other Warships it is pretty Difficult for any of these Ideas to really be Good. But one Idea has actually lately Grown on me quite a bit. So now I would like to hear some Opinions on it on wether it might work and be better than the current version of CVs and maybe Adjust it to make an Actual Suggestion for it in the Suggestions Topic. The Idea is to Reverse the Roles of Fighters and Bombers in the current System using older RTS Elements as well as the New Submarine Elements and CV Rework Elements to Create a Sort of 2nd CV Rework. Effectively. The CV Player instead of getting Bomber Squadrons which then have Fighter Consumables. Will get Fighter Squadrons that have Bomber Consumables. 1. Air to Air Combat. Fighter Squadrons would come with Machineguns, Machinecannons and Rockets to Fight Enemy Aircraft. These would each work Differently a bit. Machineguns would be the Base Weapon with most Ammo Reserves before Requriing to Reload. And the Job of the Player would be to keep the Squadrons Machineguns Pointing on the Enemy Squadron while Firing. Leading the Enemy Movements and trying to Stay on target at a very Close Range. Machinecannons would be the Stronger Variant of that. But have extremely Limited Ammunition before needing to Reload. The Job of the Player would be the Same as with Machineguns. But Cannons would have a Slightly Better Range. And Finally Rockets. Unlike Machineguns and Machinecannons. The Rockets would be more Similar to DDs Fighting Enemy DDs with Torps. They would Fly through the Air and thus would need to be Fired with according Lead and Prediction unless its Point Blank Range where just like with DDs it might end with mutual destruction. To make Air Combat more Interesting the Fighter Squadron would not only get the Speed Boost/Breaks and Left Right Maneuvers. But would also receive the ability to use F and V to increase or lower Altitude. Higher Altitude of course Reducing Damage taken from AA as only Heavy AA can reach there. But of course also not being able to Fight Enemy Aircraft that are at lower Altitude. Meaning that above their own Ships The CV Player might prefer to Fight at lower Altitude while above Enemy Ships the CV Player will be more happy to Fight at higher Altitudes. Pls note. Reload on the Weapons will Require the CV Player to use the R Key (for other Ships Damage Control but for CV it will then be Return Squadron) and return to the Carrier. He himself will Return instantly of course and can Immediately Jump back into Action with his remaining Fighters Forming a New Squadron. Also. The Different Weapons can only be used 1 at a Time. Using the 1-2-3 Keys. Meaning 1 is Machineguns, 2 is Cannons and 3 is Rockets. Which the Player has to Choose which to Fire. (Similar to how Normal Ships have to Choose their Weapons as well) 2. Bomber Consumables. The Bomber Consumables are Fairly Straight Forward. The Player would get 2 Squadron Consumables. Which would be Dive/Level Bombers and Torpedo Bombers. The Number of uses as well as the actual Squadrons Spawned by it being Decided by the CV in Question. The Consumable is used by Flying over a Target and Pressing the Button for using it. After that the Bomber Squadron will take off from the Carrier and Fly to the Point where the Consumable was Used. To then Attack whatever Enemy Ship it Finds inside the Area. If there is no Visible Target the Squadron will Circle there for 2 Minutes before it Returns to the Carrier. The 2 Bomber Consumables can be used Together. Meaning that if the CV Player wants he can Send both a Torpedo Bomber and a Dive Bomber Squadron to the Designated Area to Attack whatever Ship they find there. As the Consumable is depleted regardless of Success or Losses the Player does not need to worry about AA aside from AA being so Strong that the Bombers wont Reach there. Of course current Heavy AA would need to be Nerfed for this. As the AI Bombers wont make any Evasive Maneuvers like a Player does to avoid Heavy AA. Unlike the Player Squadrons currently. These Consumable Squadrons however would Drop the entire Load at once. And not in Single Wings per Drop. So a Hakuryu assuming its not changed for this. Would drop 12 Torpedoes at once which is Pretty Hefty. But since its an AI Drop it would be mostly Evadable and AA is certain to Shoot down some Aircraft as well. So the Player actually likely only be hit by 1 or 2 Torpedoes or might even evade it alltogether if he sees it coming early enough and turns his nose into the Torpedoes. As Bombers will only Attack Targets in a 4km Radius (So 8km Diamter +2km due to Diameter of Squadron Patrolling in Circles in the Center of the Area) of the Consumable being used. And DDs often only have 2.6km Air Spotting Range. The Player might be Required to Spot a DD for the Bombers to Attack it. As the Bombers wont Attack the DD unless they see it. At the same time however. The CV Player might use HE Dive Bombers to Spawn them ontop of