Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'strategy'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. ZealousStrategist

    Map tactics

    Hello and welcome to this topic I do not know if this topic was already discussed, but even if it was I believe it can't be bad to "refresh" it. The "goal" of this topic is to discuss, share and/or create tactics for the maps that exist currently in game. I would like to start this topic with a tool, that some may be familiar with: https://en.wowstactic.tk - tool for creating tactics on maps I hope that we could potentially even have tactic discussion sessions on this tool if possible. Using this tool we could also "create" scenarios which we can discuss here or elsewhere. The next thing I would like to point out are a few videos that I have found "helpful": https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLslIWpE2CMxSj6Kf7EPZdSLHtQ4q0eNP6-- Now... I have a lot of possible scenarios I would like to discuss, but I would rather "hear" what you the 1 who read all this has to say, so please leave your thoughts/strategies in the comments.
  2. hi sorry i must post it again, there was a problem. results until today, are in picture thx for participaiting.!!! what does it mean combined handling? it is like today + new 3D that means: you cann at any time switch to new 3D , at this time all in map work in automatic mode. automatic mode is there also now. ( airplanes are waiting..or you cann send them to do autoattack) so, when you switch, you are handling only one squadron, and all the rest is going like you leave it. this gives honor to work for developers of today handlig + cherish expierence and skills of players with aircarriers. todays handling give the reality in the battle. but is very dificilt to many players. so for them is the 3D + 3D gives you nice change + with 3D you are "in" so will be also nice for hardcore todays line players:)
  3. xavalex

    Suggestion for Admirals

    Hi, Can I make a suggestion? Create an "Admiral" game type where players could serve as Admiral for the fleet. The other players could select one or another admiral to lead them and have to follow his orders. The Admiral's performance should be clearly visible to all. If a player does not follow orders, he can lose points from his team etc... The Admiral would need to buy a "virtual command ship" position. This might help prevent the "free for all" you see in certain games. Regards.
  4. Hi guys, I am relatively new to WOWS, having around 400 games most of which are in carriers (IJN line). Below i will list the basic lessons I have learned until now and I will invite you to fill in the gaps I have, so that I can improve my CV skills. Not in the order of importance, this is my checklist of a CV game: 1. Setting up the ship (before the game): upgrades, modules, fighters/damage specks, flags, camos, commander skills: mostly to the player's taste - I won't expand this discussion. 2. Positioning (ship): 2.1. Anticipating ally/enemy movements and fights results, and moving the ship accordingly. 2.2. Staying close enough of the fights for shorter flights, but not too close as to get spotted. 2.3. Using islands for hiding. 2.4. Always keeping your allies between you and the enemy and asking for help when a destroyer sneaks in to hunt you. 2.5. Turning the ship so that it shows its back to the landing planes and the front to the taking off ones, so that you minimize the time that these maneuvers require (for skilled players). 2.6. Learning map exploits (borders, corners). 2.7. Predicting enemy CVs sneak attack on your ship and defensive maneuvers against torpedo and dive bombers + "the 15 seconds repair rule" when you burn or flood. 2.8. Almost always move, so if you get spotted you will be less vulnerable. 3. Scouting (fighters but not exclusively): providing info about enemy positions to your team all game long. For advanced players - spot key targets (like destroyers or capping ships). 4. Air superiority (fighters): 4.1. Dominating enemy fighters. 4.2. Defending ally bombers. 4.3. Defending ally ships from bombers. 4.4. Learning Strife (for skilled players). 4.5. Baiting enemy fighters by keeping them occupied while your bombers attack. 4.6. Baiting enemy fighters into ally AA and then engage them. 5. Damage dealing (bombers torpedo/dive): 5.1. Key targets (big, slow, without AA, separated, low hp, capping, reseting cap, focus destroyers, etc). 5.2. Avoiding AA targets (learning AA ships). 5.3. Sneak by exploiting borders - how to get planes outside map borders (sometimes useful). 5.4. Learning attacks basics: torpedo attacks from sides, dive bombers from front or back, giving lead, anticipating target moves, etc 5.5. Learning manual attacks (skills): learning when to manual and when to auto-attack (ex: better to auto-dive-bomb destroyers), torpedo arm distance, learning how to deal with border-hugging targets (close torpedo drop on border). 