Tone down the AA buff

[Fritzblitzer]

As someone who almost exclusively has played Carriers since CAT I can say without a doubt that AA is now more effective. I'm pretty sure WG increased it a lot, maybe more than they thought was needed, jsut to measure the effects. I can handle it, but I'm completely out of air groups after 15 minutes. If your patrolling fighter group accidentally crosses a single cruiser, it is probably eliminated. If your torp bombers hesitate and makes one more approach (the AI sometimes do that even in open waters, for no reason) it will be eliminated. In short, there is no more room for mistakes with air groups. They need constant micro management to avoid AA. It requires a lot more clicking as a carrier player, and more skill than before. Not sure if it is needed, but I can still sink a few ships every battle. Maybe tone down the AA buff to 50% as suggested(ie still a buff compared to pre-patch but half the buff), or keep it as it is if carriers are statistically overpowered. I never thought they were, though.

[m4inbrain]

 

I dunno, but to continue on the XP debate

 

I have a feeling I get much more XP on DD's for much lower damage then I do get XP on BBs with much higher damage.

 

might just be me, but there seem to be other factors involved then just damage + kills for the XP calculation

 

Of course you get different XP on DDs, BBs and CVs for different stuff. Otherwise it would be quite ridiculous, if you use the "xp per point of damage"-value flat for all classes/roles, you'd either grind to yamato in 20 games (on "DD-xp", since BBs obviously do tons more damage than a DD) or you'd never get above t6 DDs (on BB-xp), since you can't rack up the amount of damage needed.

 

They did the same in WoT btw, where arty gets less XP per damage done (and also, there's a difference between shooting at a target above and below 300m - i just don't know in what direction). 

 

If CVs in general do more damage than a BB but get less XP, then it's not a matter of planes being shot down, too stronk AA or smth - it's simply the XP values being off and in need to be better balanced (although i doubt it, since they still have the same system in WoT). I actually don't think Arty and CVs are really comparable for many of things, but as it is right now, they play the same role. Being far away, not in line of sight/danger of being hit themselves, and delivering huge amounts of hurt if they "get you". Now in WoT, you can hide from arty (relatively) easy. There's also the "problem" of huge inaccuracies. These are two points, which do not count for CVs. You cannot hide from TBs, and they shoot dead accurate (if you miss, then it's because the enemy either dodged or you screwed up the shot - but there's no random component as there is in arty). 

 

I do think CVs add alot of depth into the game, but i disagree with (most) notions of CV players here, talking about CVs being "up" or something, or AA being too stronk. I think it's stupid, and intellectually dishonest, to basically demand BBs being defenseless, so they don't lose so many TBs - making BBs basically unplayable in random battles, since (and i know that from Navyfield, it's worse here) most people don't really care about proper support. 

 

Let's just imagine this: BBs completely loosing AA (or rendering it mostly useless by nerfing it to the ground). What will happen, could some high tiered CV player who is honest enough elaborate what he'd think would happen?

 

edit

 

and they yield a lot more kills.

 

 

Well, that's quite normal considering the "RoF" of carriers. In this case, it's a red herring to look at kills. 

[Grim_Destiny]

 

That is the price the carriers pay for their huge versatility.

 

You cannot have a class in the game that does great damage, everywhere, all the time, can scout any part of the map in a minute, doesn't even risk losing hitpoints while moving around as fast as most cruisers with health pools as big as some battleships'.

 

If plane losses were a real threat to your continued ability to actually take part in the battle, I'd see your point. As it is, plane losses only reduce your ability to farm maximum damage.

 

Well, everyone else is in the same boat. Except everyone else isn't losing planes, everyone else is losing hitpoints, gun turrets and then gets to watch his ship break in two.

 

What you say about carriers is not correct. You have an exaggerated understanding of the aircraft carriers ability.

 

Also- plane losses are a DIRECT threat to the CVs ability to take part in the battle..

