New CVs

[1MajorKoenig]

5 minutes ago, rage1750 said:

My feeling is that WG needs to take a deep breath and admit they made a mistake with CV's.

 

When they have done that consider removing CV's entirely as CV's in this game is trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.

 

 

In reality though I will have more luck finding a Unicorn that poops skittles and whose farts smell of freshly baked bread than any of the above being realised 

 

Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean WG needs to take a deep breath dude 

[Flaming_Bunny]

2 minutes ago, TheBrut3 said:

No, the only reason to do it this way was to make it possible to get WoWs running on consoles. They just f*cked up a great product by doing so. That's also the only feedback I can give: reverse it or just take CV's out completely. If it really was to make super unicums less powerfull there were much better options, like take away the strafe + manual drops.

It won't come on console.
This was expressed several times by Wargaming, the last time being the video released prior to this patch.

 

Best Regards

Me

[rage1750]

6 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean WG needs to take a deep breath dude 

 

Da Comrade Da!

 

Looking at this straw poll I am clearly in the minority in disliking CV's.

 

I will exile myself to nearest gulag.

[Rozzland]

This is a general comment:

 - The CVs are more fun to play now. They are difficult to play, but I guess WG will sort it out.

 - The CAs AA is nerfed catastrophically. For instance: Des Moins and Minotaur have dropped their efficiency far more than the shown value 75% (previously = 100%).  Fewer airplanes are shot down. The damage done to the planes are noted on screen. It shows a large amount, but the planes still fly. The formidable AA-cruises can't even slow an air-attack down any more. The control for selection of enforced AA-sector is worthless and hampering. It takes seconds for the airplanes to switch side, where as the CA's AA is renderd ineffective.

 - DDs suffer severly from the new update. The sheer amount of planes hampers the DD's movements. It is hardly impossible to advance without being spotted. The attack aircraft kills DD even in smoke. The rocket attacks doesn't need to be precise. A general aim in the smoke will do the job and the DD will sink. Few DDs, if any, have any AA-effiency. 

 

[Horin728]

Ok I have been playing the new CVs for 2 days now...

 

They are boring, unengaging and induce motion sickness in me...

 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

29 minutes ago, rage1750 said:

 

Da Comrade Da!

 

Looking at this straw poll I am clearly in the minority in disliking CV's.

 

I will exile myself to nearest gulag.

 

A poll of what? 200 frustrated players out of how many...? Yeeeaaaa sure dude.

 

Take a deep breath, take a chill-pill (have done that myself - works) and if you are a good sport - give the new one a try. Maybe you even come to like it once the first frustration is gone 

[puxflacet]

following my previous note about spotting - which is absolutely top prioriy and has to be resolved soon...

 

here's another one:

You just can not remove the CV countering CV aspect of the gameplay, because all the pressure is shifted on the team and that's already pretty noticable. And this role can not be satisfyingly replaced with circling bots. Because when your AA is engaging and you have to manoeuvre it occupies already most of your concentration. There has to be way to stop the planes before they reach your team or at least discourage them to do so.

 

My proposal:

 

Give all strike planes old strafing ablity. 

 

• rocket planes will have biggest damage output in strafing other planes but will have low output from their rockets against ships + will have "drop fighter" consumable which will literaly strip 1 or 2 planes from the squadron and leave them in the area circling 
• bombers and torp planes will be weaker in strafing depending on some balacing tweaks

 

[Timberjac]

22 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

A poll of what? 200 frustrated players out of how many...? Yeeeaaaa sure dude.

 

Take a deep breath, take a chill-pill (have done that myself - works) and if you are a good sport - give the new one a try. Maybe you one to like it once the first frustration is gone 

Then, if 200 player that vote against new "pro-console mode" are "frustrated players", maybe, the 16 that enjoy with it are "idiots" do not understand why a CV is a ship, not a plane, and they will feel better on WoWps than WoWs.

 

There a lots of points to say that rework is a crap. From point of view of a carrier,  that is nearly a total error. From point of view from use air decks, that is a group of big mistakes that just begin for not set diferents fligth altitudes Only a fool, can be happy with dive bombers climbing just before to do a dive bombing, first beacouse that expose the planes to AA fire, second beacouse on that climbing they are ducks to the AA, for dont say, that in this patetic mode, planes have turn ratios of ships. Someone is too stupid to do a torpedo run, reléase torps and then go across the enemy AA fire to the midle of enemy fleet?. Since distances scales from this game are really wrong compared with the size of the ships, every aspect of new rework is sinking.