5.6. Learning "the 15 seconds repair rule" - for perma fire or perma flood - useful both for attack and defense. 5.7. Destroyer (and fast-moving targets) torpedo-hunting maneuvers. 5.8. Baiting AA consumable trigger, then retreating temporarily. 5.9. Learning when to split up your forces and when not to. 6. Communicating with your team: let the know your intentions, comply with their requests, ask for help if needed, etc 7. Other useful tricks and basic game mechanics: 7.1. An "under stress" TB/DB (attacked by fighters or some AA) will be far less accurate (bigger spread) and slower. 7.2. An empty DB is much faster (use it for running or scouting). 7.3. Islands and direction changes will slow down your planes. 7.4. Limited amount of planes - after unloading it's better to drive them manually back to the ship. 7.5. Sometimes the enemy will follow your planes returning to the ship to find you - so confuse them by not driving the planes home in a strait line. 7.5. You can cancel a "take-off" command by right-clicking a plane inside the carrier - useful to change the take-off order inside many-squadrons carriers. 7.6. You can group squadrons together with the key-combination ______ (??? which one? ALT + 7 ?). I don't master by far all I have listed above, but i would like to know what else is there to learn in order to become a better CV player. Ty, Seemann
  5. Introduction Carriers (CV) play an invaluable support and strike role to the main fleet. Carriers well protected by their task force can provide crucial reconnaissance, anti-strike defense, high damage output, and general direction sufficient to turn the tide of an engagement. Carrier aviation is essential to accomplishing these goals and as such flight groups must be deployed deliberately and cautiously. Most guides I have encountered are either short on content or did not adequately explain the details of carrier warfare to my satisfaction. Carrier combat is complex. It demands a high degree of attention to detail, micro-management, and real-time strategy skills. This guide seeks to shed light on these topics. The guide assumes a basic fundamental understanding of carrier controls and is focused on maximizing performance in combat to make carrier play more accessible and enjoyable for newer players struggling with the challenges and learning curve of carrier action.
  6. gekkehenkie50

    Tactical turning?

    So, suppose you're being the tank, leading the push, your team backing you up. You get that glorious charge feeling. Then an enemy battleship pops up. Your fleet scatters, all turning away instantly. What do you do as a BB? Turn broadside and get deleted, or push on, alone, abandoned into the torpedo soup he-rain filled path ahead? This is a problem I experience, have been experiencing ever since ~tier 7. I am now sailing around in Iowa, and I have not found any answer to this problem. I have made multiple posts asking for advice in battleships, but this is the main problem I face in all of them. We are asked to tank, not feed the sniping meta, yet when every ship uses you as a fail safe cover point so they can turn away, what is the point? My question: does anyone know a way to avoid being abandoned when leading the charge, or is this just what battleships have to deal with?
  7. Hello, since I've seen in almost every battle on shards the debate A+B or B+C, I'd like to get an answer to that question. Just for reference, the map in question: Would you go to the closest or furthest cap as team in addition to B? I'd see it the following way: DDs should go to the closest cap. The enemy mostly can't interrupt the cap and the DDs can get out in time. I don't think the fast-cap strategy for DDs has any good alternatives. The main part of the team should go to the furthest cap. Reasons being: Enemies will be isolated due to mountains, while the entire allied team can fire into it Slower enemies will have a hard time to maneouver due to it being cramped within the cap Approach is rather wide and islands can be used as cover if need be Can still retreat in case entire enemy team lemming train'd Can support ships in B while en route Of course the same reasons can be inverted for not going to the closest cap. Arguments for the closest cap I can see are it's proximity and that you "only" have to defend it. But then again, as I said it's hard to effectively defend it unless you want to play sitting duck or sightseeing on 1 or 10-line. Lastly, I hope there aren't any map guides that answer my question (I haven't found any). If there are really none, I'd also like to offer writing a map guide, but I don't have enough experience yet to determine the best starting deployments for each map. Therefor I'd be really grateful if any unicum wants to help me out by advising. Please feel free to send me a PM.
