Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fighters'.

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 32 results

  1. "Spotting have killed the game" Many players, to the more famous gamers/streamers have been saying the above line about the new CV rework. Ever since the major RTS was shelved, with many seesawing of micro updates, to major patches along the way. The look and feel of the new "mode". Effectively, World of Warships have changed forever... I feel I need to include the following. Instead of starting another thread in the forum, nor restarting what is already been said many times since. Yes, Wargaming (WG) have essentially "succeeded" in raising the players to try the CV lines. That's a fact, to which I will not challenge. After all, the numbers do reflect the rise in CV usage according to their data. As well as in game. That was their intention (they proved many times during their public statements in many 'summits'), but was that the only intention? Doubt it. With any introduction of anything "new", (this case being CV changes) WG have placed many Premium CVs on their shops. Many were sold. Only to have the players who bought them the feeling of buyers remorse. Subsequent updates/patches later. This is not only a rumour mill (From NA players to EU players), it's a fact. I've spoken to many players directly on both sides of the pond. None of them were glad to have bought them. What WG have consequently done. Their drop in the ocean, is now being felt on the shores of all the playerbases around the regions. A message to players. Could we please keep any and all arguments of why there is a CV / or the need for CV in this game out of this thread. This is not about that. It's about working with what we have now, to make it hopefully better for all. No, I'm not a pro-CV or against-CV. I just play with what the WG have given access me. Back on topic. Let's face it. Going back is not an option for WG. After many, many months of work and money poured into it. We know that it isn't going to happen. We get it. Instead of pressing for the hard reset. Let's find a way to maintain the changes, and tweak what could be better for all player base/game itself. So the following is what I will suggest for the WG team to maybe bring to their next internal meeting, hopefully. Currently, the spotting mechanic allows for X amount of distance from plane to ship to be 'hard spotted'. Much like surface ships to surface ships spotting mechanic. The distance varies from ship to ship, and their individual configurations that users chose to use their particular ships. I do not think that the players are unhappy with such mechanic. The fact that a plane can spot a ship at a certain fixed distance is nothing new. This was also true from the RTS days. So I can't say that this could be the issue. What is questionable, and begs the question of "spotting have killed the game". Is something else from the aforementioned hard spot mechanics. What it does now? It allows for CV planes to spot ships anywhere on the map. The detection ranges of the ships plus the range of the planes spotting distance to the ships overlaps too closely. What does that mean? Let's say ship has air detection of 5km, the plane have hard potting distance of 6km. That leaves 1km buffer in favour of the the planes. If anything, this gap should be addressed. If it hasn't already. I feel I might get lost in my own words here, so let me just jump right into it. Suggestions: Dropped Fighters (Close air patrol - CAP): A: Their spotting ability is active as long as they are patrolling in their dropped areas. With an active "aircraft fuel" timer. I feel I need to write this, just in case the current mechanic will be drastically changed for something else. This mechanic is fine as is. As a DD player, I think this wouldn't impact me as much. Or any other ship types. B: Their spotting ability is only active for a limited period, while retaining the ability to fight other enemy fighters. For example: Spotting time for full strength fighter squadron = 45 seconds, CAP time = 60secs. So upon 45 second mark, the spotting will stop. But the air to air will remain until the timer runs out. Or until the Combat Air Patrol (air to air) area is still active until the planes are shot down. Then the area goes dark. C: Their spotting radius is decided upon how many fighters are patrolling the area. i.e. 6 planes maximum (insert arbitrary number here) spotting distance, 1 plane minimum (inset arbitrary number here) spotting distance from centre of axis/flight pattern. D: The fighters can be replaced by being reinforced by another set of fighters from the CV; Automated flight. This will need to be done by addition of a CV consumable. Players choice, selectable for Premium consumable or non-premium. This will free up the CV player to assist one side of of map, while not having to fly from across the map to drop fighters. (I fear this as the most vulnerable idea, that the public may not agree with) CV vs CV gameplay: What is a missed opportunity. Not having the ability to directly PvP against a CV, as a CV player in game. Currently the CV is in battle with themselves to get as much damage, not versus enemy CV player. No matter how much we dissect this mechanic. That is what it results to. In the older system, there were. Skill level was player input controlled, versus the RNG automated as it is now. Now it's drop the fighters, let the automated RNG figure it out. This is nothing close to what the surface ship players do. They position, they aim, they time, etc. To achieve a particular result of their choices and actions. Why should it be any different for the CV? Imagine, if destroyers, cruisers, battleships with a press of a consumable. Allowing the shells to land on target depending totally on the automated RNG without any other input form the player. I'm quite sure that the player would disagree with this, why can't the CV players actions reflect this too? Why make the CV gameplay automated when fighting versus another CV player? This is something that should be addressed, if CV is to be more than just a damage collector. Introduce a consumable for player controlled Air to Air dogfighting: When a player is flying their squadron, and sees/wants to engage with the enemy squadron. Allow the player to press a consumable or a key, to change the reticule to Air-to-Air mode to engage in their dog fighting. Once either side have been shot down, the remaining planes will switch to the current "flying" mode. Or please find another way for Air-to-air dogfighting to be player input related, and not automated. I just find that the exclusion of player controlled input with Air-to-Air is a huge missed opportunity during the current rework. Flying player controlled planes (Rockets, torpedoes, bombs): When a player is actively controlling the squadron. The fog of war will be lifted off the minimal. In conjunction with the main battle screen. As the flying squadron is moving from grid to grid/area to area. Think of the planes directly (Line of sight) spotting the ships while it is on coarse. The planes can turn around to keep the target spotted, provided it is still airborne. Also the squadrons spotting is limited to X amount of distance from the centre point of axis/formation. So the squadrons will have to actively seek to find a target, loiter the target area to receive spotting damage (this should be boosted & reflected to CV players, not just relying on damage alone when calculating the credit earning formula). If the squadron all gets shot down, effectively fog of war reactivating instantly. Or until another squadron flies into the unmasked zone. I'm quite sure I've missed more ideas at the time of this writing. Summary The battle space is no longer open "spotted" for the whole duration. It would give all the ships the option to maneuver freely (provided they are not being actively spotted). It would also limit the CV's purpose to farm just for their own needs (opposite of team play). Re-introduce the manual controls of player selected inputs for Air-to-Air dogfights. Wargaming, can we test this idea at least? @Sub_Octavian,
  2. @MrConway I have been deeply unimpressed with aircraft launched by non-CVs since the 0.8 "improvement" The first time I launched them, there was wtf moment, 1 minute in, when they dissappeared. All on their own. While I was scanning the sky to see who had shot them down. Now, when I launch them for that 1 pointless minute, I am ever more deeply unimpressed that CVs can press whichever button whichcauses their aircraft to evaportate to instant RTS, because CVs don't like losing aircraft if they can't do damage. When are you going to allow our now pointless fighters to do the same? We want our fighters to RTS instantly and be relaunched without delay. Is this going to happen in 0.8.lostcount? That's a rhetorical question, because I don't think anyone knows what's going to change, or why it's going to change. Or who those changes are going to screw up next. Please, tell us someone knows wtf's going on, how it's all going to be good and when it's going to be not fubar. Or are you going to continue to fill consumable slots with pointless consumables. Does anywone at WG know wtf they are doing anymore?
  3. NOTE: I posted this earlier in the suggestions thread but since (1) the OP there is not updated and people in the recent replies are talking about submarines, (2) other people have made similar posts outside of the suggestions thread and because (3) it's now an active topic of discussion & focus of development, different from all the hypotheticals and wishful thinking, I decided to make a separate post. I love the preview, and I'm really eager to see some of what was shown brought to any testing environment ASAP. I've been playing CVs, and I can say I'm mediocre-ish: got a solid grasp of the fundamentals, I've had my moments and some luck. I've been paying attention to the constant drama surrounding CVs, and I'm pretty sure I understand WG's position in all of this. However I do think some sort of compromises ought to be considered: - MAKE FIGHTERS A DEPLOYABLE, NPC-like, drone-like blob, that receives commands to either escort your strike squadron, or be sent around the 3D world (not the minimap) to fly combat air patrol (CAP) over an area, over a friendly ship, or stay "home" and fly CAP over your carrier. This could be done by having a radius around your strike squadron, within which you can POINT & CLICK (or press a key) to set the fighters' target location or object. Maybe add a good amount of cooldown time, for how often they can receive a new command. "Summoning" fighters out of thin air just seems kooky to me. - NERF ALL CARRIER PLANES' SPOTTING ability by having enemy vessels spotted by just carrier aircraft (including the strike craft) ONLY APPEAR AS "OUTLINED" SHIPS to the rest of your team, giving a rough location on the minimap, but not visible in the 3D viewport - no target lock, no aim-assist mechanics, someone has to go and deal with the threat the old fashion way. This would negate the current, much lamented mechanics of CVs planes being omnipresent & spotting those ships which really don't want to be targeted. Realistically, I imagine that a group of planes trying to avoid AA and focusing on their attack runs would have a really hard time walking friendly artillery onto its target in the chaos of battle. - ADD LOW, STATIC CLOUD COVER - plumes scattered over the maps (maybe randomized?), to give planes a hiding place. The concealment on these would work both ways - diminish the effect of incoming enemy AA, but the planes would lose sight of all enemies around them. Make RADAR penetrate these clouds or maybe add a separate AIR RADAR consumable. Also make CYCLONES limit planes abilities in a similar way, or even more (affect accuracy, speed, maybe get damaged, etc). This to add to the feeling that you're controlling an air asset, navigating through different features, not just a Z-clipped surface asset. Also because the airspace looks bland with the current "skybox above, water texture below" situation. My main reasoning about fighters and spotting here is that instead of completely removing some features, we should keep them to retain an authentic feel to the CV role, but nerf them to the point where they require luck and strategic foresight, instead of who's got better ping / RNG / clicks per minute. The same goes for people's concerns on the Twitch stream regarding CV sniping and side-rushing DDs: you won't be caught with your pants down if you pay attention and have a bit of foresight. What do y'all think?
  4. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  5. Michey802

