General CV related discussions.

[Lootboxer]

Apparently one does not need to launch any planes except auto spamming fighters, to do well in CVs with superunicum level WR.

Just had him in game, not a single plane launched, first line going forward and spotting with his hull, still won most games

Just look at average spotting damage vs damage dealt - 0.

Tried to explain to him but no answer at all.

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

Apparently one does not need to launch any planes except auto spamming fighters, to do well in CVs with superunicum level WR.

Just had him in game, not a single plane launched, first line going forward and spotting with his hull, still won most games

Just look at average spotting damage vs damage dealt - 0.

Tried to explain to him but no answer at all.

CV too op :3

[159Hunter]

38 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

CV too op :3

Learning at last are we

[Thorsvald]

Proposal on rework:

 

- Get CV's (+1,+2) MM spread. -> To avoid OPness in special at low tiers.

- Make his HP pool to be reduced as planes are getting down. -> To avoid plane spam and to avoid that CV is the last ship remaining with entire HP pool and still being able to defend himself. To make cvs to trade life in every attack.

 

Just a simple way to fix a broken mechanic

 

[Pikkozoikum]

17 hours ago, Thorsvald said:

Proposal on rework:

 

- Get CV's (+1,+2) MM spread. -> To avoid OPness in special at low tiers.

- Make his HP pool to be reduced as planes are getting down. -> To avoid plane spam and to avoid that CV is the last ship remaining with entire HP pool and still being able to defend himself. To make cvs to trade life in every attack.

 

Just a simple way to fix a broken mechanic

 

I don't think that this works. Especially that in combination. Always bottom tiered and with facing stronger AA, this casuses also dmg on the Ship?

CVs would be mostly dead in the first 5 Minutes and the skill gap increases. Bad players lose more planes, and then the good player will CV snipe a heavy damaged CV ^^

I don't mind even tiered matches as CV, reducing it to bottom tier would be annoying.

Te mechanic of losing HP when planes get shot, makes no sense. That would be even more punishable, then playing a surface ship vs surface ship. The cont. dps always cause dmg, that is not avoidable. So there is no real trade, the CV always loses HP. It's like playing BB vs Cruiser, and just because the BB is in firing range, the cruiser takes dmg for every shot he does, without having the BB shooting. It's automated system vs manual system.

 

If it should be more even with the surface ship, then we have to make the AA completly manual, just like shooting other ships. But then it would be unfair, as soon people start to group, because it would be always a many vs one. That means the MM has to be chagend, that more often 2 or 3 CVs are on each side. So it can be 3 ships vs 1 CV, where the CV would have no Chance against manual AA, but it could be also that 3 CVs pick one isolated target, where the single Target won't have any Chance to kill all planes.

[UnderDuress]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

CVs would be mostly dead in the first 5 Minutes and the skill gap increases.

A player that charges into the enemy team in the first 5 mins should die shouldn’t they?

[HidesHisFace]

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If it should be more even with the surface ship, then we have to make the AA completly manual, just like shooting other ships. But then it would be unfair, as soon people start to group, because it would be always a many vs one. That means the MM has to be chagend, that more often 2 or 3 CVs are on each side. So it can be 3 ships vs 1 CV, where the CV would have no Chance against manual AA, but it could be also that 3 CVs pick one isolated target, where the single Target won't have any Chance to kill all planes.

 

Still, there is a problem of a CV not getting exhausted as other ships - unless the CV player spams the planes mindlessly - they never run out of planes, they remain exactly as effective as in the beginning of the match. Meanwhile, other ships lose HP and suffer permanent damage to AA emplacements.

 

Also - this is the only class that is not really punished for mindless early rush - striking lower tier ship for ~20% HP or hounding enemy DD with complete and utter impunity - they can do this unpunished. 

Any other ship trying to rush is going to end up dead - carrier does not suffer this kind of risk.

 

Now, this is not AS bad as with artillery in WoT, as there is a counter play to carriers - the thing is - the counter play at this point is effectively relying on damage over time bubble and press of a button against what is effectively a skill shot. In situations like this - skill-shot wins pretty much by default. On top of that, on plenty of ships AA isn't worth much to begin with.

AA should be a "skillshot" type of ability as well - current iteration with defensive sectors is not effective at all unless the ship in question has excessive AA to begin with.

