Jump to content
Yaskaraxx

Carriers at present state? - is "catering planes for easy turkey shootings to enemy AA"

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[N3XUS]
Players
993 posts
23,164 battles
...at present state ALL yr planes are shot out of the sky fully automatically by AA far too easily. I am playing Ryujo (VI) + Shokaku (VIII) atm but i stopped playing carriers, you loose yr planes too incredibly fast (even if you play it well). I noticed EVEN T6 ships can shredder all my planes so very fast and so easily. Other ship classes doing far over 35 shoot-down??...and all fully automatically. The damage done by my cv's is so bad (low) that I noticed even my destroyers just doing some gun-shooting (say, 3x salvo) do better damage than my carriers in whole full battle. You REALY feel yourself as kind of "catering planes for turkey shooting" to enemy ships. I have np making other players happy, but i myself also want at least to have some fun, i get none. Absolutely no fun at all. I gave it a true try, but no, this is not playable, at present state that is. Sacrifyce 9x planes in one strike to do some 2K damage??? (= if yr lucky, that is...)...loosing all yr planes in strike?? Come on, be reasonable (my dd's do more damage in 15 secs shootings). Last, "repair of planes"???...i mean you loose planes so incredibly fast due to fully automatic AA. yet, one has to wait sooooo long to get some planes back??? And, even when dropping bombs + rockets the right way I notice so much RNG-misses (often all missing!) while yr 6-9 planes almost all the time get shot out of the skies ALL. No, this is fully unplayable atm. I stop playing the carriers. I will not get rid of them yet, but will be awaiting hot-fixes + fine-tunings (balances) for a while.
 
I am a very optimistic and positive minded player, always,  but now, here, my honest opinion is: no, carriers unplayable and no fun whatsoever to play, is kind of doing hard forced labour whitout getting even some kind of rewards for it: you get nothing out of it, totally nothing. Yeah, you make enemy players happy, but come on, I am also a kind of selfish person/player: I also wanna have some fun/entertainment myself, yeah?
 
At the same time i 100% realize we NEED PLANES in WoWS otherwise we end up having a boring almost full stationary game (= ships hiding behind islands for some 15 minutes same place) and I for one do not like to see such (= battles without planes in it would be too dull, no fun, boring, slow-paced, no "peppers in it" lol). Such stationary play would for sure push me out of playing this game any longer (= when it is too stationary & immense slow paced, without any planes in battle, that is: we need the planes, that is for sure(!!). This game needs more vibrancy (=planes + submarines later on as extra "tricky pepper engredient"), a faster-pace of play and more balance----> means we need the planes, that is for sure, no doubt, they just have to be fine-tuned now, balanced.
 
So, I am not gonna play carriers for time being TILL the next hot-fixes (fine-tunings) arrive. No doubt in my mind WG will succeed balancing it all in near future, they always do great, that is for sure. Those people are simply great and i myself experienced that are from start i went playing this great game, always. So me, I am gonna wait a bit as far as carriers are concerned.:cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[N3XUS]
Players
993 posts
23,164 battles

updating my earlier comment #1: today we had 2nd hotfix with regard to carriers <---> AA-defense...I played some battles and yeah, realy makes playing the Shokaku (VIII) far more pleasant!!! great job done by WG!!! we now are getting there, step-by-step!!! Gameplay for Shokaku (VIII) went far better (= my planes have better play now, don't get shot down in sky instantly any more)) , is now real nice playing it!:cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Players
58 posts
14,960 battles
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 11:02 PM, DeletedUser said:

updating my earlier comment #1: today we had 2nd hotfix with regard to carriers <---> AA-defense...I played some battles and yeah, realy makes playing the Shokaku (VIII) far more pleasant!!! great job done by WG!!! we now are getting there, step-by-step!!! Gameplay for Shokaku (VIII) went far better (= my planes have better play now, don't get shot down in sky instantly any more)) , is now real nice playing it!:cap_like:

pls try T10 ….. huntıng contınue… all planes paper and all flak very strong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_C]
Players
303 posts
8,353 battles
34 minutes ago, nurtacmc said:

pls try T10 ….. huntıng contınue… all planes paper and all flak very strong

They Said that are aware The nerd goes too far but still want to collect enought data for The next hotfix but do not expect a big buff They are somehow content with the actual impact of the cv's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,523 posts
5,766 battles
1 hour ago, Torped1ne said:

They Said that are aware The nerd goes too far but still want to collect enought data for The next hotfix but do not expect a big buff They are somehow content with the actual impact of the cv's

 

Hard to believe. 