[Kuritaclan]

@wargaming

 

Just a thing i advise you to do.

 

After the patch release you should schedule a first tweak patch round not longer than one week later to get rid of some of the most obnoxious imbalances AAwise and so on.

Also let the respec for captain skills and module exchange without cost open as long as this alpha status of the game is in effect plus a bit of time thereafter.

 

Can we at least agree on this as long as you force your player base into this Open Test Phase. It sure isn't a game anymore as of now.

[avenger121]

Here is my tldr on things:

 

- skyaids is still OP compared to other ships

- skyaids is even more annoying

[Cosimo_Botejara]

WG think tank:

-"We had a powerfull tool, the CVs, that are demanding and a bit boring but in the hands of very good players unbalance the matches. What could be done?

- Instead of be manned as the capital and powerfull ship they were, man the CVs like planes, and deliver small amount of damage but in a continuous way. Rework AA because with former mechanics no single plane would fly enough to attack, and try.

- Done. But testers detected the patch is not working as intented.

- No problem. Launch the rework and solve that problems on route."

 

Real CVs are demanding, and well served, unbalance the sea power. If WG did not want such a tool in their game, they better should have removed CVs from play, better than convert them in aliens wich use is completly unreal.

[1MajorKoenig]

6 minutes ago, Timberjac said:

Then, if 200 player that vote against new "pro-console mode" are "frustrated players", maybe, the 16 that enjoy with it are "idiots" do not understand why a CV is a ship, not a plane, and they will feel better on WoWps than WoWs.

 

There a lots of points to say that rework is a crap. From point of view of a carrier,  that is nearly a total error. From point of view from use air decks, that is a group of big mistakes that just begin for not set diferents fligth altitudes Only a fool, can be happy with dive bombers climbing just before to do a dive bombing, first beacouse that expose the planes to AA fire, second beacouse on that climbing they are ducks to the AA, for dont say, that in this patetic mode, planes have turn ratios of ships. Someone is too stupid to do a torpedo run, reléase torps and then go across the enemy AA fire to the midle of enemy fleet?. Since distances scales from this game are really wrong compared with the size of the ships, every aspect of new rework is sinking.

 

You are of course free to dislike the rework but the point is: WG will need to measure how many people play CVs going forward. That’s what is important. And I am sure some people will dislike the changes system even if it will be successful. I guess that’s life 

 

However saying “the new system” has nothing to do with carriers is absurd. It is as good of a CV model as the old one. Just different.

 

If you would really look at it from a “sense”-perspective the old RTS model makes much less sense actually. How did CVs work at that time? Prepare one huge strike wave put up a small CAP and give the bombers a direction and priorities for the strike. That’s about it. Sounds exiting?

 

Anyway - Micromaniging small squadrons constantly is a totally contradiction to how CVs actually worked. 

[__Tommy]

I have play ship game not airgame  here play adult gamer not kids now 90% people my team have go out with this game is craizy fail aktualise....... 

 

[Timberjac]

2 hours ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

Heck, even removing the manual drop and strafing ability from the old RTS Carrier gameplay would actually solve a lot of the issues with players having too much direct control over the warplanes performance and damage, and it would also solve the issues with too great skill differences between opposing carrier players. I think this would be a lot better than the current rework! But obviously, it wouldn't be solving any other issues with the carrier RTS gameplay, like for instance AA being too strong on high tiers.

The strafing was another error from WG. A strafing can be done against a ground target or a ship (it have sense if they set it as a attack to reduce the value of AA from attaked ship for do more easy the work of the bombers and torpedo runners... Never on air, and of course, never destroying air groups, beacouse that quit the importance of rear gunners.

 

The real solution was set diferent loadouts to air squadrons and resert part of the time on preparation when player do a change of loadout or even, set wind directions and the player must set their CV to send and recover the planes, leaving less time to do attacks and really close the CV real operations to game.

 

But, WG, choose wrong again and again.

[Timberjac]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

You are of course free to dislike the rework but the point is: WG will need to measure how many people play CVs going forward. That’s what is important. And I am sure some people will dislike the changes system even if it will be successful. I guess that’s life 

 

However saying “the new system” has nothing to do with carriers is absurd. It is as good of a CV model as the old one. Just different.

 

If you would really look at it from a “sense”-perspective the old RTS model makes much less sense actually. How did CVs work at that time? Prepare one huge strike wave put up a small CAP and give the bombers a direction and priorities for the strike. That’s about it. Sounds exiting?