 

There are some way to deal with this, I think - a way to limit the early strike capability could be by addition of scout planes for a CV (or perhaps a proper fighter squadron could return?), or lower size squadron on the first launch. On top of that - the exhaustion of planes should be the real thing again - perhaps highers tier aircraft should be a limited resource? As in - if they are destroyed completely, they are lost for this battle, with slower replenishment of said squadrons while heavily depleted after attack? This would force more careful gameplay and punish reckless attacks that would kill any other ship. On the other hand - it would not leave a CV completely disarmed after unlucky attacks either.

[UnterSeeBot]

I blame Rework CVs for bringing on my personality disorder

or maybe my attachment to both Graf Zeppelin and Asashio is a symptom, rather than the cause?

Spoiler

Much as I disapprove of the CV Rework, there is a hard counter to them, 3 DWT torps in this example. But it does require the enemy CV neglect to scout a flank, (an enemy Asashio should always be a priority target for a CV,) for the enemy team to possess no radar coverage of map edge, and for the enemy CV player to be inefficient at dealing damage to dds. (The enemy CV didn't do badly once I was spotted, but most of the dmg dealt to me by the CV was after I sank it, while I was being an idiot in chatting congratulating myself)

 

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, HidesHisFace said:

 

Still, there is a problem of a CV not getting exhausted as other ships - unless the CV player spams the planes mindlessly - they never run out of planes, they remain exactly as effective as in the beginning of the match. Meanwhile, other ships lose HP and suffer permanent damage to AA emplacements.

 

Also - this is the only class that is not really punished for mindless early rush - striking lower tier ship for ~20% HP or hounding enemy DD with complete and utter impunity - they can do this unpunished. 

Any other ship trying to rush is going to end up dead - carrier does not suffer this kind of risk.

 

Now, this is not AS bad as with artillery in WoT, as there is a counter play to carriers - the thing is - the counter play at this point is effectively relying on damage over time bubble and press of a button against what is effectively a skill shot. In situations like this - skill-shot wins pretty much by default. On top of that, on plenty of ships AA isn't worth much to begin with.

AA should be a "skillshot" type of ability as well - current iteration with defensive sectors is not effective at all unless the ship in question has excessive AA to begin with.

 

There are some way to deal with this, I think - a way to limit the early strike capability could be by addition of scout planes for a CV (or perhaps a proper fighter squadron could return?), or lower size squadron on the first launch. On top of that - the exhaustion of planes should be the real thing again - perhaps highers tier aircraft should be a limited resource? As in - if they are destroyed completely, they are lost for this battle, with slower replenishment of said squadrons while heavily depleted after attack? This would force more careful gameplay and punish reckless attacks that would kill any other ship. On the other hand - it would not leave a CV completely disarmed after unlucky attacks either.

I just think that we can'T say "My ship has disadvantage x, so every ship should have that disadvantage". The CV has different mechanics, just adding the same disadvantages to the CV makes not much sense imo.

It's like I play a Roleplaygame like World of Warcraft and say "My warrior can't heal, but the paladin can, so please remove healing from paladin".

 

The think is, while the CV stays in safe range mostly, his attacks can be weaken passively. It's like a BB is shooting a weak-aa ship and the weak-aa ship is shooting down 1 of 12 Shells. Then the weak-aa ships moves towards a Wooster and a Halland and 9 of the 12 shells each savlo get shot. So, if we add surface ships mechanics to the CV, why not adding CV mechanics to the surface ships? I think that is the wrong approach... xD

 

I think the manual AA could change a lot, but that's not wished. Good surface ship players would become very strong against CVs, while weak surface ship player become even weaker. Automated systems decrease skill gap

 

2 hours ago, UnderDuress said:

A player that charges into the enemy team in the first 5 mins should die shouldn’t they?

Sure, but there is the difference of automated AA and people, who actually have to aim. I can rush into a bad situation and still get out, by luck, coincendence or what ever. That's not possible by ticking AA, once I'm in, I will continously get dmg. It's a different approach. It's more like "You use your weapons ,then yo get dmg passivly"

While ships can use the guns and take 0 dmg, the AA is not avoidable (cont. dps). I see that as an unlogically system. The only way to make it logically is, if the flak explosion hit, that those deal direct dmg to the CV, but not the cont. dps.

 

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If it should be more even with the surface ship, then we have to make the AA completly manual, just like shooting other ships. But then it would be unfair, as soon people start to group, because it would be always a many vs one. That means the MM has to be chagend, that more often 2 or 3 CVs are on each side. So it can be 3 ships vs 1 CV, where the CV would have no Chance against manual AA, but it could be also that 3 CVs pick one isolated target, where the single Target won't have any Chance to kill all planes.