    CV vs AA

    Greetings, Should fighters be able to strafe ships to eliminate some (unprotected) AA mounts? This was just a thought that randomly popped into my head while playing. Since fighter planes were a real danger to AA gunners on ships. Pros: - A CV that lacks a large hanger for strike planes now can soften up a ship before strike, and perhaps have some left before match is over. - Adding a small teamplay element of making a "dug in" ship less AA threat, making sure catapult planes survive longer and thus provide spotting. (ships that like to park at a safe central location where they are very hard to dislodge) Con: - Makes life a little more complex for a CV captain. - Puts fighters more in harms way by having to get really close, thus potentially compromise ability to stop enemy strikes. I think this gives a CV player more choice how they like to use fighters. As a balance issue for tiers, since this sounds too strong for hightier CV's, hightier ships usually have AA mounts with armour/shield on it so a strafe shouln'd be able to do a lot of damage. Where as older ships in the mid tiers have more exposed AA mounts, making CV life a little easier. With the exception of the premiums i don't consider mid tier CV's a big threat to my bbs, cruisers imo. Yes i do realise that bombs also kill AA mounts, i'm simply giving alternatives.
  6. Hi, Im not CV player, have just few games under my belt, but when I see how big difference in skill can be between two players Im sometimes thinking how to balance it. What came to my mind is obvious from topic title: What if CVs havent any fighter squads? - basic skill difference between players is strafe ability, there all begins and ends, if CV on one side dont know how to strafe his game is ruined (and usualy his team also) - they will not need them to protect own planes agains enemy CV (since he hasnt fighters also) - skill difference will be about timing and choosing right targets to strike with bombers/torpedos Is there any downside except less things to do for CV player? I know you enjoying strafing noobs like me, but what happend if you cant? Will be CVs still enjoyable for you without fighters/strafe or its essential? Something to compensate lose of fighters (like scout planes without guns just for spotting)?
  7. Doomakeron

    CV hra a mechanika

    Zdravím přítomnou komunitu. Předem zmiňuji, že nejsem expert na hru s letadlovou lodí, ale celkem mě to za ni baví. V průběhu hraní jsem ale narazil na pár věcí, které mi stále vrtají hlavou a nikde jsem na ně nenašel odpověď. Hra proti USS Saipan. Při vzdušných bojích se svou letku stíhačů lze "zakousnout" s protivníkovou letkou (letky stíhačů spolu bojují). Už mnohokrát se mi stalo při hře proti stíhačům Saipanu, se jeho letka "odkousla" odletěla z probíhajícího boje elegantní smyčkou a mou zkoprnělou letku vyaltoval svou druhou letkou. Mazané. Ale jak to udělal? Neztratil při tom ani jedno letadlo. Což mě přivádí k další věci. Mým stíhačům v průběhu boje došlo střelivo, ale místo toho aby se vrátili zpět doplnit, zůstali zakousnutí a poslušně čekali než je protivník vystřílí. Nešlo mi s tím nic udělat. Ani manuální ani klávesové zadávání směru. Že by bug? Nebo mi chybí elementární znalost? Děkuji za případné odpovědi a rady.
  8. thejuggernog

    Carrier Strafe ability?

    is it just me or i the strafe ability on fighters just extremely annoying, it's doesn't really make sense and it ruins dogfights when they just strafe out of the battle. i play us carriers and just reached the ranger(regret getting it) while i love strafing 4 bomber squadrons out of the air its also extremely annoying and unrealistic(i know the game isn't meant to be realistic) the dogfights are just strafing and nothing more anymore. if i have managed to lock an enemy fighter squadron near an Atlanta for example and they can just run away like nothing happened while for some reason mine won't follow until i give the order. i just feel it should be removed, nerfed or at least done something with. once i wipe an entire rjuio in a single strafe and it was amazing but i feel bad for him.
  9. Bonjour, je joues sur le serveur US, mais pas de forum en français ... Donc j'observe parfois des chasseurs qui arrive à de désengager d'un combat aérien avec mes chasseurs pour lancer une attaque manuelle ! Comment est ce possible ? Ou alors les chasseurs ennemies se désengagent arrive à s'éloigner de mes chasseurs à une vitesse supérieur à la "normale" .. Est-ce normale ? Merci
  10. 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
  11. Risalan