a Capture Circle. And thus Block that Capture Circle because if the DD tries to take it he will move into the Diver Bombers which will then not only Spot him but also Attack him. 3. Air to Ground Combat. The Fighters if they Drop to the Lowest Altitude will be able to Attack Enemy Ships with Machineguns, Cannons and Rockets. However. Fighters cannot Deal Direct Damage to Ships. Instead they will be doing Module Damage and Potentially Set Fires using Rockets. Of course being at lowest Altitude also means that they will take heavy AA Damage as they are completely Exposed to AA. So this wont be useful if the Enemy has alot of Powerful AA in the Area. By the Way. Submrines are currently Considered Modules by the Game. So while other Ships will only Take Module Damage from HE Splash Damage while their HP wont be Touched unless it Hits and Penetrate the Ship Directly. Submarines will take Damage from HE Splash Radius. The Same Mechanic in the Game also means that these Fighters can cause Direct Damage to a Submarine. Meaning that using Rockets. The Fighter Squadrons might be able to Cause Direct Damage to a Submarine when they Catch it on the Surface. This Includes Cannons. Machineguns wont have any Damage Potential against Ships as they can even Penetrate Superstructure for most part. Cannons will be able to cause Fires in Superstructure for Larger Ships and on some DDs. Due to having Explosive Rounds they will also Cause Micro Damage to Modules. However. Since any Damage caused to Modules can Disable it. This means that even tough the Actual Damage to the Module is completely Neglectable for anything beyond lighter AA Modules. The High Amount of Hits you might Potentially Face when a CV Player Peppers your Modules can lead to them being Disabled very Reliably. Rockets can cause Fires to the entire Ship using Explosive Damage and will of course also Splash Modules like Rudder and Engine if they are hit by it. 4. Rewards. As the Primary Objective of the CV is Spotting and Causing Damage to Enemy Planes. Its main Damage Counter will not Show Ship Damage but instead Air Damage. Meaning the main Damage Counted for CVs will be Damage Caused to Enemy Planes. With Damage to Enemy Ships being Counted as the Secondary Damage (where other Ships currently get Air Damage Counting) What do you think. You think this might work ? You think it might be Fun for the CV Player while also being much better Balanced for the other Players ? Or you think nah. I would rather have the current CVs which will pretty much always be Overpowered as otherwise nobody will play them ? ^^
  18. Hello there, I am curious to know what WG thinks regarding the current state of Carriers in the game. In a Q&A on Discord Sub_Octavian mentioned* that they're working on a new concept regarding CV spotting among other things, but I can't find any recent comments regarding the AA-system in its current form. I am not alone in having the feeling that AA right now is on the weaker side compared to earlier patches. As a player that spends a lot of time in CVs, I have the feeling that the current iteration of the AA-system focuses too much on Flak Clouds as the primary source of damage. Once one has gained a bit of experience in Carriers avoiding these clouds isn't that difficult, and thus you avoid the majority of the damage being thrown your way. It would be interesting to know a bit more what the developers' plans are regarding Carriers and their place in the game (Ranked, Clan etc). *link to Q&A post: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/gabb3f/developer_qa_on_discord_part_1/
  19. der_mit_dem_boot_tanzt

    Jäger (bordgestützt) gg. CV

    Werte Community, ich sehe den Einsatz der bordgestützten Jäger sehr kritisch: Zum einen ist ihre Einsatzdauer in meinen Augen zu gering, zum anderen wirkt es so, als ob der kreisförmige Patroullienflug der Jäger nicht zielgerichtet bzw. oftmals zu spät dem Luftangriff entgegenwirkt. Gerade im Lategame, wenn ich mir da 1 oder 2 Jäger aufgehoben habe, ist diese Beobachtung vermeintlich (kann ja sein, dass ich das noch nicht raushabe) ärgerlich. Habt Ihr ähnliche Beobachtungen oder wisst Ihr, wann es am besten ist, sie zu starten oder ist es Auraschaden und der "Luftkampf" ist nur animativ zu sehen? Das habe ich der Wiki entnommen: "Once launched, the fighter group orbits the ship at a radius of 3 km and automatically intercepts nearby enemy planes. By itself it is fairly effective at shooting some down. However, shipboard AA defenses, particularly when bolstered by Defensive AA Fire (), and a fighter group can wreak havoc. When not engaged, the fighter group may detect concealed enemy ships that come within its visual range." (https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Consumables#Catapult_Fighter)
  20. That's 20k damage and a double flood from 7 out of 8 torps... and the rockets if interested
  21. Spartans_Emperor_Wrath

    CV to the rescue!