Really. Multiple ships focusing down 1 seems unfair to carrier flight groups? What is it with carrier players that makes them feel so entitled to being protected from other players, including other carriers?

 

So tell me, what is 'fair' about a surface ship being attacked and spotted by a carrier flight group AND targetted by 3 to 5 enemy ships because of that spot? 

[Pikkozoikum]

2 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Really. Multiple ships focusing down 1 seems unfair to carrier flight groups? What is it with carrier players that makes them feel so entitled to being protected from other players, including other carriers?

 

So tell me, what is 'fair' about a surface ship being attacked and spotted by a carrier flight group AND targetted by 3 to 5 enemy ships because of that spot? 

Get the context :P

 

It would be unfair by default, because it's like 12 ships can fight one CV with manual AA

 

In your case, it's not fair, because it's many vs one. Doesn't matter if the carrier is the spotter, or a DD ;)

But t could be also many vs many in the same scenario, when they just group. That is something that can't happen with CV, the CV is always alone. And the context is, if you make the interaction between CV and surface more even, which means the CV needs to fight manually, and the surface ship has to fight manually (no automated AA), than the whole situation have to be also more even, that means many CVs can fight a single ship, or many ships can fight a single CV

 

For example.

1. There is a cruiser with somehow decent AA. CV attacks, the Cruiser is a good player, uses his manual AA smart and rips all his planes.

2. Same surface player, but now combined with 2 other ships. No chance for the CV.

 

The CV will be almost always losing if it's more skill related, because of manual aa. The CV will have to fight against good players, but also against multiple players. If it's skill related, it's always, every game uneven.

The CV will lose in case of better players and against more players. But he never can be on the "outnumbering" side, because he is the only Air-target. Other surface ships are not relevant for AA

 

Surface ships have different match ups, it can be unfair like 5vs1, but it also can be 5vs5.  So if it's more skill based, then the CV need similar match ups like 1vs3, 3vs1 or 3vs3

[El2aZeR]

19 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The CV will be almost always losing if it's more skill related, because of manual aa.

 

Or the CV could simply not fly in a straight line and make the squad a harder target, making it a competition of skill rather than the completely one-sided PvE interaction we have now.

Every other class is also at a disadvantage when fighting multiple enemies at once. Why should it be any different for CVs? Perhaps they should simply have to look for isolated targets then rather than being able to simply dive into groups, deal critical damage and get out with negligible losses as it is now.

And guess what, since AA is assumed to be manual one can in fact outnumber the enemy simply by attacking enemies that are occupied dealing with other friendly surface threats.

 

It would appear you do not even understand the basic premise of what you're talking about.

[Panocek]

2 hours ago, HidesHisFace said:

Still, there is a problem of a CV not getting exhausted as other ships - unless the CV player spams the planes mindlessly - they never run out of planes, they remain exactly as effective as in the beginning of the match. Meanwhile, other ships lose HP and suffer permanent damage to AA emplacements.

One might argue, surface ships that don't throw their hulls mindlessly tend to be mostly healthy in later parts of the game.

[Thorsvald]

11 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't think that this works. Especially that in combination. Always bottom tiered and with facing stronger AA, this casuses also dmg on the Ship?

CVs would be mostly dead in the first 5 Minutes and the skill gap increases. Bad players lose more planes, and then the good player will CV snipe a heavy damaged CV ^^

I don't mind even tiered matches as CV, reducing it to bottom tier would be annoying.

Te mechanic of losing HP when planes get shot, makes no sense. That would be even more punishable, then playing a surface ship vs surface ship. The cont. dps always cause dmg, that is not avoidable. So there is no real trade, the CV always loses HP. It's like playing BB vs Cruiser, and just because the BB is in firing range, the cruiser takes dmg for every shot he does, without having the BB shooting. It's automated system vs manual system.

 

If it should be more even with the surface ship, then we have to make the AA completly manual, just like shooting other ships. But then it would be unfair, as soon people start to group, because it would be always a many vs one. That means the MM has to be chagend, that more often 2 or 3 CVs are on each side. So it can be 3 ships vs 1 CV, where the CV would have no Chance against manual AA, but it could be also that 3 CVs pick one isolated target, where the single Target won't have any Chance to kill all planes.

Every other ships takes damage for brainless rushing i don't see the point of why a CV has to made a exception to that rule.