    Aerial combat

    There is a mechanic that I do not have clear and I can not find a clear explanation. I put it here in case someone has additional information. AA Anti-aircraft guns (AA) do not work like the rest of the guns (the tracers that are visible in-game are purely cosmetic). The cannons have a range in kilometers and a DPS (average damage per second) Example Atlanta It has three groups of AA guns, 20mm (8), 28mm (16, 4 batteries), 127mm (16, 8 batteries) These last ones are also main guns, that serve like main battery and AA. This happens with primary cannons of DDs and secondary of the rest of classes (not always, there are secondary of dual purpose and others not). Despite being the main cannons magically can shoot as main battery and AA at the same time (this is not a simulator) In total 40 AA guns in 20 batteries. The operation of the AA is forming a series of circles centered in our boat according to the reach of each group of batteries. At a distance of up to 2.4K we cause a DPS of 195 (the sum of all AA groups) Between 2.5K and 3.7K a DPS of 163 (the sum of 3.7K and 6K) Between 3.8K and 6K a DPS of 133 (only the group of 127mm) Don't work exactly as we expect. The normal thing would be that if a squadron of fighters of a Hiryu (VII) has life points of 1551 and 4 airplanes, each airplane will have 387.75 That makes a plane down every 3 "to 3.8k-6K, 2.3" to 2.5K-3.7K, 2 "to 2.4K. But it's not like that. According to the wiki works as a percentage (similar to causing fires) The probability of shooting down a plane per second will be. 195/1551 = 0.1257 a 12.57% / sec up to 2.4K 163/1551 = 0.1051 10.51% / sec between 2.5K and 3.7K 133/1551 = 0.0857 to 08.57% / sec between 3.8K and 6K So that the more stay a squadron within the area of our AA more likely to be shooting down, but as you see is a probability, can be a squadron 1 minute or more at a distance and not lose any plane or be 10 seconds and lose the whole squadron. (As with fire, a projectile produce a fire or 12 produce none) There are modifiers of these values with improvements and abilities Modification 2 AA improves the range by 20% (if installed it will be immediately seen in the characteristics of the ship, increases by 20% the range of each AA group) Modification 3 AA improves + 25% DPS (same will see the effect on the characteristics) Same with the skills Basic training of fire + 10% DPS (same will see the effect in the characteristics) Advanced fire training + 20% range (same will see the effect on the characteristics) Manual gun control AA + 100% DPS of guns greater than 85mm above the designated target (it is very important to note that if the captain has this ability the guns of caliber greater than 85mm only fire if the enemy squadron has been designated Manually (CRTL + Left click), the lower ones trigger normally without improvement) As it was said with the secondary ones you can establish a squadron as a priority objective (an icon of a plane in a circle) (CTRL + left click) In AA increases DPS by a factor of 1.3 In our example 32 becomes 41.6 30 to 39 133 to 172.9 It would give a total of 253.5 instead of 195 The defensive fire consumable of CAs and some DDs produces an increase of factor 3, but only the long range AA (does not specify that it is the long range, but is supposed to only affect the longer range cannons) 133 spends 399 In WOW all effects are cumulative so that if we designate a squadron and activate the consumable factor is 3.9 133X1.3X3 = 518.7 With these values we recalculate with designated objective and consumable AA Probability 599.3 / 1551 = 0.3864 a 38.64% / sec up to 2.4K 557.7 / 1551 = 0.3596 a 35.96% / sec between 2.5K and 3.7K 518.7 / 1551 = 0.3344 33.44% / sec between 3.8K and 6K Several considerations * Marking an enemy squadron significantly increases the effect of our AA, the concrete effect is not documented but we can deduce that it increases the effect against all squadrons within the circle of AA not just the designated * AA consumable produces a "panic effect" on enemy squadrons (discussed in CV section, torpedo cone and larger bombing ellipse) * The circles of several boats together do not add effects, each boat interacts independently with each enemy squadron. But it is the same that we have commented, the more a squadron within the reach of AA the greater the probability of shooting down a plane of the squadron, if we add several circles on a single squadron increases the probability of shooting down. * The P key deactivates the AA and secondary, this is especially useful for hiding DDs (there are DDs that have more AA range than their aerial detectability eg Shimakaze maximum range AA 5K air detectability 3.8K (if the AA is triggered it goes to 5. It is advisable to always always deactivate the AA in these cases and only activate them if there is an air attack, if the scope is less than the detectability is not necessary. Do not forget that the vanilla client (the game without mods) already includes the indicator of last known position, and from the moment you shoot and you detect a plane or boat your position is on the minimap and the enemy knows where you are. ************************************************** ************************************* This is the explanation of the AA As I understand the air combat between fighters or the rear gunner of the attack aircraft works the same. As a percentage, a probability of shooting down an enemy aircraft. But I have some doubts. 1-How often is calculated the shooting down ?, how long last the ammunition?, The munion is spent uniformly or in function of the objective (the same lasts the attack in function of the enemy squadron, number of planes and tier)? 2-For the purposes of calculations we are supposed to calculate the average damage per second using the total number of squadron fighters, not one fighter vs one fighter 3-What % of ammo consumes the strafing and how much is the increase of damage? An example Fighters Zuiho Stock VI against VI 1210 192 (48 * 4 = 192) 192/1210 = 0.1587 (15% chance of shooting down) 48/1210 = 0.0397 (4% probability shooting down) Stock VI to V 192/990 = 0.19394 48/990 = 0.0485 Stock V to VI 171.6 (42.9 * 4 = 171.6) 171.6 / 1210 = 01418 42.9 / 1210 = 0.03545 With air combat expert Air Combat Wiki and AA Http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Aerial_Combat The question arose when I was asked why in a Zuiho battle against Zuiho you loses more planes than your enemy.
  12. wilkatis_LV

    CV "Reverse Manual Strife" Bug

    I can't guarantee that this is something new to 0.6.0 or, but at the same time I've never encountered this before. Also since there is no "Bug reports" section I'll just post it here in "Gameplay". Basically in short version - your fighters strife in the direction that they enter the area instead of where you have aimed them. The longer version will make more sense. "Where this would be needed?" you might ask. Lets face it - there aren't that many decent CV players (and no, I don't count myself as one of the good ones). Most people who I've met tend to just click their fighters to autoattack your squad and then forget about them. But if they are pursuing you setting up a manual strife in the reverse direction right in front of you would in theory let your fighter squad strife the pursuer (check the video, you'll probably get what I mean by that). Here's a video showing exactly how that looks: To have some real results I did 50 runs - 5 CVs, 10 runs each. 1 of 50 strifes worked as intended 15 of 50 strifes semi-failed (strife starts in the other direction and then proceeds in a semicircle towards the correct direction)32 of 50 strifes failed (direction change did not get registered)2 of 50 strifes bugged out (no visual and/or audio of the attack happening) CVs tested:Zuiho - 1 Bugged Out / 4 Semi-Failed / 5 FailedRyujo - 1 Successful / 4 Semi-Failed / 5 FailedHiryu - 10 FailedLangley - 1 Bugged Out / 5 Semi-Failed / 4 FailedBouge - 2 Semi-Failed / 8 Failed As you can see 49 of 50 runs failed, which let's me to conclude that this is definitely a problem not just a rare occurrence. Then I did extra 6 runs on Bouge to attempt to recreate Ryujos one successful run - 1 Bugged Out / 3 Successful / 2 Semi-Failed Now to some theory-crafting about how this works (note that it's just my ideas and what I've observed over multiple games plus these trials) It seems that the chance of the strife failing to acquire a new direction is linked to the distance between the fighter squad and the strife area. Close and close-ish strife areas always resulted in a failed strife (where fighters attack in the direction where they are already moving instead of the direction I've assigned to them). When it comes to "medium" range strifes they end either as a fail or as a semi-fail. The semi-fail situation (in my opinion) hurts IJN more than the USN fighters, as USN have longer strife run - even after the "semicircle" USN fighters continue their strifing attack for some distance while IJN fighters stop almost immediately. Also fighter squads who "froze" before entering the strife area tended to perform the semi-failed strife. The only successful strife direction changes came from "long range" strifes. Playing on 1920x1080 graphics (As I assume this affects how much you can see not just the quality? At least it works like that in League) it seemingly takes for the strife area to be placed more than half of a screen away from the fighter squad for them to successfully change the strife direction. While I initially thought the short distance change not registering correctly might be explained with bad / unstabile ping that's clearly not the case here. Also the mid and long range strifes shouldn't be affected by that. It'd guess it has something to do with how aircraft squads recognise their target area and approach it for an attack run, but I'll leave these conclusions for people who actually know how this game works and can figure it out.
  13. Ferdinand_98