 

As someone who almost exclusively has played Carriers since CAT I can say without a doubt that AA is now more effective. I'm pretty sure WG increased it a lot, maybe more than they thought was needed, jsut to measure the effects. I can handle it, but I'm completely out of air groups after 15 minutes. If your patrolling fighter group accidentally crosses a single cruiser, it is probably eliminated. If your torp bombers hesitate and makes one more approach (the AI sometimes do that even in open waters, for no reason) it will be eliminated. In short, there is no more room for mistakes with air groups. They need constant micro management to avoid AA. It requires a lot more clicking as a carrier player, and more skill than before. Not sure if it is needed, but I can still sink a few ships every battle. Maybe tone down the AA buff to 50% as suggested(ie still a buff compared to pre-patch but half the buff), or keep it as it is if carriers are statistically overpowered. I never thought they were, though.

 I can still be effective, but it takes way more effort and in some games it`s just not possible to get any kills and barely any raids because AA is way too tight.

 

People have just been compaining so much about how carriers can kills ships in a single run- not considering how insanely difficult it is to actually line up an attack where a minimum of 8x torps hit the target. Even a slight turn by the target is likely to reduce the amount of torp hits to 4. IF the battleship player is paying attention you can still get some hits if you`re good, but you`re just as likely to miss entirely and that`s a quarter of the gametime wasted. 

 

Divebombers have been useless since the Alpha weekends and TBs are having a very hard time getting their job done- especially on high tier matches.

 

 

[Sharana]

Yes Rambo BBs should be weak and their AA shouldn't save them alone. They need other BB or cruiser to save them from the big damage.

But it's mainly about the tier balance. Langley on tier 4 can attack group of 2-3 Myogi BBs (same tier) and 1shot one of them scorirng 11-12/12 hits, because it won't lose planes. High tiers already lost planes from the AA and their output was reduced, they could only hit badly Rambo BBs without cover. Now those Rambo BBs can defend themself alone by shooting down up to 50% of the planes before they drop. Essex attacking Yamato is complete joke as you have a good chance to lose 75% of the planes before they drop and the rest while they try to get away. 

If you are attacking BB + cruiser and want to drop more then 5-6 torps in the water (even if they all hit that's about 20K of damage) you need to drop them far away, so the planes don't get too close to the AA. If the target is not afk it will easily dodge them.

[Grim_Destiny]

m4inbrain, on 16 April 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

 

Of course you get different XP on DDs, BBs and CVs for different stuff. Otherwise it would be quite ridiculous, if you use the "xp per point of damage"-value flat for all classes/roles, you'd either grind to yamato in 20 games (on "DD-xp", since BBs obviously do tons more damage than a DD) or you'd never get above t6 DDs (on BB-xp), since you can't rack up the amount of damage needed.

 

They did the same in WoT btw, where arty gets less XP per damage done (and also, there's a difference between shooting at a target above and below 300m - i just don't know in what direction). 

 

If CVs in general do more damage than a BB but get less XP, then it's not a matter of planes being shot down, too stronk AA or smth - it's simply the XP values being off and in need to be better balanced (although i doubt it, since they still have the same system in WoT). I actually don't think Arty and CVs are really comparable for many of things, but as it is right now, they play the same role. Being far away, not in line of sight/danger of being hit themselves, and delivering huge amounts of hurt if they "get you". Now in WoT, you can hide from arty (relatively) easy. There's also the "problem" of huge inaccuracies. These are two points, which do not count for CVs. You cannot hide from TBs, and they shoot dead accurate (if you miss, then it's because the enemy either dodged or you screwed up the shot - but there's no random component as there is in arty). 

 

I do think CVs add alot of depth into the game, but i disagree with (most) notions of CV players here, talking about CVs being "up" or something, or AA being too stronk. I think it's stupid, and intellectually dishonest, to basically demand BBs being defenseless, so they don't lose so many TBs - making BBs basically unplayable in random battles, since (and i know that from Navyfield, it's worse here) most people don't really care about proper support. 

 

Let's just imagine this: BBs completely loosing AA (or rendering it mostly useless by nerfing it to the ground). What will happen, could some high tiered CV player who is honest enough elaborate what he'd think would happen?

 

edit

 

 

 

Well, that's quite normal considering the "RoF" of carriers. In this case, it's a red herring to look at kills. 

 

Not stupid at all and certainly not intellectually dishonest- that`s the worst framing i could possibly imagine.

 

Battleships need good AA, but right now it`s too good and high tier BB (Tier 8-10) don`t need to rely on cruisers. 2x BBs driving together will wipe the floor with TBs. They`ll get off a few torps per run, but the carrier will be depleted in no time.