 

After 0.8.0 it took only a few days to nerf the CVs into the ground because the whiners were loud enough.

 

Doing reasonable Flak-nerfs now will take ages I’m afraid if ever.

 

I think WG is really spoiling all the hard work they put into the rework with poor balance and stupidly  overbuffed Flak. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JEANS]
Players
345 posts
6,216 battles

Have only been playing the Langley so far and had the "catering planes" feeling today against a Texas. Tried using rockets, torpedoes, bombs but my squad was wiped before I could reach him and with him as last target, what was I supposed to do, he was more or less immune. 

 

I think we are slowly getging there but WG must find some kind of balance at higher tiers and then implement it at lower tiers as well, there are still plenty balance to be done. But getting it rigth at T10 will give them balancing guidelines for lower tiers I hope so they to can be fun and engaging.

 

As it is now I play a farming damage game and am getting bored of CV since it is so much harder getting those 1000+ exp games in T4 CV. 

 

I believe that CV would be better of with single attacks containing more and faster planes and treat then like guided shells, which would equal faster rate of fire the closer the CV is located. Camping CVs getting lower damahe output and aggresive gets faster rate pf planes and more potential damage output. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
82 posts
4,296 battles

Easy fix for the lazy, without touching any mechanic.

Give aircraft at least 5x HP.

You simply can't fight hardened steel with wet tissue.

 

Serious fixes for reasonable people:

Inability to buff ship AA in any way - you got what you've got - same as us.

Triple aircraft HP - We got zero armor, the attached Captain skills are laughable at best.

Historically correct attack patterns and speeds. 

Manual AA control or at least mandatory 4 sector AA instead of 2.

Dual purpose guns only fire at one target at a time.

AA not being able to fire through solid matter.

No Flak bursts for ships without long range AA.

Adjustable altitude and speed. 

The return of rear gunners.

 

French carriers with Entendards, sporting Exocet missiles. :Smile-_tongue: 

 

To get a view of both sides, I took my Minotaur for a few games.

Fully AA, premium consumables, at first.

2 CVs . . keep an eye on the sky, fingers hovering over def AA and smoke.

Turns out, all of this is was unnecessary - I can simply ignore them.

Not a single one ever got into firing range, I slaughtered them without even paying attention.

Ok, lets try a DD with bad AA.

The rockets only tickled and I got most of them, bombs can never hit and the torps are basically mines.

Yes, they spotted me for a short time , so what ?

 

As it is now, planes are similar to shells. Once launched, they are as good as gone.

 

I still got TST V 7.10 on my box - from last year.

All these months of testing, reworking and hotfixing and then THIS ?

What makes it even worse, is that there are zero replies from WG after the last hotfix disaster. 

Wasn't it them, who claimed to take their time and VERY carefully examine everything to avoid further mistakes ?

I reckon they took their time in the local pub and avoided mistakes by not doing too much.

One can't help but wonder if they simply lost interest.

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1 post
244 battles

WG not only destroys the Plane carrier game styl. They have even erased my Tier 4 and 5 carriers....What a surprise when  i see i can only buy my T4 carrier. Now i have to start again saving exp for a T6 carrier because my t5 carrier's exp  have been ereased aswell....
What a DMM joke is that GW?!

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1 post
32 battles

I just deleted my CVN because it's weaponry (eg. planes) were pretty much useless. Dive bombers shot down before getting even remotely close to a battleship and so on.

 

There are lots of posts about super AA vs. paper planes, but the travel time is annoying as well. Getting to a viable target + positioning yourself to have a remote chance of making a succesful attack run takes forever. Any other ship can dish out a lot of damage in the same time frame. And the damage is ridiculously low.

 

This needs a bit more re-re-working??