 

Anyway - Micromaniging small squadrons constantly is a totally contradiction to how CVs actually worked. 

You can launch planes from a CV or from off map… on this mode, that no make diference (if CV isn't sunk of course). CV are only re-spawn points.

 

That "rework" no is going about CV. Old system had bad points. The new system is a bad point from A to Z.

 

And not... CV isn't working now… if you think that, you no have any idea about CV on the WWII. Sorry, someone must say that. Only think on Midway battle with this crappy mode game, and if you think a bit, you will see your big mistake.

[Pegasus2022]

14 hours ago, Beastofwar said:

 

That isn't right......returning warplanes with ammo left regularly attacked shipping but also Destroyers, surfaced Submarines and even Cruisers  by making strafing passes on them. Not only fighters and attackers, even medium and sometimes heavy bombers did this.  Some  heavy bombers were marine patrol bombers made specially suited for this. Strafing will often not sink the ship, but wreck deck mounted machinery and kill a lot of deck personell. Often enough to send it back for repairs and refit thus taking it out of action for some time. Also if you play aircraft games you will have noticed there were quite some amount of landbased specialized cannon armed attack planes meant to sink ships. These regularly attacked DD's and torpedo boats they stumbled upon, notably often around small islands. The "other" game build their gameplay around that.

 

If you want historical accuracy, prepare for machinegun and cannon strafing by aircraft, aswell as them dropping sea mines. Several large ships were attacked by heavy bomber formations...wanna see them in game ? I will not even begin about primitive guided anti ship missiles and bombs. That have actually sunk ships in WWII. The Roma was sunk by a Fritz X....

 

 

 

 

 

If you want true accuracy, near misses from bombs would be just as dangerous as actual hits.

WG could remove rocket planes and replace them with fighters that can strafe ships accurately.

 

This would probably be a better anti DD weapon, It cant sink them but it can damage their modules a lot.

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, Timberjac said:

The strafing was another error from WG. A strafing can be done against a ground target or a ship (it have sense if they set it as a attack to reduce the value of AA from attaked ship for do more easy the work of the bombers and torpedo runners... Never on air, and of course, never destroying air groups, beacouse that quit the importance of rear gunners.

 

The real solution was set diferent loadouts to air squadrons and resert part of the time on preparation when player do a change of loadout or even, set wind directions and the player must set their CV to send and recover the planes, leaving less time to do attacks and really close the CV real operations to game.

 

But, WG, choose wrong again and again.

 

Strafing was a try to overcome the stale “fighters lock up each other” situation which was incredibly dull. But you are right that “strafing” has literally nothing to do with air-to-air combat and is another stupid an non-sensical element in the old RTS model. Problem was more that the model itself wasn’t good enough to simulate proper air battles either - hence this dirty workaround. Which in turn created new problems. 

 

I like your “manual changing loadouts during battles at the costs of a reload time” VERY much. Just have a look at what happened at the battle of midway. That would give players a reasonable tactical option.

 

This would even work with the reworked system!

[1MajorKoenig]

11 minutes ago, Timberjac said:

You can launch planes from a CV or from off map… on this mode, that no make diference (if CV isn't sunk of course). CV are only re-spawn points.

 

That "rework" no is going about CV. Old system had bad points. The new system is a bad point from A to Z.

 

And not... CV isn't working now… if you think that, you no have any idea about CV on the WWII. Sorry, someone must say that. Only think on Midway battle with this crappy mode game, and if you think a bit, you will see your big mistake.

Didn’t claim the new one simulates actual CV battles.

 

But the RTS one literally has nothing to do with actual CV battles. Less than zero 

[Timberjac]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Strafing was a try to overcome the stale “fighters lock up each other” situation which was incredibly dull. But you are right that “strafing” has literally nothing to do with air-to-air combat and is another stupid an non-sensical element in the old RTS model. Problem was more that the model itself wasn’t good enough to simulate proper air battles either - hence this dirty workaround. Which in turn created new problems. 

 

I like your “manual changing loadouts during battles at the costs of a reload time” VERY much. Just have a look at what happened at the battle of midway. That would give players a reasonable tactical option.

 

This would even work with the reworked system!

 

With only a single squadron on air, with no real control of fighter squadron… no... in this rework dont work, only if you can have several groups on fight and you can use your fighters to win air superiority (that is the first goal of a carrier, that in the new mode can't be, CW now lack of their real spirit to be.