    Hangar cats and CAP fighters

    Hi guys, just thinking...some CVs had those useless hangar catapults that were supposed to aid in the Launch Cycle of the CV. I think that a good form to implement them in—game and to help CVs defend themselves is to give them a consumable called "CAP Squad". The consumable would be just like Cat Fighter in Cruisers and BBs, but with 3 planes instead of 1, with a duration of 300 secs, a reload of 150 and a delay of 15 secs from activation to actually functioning (not counting towards the duration of the consumable). They will orbit around the CV at 4—5 Km and engage enemy planes inside the area. The plane would be a standard one, like the F4F and the Zero, depending on the Carrier. That way, CVs have some help to defend themselves in a strike and we have an historical feature of the CVs, the Combat Air Patrol squadron, flying over the CV and defending it against the enemy. Opinions?
  14. Just making this post to draw some attention to the fact that Air Groups Modification 2 now gives +50% fighter ammo on the 0.6.0 PTS server. As this is module is the default choice for any aircraft carrier that isn't a USN strike CV, this means that almost all fighters will now have 50% more ammunition than before - even 65% when also accounting for the fact that Dogfighting expert now gives +10% to fighter ammo and is only a single point now.
  15. I have played carriers a lot in beta. After beta I haven't played since 3 weeks ago. Game had a reset so I had to play my carriers back. So yesterday I stared my first game now on carriers and all my planes are getting wrecked. I send my mightier to attack enemy ones. ( They are flying oven allies ships ) And I lost all my planes and don't gen a single kill. So 4 min into games and I lost 70% of all planes. Just How? Alt shooting?
  16. "The ammunition load of US fighters was increased by 33%. The goal of this change was to make fighter setups more powerful, as well as to encourage aircraft carriers to engage their enemy counterparts and protect allied ships" So what are IJN carrier players suppose to do now? Just have their aircraft destroyed quicker than ever? A good USA carrier player can already deplete the squadrons of an IJN carrier completely, especially if he/she is running with a fighter set up, this is just rubbing salt in a wound. A fighter setup will already kill your squadrons, the best you can do is damage/sink as many ships as you can before you're inevitably destroyed, so why make this frustrating process worse? How is this beneficial to anyone? This encourages carriers to try and snipe each other from the start, doesn't improve gameplay at all, reduces the experience for cv's completely and is just an all round terrible decision. If you want to encourage aircraft carriers to fight each other and protect their respective fleets this is NOT the way to go about it: Buff the IJN fighter squadrons so they are more likely to engage USA fighters/bombers and buff IJN damage output so that American aircraft carrier players have to actively defend their fleets or loose them. With the latest updates there is already a significant increase to the AA of ships all around there was no need for this change it just unbalances IJN/USA carriers further. You could also balance the squadrons of USA carriers (Early game) by making the bogue/independence similar to the Langley adding both fighter/torpedo and dive bomber squadrons to give players more offensive options. I would love to hear the opinions of other carrier players on this matter. Also can you leave your reasoning or any suggestions in the comments below =3
  17. Let me get stright to the point: Playing A.S. loadouts, especially on USN CVs, is not rewarding enough. I'm not saying that they CAN'T do aything, I've had games where I've locked down an enemy CV and scorched lone BBs and went away with quite some exp and credits. And although playing AS at least semi-decently is very beneficient to your team, if you can protect them from enemy aircraft and spot the DDs and torps, you are helping your team a LOT, it doesn't pay well. The thing is, there's no reward for keeping your team alive, other than miserable shot-down ribbons and 1.5x for winning. I'm fully aware, that most of the things I'm saying are obvious for more experienced players and concepts such as spotting with fighters or sticking close to BBs in a CA is nothing out of ordinary. The thing is, you rarely see such behaviur in games. It simply comes down to the fact that, while it helps your team win, it is not rewarded directly. Therefore, many players will be more tempted to try to earn more for themselves rather than assist the team, even if in the end they would have gained more if the team had won. Now, instead of just asking for more credits and exp for normal shotdowns, I'm suggesting 2 new ribbons: Interception Awarded for destroying carrier-based bombers before they drop they loadout. Gives more exp and credits than normal shotdown. Not a lot, but more. Air Defence Awarded when: your Defensive AA Fire, catapult fighter or carrier-based fighters are attacking the enemy squadron during their attack. Gives some exp and credits. Shot down would be still awarded for destroying catapult-based planes, fighters and bombers after they dropped their bombs/torps. (by the way, these names are totally a subject to change if necessary, but that's not the point.) What I hope for, is that this would encourage CVs with fighter heavy loadout to prioritise these enemy planes that pose a threat to the fleet, instead of just swaticking to that one squad that is coming back to rearm. At the same time, Air Defence would encourage cruisers to stick with Battleships and protect them, as they are finally getting something out of it. At the same time, while it would not be a fortune, this ribbon would be something a player can see and feels rewarded with. Well, at least that's the idea. What do you think? Is it complete nonsense or would it actually help?
  18. Edit: Leaving it as it is for today. Will heavily edit it tomorrow. Feel free to leave thoughts and feedback, I'll read and consider them all. Thank you. NOTE: unfinished Almost finished, have to complete, edit and check it after I get something to eat Greetings. This weekend, I am pleased to bring you some proposals I believe will be beneficial in advancing WoWs as a game. 1. Introduce the concept of a separate air-sphere of battle. The air-sphere now is a separate space from the sea-sphere, but the two spheres still overlap in influence. Air-sphere spotting mechanics are introduced. 2. Striking mechanics have been reworked and redesigned. Introduce "AA pressure". Altitude mechanics explained. 3. AA mechanics have been tweaked to be easier to understand and conceptualize, while still engaging and dynamic. 4. Potential for giving planes even more distinct options of differentiation and balance is considered. 5. Eventual evolution from Gen-1 to Gen-2 mechanics, and how these proposed mechanics fit in, as speculated. BCV is also considered. Overall, both CV gameplay and AA concepts will be more dynamic and humanistic. The optimization of mechanics will also allow introduction of BCV. Traditional CVs will still be balanced, and easy to grasp for all, yet fair and rewarding for skilled players. Section 1 The "air-sphere" of battle takes place above the sea-sphere of battle. The CV's view of the battlemap will not be the same view as current. By default, ships will not display their detailed 3D models. Instead, they will behave as if viewed from a strategic-map top-down, or resembling current digital displays of radar using air-traffic icons. The display still uses the 3D map, but only water, mountains and friendly ships will be fully rendered by default. Players will be able to see silhouettes of sea-spotted ships, the silhouette will be simply geometric lines, with the ship-type icon in the middle, and a directional pointer for the frontal of the ship. Thus players will be able to see ship class, ship direction, but not specific type, nor speed, or any detailed battle information. Under certain conditions, areas of the map can be viewed in full for the CV player, just like current, and with additional information related to the new mechanisms which will be covered in sections 2-5. The immediate area around a CV is fully spotted by the CV itself. Certain abilities, such as radar (from other ships), or yet-to-be introduced mechanics, may be capable of "sharing" vision from surface ships to the CV. The CV can also manually fly planes to scout and spot areas. Planes will have a "spotting radius", revealing an immediate area around them. However, planes will have an option to either fly at 'high altitude' or 'low altitude'. Basically, 'high altitude' gives smaller view radius, and even smaller "full reveal" radius, while 'lower altitude' gives much farther and detailed spotting info. The exact radius can vary by plane specs. Vice versa, planes at higher altitude and at far distances will not be able to be seen by surface ships in full reveal of info either, such as currently possible. At the furthest, they will only be able to see "planes" via icons, and nothing else. Closer, they will be able to see plane type, eg. fighter, or tb, or db, but not strength. Only when planes from high altitude pass almost directly overhead, or when planes change to low altitude, and are close enough, can their full detailed info be visible. The enemy CV's planes will function similarly. Planes will be able to spot other planes, with higher-altitude planes will almost always have a vision superiority compared to lower altitude. Because CV planes will no longer have the massive spotting range and spotted range as of now, some dynamic gameplay will be potentially possible. For instance, a CV sends a scout-plane in front of the main group. The scout plane runs into an enemy CV airgroup, sending his whole group in a bunch. Because the "bunched" CV planes have not spotted the main squad of the more discreet CV, they are surprised when a perfect formation of fighter-strafes suddenly appear from the clouds following the spotter plane and decimate his entire group before they have time to scatter, even though they took out the vanguard spotter plane. Here I would like to add firstly, that in this new version, fighter strafes will have at least double the range of current strafe length, while consuming the same ammo. In addition to some "ease of control" mechanisms introduced a bit further in, a "strafe wall" will now be quite possible even for the average player, due to A.I. assisted formation. Secondly, there will be certain "cloud-heavy" areas, similar to islands in the sea-sphere, except that planes can fly through clouds whilst ships cannot through islands. "Cloud-heavy" areas will reduce, but not eliminate, directional spotting efficiency working both ways. It will be possible to "hide" planes behind clouds, or even inside larger ones. Planes within spotting range, but unspotted due to cloud cover or other potential mechanics, will instead display as a small "!" icon to signify they are there. Scout planes and Spotter planes function as high-altitude planes. It is worth mentioning that "directional" here is only fully horizontal. All "directional" used in this proposal would thus be better understood as "semi-directional" area of direction, instead of "fully directional" with diagonal, spherical cones and height difference. Section 2 Current air strike mechanics are the same as when WoWs was still beta. While mechanics for other ships have progressed quite far, CV mechanics are still the same as when they were prototyped. Needless to say, they require rework. Firstly, planes will now display a standard strategy-game style "pathing" arrow when asked to fly to a certain location, instead of current UFO gliding. The arrow will be lighter in opaqueness at the tail, and deeper in color at the front of the arrow. Multiple arrows bunched together, such as in formation, will be dynamically "thinner". Planes will have a turning radius and cannot turn like gyros, so the arrows will have turning curves at turn points, such as in pathing. For a longer path or multiple waypoints, it will strictly follow the turn only when necessary, flying straight otherwise, similar to current. When sea-sphere ships are auto-piloted using one-click, they will also display this route arrow. The curves will be more noticeable for ships, since ships have a larger turning radius. The arrow will reflect the "A.I." controlled actual pathing the route will take. Players will be able to see their progress on the route much more clearly from the map, which will be useful for BCV. The path will automatically curve