  8. I can't but wonder, now that we get an ARP grind before GNB is even done and with the effects of people just doing f-all in matches is it going to just get worse? With the ARP grind, you do not actually have to win any games you just need to hit and do damage. This alone does not win games. Though for those that do not care about winning at all this will just be one gigantic gankfest, searching for ships to damage even if the cap siren is blaring. Or even if the match timer times out. I honestly wonder who the next couple of months will be...
  9. Hi all, especially the Wargaming game design team! I'm a casual player, but I like that game... I have not too much time to play with WoW, but IMHO there's an annoying deficiency which ruins my short playtime. What if, there would be an Admiral on each side? That Admiral could be anyone, who want's to be, if there's more than one, the game decide on the player stats. Later, the player could collect Admiral stats (then skills like the ship's captain) and the game could choose the ideal Admiral for the game. That Admiral should get some extra controls on the tactical map (M) and could suggest or advice routes, positions, targets to each player. It wouldn't be an automatic control takeover, so the players have the control over their ship, but they could get an variation of a successful tactic from the team Admiral. My experience is, we lose 6 of 10 games because there's no tactics, but everybody moves ahead. Extra: if the players keep their positions and accepts the orders, they could get extra xp, or some kind of rewards. Cheers drootsamar
  10. Hello. My name’s th3freakie and I’ve been playing World of Warships (WoWS) ever since WarGaming allowed us to buy our way into the Closed Beta with a Gremyashchy. I’m not the best of players nor the most experienced, but I’d still like to think of myself as a long-time committed casual. I’m also first and foremost a fan of Strategy Games. The recent announcement of changes to AA, Captain Skills and Carrier Loadouts has caused quite a lot of discussion over the topic of Carrier Gameplay and air power as a game mechanic in WoWS. As someone who first fell in love with this game by playing CVs, I figured I’d share some of my views on the topic, and hopefully nudge the game’s course just a tiny bit closer to perfection. So, in this post I’ll talk about different game philosophies that can be applied to the way CVs are executed, and how I think WG is currently using the wrong one. Which is another way of saying all of you crying over CV being OP or UP are completely and utterly wrong and WG should listen to me and only me. Carriers are special – how? Carriers in WoWS have their own mechanics, camera mode, and set of controls. It’s not hard to understand why. The rise of naval air power was a crucial development in the time period covered by the vehicles in WoWS, and leaving it entirely out would deprive the simulation of elements which were absolutely essential. AA would mean nothing, sheer pure size would be an even greater advantage that it is now, and so would stealth. Making a modern naval warfare game without air power would be a poor experience, so WG had to find a way to make it work. Yet the specificity and of air power made it hard to handle with the basic game mechanics that have been evolving around what was first introduced in World of Tanks. Players couldn’t control only the CV itself, as it wouldn’t have enough impact on the game, but they couldn’t control the individual airplanes either, since they’d have too much of an advantage over everyone else. Unlike in their previous games, WG was now faced with the challenge of using vehicles not as the player character himself, but as tools of the player. So the idea of making CV gameplay an entirely different genre was quite a brilliant one. It solved the Air Power problem in a balanced manner and attracted fans of different genres to the game. This worked on me well enough that my most played class in the beta was precisely CVs (which at start were only available in the USN tech tree). I wasn’t particularly good at it, partially out of noobness and partially out of preference for Air Superiority, but I had fun anyway. Carriers are a problem now – why? Reading the forum, this is easy to answer. Carriers are completely overpowered and, at the same time, are also so broken that they are useless, and also there’s not enough of them around. Simple, right? Now some of this is naturally the age-old issue of Rock complaining about Paper, and some of it is legitimate grievances about specific mechanics and changes, but taking a step back and looking at it with some temporal perspective, we see the arguments against carriers are getting louder and the number of carriers is getting smaller. There are two apparently contradictory trends here that don’t seem to make much sense. I am convinced that they do make sense, though, and have the same root: the conceptual divergence between the Strategy Game Carriers are, and the Action Game developers have been treating