    Flugzeugträger gehören zu Seegefechten. Sie zu entfernen wäre zu drastisch und würde Spielspaß dieser Marinelegenden nehmen. Die Kunst ist es, speziell für WoWs, diese Schiffklasse zu Balancen. Nach dem Durchlesen mancher Kommentare hier... kommt nun meiner. Die Umsetzung könnte das Spiel retten, ist halt mit Arbeit verbunden. Flugzeugträger sind die Stärkste Schiffsklasse, nicht umsonst haben sie die Schlachtschiffe abgelöst. In WoWs fühlen sich Flugzeugträger jedoch falsch an. Egal ob man selbst in einem sitzt oder in ein CV Match geworfen wird. Das Rework ist schlecht. Viel mit denken und vorraussehen hat das nichts zu tun. Überarbeitet das Rework nochmal. Und zwar so, das die Ganzen Insel Camper und die DDs (vorallem die DDs!) wieder normal an ein Match rangehen, selbst wenn ein CV im Match ist. Mit dem kommenden Updates werden die Uboote ins Spiel gerufen, ist ein anderes Thema, aber diese Operieren im dreidimensionalen Raum. Wieso sollte der Himmel nur eine Ebene haben? Die Erste Ebene sollte die Angriffshöhe sein, so wie wir sie jetzt kennen. Hier nehmen Flugzeuge den meisten Schaden von gegnerischen Flaks. Nur auf dieser Ebene ist es möglich Schiffe zu attackieren. Die 2te Ebene, könnte in den Wolken sein. Sichtbarkeit der Flugzeuge sollte reduziert sein, aber auch die Sicht der Flugzeuge. Durch interferenzen, könnte sogar die Map "einfrieren". Wetter wie Sturm beeinflussen Flugzeuge sehr und können sogar, durch Blitzeinschlag oder gefrorene Komponenten zum Absturz führen. Radarkreuzer sollten in der Lage sein mit dem Verbrauchsmaterial "Radar" diese zu Orten und mit Langstreckenflak unter Beschuss zu nehmen. (Wie in den Filmen!) Die 3te Ebene sollte über den Wolken sein. Hier sind Flugzeuge vor Flak sicher. Und auch vor allen Wetter auswirkungen. Jedoch kann man nicht einfach wieder so runter und Schiffe bombardieren. Jeder Wechsel in die Ebenen sollte eine gewisse Zeit brauchen, überspielt mit einer Animation. Man sollte mit seinen Flugzeugen jagt auf Flugzeuge des gegnerischen Cvs machen. Wie Geil wäre es bitte wenn über den Wolken eine Flugzeugeschlacht stattfindet und die abgeschossen Flugzeuge durch die Wolkendecke ins Wasser klatschen. Das Starten und Landen von Flugzeugen sollte mehr Zeit beanspruchen. So wie es auch war, stehen die Flugzeuge IM Hanger. Der Kapitän entscheidet wie wann die Squads starten. Das würde das Problem beheben, das DDs in den ersten 30 sekunden gespottet werden. Jeder Squad sollte von Jägern begleitet werden, diese könnten dann bei einem Attackrun von zB. Torpedobombern mit auf das Schiff schiessen, keinen Schaden machen, einfach für das Auge. Jedoch sollten dieses Jäger sich als Schutz mit, vom Gegner gestarteten Jäger, bekämpfen. Als CV Kapitän ist es wirklich ein gutes Gefühl wenn ein Attackrun deftigen Schaden anrichtet. Für alle anderen nicht. Vorallem die DDs. Um den CV Kapitän sein Erfolgserlebnis nicht zu nehmen indem man alles zu Tode nerft, wieso sollte der CV nicht in der Lage sein Unterstützungsflugzeuge für seine Allierten zu holen? Ein Healdrop für schwerattackierte Schiffe, Nebelwerfer Flieger, Hydrobojien, Deepcharge Flugzeuge (für Uboote später).Da könnt ihr mal ein paar Geschichtsbücher aufschlagen und mal nachschauen was sich die Militärs der Welt so einfallen lassen haben. Und vllt ändert ihr das Belohnungssystem des CVs. Weniger für Schaden an Schiffen, mehr an Schaden und Abschüssen von gegnerischen Flugzeugen. Das alles erfordert nätürlich eine Grundintelligenz. Aber das ist ok! Nicht alle Klassen müssen von JEDEM beherscht werden. Ich entschuldige mich für den eventuellen Grammatik- Gore! Bitte schreibt eure Meinung darunter und macht diesen Post, wenn er euch zuspricht so bekannt wie irgendmöglich! Euer X_Con
  22. CV2305_SkyMarshal

    CV Treff

    Moin ihr Landratten und Freizeit Kapitäne dort draußen. Ich erinnere mich noch an die alte gute Zeit aus dem WoT Forum, wo es verschiedene Interessengemeinschaften zu bestimmten Gattungen gab. Zum Beispiel der alt ehrwürdige Franzosen Lobby oder auch die Arty Gruppe die ich geöffnet hatte. Die Resonanz war immer gut und sie diente dem Erfahrungsaustausch der Spieler. Irgendwie vermisse ich das und es wunder mich ein wenig, das es so eine Gruppe hier bisher nicht gegeben hat. Es ist Sonntag und da ich nichts besseres Zutun habe, habe ich mir gedacht, versuche ich mich an so einem Projekt, und zwar für uns CV Spielern hier in der Community. Von Anfänger bis zum Profi ist hier alles willkommen. Austauschen, fachsimpeln, Tipps und Tricks. Was haltet ihr davon? Gute Idee oder völlig überflüssig? P.S. Ich war mir unsicher wo das Thema am besten hin passt. Sollte es im Off Topic falsch sein, bitte verschieben.