around islands and other ships, even dynamically. That means as you are sailing through a bunch of allied ships, you will actually be able to see your projected "route" wiggle and detour around the new obstacles in real-time, even without any input. Next, an introduction of the "heat" or "pressure" mechanism, relevant to both sea-sphere and air-sphere, with particularly direct consequences for air. This mechanic affects ships, planes, and AA mechanics, as whosn in the corresponding 3 examples below: (1) The sea sphere is mostly a heads up only. Imagine a BCV sailing along the edges of battle, not in first-person ship view, but in strategic map-view. He cannot easily know whether some ships are aiming and firing at him. However, with the new system, a small area around the ship, as part of the "route" color scheme, will change color dynamically to reflect "heat" of battle, or danger. Shells coming from the side of the ship will result in the side area of the colored oval lighting up, from cool turquoise (normal), to yellow, to orange, to a bright and alarming red, depending on the amount and caliber of shells incoming and already hit. Torpedoes with possible hit-chance will immediately change it to red. Closer enemies firing will also weight much heavier on the color bumping. Taking lots of damage will also bump up the alert level. etc. (2) Airplanes will be dynamically affected by AA pressure areas, and in certain situations react accordingly. For instance, planes forgotten by the CV but approached by danger, or encountering zones of enemy AA, or enemy planes' influence, will feel "pressure" of danger. Their directional zones will light up according to their "prediction of demise if encountered" with the danger. If the CV is still unresponsive, or busy elsewhere, they will automatically be "pressured" away from the danger. They will back away from enemy Ship AA towards friendly AA if left alone for about 5 seconds. Enemy fighters will provoke immediate retreat for planes without a set target or patrol pattern, regardless of whether they out-strength them. This will likely prevent forgotten planes hovering in place from taking a barrage, though they will probably not be able to run far and stay unscathed due to the barrage's speed and width (and boosted length). CVs forcing strikes in heavy AA will also be able to see the "relative" amount of damage the planes are receiving from particular directions easily via the color flooding. This scheme can be simply a small hoop, or colored border around the plane icon, instead of whole areas as with the BCV. This is relevant as the new AA barrage and panic mechanics are based both on overall AA damage as well as specific skills and modifications like barrage. (3) AA barrage, the consumable, and possibly certain captain skills, and even upgrade modules, will be reworked. No longer will any mechanics simply be defined as "raise number stat ..%". Everything will be actually able to be visualized, able to be physically conceptualized and imagined. For details, please see section 3. AA is now semi-directional, and their effectiveness will vary according to "focus", requiring limited manual aiming. "Focused" AA will be high in pressure, and this "pressure" will force planes to "make mistakes", die quicker, maybe even reduce fighters' area of influence, etc. Planes completely surrounded or under cross-fire will be additionally panicked after moderation from their stats, but will more likely be critically destroyed as they are cornered and cannot maneuver, and even actual maneuverability might take a hit. So planes trying to escape through cross-fire ship or fighter AA won't be able to do so under full speed. Ships, by default, will have "heavier" AA pressure angles and "lower" AA pressure angles, according to their actual layout. When AA components are destroyed in real-time while in battle, players will be able to use a command (probably a button press) to "check" their AA pressures. This will display the AA cones similarly to torpedo-launch cones when one selects the torpedo armament on their ship. The cones and areas around the ship will also be differently hued, from white to dark red, reflecting the AA threat from those angles. Completely destroyed AA components will lessen the "hue" and thus be visually reflecting change of the total strength. AA attacking planes using high-pressure angles will cause more damage to them, and help to panic them faster. It is possible that AA will also decrease in gradient according to distance, if distance is taken into account to AA strength, or reflect a new "accuracy" moderation stat of AA. Will go into specific examples in part 3. Back to the strike mechanics. Strike mechanics have been overhauled. Fighters: Fighters are a two-button press to start their barrage run, instead of requiring a set-strike plan as of current. First press will display the estimated barrage path, similar to selecting your torpedoes after changing from guns. Second press will start the barrage, with a tiny wind-up time and distance. Before the second press, you can aim and spin the barrage path around a bit for aiming. Actual spin speed dependent on turning speed and coordination of planes. (note: pressure reduces coordination and efficiency). If multiple fighter-groups are selected, they will try to form a "barrage wall", syncing their barrages parallel to each other so nothing can escape. It will not be possible for planes overshooting the barrage start-point to u-turn and mess up the run, they will simply start barraging a bit too forwards in the run. Barrages are not even necessarily straight according to the aimed path. Fighters will try to horizontally maneuver, very slightly, such as old "bullet-hell" games where your controlled fighter shoots frontal bullets, to actually hit as many enemies as possible. Converging maneuvers will stop when barrage paths overlap, for instance alongside each other in a "barrage wall". Diverging paths will be 1/10ths of the barrage width, so there are only tiny adjustments, or "hitbox" adjustments. I am actually not too sure about this feature, as I liked to engage a enemy fighter squad with one squad, then do a "selective" strafe only hitting the outer enemy squad, and not my friendly squad, with a separate fighter squad (I play AS Hakuryu), and to make the A.I. of strafe-adjustment recognize such a situation is a bit difficult for now. So if you want to do cycling barrages, cross-barrages, or bait-barrages you will have to do so manually, as well as overlapping barrages. Fighters will not cancel the barrage even if friendlies are in the way, or if their eventual path will overlap and they have danger of hurting each other, so pre-aim setup of positions is still important. When creating barrage wall, the fighters will all aim at your cursor position, slightly converging into a horizontal lineup. For now, the "barrage wall" will probably work by having a button one can hold when selecting multiple fighters squadrons, such as shift, and they will start converging into position facing your cursor ready for a "barrage wall", otherwise will just two-button barrage using own path if executed before they have lined up. Fighter mechanics will differ slightly from current. Fighter squads will exert a small area of "influence" around them. Enemy planes entering this area will be slowed, and will start to take increased damage from the fighters if stayed for too long, with the fighter's ammunition starting to trickle. After a small wind-up period, the enemy squad will be locked in place by the fighters and both plane squads will start to dogfight, and the fighters will deal maximum damage according to their stats. Fighters can be specified to engage a target, and it will chase after and focus on this target more instead of others passing by. Some implications of this include how you cannot suddenly instant-lock a torpedo-bomber squad in place just inches away from it getting a drop on your battleship: the panic and lock requires a few seconds of wind-up. During this time, the tb squad can maneuver slightly away in attempt to escape, or complete its drop, or at least fight outside the AA of the ships. "Ladder-locking" and stuttering using many fighter squads to engage more squadron than themselves, (I play AS Hakuryu), a griefing method, will thus be eliminated. If unspecified a target, the fighters will automatically start focusing and locking on a squad within its immediate area, so it will not be possible to glide a fighter squad alongside some strike squads and not specify a target, and act as a perma-slow. Fighters focusing on fighters will wind-up much faster, engaging in dogfight only seconds after contact, and as priority, so will be similar to current. However, for multiple fighter squads doing a big battle, they won't be little points of engagement, instead as an area, as defined by their engagement range (which will vary accordingly, see section 4). Overlapping engagement ranges will split the damage amongst all enemy squads inside, and vice versa. So in a big battle, fighter squads with smaller engagement areas will have better focused damage, but less split damage or damage reach. Fighter squads with big engagement areas will deal damage evenly to all enemies engaged, but will find it difficult to eliminate specific squads. Random strike squads flying through the battle areas will also take damage and help split some pressure off friendly fighters, slightly slowed while flying through, but won't be focused. It will also not be possible much more difficult to do "selective strafes" grazing just the enemy squad, and not your own squad, both locked in battle. It will also not be as easy to strategically "spend" a squad, such as sending a crippled squad, or a squad low on ammo, to do a particularly hard lock so it'll get spent, while preserving a full strength and ammo squad nearby. This also has profound implications for the balancing and differentiation of planes of different nations. It may even be possible to give planes "AA range" areas of focus, such as ships have, with different influence ranges and different intensity for these ranges. This will also partly make strafing in general more difficult to focus, and less singularly decimating, as squads are spread out evenly in a big cluster battle, because the positions are not insta-locked, but "slided" into place due to the wind-up mechanism and possibility to maneuver while still winding up. Torpedo Bombers: For torpedo bomber strikes, the current alt and click-to-rotate system is pretty much unusable, everyone just manually flies their tb to the right angle then drops straight in without every using the adjustment. I propose two major changes: torpedo aim is no longer a "path", specifying the route as of current. Instead, there will be two modes of manual drop: one is free-drop, other is locked-on drop. (1) In free-drop, the torpedo estimated entry-point to the water is displayed in little torpedo-shaped highlights a bit forward from the planes (due to inertia). This highlight will appear and stay on whenever torpedo planes are low-altitude and ready to drop (we'll get into altitude-change mechanics later). Players will have to infer the exact pathing of the torpedoes on their own. Thus experienced players will have to make use of their "feel", instead of some "laserdot" aiming, and long-range torp-drops will be more difficult. Because with the current pathed aim, I can literally put the path into perfect position so the torpedos will arm split second before they hit, or only hit at their max range, at max convergence. The new system will still allow players to distance and angle the torpedoes, just not as exact. For control scheme, scrolling middle mouse either increases the spacing (to a certain limit) between each torpedo, so a wider wall but wider spaces for ships to escape, or decrease space (to a certain limit) for a narrower concentrated torpedo spear. Clicking middle mouse resets to default spacing. Thus every drop will potentially be unique, and there will be no "set" formula to dodge torpedoes. Dropping can also be a one-button press like fighter barrage (which button, can customize). So a free-drop might go like this: player fly tb to a set angle (taking into account AA, hit chance, etc.), then guides the planes towards the ship, watching the highlight move closer and closer towards the ship. At the right distance, the player twitches the trigger-button, and torpedoes drop, hitting the water at the highlighted points, which stopped moving the split second trigger was pressed, and torpedoes dropped (there will actually be animations of little torpedoes dropping from the planes). Pressing the trigger too late would result