Battleships SHOULD rely on cruiser support for effective AA cover. Cruisers loose half their purpose if their AA umbrella is not necessary.

 

Game should be balanced towards teamplay, forcing players to rely on each other. 

 

In my carrier i`m not impervious. I always move with the biggest group because if I move alone, some destroyer or cruiser will find me and nuke me in no time. The carrier has to rely on it`s team and so do the other ships. Battleship AA should be slightly reduced to force them to cooperate with cruiser players- because that`s actually the purpose of the game.

 

@Sharana

Indeed.

 

I think my Battleship has been sunk by TBs in open water less than 5 times. The other times i got torped because i ran aground. TBs already have a pretty long approach vector that is easy to avoid- if you start the run another 2km out then you`ll never hit anything. It will be like when cruisers just fire torps randomly down a strait with the hope of hitting something. People need to remember that TB torps do less than 50% of the damage done by cruiser and destroyer torps. If hitting stuff is going to be a much more rare occurance, than damage would need to be increased.

 

Amagi has amazing AA and the Yamato is just rediculous.

 

 

double post
 

[m4inbrain]

 

Not stupid at all and certainly not intellectually dishonest- that`s the worst framing i could possibly imagine.

 

Battleships need good AA, but right now it`s too good and high tier BB (Tier 8-10) don`t need to rely on cruisers. 2x BBs driving together will wipe the floor with TBs. They`ll get off a few torps per run, but the carrier will be depleted in no time.

Battleships SHOULD rely on cruiser support for effective AA cover. Cruisers loose half their purpose if their AA umbrella is not necessary.

 

Game should be balanced towards teamplay, forcing players to rely on each other. 

 

In my carrier i`m not impervious. I always move with the biggest group because if I move alone, some destroyer or cruiser will find me and nuke me in no time. The carrier has to rely on it`s team and so do the other ships. Battleship AA should be slightly reduced to force them to cooperate with cruiser players- because that`s actually the purpose of the game.

 

@Sharana

Indeed.

 

I think my Battleship has been sunk by TBs in open water less than 5 times. The other times i got torped because i ran aground. TBs already have a pretty long approach vector that is easy to avoid- if you start the run another 2km out then you`ll never hit anything. It will be like when cruisers just fire torps randomly down a strait with the hope of hitting something. People need to remember that TB torps do less than 50% of the damage done by cruiser and destroyer torps. If hitting stuff is going to be a much more rare occurance, than damage would need to be increased.

 

Amagi has amazing AA and the Yamato is just rediculous.

 

 

 

No. That's the worst thing possible to happen. It's annoying to die because one selfs (if one wants to admit it or not is a different matter) mistakes - it's an entirely different matter if you die because you play with vegetables.

 

You can NOT force teamplay in a game that basically lives on random battles. It simply doesn't work. It doesn't work in World of Tanks, nor in any other game i know off. In a vacuum, yes, i do agree - BBs should rely on CAs for anti air and anti DD cover - but it's simply not what would happen. And that's what i meant with intellectual dishonesty: you know full well that this would never happen. Hell even in Warthunder RBs it doesn't happen, and we're talking actual simulator there, not arcade battles. 

 

That even works two ways, follow this thought: how many BBs were sunk through CVs in WW2 (in actual battle, before pearl harbor gets cited)? If you "demand" that BBs should rely on CAs to be able to survive, why not change carriers so they basically disable enemy BBs, making them an easy target for your own BBs (Bismarck prime example)? Make a carrier rely on BBs to do the damage - basically the same as scouts in WoT (you get a share of damage done to the target you disable)?

 

How many CV people would be okay with that, you reckon?

 

I'm pretty convinced i know the answer to that.

[Seinta]

How well will you enjoy a match if your main role was of a spectator?

 

[m4inbrain]

How well will you enjoy a match if your main role was of a spectator?

 

 

None. How much fun will you have if either A: all your CAs are played by bots or charging right through the middle to a capspot, as a BB?

 

To be clear: it might be that AA needs to be toned down a bit. But to me it actually sounds as if an improvement on plane capacity (slightly more reserve) would already fix the problem without making BBs hit and miss, teamwise.

[Sharana]

 

Bismark was attacked by few biplanes with torpedoes, you better check the Yamato as it's great example, if you don't have own fighters cover just gg.