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COSTS]
Players
32 posts
8,146 battles

I mean , sure carriers struggle alot when uptiered , other than that they are fine , at least the US is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TXG-]
Beta Tester
16 posts
8,801 battles

Initially when I saw how the rework looked I thought 'great! something that appeals to me'.. after the last 2 weeks of trying to play CV's I wonder just how much money they could have saved by not having done anything with CV's.... its a complete mess

 

All that time, money and resources that could have been put into something else has been completely wasted

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PSS]
Players
292 posts
4,047 battles

From my experience, tier 6 and 8 CV looks good in game. Is a nightmare when you need to fight with T10 ships but this is mainly MM problem and many other ships have a similar issue.

 

 

But t10 japan CV looks really bad now. You are forced to use shokaku torpedo planes on your tier 10 CV, because "long spears" are dangerous only Vs afk targets. Almost 1.2km arming distance, slow speed and detectable from the moon... they are like Shimakaze 20km torps - useless.

Right now, "top torpedo CV" has weakest torpedo strike power.

 

Also, there is a big difference in CV planes survivability progress Vs AA progress (for both US and Japan CV)

If you sum your squadron HP  and divide it by average (on the same tier ships) medium range constant AA damage aura, tier 6 and 8 CV get results between 40 and 50.

But tier 10 (both US and jap) has around 20.

This means than Vs same tier ships, tier 10 CV planes have 2 times worse survivability than tier 6 and 8 CV planes.

You can say: but they have better damage, right?

Not really.

Tier 8 US CV has 71% better torpedo damage per strike than tier 6. Also planes are 11% faster and have +100% more HP per squadron.

Tier 10 US CV has only 30% better damage per strike, 5% faster planes and only 23% more HP than tier 8 CV planes.

 

I'm not even comparing planes survivability Vs AA monsters like mino or worchester. I'm talking about ships like DesMoines, Henri etc who are ALWAYS in battle when you play your tier 10 carrier.

 

IMO, is good than tier 10 CV cant farm 200k in every game like before 0.8.0.1 "nerf-fix". But doing 50-60k average damage in tier 10 jap CV seems little too low.

You can see bigger numbers on WWW pages like WoWS Stats&Numbers (75-85k average damage for both tier 10 CV) but remember - these numbers are highly influenced by 300-400k damage games in 0.8.0.

I'm not sure how to check average damage done by carriers post 0.8.0.1 patch but they must be much, much lower.

 

Keep in mind also, than stronger AA on cruisers and battleships means, than CV players will be more focused on hunting DD's.

These ships are separated from the pack, they AA never can be compared with cruisers AA, and rockets are still easiest to use tool in CV arsenal.

CV CAN BE NIGHTMARE for DD players if they can't do anything else :)

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
322 posts
7,315 battles

So i never played cv before rework, thought i would give the ijn line a try before rn cv's appeared, to decide whether or not to bother with cv's at all being fairly motivated to grind rn line. However, being bottom teir in ryujo and shokaku have so far proven to be a waste of 20 minutes, unless of course i could earn the same xp from spotting as from damage, which by the way is not the case.

To play any ship i need to get some kind of gratification, if that is totally absent in a game then something really is wrong.

While i had some decent games top teir we all know the majority of games are mid or bottom teir where applicable. And the strength of aa always reflected that in plane losses.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KLAUS]
Players
35 posts
2,442 battles

Just had another frustrating game in my Lexington. Half of enemies were T10 of course. Did a total of 7000 damage. Couldn't break through or circumfly the high tier ships to get to the T8 ones. A Gearing alone shot down 30 planes playing an AA barrier. Sitting in smoke or not didn't matter for him. That's ridicilous and I stop playing CV for now.

 

Here some comparable numbers from WoWS-Stats:

Ships Damage Old Damage New
Midway 96795 75219
Hakuryu 95003 84868
Lexington 54180 49420
Shokaku 55779 46636
Independence/Ranger 31695 31812
Ryujo 39935 37921

 

You can see, that Midway suffered most, but except for T6 all CV had a damage drop. I think that reducing the number of CV was not such an good idea. It makes balancing very difficult. At same tier they are performing well. Bat put against +T2 they suffer enormous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-BT-]
Players
519 posts
3,401 battles

I like the reworks as it goes. At the same time I wish it didn't happen because I loved old CVs, I liked the multitasking, the dogfights and being at several locations at the time.