 

A real life CV if it gets deplaned is just as useless as a BB with no ammo on his magazine (that is balanced through reload time), there is no point of limiting planes but if you manage to loose tons of planes you should get a real draw back without enormous amount of time replenishing air groups that make it boring, so the only chance is to make it tied to HP pool of CV.

 

Its no fair to have a class avoiding trade rule, being able to the best Damage done per damage received coefficient in the game, and that is just because getting damage is free at all. Even a DD in the final minutes of the battle that has spotted a CV will eventually find a full HP carrier that still can send multiple air-groups, forcing her to maneuver constantly and even getting killed with small drawback.

 

CV's at his tier are too power full, you can't just put a class that does everything that other classes do, u can'r just get a ship that is able to spot better than a DD (on distance over time) can counter DD's, deva-strike things with dive bombers or force BB's to avoid constant torp attack. 

 

Well, if people just stick together to avoid air groups it will make only good to the game because of team play and it will be even more fair.

 

Cv's at actual state will kill the game, i'm not a carrier hater i want them to be reworked to get fun on every class i play, and it's not a huge rework but a tweak. 

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Get the context :P

 

It would be unfair by default, because it's like 12 ships can fight one CV with manual AA

 

In your case, it's not fair, because it's many vs one. Doesn't matter if the carrier is the spotter, or a DD ;)

But t could be also many vs many in the same scenario, when they just group. That is something that can't happen with CV, the CV is always alone. And the context is, if you make the interaction between CV and surface more even, which means the CV needs to fight manually, and the surface ship has to fight manually (no automated AA), than the whole situation have to be also more even, that means many CVs can fight a single ship, or many ships can fight a single CV

 

For example.

1. There is a cruiser with somehow decent AA. CV attacks, the Cruiser is a good player, uses his manual AA smart and rips all his planes.

2. Same surface player, but now combined with 2 other ships. No chance for the CV.

 

The CV will be almost always losing if it's more skill related, because of manual aa. The CV will have to fight against good players, but also against multiple players. If it's skill related, it's always, every game uneven.

The CV will lose in case of better players and against more players. But he never can be on the "outnumbering" side, because he is the only Air-target. Other surface ships are not relevant for AA

 

Surface ships have different match ups, it can be unfair like 5vs1, but it also can be 5vs5.  So if it's more skill based, then the CV need similar match ups like 1vs3, 3vs1 or 3vs3

This is the gem: 'the CV is always alone'. That is the actual issue WG created by releasing one of the worst pvp gameplay design I have seen in 25 years of gaming. It is the actual problem. How is carriers always being outnumbered when attacking a blob different from the current situation, and how would manual AA suddenly break that? Why do you think carriers are limited to 1 per side? It is because AA is useless in most cases, planes and plane health grow on magic carrier trees and spotting is so broken WG is making absurd game rules where a plane can't see a 100 m long ship at 1.5 km. It's not the planes themselves that are causing this, it is everything around them that is being set to absurd values to somehow protect carrier players from melting like snowflakes.

 

Oh buy the way, your 'example' is bizarre, like almost all your examples... like... what?  

[Pikkozoikum]

23 minutes ago, Thorsvald said:

Every other ships takes damage for brainless rushing i don't see the point of why a CV has to made a exception to that rule.

He is an exception, because of different mechanics. Like I said earlier, it's like playing a game and one type has a specific mechanic an saying "Oh he is different, I want his advantage, or he shall get my disadvantages" And you can break it down to many other points in the game. Why have Ships like DM and ru cruisers Radar? I want also Radar on my Zao.

 

The concept of "CV takes damage because planes get shot" is way to weird, especially with automated AA: It's a "Thorn effect" speaking in roleplay terms. As soon the CV wants do dmg, he will take dmg. I see not where this is fun for anyone.

 

28 minutes ago, Thorsvald said:

A real life CV if it gets deplaned is just as useless as a BB with no ammo on his magazine

in real life the CV wouldn't magically explode, while he has no planes, but also in real life he has more guns than most DDs... xD

 

29 minutes ago, Thorsvald said:

only chance is to make it tied to HP pool of CV.

There are many other ways. Losing HP by losing planes feels just weird.  People were already freakin out, when the fighter "spawned" at the called location, now getting magic dmg on a CV idk, a bit too far off.

 

29 minutes ago, Thorsvald said:

CV's at his tier are too power full, you can't just put a class that does everything that other classes do, u can'r just get a ship that is able to spot better than a DD (on distance over time) can counter DD's, deva-strike things with dive bombers or force BB's to avoid constant torp attack. 