 

Why do you think BB should be the ultimate ship ingame? CVs are good only against BBs, they are weak against cruisers nad pretty much useless vs DDs (not counting spotting for the team). Now BBs can defende themself alone vs CVs, they can 1-2 shot cruisers, they can evade DDs torpedoes as they are spotted soon and if the DD gets <5km for better chances the secondaries will kill it alone. So to easily kill BB you need another BB only?

 

In the high tiers it was good enough - if you are lonely BB vs good CV you lose up to 70% of your hp. If you have friendly fighters cover or if you have cruiser near you (<5km) you are good defended and the CV should look for another target. Now you can just go rambo style ... because it would be bad if you die because of the bobs team? I'm sure DD feel great with enemy fighter above them and the friendly CV is bob who don't care. 

Now it's perfect for "siemka E-100" players and that's just wrong.

 

 

 

 

[m4inbrain]

Bismark was attacked by few biplanes with torpedoes, you better check the Yamato as it's great example, if you don't have own fighters cover just gg.

 

Why do you think BB should be the ultimate ship ingame? CVs are good only against BBs, they are weak against cruisers nad pretty much useless vs DDs (not counting spotting for the team). Now BBs can defende themself alone vs CVs, they can 1-2 shot cruisers, they can evade DDs torpedoes as they are spotted soon and if the DD get <5km the secondaries will kill it alone. So to easily kill BB you need another BB only?

 

In the high tiers it was good enough - if you are lonely BB vs good CV you lose up to 70% of your hp. If you have friendly fighters cover or if you have cruiser near you (<5km) you are good defended and the CV should look for another target. Now you can just go rambo style ... because it would be bad if you die because of the bobs team? I'm sure DD feel great with enemy fighter above them and the friendly CV is bob who don't care. 

Now it's perfect for "siemka E-100" players and that's just wrong.

 

Bismarck was attacked by biplanes, which led to its destruction by conventional battlefleets. Yamato actually is a good example. Please tell me, how many attacks were flown, and how many hits did it receive - and, what exactly led to its destruction (hint, i do think Divebombers in the game need a buff). I also don't think BBs should be the end of it all (something that the CV actually is at the moment). Problem is, the things actually threatening BBs are not in the game. 

 

Btw, i enjoy playing DD the most. But that doesn't change anything, and while i agree that balancing a game around siemka pls and elo czs is dumb - that's the only way to make the game enjoyable outside of clanbattles for the majority. 

 

PS: since you mentioned it, i do also think that secondary guns have to have their efficiency cut. Not because i die to it (never happened so far), but i can see on the Kongo already how effective they are.

 

Nothing personal m4inbrain but you sount like "siemka E-100" arty hater. Now add the fact thay you have only have Kongo where the AA gets exponentially better from Fuso upwards and you don't have AA cruisers yet as they start from tier 6 upwards. You also play Langley where the AA is just animation as it's not really killing the planes. How can you say what should be lowered and what not when you just haven't seen the tier 8-10 AA compared to tier 8-10 planes with your own eyes?

 

 

First of all, i played arty for the longest time in WoT. So you're pretty off (not the first time). But again, two ways: you sound like artyplayers in <9.0, raping everything on the battlefield and still calling for more (feel free to check my games in WoT, easy enough to confirm). I specifically didn't mention the Langley or lower tiers in general, for a reason. Didn't think that it would that obscure. Apart from that, i have seen BBs on tX, same goes for CVs. Nowadays, you don't need to actually play something to see the gameplay/efficiency of that, especially if the player you're watching is alot better than one self.

 

edit: small sidenote - how many planes were lost in the attack on the Yamato, would you tell us?

 

[Sharana]

 

Bismarck was attacked by biplanes, which led to its destruction by conventional battlefleets. Yamato actually is a good example. Please tell me, how many attacks were flown, and how many hits did it receive - and, what exactly led to its destruction (hint, i do think Divebombers in the game need a buff). I also don't think BBs should be the end of it all (something that the CV actually is at the moment). Problem is, the things actually threatening BBs are not in the game. 

 

Btw, i enjoy playing DD the most. But that doesn't change anything, and while i agree that balancing a game around siemka pls and elo czs is dumb - that's the only way to make the game enjoyable outside of clanbattles for the majority. 