 

But what they did gives its share of fun. You're of course much deeper into the action, and now there's something I wanted since I started to play CVs : interaction with AA. The way you play now have an influence on the AA efficiency on your planes. The stupid consumable that caused retarded dispersion doesn't do this anymore. And you can still be potent, even if I'm still quite far of the results I was having with pre-reworked CVs.

 

Ultimatly for now the only real issues are, in my opinion :

 

- Travel time. When you recall a squad and take an other off the travel time is just long and boring. Of course if you're well positionned it's not that long but it's still like 13km at best usually and this is really boring.

- Autopilot. This is so [edited]bad. On some maps like neighbors the autopilot isn't good enough to only get you out of your spawning position. Give us a command to take manual control of our carriers to do some stuff while our planes are on flight.

- Being uptiered is even worse than before. At least before you could still be a good spotter thanks to multiple squads, now you don't even have that advantage. I think CVs are by far the most MM-dependant class and need a +1/-1 only.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
853 battles

What did any intelligent player actually think would happen when you have these reworked CVs with endless planes?

The counter was going to be 'mounting every AA gun you can' and/or 'play AA heavily equipped ships'.

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 3:51 AM, Bogbreath said:

Initially when I saw how the rework looked I thought 'great! something that appeals to me'.. after the last 2 weeks of trying to play CV's I wonder just how much money they could have saved by not having done anything with CV's.... its a complete mess

 

All that time, money and resources that could have been put into something else has been completely wasted

The above quote is worth repeating & it is from a Beta Tester.

It is my firm opinion that the CV rework is the single 'DUMBEST ALTERATION' WG has made, to date, to WoWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JEANS]
Players
345 posts
6,216 battles
On 3/18/2019 at 7:59 PM, antean said:

 reworked CVs with endless planes?

But are the planes endless though?

 

You can only "create" approx 1 plane per type every minute in best case, that would give you base value plus 20 for the whole game, but since you wont "create" any planes for the first minutes for 2 types you can't reach the theoretical maximum number of planes. Have seen some calculations regarding this but can't remember where right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
[NKK]
Beta Tester
1,591 posts
8,634 battles
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 12:02 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:

I think WG is really spoiling all the hard work they put into the rework with poor balance and stupidly  overbuffed Flak. 

 Rework can't be balanced, only make-up. The fail is the entire rework itself.

 

The problem with the flak is that since the game is not well scaled in distances/sizes of the ships, it does not take the correct time since the change of course has been made, until the shooting direction calculates the next viable position and transmits it to the batteries , these are located and open fire, whereupon the immediacy of the fire of flak is too immediate and fast. Not to mention, systematically, too precise.

 

If you reduce the capabilities of the Flak to more real limits, there are ships that will do the same if they shoot or not. If It is not reduced, the ships will be able to shoot down some plane, but others will be black holes.

 

Another problem linked to the bad escalation is that airplanes have lost much of their maneuvering capacity, operating as battleships, not as planes in their turn ratios.
 

Not even the rework contemplates the two most important measures to avoid the AA fire, to fly high, or to fly very low, because the planes are condemned to travel by the perfect height to be reached by all the AA. The torpedo planes cannot make sea-going attacks by reducing their exposure to the large caliber AA and the small caliber that does not have an angle. To the Bombers in a tailspin, they are denied the possibility to attack from height, to make the mincing and to go out by speed thanks to which they have won during the own descent in dive.

 

Without entering that this rework, not going on carrier but on airplanes, removing from the middle any possible management of the own carrier that could have saved the previous system, this gives no more of itself

 

The problems associated with the bad decisions that WG has taken, will continue to strand any possibility of fixing it, until the moment a new rework is done, whether it is focusing in airplanes, but giving real control over them, or it is centered on the carrier, That makes the management of various factors a necessity and control of the squadrons and the attack they do, be it through IA, importing whether the attack route has been the right one to return and gain experience to facilitate their following missions in the game or if  they lose on a mission and the next replacement is from rookie pilots, with a limited supply of planes. And of course, on any mode, giving to the player the control of fighters (direct on one or as another IA air squadron) to fight for the air superiority… main task of a fleet carrier.
 

Maybe if all AA fire is "treat" as real, not as automatic damage, adding diferents heights of flight, rework can be fixed… but this is a new rework, really.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
391 posts
1 hour ago, Timberjac said:

 Rework can't be balanced, only make-up. The fail is the entire rework itself.