They Spotting mechanic is in Supertest. So they are about to change something there. Against DDs, the last time I played DD, the CV didn't feel powerful, as soon you bow in and as BB, I played a lot Shikishima and CV is way less powerful than at RTS times. I think a RTS CV could sink a ~full HP T10 with one full Engagement and perma floods, now they just do a little dmg here and there, totally acceptable imo. When I play BB, I rather wish removing DDs than CVs :P

 

34 minutes ago, Thorsvald said:

Cv's at actual state will kill the game, i'm not a carrier i want them to be reworked to get fun on every class i play, and it's not a huge rework but a tweak. 

When you haven't played CV, then you really should play it and you will notice, what the weakspots of a CV, how to play against different aircrafts.

 

[CptBarney]

was expecting this thread to reach 200 pages now pittyful lads.

otachan needs to eat.

[AndyHill]

Carriers are not the only class of ship whose attack can be prevented in some (rare) circumstances. First of all, other ships actually need to see their opponents to have a decent chance of hitting them. Then, they have to be in range of the target. Most importantly, on all maps besides one, there are islands that can snatch shells mid-flight or even outright deny shots completely. Not to mention that getting into good positions to deal damage is immensely risky and balancing that risk with the potential reward is the core of the game - for everyone except carriers.

 

The only reason the remote possibility of having planes shot down before they can strike feels like such a detriment is because carriers are otherwise basically limitless in their ability to strike anything anytime anywhere, while remaining completely safe themselves. As for shooting planes down as counterplay, CVs are the only class that can get their ammo back. Once shells have left the barrels, they're not coming back, ever.

[El2aZeR]

13 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

When you haven't played CV, then you really should play it and you will notice, what the weakspots of a CV, how to play against different aircrafts.

 

Which is why even the most experienced CV captains all say that CVs have no counter.

Oh wait.

[Pikkozoikum]

22 minutes ago, Europizza said:

This is the gem: 'the CV is always alone'. That is the actual issue WG created by releasing one of the worst pvp gameplay design I have seen in 25 years of gaming. It is the actual problem. 

No, it's a problem, when you would change the automated AA to manual AA, that is the context I'm speaking of ^^

 

22 minutes ago, Europizza said:

How is carriers always being outnumbered when attacking a blob different from the current situation, and how would manual AA suddenly break that?

I already explained it, but I try a different explanation.

 

Automated AA doesn't allow any skill gap. It's always the same. Thus a CV can decide, where and how he wants to attack. A single ship will have  x dps, multiple ships with have x+y+z dps. It's all caluclated and no skill gap difference (expect the sector mechanic, which would cause a tiny skill gap)

 

When you change the whole mechanic to manual AA similar to surface combat, that it's up to the ship player, how good he can defend hisself. That would also mean, that a good player will archieve awesome results.

So a single good player will deny a CV (because of his skill, which is right now less the case, he has cont. dps, a fix value)

A single bad player might do nothing.

But what when multiple bad players group? Even if they are bad, they will all do a tiny bit, enough to deny the CV.

 

In a ship combat it would be like 1vs5, that's of course unfair. A 1vs1 would also depend on the players. But in case of ship combat, there is always the case, that there are many ships on all sides.

Here is the difference. The CV is alone, he has nobody with him against multiple ships to make it fair.  There are only the unfair approachs.

Against good AA ship - unfair for CV.

Multiple ships - unfair for CV

Isolated bad player - unfair for surface ship.

 

There is no option of 3 CVs vs 3 Surface ships to make it even. That's why I said, it would need more CVs on each side with manual AA, otherwise it wouldn't work.

 

Again, it's because of the skill gap with manual AA, which make most approaches unfair and dumb. Like I said earlier, you can't change a mechanic only to the advantages without considering the disadvantages of that mechanic.

 

22 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Why do you think carriers are limited to 1 per side?

Idk, but you really need to get the full context. You say,  why it is now limited 1 per side. You could say it's because of the current version of AA; but I didn't talk about the current version, I talked about manual AA and how it would have to be changed and what has to be considered to make it possible  xD

 

22 minutes ago, Europizza said:

game rules where a plane can't see a 100 m long ship at 1.5 km.

Why talking to me then about the magic of losing HP of the CV, when the CV loses planes? That is exact the same weird rule, where I said it's weird! xD

By the way, in Steel Ocean it's even worse, Strike planes have spotting raidus of 1  meter or something, so it's not a "new thing" ^^

 

22 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Oh buy the way, your 'example' is bizarre, like almost all your examples... like... what?  