 

PS: since you mentioned it, i do also think that secondary guns have to have their efficiency cut. Not because i die to it (never happened so far), but i can see on the Kongo already how effective they are.

 

Nothing personal m4inbrain but you sount like "siemka E-100" arty hater. Now add the fact thay you have only have Kongo where the AA gets exponentially better from Fuso upwards and you don't have AA cruisers yet as they start from tier 6 upwards. You also play Langley where the AA is just animation as it's not really killing the planes. How can you say what should be lowered and what not when you just haven't seen the tier 8-10 AA compared to tier 8-10 planes with your own eyes?

One more funny fact is that on tier 4 (Langley) you have 12 torpedo bombers with 5900 damage torpedoes (70800 max damage) where ships don't have Aa to shoot them down and don't have anti torpedo belts that reduce the damage from torps. And the tier 4 BB has 45 700 hp. Now let's compare that to tier 10. You have again 12 TBs with 9867 max damage (118404 max damage), but Yamato has 97 200 hp, amazing AA where you will drop max 50% of the torps and when they hit the anti torpedo belt they deal 3 to max 4K damage.

 

So please don't claim such things when you haven't seem them yourself. Your Kongo-Langley battles are far away from the tier 8-10 reality, so you can't judge them.

 

Also the secondaries get much better too, my Amagi secondaris with the module and skills were shooting from 6.5km and they were really effective. Against cruiser my AP salvo will make 20K damage let's say and by the time I realod the secondaries had 150 shots for 11K damage and the cruiser is gone. Also killed so many Sims trying to get close range for torps even when I didn't payed attention to them, I was shooting other BBs...

 

Please tell me, how many attacks were flown, and how many hits did it receive - and, what exactly led to its destruction (hint, i do think Divebombers in the game need a buff). I also don't think BBs should be the end of it all (something that the CV actually is at the moment). 

10 destroyed planes by the whole escort for the Yamato, 1 cruiser and 4 destroyers is just too low.

In WoWs it's about the TBs simply because you need skill to use the manual attack, while DBs are just point and click.

 

Also how can CVs be the ultimate ships when they can only attack BBs and other CVs (on the lower tiers only)? And if they are so OP why are they endangered species in the hight tier battles right now?

 

PS: How can you see something by not playing it? For example there are videos for the Essex on youtube - only the perfect attacks against lower tier BBs before the AA buff. That is the reality?

[m4inbrain]

Since i don't really know what you just did there (took an edit and made it a post?) - i answered that as an edit.

 

Reminder: please do tell me how many planes were lost on the attack of the yamato - the good example (your words) for what happens if a battleship has no air-cover. 

[azakow]

You can NOT force teamplay in a game that basically lives on random battles. It simply doesn't work. It doesn't work in World of Tanks, nor in any other game i know off. In a vacuum, yes, i do agree - BBs should rely on CAs for anti air and anti DD cover - but it's simply not what would happen. And that's what i meant with intellectual dishonesty: you know full well that this would never happen. Hell even in Warthunder RBs it doesn't happen, and we're talking actual simulator there, not arcade battles. 

I disagree!

I've played World in Conflict.

The key element of this game is "rock, sissors, paper" in each team.

Rambos of rock, sissors or paper classes were dead soon.

All players had to devolop their soft skills of teamwork and awareness, in order to succeed in their class for their teams win.

All this in public randoms!

 

Why do you think BB should be the ultimate ship ingame? CVs are good only against BBs, they are weak against cruisers nad pretty much useless vs DDs (not counting spotting for the team). Now BBs can defende themself alone vs CVs, they can 1-2 shot cruisers, they can evade DDs torpedoes as they are spotted soon and if the DD gets <5km for better chances the secondaries will kill it alone. So to easily kill BB you need another BB only?

I am afraid that WG does not intent to create a "rock, sissors, paper" battlefield sea, which would make it more attractive overall.

[Grim_Destiny]

 

Nothing personal m4inbrain but you sount like "siemka E-100" arty hater. Now add the fact thay you have only have Kongo where the AA gets exponentially better from Fuso upwards and you don't have AA cruisers yet as they start from tier 6 upwards. You also play Langley where the AA is just animation as it's not really killing the planes. How can you say what should be lowered and what not when you just haven't seen the tier 8-10 AA compared to tier 8-10 planes with your own eyes?