  23. Although the introduction of Carriers in Clan Battles have been one of the most controversial changes to the game I'd like to start this post by stating how much I, as a CV-Main, enjoy being able to participate in Clan Battles in my favorite class of ships. I believe that allowing all classes to be a part of the core game modes (Random-, Ranked- & Clan Battles) is the right decision. I do however feel that the "1 capital ship limit" per team hits BB-players especially hard due to the amount of utility CVs bring to the table. Allowing a Clan to bring a maximum of 2 Capital Ships, with CVs being limited to 1 per team, has the possibility of making the Meta far less static. Being able to bring 2 BBs in order to setup a very deadly crossfire could outweigh the insane spotting brought by the CV. Increasing the amount of Capital Ships allowed per team would also allow more varied team compositions. Most teams currently tend to bring either 1 CV & 6 CAs or 1 BB, 5 CAs & 1 DD where hard hitters like Stalingrad and Venezia are a common sight. Additionally, teams would have less reasons to stack damage dealers, like the ones mentioned, to offset the low amount of BBs and could afford to bring more dds or utility oriented cruisers instead. It would be interesting to hear the communitys opinions on this topic. Happy hunting to you all! ColaholicA
  24. I love the new carrier gameplay and certainly feel it should stay. But the balance is terrible, especially towards destroyers. I want all classes to be fun to play and have active roles. I don't feel that the answer lies in any balancing of AA scores, since that does not really help the DDs, and just makes either CVs or AA ships underpowered. (Some balancing is of course necessary, but my post is not about AA ships and carriers) I think the issue could be solved better by adjusting air detection for destroyers. Here are some possibilities I have thought of: 1) Give DDs zero (0) air detection. This means that planes will never spot a DD. The carrier can see where fire comes from, but never get any model to target. Basically it gives carriers "Deep Water" detection. 2) Give DDs a air detection of perhaps one or two-hundred meters. This means that a lucky flyover will reveal the general position of a DD to friendly team, but that a non-shooting destroyer is nearly impossible to attack with planes. 3) Combine reduced air detection with a shooting "Bloom" Same as with shooting from smoke, firing enlarges air visibility by a fixed distance. This could be dependent on the caliber of the guns firing like present smoke firing, or it could be the full range of the guns or AA system engaging the enemy - Like the present shooting mechanic. This method would give DDs back to role of spotting, area control, and cap capturing. It will also be a major indirect buff to torpedo destroyers, though I am not sure if that is a big problem. Gun destroyers have the possibility of going silent and avoiding planes. Carriers will almost only be able to attack destroyers if they have been spotted by friendly surface ships. Which I think is okay. It means more teamplay between carriers and surface ships (especially destroyers) as carriers would have to support DDs with fighters and dance with the enemy CVs to avoid their fighters and attack the enemy DDs. Rocket planes would still be relevant (and no too overpowered, I think) as they can quickly move to a DD vs. DD hotspot and give support to friendly DDs and radar ships. I know that historically rocket and gun armed planes were the terror and doom of destroyers in WWII, but that is no reason to oblirate an entire class in this arcade game. I play carriers, but I want good destroyer gameplay and to see it rewarded! (I apologize if anyone has made this sort of suggestion already, I make no claim to be a game designer genius)