Guess you just didn't understand the point, might be my bad description, but they are logic ;)

Though Idk which example is meant

[El2aZeR]

6 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The CV is alone, he has nobody with him against multiple ships to make it fair.

 

Yeah, just 11 other ships in their team.

[Thorsvald]

16 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

He is an exception, because of different mechanics. Like I said earlier, it's like playing a game and one type has a specific mechanic an saying "Oh he is different, I want his advantage, or he shall get my disadvantages" And you can break it down to many other points in the game. Why have Ships like DM and ru cruisers Radar? I want also Radar on my Zao.

 

It's radar a wunderwaffe? does it not takes drawbacks? what are paying a cruiser for having radar and no other consumable?

 

The concept of "CV takes damage because planes get shot" is way to weird, especially with automated AA: It's a "Thorn effect" speaking in roleplay terms. As soon the CV wants do dmg, he will take dmg. I see not where this is fun for anyone.

 

An automated AA that can uterly being avoided with less skill than the one you need to properly aim, So CV's only are fun if you can damage without taking damage... I see.

 

in real life the CV wouldn't magically explode, while he has no planes, but also in real life he has more guns than most DDs... xD

True, and every ship could have radar and CV's could not change their planes armament in just 1 second... SO?

 

 

There are many other ways. Losing HP by losing planes feels just weird.  People were already freakin out, when the fighter "spawned" at the called location, now getting magic dmg on a CV idk, a bit too far off.

Just like something spoted by a CV that is 5 times faster spotting than the best scout in the game? You have to get drawbacks.

 

They Spotting mechanic is in Supertest. So they are about to change something there. Against DDs, the last time I played DD, the CV didn't feel powerful, as soon you bow in and as BB, I played a lot Shikishima and CV is way less powerful than at RTS times. I think a RTS CV could sink a ~full HP T10 with one full Engagement and perma floods, now they just do a little dmg here and there, totally acceptable imo. When I play BB, I rather wish removing DDs than CVs :P

 

Spotting mechanic rework is just.... You have not to change everything when the problem is clear, CV's have no drawback. Cv's can spot better than a DD, Cv's can hit hard, chase DD's, prevent BB's to take advantage and they are fast in general so they don't need to get close, they have  good camo and some have even good secondaries and armored decks to prevent long range shoots. 

 

When you haven't played CV, then you really should play it and you will notice, what the weak spots of a CV, how to play against different aircrafts.

I've probably played CV in every iteration since they came at first test.... 

 

[UnterSeeBot]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Oh wait.

well there are always a few..

 

but of course CVs have multiple "counters" to their principal armament (air squadrons) which are launched from across the map which at best, tickle enemy ships, and maybe persuade a few enemy warships to ask for mercy/scuttle rather than sink from rage/laughter.

 

a) AA

b) positioning

 

in comparison, what counters are there to BB principal armament (Shells weighing several tonnes each) that can be fired from across the map and in one salvo of AP delete a Minotaur from the map?

 

a) just dodge

 

There is no magic anti artillery Iron Dome or Phalanx in WOWS, yet there is a magic AA cloud of toxic flak (continuous AA in WOWS language) that guarantees dmg to incoming CV launched cruise missiles (air squadrons).

 

I'll be around in case the discussion needs an experienced CV player who thinks that counters to cvs, exist.

[Pikkozoikum]

9 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

a) just dodge

Even that doesnt work as real counter like people want against CV (100% strike denial), a BB can always do dmg, even angled/dodging.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Pikkozoikum said:

No, it's a problem, when you would change the automated AA to manual AA, that is the context I'm speaking of ^^

 

I already explained it, but I try a different explanation.

 

×Snip×

 

Guess you just didn't understand the point, might be my bad description, but they are logic ;)

Though Idk which example is meant

I think losing ship HP when losing planes is not a good idea, to get that out of the way.

I get your point about carriers playing alone in a seperate 'aireal' layer against a 'surface' layer. It is because WG made it so. They are in fact disconnected from enemy skill levels by a barrier of automation, even seperated from the class itself. Carriers amongst themselves aren't even in the same space, they can't manually attack enemy planes as they used to be able to, all they have is a static marker of fighters, absurd design by WG. Carriers are truely 'alone' and are not even manually fighting enemy planes. That is where your ideas break. You cant just throw in more carriers if all they can do is attack surface ships and can not manually attack enemy planes.