One more funny fact is that on tier 4 (Langley) you have 12 torpedo bombers with 5900 damage torpedoes (70800 max damage) where ships don't have Aa to shoot them down and don't have anti torpedo belts that reduce the damage from torps. And the tier 4 BB has 45 700 hp. Now let's compare that to tier 10. You have again 12 TBs with 9867 max damage (118404 max damage), but Yamato has 97 200 hp, amazing AA where you will drop max 50% of the torps and when they hit the anti torpedo belt they deal 3 to max 4K damage.

 

So please don't claim such things when you haven't seem them yourself. Your Kongo-Langley battles are far away from the tier 8-10 reality, so you can't judge them.

 

Also the secondaries get much better too, my Amagi secondaris with the module and skills were shooting from 6.5km and they were really effective. Again cruiser my AP salvo will make 20K damage let's say and by the time I realod the secondaries had 150 shots for 11K damage and the cruiser is gone. Also killed so many Sims trying to get close range for torps even when I didn't payed attention to them, I was shooting other BBs...

 

10 destroyed planes by the whole escort for the Yamato, 1 cruiser and 4 destroyers is just too low.

In WoWs it's about the TBs simply because you need skill to use the manual attack, while DBs are just point and click.

 

Also how can CVs be the ultimate ships when they can only attack BBs and other CVs (on the lower tiers only)? And if they are so OP why are they endangered species in the hight tier battles right now?

 

This is something that also annoys me..

 

So many people with strong opinions and when you check their profile you find they have never played a match in the 8-10 range. Also, quite a few people who think carriers are too easy, have never themselves tried them, or only played them on tier 4-5.

 

Matches on tiers 4-6 and 8-10 are almost seperate games. Especially as far as CVs are concerned- different universes all together.

 

 

[m4inbrain]

I disagree!

I've played World in Conflict.

The key element of this game is "rock, sissors, paper" in each team.

Rambos of rock, sissors or paper classes were dead soon.

All players had to devolop their soft skills of teamwork and awareness, in order to succeed in their class for their teams win.

All this in public randoms!

 

I am afraid that WG does not intent to create a "rock, sissors, paper" battlefield sea, which would make it more attractive overall.

 

I'm actually not really aware of that game, but let me ask you then: do you think that this would work here?

 

edit: i can actually answer that question, it wouldn't. Not without a system like league of legends, or something like that where you pick your role before the match. Dedicated roles mean that you have to chose them, not being forced into them (like in World of Conflict, or even stupid things like World of Warcraft). Which actually i'd like to see, but knowing WG for many years now.. no.

 

So many people with strong opinions and when you check their profile you find they have never played a match in the 8-10 range. Also, quite a few people who think carriers are too easy, have never themselves tried them, or only played them on tier 4-5.

 

Guess what. I also have strong opinions on politicians without ever being in a political debate. Yet i have seen political debates, the same way i watch others playing (and those others are alot better than me, so that's actually more valuable). I never said that carriers are too easy though, in fact i stopped playing it because it's too much micromanagement. But that wasn't the topic.

 

 

[Flavio1997]

would you want to balance the aiplanes? make them faster, or really, make them realistick...because is not possible that a f4u corsair go at 146 knots ( 270kms/h). That means: less time in the aa area and more attacks possible , but on the other hand, if you leave for some reasons your planes in their areas they will go down as flyies

[Grim_Destiny]

would you want to balance the aiplanes? make them faster, or really, make them realistick...because is not possible that a f4u corsair go at 146 knots ( 270kms/h). That means: less time in the aa area and more attacks possible , but on the other hand, if you leave for some reasons your planes in their areas they will go down as flyies

 

I would like a lot more realism in speed, agility, maneuvers as well as fuel based range. Fuel extension pods and a slew of other upgrades.

 

Also like would like to see the following:

 

Weather effects - Modifies visibility vs concealment. Carrier operations halted during certain weather conditions. Some weather effects would also make it easier for submarines to move around on surface.