 

The problem with the flak is that since the game is not well scaled in distances/sizes of the ships, it does not take the correct time since the change of course has been made, until the shooting direction calculates the next viable position and transmits it to the batteries , these are located and open fire, whereupon the immediacy of the fire of flak is too immediate and fast. Not to mention, systematically, too precise.

 

If you reduce the capabilities of the Flak to more real limits, there are ships that will do the same if they shoot or not. If It is not reduced, the ships will be able to shoot down some plane, but others will be black holes.

 

Another problem linked to the bad escalation is that airplanes have lost much of their maneuvering capacity, operating as battleships, not as planes in their turn ratios.
 

Not even the rework contemplates the two most important measures to avoid the AA fire, to fly high, or to fly very low, because the planes are condemned to travel by the perfect height to be reached by all the AA. The torpedo planes cannot make sea-going attacks by reducing their exposure to the large caliber AA and the small caliber that does not have an angle. To the Bombers in a tailspin, they are denied the possibility to attack from height, to make the mincing and to go out by speed thanks to which they have won during the own descent in dive.

 

Without entering that this rework, not going on carrier but on airplanes, removing from the middle any possible management of the own carrier that could have saved the previous system, this gives no more of itself

 

The problems associated with the bad decisions that WG has taken, will continue to strand any possibility of fixing it, until the moment a new rework is done, whether it is focusing in airplanes, but giving real control over them, or it is centered on the carrier, That makes the management of various factors a necessity and control of the squadrons and the attack they do, be it through IA, importing whether the attack route has been the right one to return and gain experience to facilitate their following missions in the game or if  they lose on a mission and the next replacement is from rookie pilots, with a limited supply of planes. And of course, on any mode, giving to the player the control of fighters (direct on one or as another IA air squadron) to fight for the air superiority… main task of a fleet carrier.
 

Maybe if all AA fire is "treat" as real, not as automatic damage, adding diferents heights of flight, rework can be fixed… but this is a new rework, really.

This. Completely. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Beta Tester
130 posts
7,426 battles

I admit that I haven't played that much of the new carriers. But with my limited experience, and judging by other player's comments, AA balance seems to always have one of several issues (which issue seems to change from patch to patch):

 

1. Universally too strong AA. Even bottom tier ships shred top tier CV planes.

2. Universally too weak AA. Even bottom tier CV can engage top tier ships without losing any planes on first attack, and in general without having to worry about losing planes at all.

3. Bottom tier CVs useless against top tier AA, top tier CVs ignore bottom tier AA completely.

 

1. and 2. are simple enough to fix, but 3. has always made me think. As a thought exercise consider the following question: Why does AA have to beconsiderably better at top tiers, and vice versa, why does AA have to be considerably worse at lover tiers?

 

Sure a simple answer is: because plane HP get's better, but again a question: Why does plane HP have to get better by tier if we would have a situation where AA does not get considerably better?

 

Of course this is an exaggeration for the sake of making a point. But why oh why do we currently have a situation where AA difference between tiers is something like +20% more effect per tier? Because we don't have intermediate tier CVs, CVs constantly face opponents either two tiers higher or two tiers lower. That makes the difference between the worst AA they can face and the best AA they can face absolutely astronomical. I'm completely baffled how WG seems to be absolutely oblivious to this issue. I mean they do often say that AA balance is a work in progress, but have they ever even hinted they recognize the problem of having tier 8 CVs meet ships from tier 6-10. That's FIVE different tiers! How do you balance that if AA has the same made up need to be better every tier? Answer: You don't. Never. It is just not possible if you don't abandon the mantra of "higher tier must be better, higher tier must be better, higher tier must be better".

 

WG needs to realize that AA has absolutely ZERO effect on ship-vs-ship combat, thus AA balance does not have to follow any other balancing. For example a Worchester does not need to have a considerably better AA than a Cleveland. Sure a historical Worchester would probably be better AA ship, but THIS IS A GAME, NOT A HISTORY DOCUMENT. Keep the AA mounts historical but tweak that "Hit probability" stat of AA mounts to make a tier difference much smaller than it is now.