it as. Now what are strategy games about? Let’s nick Wikipedia for brevity’s sake: “a video game genre that focuses on skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. It emphasizes strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration.” Does Carrier gameplay fit the bill? You have to plan ahead which airplanes to bring, where you are going to send them and in what order to fly them. You have to choose which targets you’ll attack with your limited and slow-reloading squadrons, and where you’re going to sail your huge and fragile base. So yes, a strategy game indeed. A top-down, old-school 2D RTS with very few units under your control, no resource gathering, unpredictable friendlies and kind of a slow pace, but that’s still a strategy game. Yet the development of Carrier gameplay has been moving away from the Strategy genre, with the introduction of manual torpedo drops, then manual dive bombs, and now manual strafing. This is, of course, following the book of good game developing, giving the players more options, abilities, actions. It shows WG is paying attention and trying to do something about Carriers. It just so happens, unfortunately, that those abilities I mentioned are not characteristic of a Strategy Game, but of an Action Game. Once again stealing from Wikipedia, we’re talking about a genre that “emphasizes physical challenges, including hand–eye coordination and reaction-time.”. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, it is what most of WoWS consists of, after all, but it is a different type of game, requiring different skills and attracting different people or mindsets. The problem here being, Action Game abilities in a Strategy Game run contrary to the natural balance of Strategic decisions, because they make the outcome of decisions based on an extra, mechanical or otherwise physical, test. They do not present choices, since not using them is clearly sub-optimal. They instead present further actions or tests you must complete to get the pre-determined desired effect. What ends up happening is that the game developers have to choose between having a failure to pass the test mean no results at all, rendering the strategy meaningless and without effect, or have failure still produce some results – which then means passing it will be so important as to again overshadow the Strategic decisions. The plain obvious example I’m thinking of, and you’ve all guessed by now, are manual torpedo drops. They make torpedo bombers quite possibly impossible to balance. You can make torpedoes weak, in which case the only way to affect the battle is to ace the manual drop and get 6 hits, meaning only (rare) excellent players will be fulfilling the CV’s role. You can make torpedoes strong, in which case good players will win games by themselves and CV’s will be the only relevant factor. If you try to find a middle-ground, most likely that will only cause you to suffer both problems at once. Yet this is also true of the more recent manual straffing, currently absolutely devastating when done right and absolutely crippling to self when done wrong. It turned the decision about how many fighter squadrons to deploy and where rather meaningless when compared with the mechanical skill at executing straffing properly, which is now the main decisive factor. “That’s exaggerating”, you say. “Aren’t you’re forgetting the strategic element is still there when you decide where and when to use this fantastic/useless abilities”, you retort. “What an excellent and well-groomed beard you have, th3freakie, mind sharing the secret?” you implore. And I say “Maybe, no, and yes”. Maybe it’s exaggeration to say no sort of balance can be achieved, but it is certainly harder and more contentious, and never full. You’ll most likely swing wildly between UP and OP, alternatively dealing with a lack of CVs and having those that do play captained only by amazing god-like players and hard-heads who like playing it even if they don’t play it so well, or dealing instead with an overabundance of CVs, including min-maxing stat-padders who learn to 1-shot a BB every 3 minutes and won’t do anything else. And I’m not forgetting the strategic element – it’s certainly still there in CVs, just as it is in BBs and CAs and DDs when they chose which flank to take, which target to prioritize and whether they’ll cap or chase after the enemy CV. Yet the strategic element is taking second-place to the action element, and that doesn’t work well for CVs. Of course you can just assume Carrier gameplay as an Action game first and Strategy second, but then you’re just left with a weird 2D top-down Action game with weird controls. You might even say that’s what Carriers seem to be heading to. But who’s going to want to play that? Finally, you got to use those minutes right after the morning bath. Your beard and skin will be smooth and wet. I like to first brush it (or comb, I recommend brush) and then apply some beard oil. You apply the oil to your skin first, then spread it indirectly to the skin. Also you’ll be doing