in not enough time to arm. Pressing too early would just drop them too far from point, so either split second reflexes, or experienced "flow" of timing will be important to drop tb. However, one could simply not drop and keep maneuvering the planes over and around for another attempt, though AA might take its toll. It is also possible to design so it is not a quick-time one-button drop, but two-button: first button activates highlight and "arms", player can aim during this and preset a drop-point instead of quick-time drop, similar to current, then press drop button to execute (or just auto-execute once set, as current). (2) In locked-drop, the player first selects the ship, then the alt-circle appears around it, but locked on and following the ship, with the at the center. The camera will also be locked on and following the ship. Players can "assign" multiple squads of planes to strike the ship. Their attack angles will be shown at the circle, and their flight-route arrows will trace from their current position to the edge of the circle leading to their attack run. Players can use wasd keys to move the centre of the circle accordingly, for instance a bit forwards from the ship for a fast-moving ship, and a bit port-side for a port-turning ship (wasd sensitivity can customize). Middle-mouse rotates the circle, and all attack angles on it, clock-wise and counter-clockwise, a click will reset the angle (note: not wasd). Also possibility for a key to increase circle distance, or the distance from the ship the final route turn before setting into the attack procedure. Dragging attack angles around the edge of the circle will micro-tweak attack angles. There is no one-button drop: planes will start flying along the projected route and start dropping as soon as the lock-on is initiated. Players will have to manually sync plane positions for synchronized drops. No width adjustment or distance of drop is customizeable in this mode, spacing will be default, the distance will be similar to current auto-drop. When a ship is locked on, and planes have approached the end of the routing and are turning in for the drop, an air-siren will start to sound for the ship being striked. Planes already locked into the drop angle, and just a bit past the point of no-return, (just as torpedoes are gliding through the air) will have their attack angle displayed to the striked ship via a small arrowhead, synced to appear one second before dramatic appearance of torpedo icons in the water. So the ship still has a chance to maneuver. It is also possible to design so that the quick-time press-to-drop is instead used here, so planes will hover at the edge point of no-return and will not drop into angle unless final execute button is pressed. It may be possible for players to customize which style they choose, however there is the danger of cheating "auto-execute" mods being used. We'll see. Dive-bombers: For db drops, there will be two modes, listed to correspondence to tb drops (1 is "manual", 2 is "auto"). Players will probably have to have a button to switch between these modes, whenever a bomber squad is selected. (1) Dive-bomb. Planes will now, accordingly to history, potentially have more than 1 bomb per plane, or have different types of bombs. Unlike tb, there won't be little highlights of bombs on the water to estimate contact point. Instead, there will be a manual drop aiming circle highlight functioning similarly to the current tb highlights. Aiming will function similar to current, but by scrolling the middle mouse, players can slightly change the size of the area covered by the precision drop. However, a smaller, more precise area will incur a slightly longer attack run, so point of no return will be farther away from the ship. If you want only slightly more accuracy than the auto-drop, only a small pre-run will be required, so the bombers can almost turn in and dive-bomb sideways. Players will have to weigh their preference for a more precise drop, or a better angled drop along the length of the ship. A important mechanic here is that the bombers in dive-bomb mode will slightly adjust their bombings (similar to the slight auto-aim of new fighter barrage) to better hit the ship, but very slight, adjusting around 1/8 of the area covered, so it won't be a perfect oval as current, but instead an indented oval, lightly enveloping the ship, so less bombs will hit the water less in slight misses. The one-button release vs two-button scheme is open to change here as well. It could be possible for a quick-time drop have a "sweet point" mechanic which has to be executed neither too long nor too early during a drop for the most "enveloping" bonus (to almost 1/4 area difference). Dive bombers in this mode incur the normal AA pressure panicking. Dive-bombing a target takes a few seconds for all the planes to complete their run, about 2 seconds. For 2 seconds, your squad will be moving very slowly over a ship, almost locked in place, such as when fighters lock each other. They will still have to escape under AA pressure after their drops. (2) Fly-over drop. Not very accurate, comparable accuracy to current auto-drop. Tiny diamond-shaped highlights will appear at the centre of ships, with a small number underneath representing the amount of bombers targeting that ship, so players might get an idea of the amount. However, bombers performing this drop will not slow down for the drop, and will not be slowed at all by AA pressure (but can still be slightly panicked according to their settings, and enemy long-range AA strength and mods/skills, but considerably less than dive bomb). So players will have to weigh around the options of reduced accuracy by AA, or reduced accuracy in general. A circle about the size of the whole alt-circle will appear under the cursor (potentially can resize with middle-mouse, with press for default size). Players will put this circle over the ships a fly-over bombing is to happen, with a centre "priority" ship. The circle will be locked onto this ship as its centre, and most bombs will target this ship. However, Some bombers will also target other ships in the circle. For a small circle or only 1 ship, or too many bomber squads, bombers may have to "take turns" bombing the ship in sequence, so they will stay in the AA area for slightly longer, and with a bit reduced accuracy. For bombers with multiple bombs, a slew of many many small bombs (maybe even cluster bombs, or even guided bombs, or rockets, will discuss further down in section 4) will rain down on the ships, with animated dropping of the bombs flying through the air. Again, when bombers approach the point-of-no-return, an air-siren will sound, but not just for the centre targeted ship, instead by the centre ship. So with a 3D sound system, players will be able to hear the direction the siren is coming from, and sail away from it accordingly to dodge the bombs (or lessen the amount of bombs targeting them) (as in real life). Players will be able to define the angle of attack he wants to bombers to attack from, according to AA pressure, wind direction (maybe) (section 5), etc. Spread of bombs will be primarily vertical instead of horizontal, so attacking along the length of a ship will be ideal. This will be especially noticeable for planes with a large number of bombs, such as land-based bombers (section 5), which can carry at least half a dozen bombs each. AA panic effect on planes will not work as current. For tb, because of the possibility of adjusting width, and the removal of a set aiming-cone, torpedoes may end up getting dropped in even more erratic patterns, or not at the same time; some enter the water later than others. It may also be possible for a certain type or pressure amount of AA to stop synchronized torpedo drop altogether: under specific conditions, torpedos can't be dropped in waves, but instead is randomly dropped from totally scattered single torpedo planes, aimed at your cursor, which you will have to hold in the position you want the torpedoes to be launched at. So for instance, you hold down the drop button (or something like trigger left mouse key), and planes scattered in the immediate area will start an angle of attack to launch torpedoes converging on you cursor location, over a small duration of time (each single plane will have to path). You will have to keep your cursor moving and leading the ship you want to torp all during this time. This may actually be another drop mode altogether, and potentially even end up more efficient and satisfying, and really deadly, seeing torpedoes converge on an aimed location in a sequential manner, without clear gaps for escape. Bombs can be affected in more ways than just wider dispersion from panic, such as time it takes for the drop to be completed, accuracy of different drops, or the bonus of the enveloping effect, etc. If quick-time execution is considered, than slight changes to the time it takes for the db to reach "sweet point" could also have major impacts on the drop via impacting the player directly. If torpedo depth was also simulated, then it may be possible for the torpedo planes to mis-set the depth and torpedoes will pass too shallow, hitting the torpedo-protection for much reduced damage, or even pass underneath altogether. Section 3 How current AA works is clear to all. In the new system though, AA mechanics will not be arranged via perfect circles around the ship. Instead, depending on the actual layout of AA armaments on the ship, there will be certain angles of the ship at which AA should be realistically strongest. For instance, the sides should be much deadlier than the immediate front and back of a ship. Thus the sides could be hues of orange and red, or even dark-red/ reddish black (total panic), while the back would just be yellow, or even white (no AA). Actual color scheme can be customized by player preference, including opaqueness. A button can be pressed to show overlay of a system-rated strength of AA. Targeting allies will show allied AA circles, while targeting enemies will show info if close enough. For CV, this can be toggled to be permanently on as long as scouting is close enough for "full reveal", similar to the current "show advanced interface", except that's permanent no matter the range. I will present speculation for hiding player health-bars, but not in today's post. If AA is gradually affected by range, including accuracy (affecting focused efficiency), and efficiency (affecting flat output), then the AA strength display overlay will involve gradients of color and opaqueness. For instance close range AA with more combined flat damage and accuracy will be rated more deadly, while far AA less so. It is possible to have this overlay change dynamically according to overlapping AA range and strength from nearby allies. Due to the introduction of altitude mechanics, only long range AA cannons can hit high-altitude planes, or fly-over bomb drop runs. The way AA pressure works is similar to fighter area of influence: enemy planes flying through at low altitude will get slowed. If dodge mechanics are introduced, then planes may even be commanded to "dodge", affecting the relative accuracy of AA efficiency. This allows for unique balance options: Some ships with strong long-range AA will have their influence felt in more spheres than one, greatly increasing the depth of the game. "AA" radar, or even "AA DDs" will actually be a real concept. Flat AA strength will not be the only determining factor of a ship's AA capability, due to "accuracy" settings modifying flat damage. The width of AA kill-zones via the layout of its AA will have implications on gameplay and choice of ships. Experienced carrier players, having memorized AA layouts of ships, will be adequately rewarded. For instance, "suppressed" ships, unable to change angle direction under risk showing broadside to allied ships, will reward skilled drops from angles of approach with less AA. If AA accuracy was not flat scaling depending on range, but had more accuracy in their "optimal range", than "AA huddle" will be more strategic then simply "bunching ships together as closely as possible". AA panic, or barrage, will also work differently. As of current, a single press of the button will increase long-range AA to "black" level indiscriminant of angle. With the new design, AA "barrage" will work more akin to a barrage. The comparison will be like using an auto-firing machine-gun under normal mode, compared to an aimed semi-auto shotgun, under barrage mode. Specific angles of AA will be enhanced to either very high accuracy, but lower cone width, maybe for high-tech guns, or very high damage (to simulate high alert firing), but with normal cone width and accuracy