[Hauptbahnhof]

2 hours ago, Panocek said:

Midway could swap models on her strike aircraft - in real life BTD Destroyer was replaced by AD Skyraiders while in game its other way around.

 

Though list of "historical inaccuracies" is longer

-IJN using rockets - just give them small HE bombs with high accuracy and instant dive animation, used in Graf Zeppelin

-USN tier 10 attack aircraft, F8F are overloaded with rockets to the point they clip through each other - historically they could carry 4 HVARs/2 Tiny Tims at best. So replacing model with F4F4 Corsairs, 8 HVAR/2TinyTim. BUT, that it payload tier 8 Lexington already have, so either increase damage OR make Midway Corsairs much more accurate to be more reliable damage dealers

-B7A potentially unfit for Shokaku class due to plane length being longer than elevator well allows, so replacing them with B6N, while stock aircraft use B5N

 

 

Yeah, and let's not forget that the whole thought of the Japanese using AP bombs on their dive-bombers is pretty ludicrous, considering they NEVER developed an Armor Piercing bomb for use by their divebombers during the entire war...

 

Their D3A Divebombers could carry a 250kg General Purpose (HE) bomb, while the D4Y could use either two of these or a single 500kg HE bomb. Their main role was to attack aircraft Carriers or smaller ships without heavy deck armor while the Battleships would be left to their Attack Planes ( which is what the Japanese called their Torpedo Bombers ).

 

The only type of AP bomb to be used by the Japanese against ships was a modified 16" Battleship shell dropped in level bombing style by their B5N Torpedo Bombers during Pearl harbor ( which would be a pretty cool thing ingame too tbh ), famously detonating in the USS Arizonas Magazine.

 

 

Here is a good readup on Japanese and American bombs used during WW2 in the Pacific:
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/o/Bombs.htm

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, Timberjac said:

 

With only a single squadron on air, with no real control of fighter squadron… no... in this rework dont work, only if you can have several groups on fight and you can use your fighters to win air superiority (that is the first goal of a carrier, that in the new mode can't be, CW now lack of their real spirit to be.

 

Well fighters is certainly an element I dislike about the new system. I think the CAP part is reasonable but I don’t like the rest.

 

Do you have a suggestion for fighters in the reworked system?

[Timberjac]

Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

Didn’t claim the new one simulates actual CV battles.

 

But the RTS one literally has nothing to do with actual CV battles. Less than zero 

It had more with CV ops than new system. 

 

New system is a big and real mistake. That only will help to World of Warships Leyends no to our WoWs on PC.

 

On four years on future, this mode will be eliminated, or maybe the loss will be carriers (remove from game) or even game itself

[avrahams1]

CVs are as broken OP as ever.

 

I can tell 2 personal experiences I had that I think show how broken and literally uncounterable they are.

 

1. Me in a full health, untouched Zao - CV sends torp squad, ignores my DFAA, killed me from 100% to 0 in less than a minute.

 

2. Me in Musashi - I do what everyone says I should, I'm positioned 4KM from a friendly Woorster, CV literally sends hordes of torp bombers after me, eventually I die to the constant damage.

 

Basically - you have a class that's borderline invincible, with literally infinite amount of striking power.

So the Woorster shot down 2 squads, who cares? the guy has infinite squads to send after me till he gets me.

 

[edited]broken.

[HMS_Inexplicable]

Dear WG

 

we have failed to heed the  Union of DD Captains  request to cease and desist.

DDs are being unfairly and repeatedly attacked by CVs without provocation or recall to any effective countermeasures.

The small (guy) health pool DDs are will no longer tolerate being picked upon by larger (guy) health pool CVs against whom they cannot retaliate against.

 

DD captains may be provoked ultimately to a class action for reduction of WoW gameplay enjoyment (joking!)

 

Please, please, please, stop the DD suffering.

 

my face is laughing, but in my DD heart I am crying....

 

 

 

[Migantium_Mashum]

AA rework...

 

Scenario 1: Total Fail.

 

I have 2 squadrons of aircraft coming in to my area.

In the 2 squadrons of aircraft coming in we have one squadron of fighters and one squadron of torpedo bombers......... as the torpedo bombers are the ones that will sink me I want to target them first..

 

Your rework does not allow me to target the most lethal planes first...

 

SUX, DUMB oh look DEAD!!!...

 

I will not shift to play the CV and until you sort out this pile of rubbish I will not spend another penny on this game....

...........................