 

If every tier would have almost similar AA, or let's say +5% AA per tier, and plane HP progress would be the same, then what's the harm? No one grinds shiplines because the AA get's better, or CV lines because plane health get's better. Or maybe someone does in the current unbalanced AA situation, but I don't think they would lose the will to progress if this situation would change. Ships still get better armor, armament, new consumables and so on, and CVs get better rockets, bombs and torpedos.

 

And just as an end note to my rant, I'm not saying make every ship almost equal in AA power. I'm saying make every tier almost equal in AA power. Keep the differences between individual ships, but make that average AA on every tier closer to each other. Tier 4 CVs seem to do somewhat alright in AA resilience department, so a good starting point is tier 5 AA (highest tier that tier 4 CVs can face). Keep that as it is right now, and move up from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
829 posts

The "only" counter to planes now are the ships AA/AAA.

Sure the CVs gets the bot fighters....but they are bots.

We can't manually lock our AA on any squads that are incoming, just reinforce an area.

CVs have "unlimited" planes with ofc a penalty for loosing its entire squad. But players already figured out what to do there when uptiered.

Even crossdrops are possible.....which WG wanted to get removed.

So AA is stronger because that's the only real danger to your planes atm. It forces you to actually use tactics to get a sucsessfull attack.

And AA gets stronger at higher tiers cause planes gets more hp.

Not fun to be a tier 8 ship and not being able to dent a tier 10 CV squad attacking u.

U might feel that the CV gameplay is horrible atm, but as a non CV player I feel it to be quite oki.

A smart CV player gets his planes through and hurts me. A bad one looses all his/hers planes.

I got no problem with that, or the fact that u get attacked non stop if u are cought alone.

CVs got made into a herpaderp mode to what it used to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Beta Tester
130 posts
7,426 battles
6 minutes ago, SirAmra said:

And AA gets stronger at higher tiers cause planes gets more hp.

 

 

But why do they need to get more hp? We don't need this vicious cycle of AA get's better because planes get more HP because AA get's better because planes get more HP because AA get's better because planes get more HP...

 

I'm not asking for AA to be useless, and I'm not asking AA to be OP. As far as I'm concerned AA is pretty OK against planes of same tier. But games are not 1 tier only and that is the problem. I'm only at tier 6 top on CVs and already I feel almost useless in tier8 games in any other role than spotting (which should not be a role for a CV anyways because they're far too omnipotent at it). I absolutely dread getting to tier8 in the distant future and having to face tierX AA, with bottom tier planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
829 posts
3 minutes ago, MixuS said:

 

But why do they need to get more hp? We don't need this vicious cycle of AA get's better because planes get more HP because AA get's better because planes get more HP because AA get's better because planes get more HP...

 

I'm not asking for AA to be useless, and I'm not asking AA to be OP. As far as I'm concerned AA is pretty OK against planes of same tier. But games are not 1 tier only and that is the problem. I'm only at tier 6 top on CVs and already I feel almost useless in tier8 games in any other role than spotting (which should not be a role for a CV anyways because they're far too omnipotent at it). I absolutely dread getting to tier8 in the distant future and having to face tierX AA, with bottom tier planes.

Cause that's how the game is built up. Every tier gets stronger.

And a tier 10 should shred a tier 8 squad. And a tier 8 should have trouble against a tier 10 squad.

Why else would u want to progress if u get no benefits from the next tier.

And your tier 6 are strong against tier 5s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Beta Tester
130 posts
7,426 battles
1 minute ago, SirAmra said:

Cause that's how the game is built up. Every tier gets stronger.

And a tier 10 should shred a tier 8 squad. And a tier 8 should have trouble against a tier 10 squad.

Why else would u want to progress if u get no benefits from the next tier.

And your tier 6 are strong against tier 5s.

Ships get better tier by tier in armament, armor, speed, hit points, consumables, available upgrades, ... Do you really need AA to get better too to motivate you to progress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
829 posts
Just now, MixuS said:

Ships get better tier by tier in armament, armor, speed, hit points, consumables, available upgrades, ... Do you really need AA to get better too to motivate you to progress?

No, but higher tiers gets better AA too. You are not supposed to have a field day and easy life against higher tiers.

And my higher tier ships shouldn't have problems with your lower tier CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×