for standard AA armaments. Probably both. The small cone width can be controlled and "aimed", to a certain extent, by the player. Managing to capture a squad of enemy planes within this cone then barrage it heavily. There will actually be an animated spout of bullets flying in that direction, with appropriate flak clouds in the air, and bits of machine-gun fire walking icicles on the water surface. This barrage may actually fire in barrages, so the player will have to time a barrage with the movement and aim to stay on target, dealing a tick of very high damage every few seconds of reload, and that's only if you hit. Leaving the barrage to auto-engage will likely lower its efficiency by default. The cone may also deepen in color while reloading, so the player will visually see the process of each reload. Because most of the long-range AA guns are secondary armaments with distinguishable reload times anyways. It may even be possible for barrages to be based on number of shots instead of a set time period. The barrage will automatically hit all planes within its angle of affect, splitting damage between them. There will be no need to vertically differ or horizontally aim the barrage. To panic planes, they will have to be under pressure of "black" AA for a consistent amount of time. To achieve that, either a real-time logging of damage on that squad, or something based on incoming damage versus plane stats, is in effect. Fully focused fighter fire will result in panic, but not during the wind-up period. A single barrage, even if it takes out 1-2 planes right away, will not fully panic the remaining planes unless a second barrage hits, or the combined amount of AA the planes receives from all auto-AA in the area first exceeded its maximum "slow", a kind of "soft cap". Higher amounts of AA will naturally reach this cap faster. So if the barrage is of sufficient "strength", it may outright panic the lower-tier planes as well. Compounding influence, from multiple types of AA, from cross-fire directions, will independently weigh more on this "damage cap", so mixed AA will be much more deadly. Higher tier planes, or specific plane designs from specific nations will vary on their susceptibility to these influences, partly based on historical considerations or actual specs. Thus in a high-tier game, with enough squadrons attacking even a Des Moines, it will not be able to barrage all of them, or panic all of them by itself, partly due to high-tier planes being more "resilient", as well the sheer number of squads splitting the damage soft cap. With certain captain skills, modules, or even premium ship designs, it may be possible to have more than 1 barrage cone, for many single-barrage targets, for it to auto-engage all squads, or increase its efficiency and width, but reduce number of cones/ auto-engage targets, etc. The best defence is still to be inside sufficient combined AA to be more than capable of pushing to the "soft damage cap" for each squadron, so they can then be easily panicked within a single scout fighter's area of influence (oh did I forget to mention that?), or even chance to be auto-panicked per barrage activated, because combined AA already excessively exceeded the soft-cap. So ships can either choose to focus on "soft overall power", "manual barrage power", or "tactical situational AA", to name a few possibilities.The key point is to still introduce many more options for diversification, unique characteristics and settings, and dynamic gameplay. Section 4 While the above points have already introduced many options for stat tweaks on planes, actual change of weapons and attack styles are still unconsidered. I will also first explain the altitude mechanic. Altitude: Altitude mechanic: Spotting mechanics have already been explained in former sections. How to change altitude not yet. Surface ships AA do not differ between altitude except via hard limits: only long-range AA, or even some medium range AA can hit high-altitude targets, and perhaps some planes with excessively low "high altitude" settings and stats. Fighters will still be needed to panic or slow planes at high altitude. It is possible that some multi-role fighters or heavy strike planes will be capable of exerting a small area of AA influence while still being able to carry out strikes against ships, but they will probably not have the same "focus" ability (similar to "accuracy" stat modification) used by pure fighters to maximize damage and lock squadrons. Their maneuverability, turning radius will also vary. It is possible for planes to have different speeds at high and low altitude, as well as varying spotting and concealment values. I envision that a single key-press, or even better, via auto, will be used to change the altitude of planes over a course of a few seconds, during which they maneuver vertically and less horizontally, moving slightly slower if increasing altitude, and faster if diving. Areas of influence will be difficult to balance if it was calculated separately by altitude, so influence should automatically concern both high and low altitude, but actual damage potential, and damage receiving potential will still vary dependent on the targets' altitude settings. If high altitude planes are ordered to carry out a strike, they will not change from their current altitude until within certain strike distance of target. While the altitude change is completed within few seconds for gameplay purposes, their altitude-dependent stats will not fully "activate" until a few more seconds. So no altitude juggling. Different plane types will also potentially have different altitude change parameters. Strike planes capable of striking from different altitudes may also have different altitude-specific effectiveness, depending on their historical specs. On special weapons for planes, Rockets: mix between the targeting method of bombs, and attack procedure of torpedoes. Many more individual projectiles than bombs capable from the same plane. Projectile speed much faster than bombs, so more responsive. Actual damage parameters I leave to WG to investigate and design. Angle of attack may or may not have heavy influence on the outcome. First-person camera mode may or may not be involved for aiming rockets. Horizontal range will probably be longer than other strike methods. Guided bombs: Can attack from high altitude, far range, retaining accuracy. Mechanics and control may be pretty troll depending on which bombs, from which technological stage, are used. Guided missiles: Only heavy strike land-based aircraft can carry these (except maybe some freak of a premium T10 carrier carrying only 30 planes). Sounds pretty strong. Bet it is. In response, the ships also have prototype anti-air missiles (works like AA magnetic torpedoes), or "proximity rounds" upgrade for use. Potentially even Type 3 for some BBs. Flying boats: I have advocated for flying boats to be used in a rescue mechanic for sailors from sunk ships. If there was any most important tradition in the navy, it's probably that they will rescue their people. This method could also be used to a better image than a random "loot crate" mechanic for reducing repair costs. Hopefully, you won't be able to fire on these flying boats on rescue missions. They can either land to fully pick up sailors for the biggest reward, or airdrop lifesaving equipment as a temporary measure because of whatever reasons prohibiting a full landing. Combat-use flying boats, from the nations which used them, or heavy bombers with area AA capability can be considered, AEWC aircraft and blimps: Not very useful in 1st generation theatres of battle, with current spotting mechanics, but can potentially be linked with the usage of prototype weaponry. Airships: Possible to carry out limited resupply and repair, or act as limited aerial control. Definitely not gen 1 mechanics. CV-based scout-planes: This can be done. They will probably have low detection but limited fuel. On combined strikes: Due to introduction of A.I. route pathing, with diversification of weapons, it may be possible to carry out "combined" strikes against ships, for instance the one I hear the most involves suppressing deck-AA fire. If you select an appropriate combination of squads, then it may be possible to engage in a coordinated strike, to counter the new AA mechanics of ships. Even more diverse weapons may allow for additional tactical and even strategic effects than just pure damage. This leads us to the BCV part of this discussion. I had envisioned it possible because of the advances in u.i. design, such as the route pathing and threat-sense displays. However, ideally, a BCV should be able to strike a ship without leaving first-person mode of the ship, while also use main armament in strategic display. The first requires limited optimization of aiming [break time.]
  19. Notice how nobody says "Let's play toss-a-coin"? The tedium and irritation caused by randomness in this game detract from enjoyment. Randomness makes air superiority Brogues dull to play and battleship vs cruiser engagements irritating. Fighter RNG The fighter engagement mechanism removes skill and thus deprives the carrier player of meaningful engagement. Fighter engagement whereby fighters literally cannot move the battle in any direction is unrealistic and often ends up eg 5-1 in planes shot down. This unbalances the whole battle on a coin toss. Faster fighters in particular should be able to disengage at a penalty to their attack strength but slower fighters too should be able to move the battle towards an allied ship with AA. Whilst strafing is the more skillful approach, it is very risky and still forces your planes to engage. Solution: remove the fighter engaging mechanism. Players will still be able to focus enemy squadrons but it will be more like fighter vs bomber engagements. Fire RNG Cruiser/gunboat success vs battleships is almost entirely dependent on luck with starting fires. Even angling doesn't make much of a difference any more due to reducing overpenetration. Solution: make fire chance cumulative. Start at 0% chance per shell (for US). Each shell that hits increases the chance by 0.5%. By the time you've landed 8 HE shells, you're up to 20% chance of fire per shell. Cap it at 30% (10 shells) and have it halve every 20s. Fire extinguish could half the chance too but you'd still likely be prone to another fire if you're getting hit a lot. This makes dying to a couple of cruisers who can't shoot but are lucky with fires incredibly unlikely. If they can shoot then chances are you'll be set on fire three times at least. Fire duration could also be part of this equation. Accuracy RNG Accuracy/dispersion has been discussed a lot I'm sure. The Myogi drives me nuts but I think it's a ship-specific problem at short range. Feel free to discuss. Teammate skill RNG Lastly, players are over-rewarded for being lucky with good teammates. Winning should be reward enough without getting double the XP of the losing team. If there's any XP bonus for winning, it should be 20% at most. Boost XP overall to compensate.
  20. I just played a ranked game with my balanced Hiryu, vs strike Ranger. At one point he clumped his dive bombers together and went my way, so I put my fighters behind him and used special fighter ability. First with one squad, then with the other. I didn't use it with both squads at the same time. I killed all of his bombers and sent my fighters to rearm. About a minute later I got both my fighter squads back in the air, and then squad 3 died for... no reason. So I got it up again and it died again. No enemy ships nearby... After those 2 squad deaths I stopped sending that squad up. I can only guess it got caught a bit in the special ability of the other fighter squad, which applied a dot that never timed off. Or, since it was attacking the dive bombers by clicking before I sent it to rearm, those dive bombers applied the rear gunner dot that never timed out. I got the replay. At about 16:40 I use the special fighter ability (looks confusing in the replay because CV replays suck), soon afterwards I manually click the last 2 divebomber squads to kill and send my fighters to rearm. At about 15:15 I get them both up again and squad 3 dies. Later I get it up again and it dies again. I can't upload the .wowsreplay file to the forum, so here's the link to my Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AmzH0i6VydMUNuaUIyb3ZZV2c/view?usp=sharing I'll send the replay to Support and see what they say.
  21. Here's a video of it in action: From what I understand this has been around for a while now. The game has even launched, so how come it's still there? Footage is literally from yesterday. Replay is here.
  22. GotterdammerungX