yourself a favor by regularly going to a local barber who can do some hot towel razor shaves. It’s good maintenance and feels amazing. So what can be done about it? Now, I don’t have an obvious cure for this. It’s not going to be a nerf to AA here, a buff to torpedo arming distance there or a tweak to chance of starting a fire with dive bombs. The best solution I can put forward is the super generic advice to bring back the Strategy. Scrap manual drops/straffing and give the players choices on how to do things – choices, not mechanical skill checks. What bombs/torpedos/ammo to load? What formation to use? Which combat doctrines to utilize? Which aircraft to send up? How much fuel to put in them (combined with a time limit to be flying)? Maybe even allow players to call reinforcements from outside the map, but at a price. Make the choice between Air Superiority and Sea Attack meaningful by making the former worth something, for example by rewarding spotting and escorting. Then scale damage done, fire chance, flood chance, etc, in accordance to average results. You’ll be able to do so without completely overpowering talented players, but still rewarding good strategists. You might even find that torps and dive bombers need to hit harder. Or, you know, get some actual professional advice and hire someone who knows Strategy games. Why are you even listening to me past the 3rd paragraph? I eagerly await the rotten tomatoes thrown by my fellow CV captains aghast at the suggestion of removing player choices and the rotten thrown by my fellow BB captains shocked at the concept of harder-hitting aircraft.
  11. akagikancolle

    best strategy for Japanese CV

    what is the best strategy for attacking and defending with Japanese Carriers?
  12. In Another thread I started, we discussed the issue of a lack of teamplay in every game mode that exists so far including ranked battles The main issue within the game is the number of casual players who simply aren't interested in it and the scoring system which deters team play This is absolutely fine if you are that type of player however there are a lot of players who want more from the game and are mature enough to realise the benefits of good structured, organised team play. They need a different environment away from the casual gamers to be able to play in this way. So, it was mentioned that WoW is screaming out for a Division/Clan mode and according to the feedback i get in game and the forum thread it would appear its most defintely wanted It is in this thread that I would like to discuss and develop that idea until we have a solid foundation that we can take to the devs and plead with them for it's integration. Here are some of the questions that I can think of, please give me feedback and help me to develop this idea. (This may be a long slog, but if enough folks show interest we may be able to get something done here. To give you some idea of my experience in the game I am currently playing tier 5/6 so am not as experienced as some other players. However my youth ism long past and i am very experienced (13 years +) running a milsim gaming community. So I have a fair grasp on what a "Mission Commander" needs to accomplish organised structured and controlled gameplay I have tried all game modes and have tried very hard to get team work in every match i have played apart from playing as a destroyer, you simply dont have the time then to type in chat. So here are some idea and questions. (I'm not quite sure how the poll system works in these forums, eg Can i create one, then after getting some feedback, create another one ? DIVISION GAME MODE (Feedback or input from the Dev team would also be appreciated) AIM To filter out players who are not willing to coordinate and play as a team To have a scoring system that encourages team work Some questions to get us started How many slots should each side have. What percentage of those slots should be allowed per division How should game balancing be achieved if there is a mismatch with division sizes for either side How should ship balance be done What range of tiers should be allowed How should the reward/score be split/shared What Ingame tools need to be added to improve a commander players ability to control or administer the fleet What polls do we need to get feedback What else, that I havent though of ? To make this easier for you to give feedback, copy n paste the following section into your thread and then it makes it easier to answer the queries or give your Slots per side: Max division Size: Blancing Mismatched Divisions: Ship Balance: Tier range: Scoring: Ingame tools: Polls needed: What else? Here are my thoughts at the moment on the questions I have raised, which are likely to change as this thread develops Slots per side: Not sure, either 2 different sizes, same as ranked and random or somewhere inbetween like 12 per side Max division Size: 100%, will get the best teamplay but logistically should also allow more than one division with a minimum division size of 4 players Mismatched Division Sizes: Not sure, Maybe: 1 x 12 versus 2 x 6 or 1 x 12 2 x 6 versus 3 x 4 All of these mismatch division sizes could lead to some decent varying tactical play Ship Balance: Don't have any thoughts on this yet (Allowing any mixture could create some very interesting gameplay Tier range:Max range of 3 tiers maybe or if that is too much, 2 tiers (Not sure not as experienced as some who are on tier 10, they may know best) Scoring: Team score shared evenly between every player (providing the individuals contribution has achieved a minimal personal score In other words, if the players has stayed at the back and not got stuck in enough, he doesn't take a share of the team score The team score should give you the highest points in the game and the personal score not the main aim of the battle Ingame tools: ​For the "Commander" ability to administer the fleet, for example Ability to define targets per fleet/sub group as is already the case via the F3 key but a more developed version Ability to split the fleet into sub groups (visualised by coloured ship tags on screen) Ability to set waypoints for the entire fleet , sub groups or individual ships Ability to define a sub group commander who can then do all of the above but for his group members only Some way for players in different divisions to interact before they get into battle so they can all join the same comms server (Teamspeak etc) Something like the "Wanting to join a Division meny but with the ability to copy n paste links for teamspeak servers etc Maybe even the devs offering their own temaspeak servers where all Division Mode players can meet up centrally and create these larger all in one divisions Polls needed: No idea yet What else? Nothing yet So please take this seriously and help me try and get something better for those who want it
  13. Hello everyone! I am a former World of Tanks and War Thunder player who has latched onto World of Warships dating back to about 3 months ago. I am really loving the game and I created a YouTube channel to share some of my fun experiences. Feel free to drop in and say hello from time to time. I just put up a video pertaining to the upcoming patch and I would be interested to see everyone's thoughts on it. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJJaSofrJHMcK-yp5ldHT-w/feed
  14. Hey guys! The headline pretty much sums it up already, but I'll go into detail a bit here: Having been into WoWS from the CBT on and still (despite its obvious flaws) still loving the game and its potential, I recently got frustrated by Ranked Battles in a way, I have not been frustrated by a game since Battletoads' stupid racing levels on SNES. *ugh!!!* Let us look at my stats to be more specific. Here are my number of battles next to my win/loss-ratio. -Random Games 1,458 - 56.58% -Ranked Battles 172 - 50.00% The difference is quite obvious, is it? If not, I'll put it in my own words: In Random Battles I don't consider myself to be the most awesome or ambitious player out there, but with a well above average win-rate, I feel confident to say, I usually help my team to win. Ranked Battles feel like quite the opposite to me. I was Rank 5 after a mere 3 days. Over 100 battles later, I managed to be Rank 6 as of today . Including the fact, that one needs less than 50% w/l (because WG grants you a 'free' star every Rank you climb) and the way better stats of the early Ranked-days, I am well under 50% during the last weeks. I am not one of those guys starting to point fingers at others without ever questioning myself. After all, even IF I end up in a team of monkeys, others do too and still rank up. In the long run RNG still means equal chances for everybody, it just screws you occasionally. So it has to be sth about my playstyle. To give an idea, how I tend to play: -Ships: Tirpitz, Fubuki or Mogami. --as Tirp: getting somewhat near to the action, so my teammates get shot less, while stil not going all-in. Also using HE on DDs regularly, because I know how much it sucks for DD players, that scout enemy DDs and NO one shoots them. My job: Kill BBs, threaten or kill CAs and 'tanking' dmg instead of my smaller fellows. --as Fubu: rushing main cap to block or cap. Using stealth to scout enemy DDs or smoke to further block cap or retreating. Also torping cap points/ships. --as Mogami: staying safe, but not hanging too far back, beacuse I understand my main duty to kill DDs. If focus fired, I stop shooting, conceal myself (10,9km spot range) and wait for BBs to focus someone else. As mentioned above, I think my aggressive playstyle is the problem. But playing more passively ends up in our team still losing, with me being in the lower 3rd. Playing as usual in most cases ends up in veeery nice battles and XP, while we still lose the games. (look recent screens of ldefeats) like this or this Even fully focussed in Ranked,My chances of winning are much better in a chilled Random battle, without even having to focus or concentrate. Any ideas, what might be the reason for this? Would appreciate some help or advice. Das Doertliche 17
×