 

Radio Tech Upgrades: Modifies visibility vs concealment. Modifies "Fog of War". Modifies importance of "Picture compilation" among team members Ship, Aircraft and submarines have different radio ranges. Units MUST transmit their Visual Picture or contacts, in order for that information to be available to other players. I.e you can no longer see what other players can see unless they actively relay the information by way of radio. Radio transmissions have 3 settings- "Active" = transmit all the time, "Transmit" = single transmission of current Picture, "Passive" = No transmissions, ONLY reception. "Passive" is likely the most exciting since recon units can transmit information and "Passive" units can move to execute surprise attacks. Essential Tech for Carriers

 

Radio Direction Finders (RDF): Early Tech consituted by "loop antennas" and Upgrades represented by "Bellini-Tosi". RDF means that units can locate the origin of hostile radio traffic. Especially usefull for units operating on "Passive" radio settings and searching for the hostile units.

 

Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR): Modifies visibility vs concealment. Ships from late thirties have the basic RADAR. Later ships receive Upgrade options for "height radars" (air search) as well as simple radar guided main turrets. Plays an important part in "Fog of War", but is also highly relevant for the implementation of submarines and general nighttime operations.

 

Recon Aircraft for carriers: Lack of controllable recons are a pain. At least carriers should have a squadron or two of dedicated recons. That would enable them to hold their fighters back for more important assignments.

 

Greater Control of carrier based Aircraft Equipment and armament: Self explanatory. Would be very Nice to have greater granularity With regards to composition of airgroups.

 

Unfortunately, most people probably want the "arcade" style WoT gameplay rather than more teambased tactical gameplay.

 

 

And i apologize if I`m derailing the thread..

 

@M4inBrain

Sorry, but I have no further comments. I can`t keep up with those arguments and you don`t have experience with high tier games anyway so we`re discussing gameplay from two different universes. Low and high tier gameplay has very little in common.

 

[Fritzblitzer]

After testing some more battles, I am inclined to belive that the AA buff was indeed too much. I have lost entire wings of aircraft just approaching a single cruiser. AA should be a weapon of attrition that weeds out a couple of planes, even half a wing if you plan your attack badly, but NOT an entire wing even before it has dropped its bombs. I mean, dive bombers shot down during approach? They are after all pretty high up and going preeetty fast coming down, bit the AA seems to hit no matter what.

[Sharana]

I mean, dive bombers shot down during approach? They are after all pretty high up and going preeetty fast coming down, bit the AA seems to hit no matter what.

The dive bombers suffer, because of how the AA works. The AA system is pretty much damage per second in certain area and the close AA is pretty good of course. So DBs need to go over the target and they are much longer in the closest AA zone so they die really fast. The attitude doesn't matter.

[Grim_Destiny]

The dive bombers suffer, because of how the AA works. The AA system is pretty much damage per second in certain area and the close AA is pretty good of course. So DBs need to go over the target and they are much longer in the closest AA zone so they die really fast. The attitude doesn't matter.

 

Isn`t this also an engine issue? Seems to me they might not be able to have airplanes operating at different altitudes and use such a mechanic for gameplay purposes...

[OVanBruce]

All I see here is your usual "muh BB, muh Big Guns" crap that has plagued the close beta test since its beginning.

[azakow]

 

Isn`t this also an engine issue? Seems to me they might not be able to have airplanes operating at different altitudes and use such a mechanic for gameplay purposes...

Different altitudes means different plane types.

It is the nature of DB have to dive through a ever stronger becoming AA "fortress" (5km, 3km, 2km).

High altitude bombers may not need to take that dive, but may not be lauched from a CV.

[apokoala]

on the other hand...the mm sometimes gives the enemy team 2 more carriers than you. dieing before firing a shot because 6 waves of torp bombers come at you is just [edited]...they need to increase the standoff distance on deploying torps

[Arakus]

For the Bismarck the slow speed of this Swordfish torpedo planes was a disadvantage as their flak was adjusted to hit faster planes.^^

The didn't shot down a single plane because their flak can't simply hit this to slow planes! ( Statement of a surviving flak men )

 

All the flak simply shot to far ahead so the planes didn't get hurt, the flak of the Bismarck would have wiped out these nasty planes when it would be adjusted for this (non)speed.

 

 

[Seinta]

on the other hand...the mm sometimes gives the enemy team 2 more carriers than you. dieing before firing a shot because 6 waves of torp bombers come at you is just [edited]...they need to increase the standoff distance on deploying torps

 

I had to read this twice.

Carriers are capped to 2 per team, with any setup Carriers are capped to 2 Torpedo squadrons.

2+2=6?