    Incompetent Bombers and Fighter capabilities

    I couldn't see a thread for this, but on more than one instance I have had my torpedo bombers drop their torpedoes on land or in the opposite direction to the intended target. Probably a question which has already been answered, but fighters are unable to strafe targets, given the number of ships with open or no turreted guns then you could well expect to be able to cause a little disruption to ships. As fighters develop to being armed with cannons and rockets then you would expect their capabilities to expand, is this dynamic expected to be included? A final two-penneth, will there be an options for an all out air-strike, along the lines of Midway?
  23. Eugenio

    Dogfighting Expert

    Hi. Skill "Dogfighting Expert". I think that the skill extremely increases the power of US aircrafts against the Japanese. Japanese fighters are overwhelmingly faster. This skill therefore almost never use. The only advantage the Japanese fighter's are high speed and better damage. It is quite common that an American squadron shot down two Japanese. I deliberately did not take into battle better (and faster) fighters. They did a much higher damage to enemy than the "modern" fighter. According to the logic of things. Slower fighter with more HP (and smaller DMG) is much more powerful than a fast fighter with less HP (and more DMG). Perhaps it would be good to do a skill that will benefit both parties equally, or make a new skill "for Japan" Example for New skill for Japan : Kamikatze Bombers ram ship with highter DMG, chance for critical hit and Fire. But bombers die
  24. Hello Everyone!!! I am just starting to play with aircraft carriers. I have Hosho and very soon i am going to get Zuicho ... And i am starting to think about planes group setups... What is better setup? with fighters or without it? ... How do you use (especially in IJN) fighters? To protect our bomb/torp planes or to attack enemy? Please share with me (and others who want to know ) your experience about your tactic and all that stuff Thank you and have good luck and great fun in game!!!
  25. I read a lot here about how bad are IJN fighters on low tiers... but today I experienced something tragic-comic... I have my Hosho fully upgraded, I actualy enjoy his load, when I meet others IJN units... when I meet murica CV.s, I just play on shadow.... long time ago I learn my lesson - an single fighter squad from a Langley can rape ALL my planes, all 3 wings, in under 3 min.... so, I avoid the confrontation always... But, today I manage to surprise both murica CV - a Langley AND a Bogue, just waited until the fighters go away then I ambush them with my 2 wings of TB, on manual launch from close distance. I manage the kill like on thew book, with 30 sec pause between attacks so the flooding was deadly. Anyway, when I return to the base, I found a squad of bombers from Bougue - a "homeless" squad now ... and I was thinking - well, a nice moment for my fighter squad to make some kills - the bombers where returning to the spot where the Bogue was killed. For my deep surprise, my FIGHTER squad, fresh in fight, got literary RAPED by the running bomber wing ! I lost 4 fighters in just a minute ! !!! So, dear friends, I come here to ask you all: IJN fighters are SO BAD, they cant even kill a running squad of bombers and MORE, die like flies on process ??? I confess, this occurrence let me thinking again if the IJN way on CV.s its the right path, atm... I mean, this its a kind of ridiculous...