General CV related discussions.

[AndyHill]

24 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

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

 

b) concealment

c) cover

d) smoke

e) threat of annihilation should he try to attack you (note that minotaur can stealth torp)

f) actual annihilation if he tries to go for you

 

Note that this is from the perspective of scissors trying to fight a rock as far as game balancing goes, which is why the options are so limited.

[El2aZeR]

40 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

a) AA

b) positioning

 

AA isn't strong enough to inflict meaningful losses to a CV unless said CV is incompetent.

There is no positioning that is strong against a CV. There is only weak positioning and weaker positioning.

 

And there are a lot more counters to shells.

[UnterSeeBot]

9 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

And there are a lot more counters to shells.

every other counter to incoming fire is valid for incoming air squadron attacks and vice versa (smoke/island cover/=justdodging=/armour). The only true difference is that air squadron attacks can be mitigated/nullified by automated AA defences, a feature of warships which has no equivalent for incoming shell fire. Ergo, our Minotaurs are being unfairly deleted by enemy long range BB snipers to which they have no counter other than "JustDodge"

[DFens_666]

42 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

a BB can always do dmg, even angled/dodging.

 

Yep, and BB will also start flying to spot target for himself

[El2aZeR]

6 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

every other counter to incoming fire is valid for incoming air squadron attacks and vice versa

 

Which is ofc an utterly laughable notion.

Smoke works - if you desire to be useless for the next few minutes, hence the CV is actually at an advantage. It is also temporary.

Using island cover heavily favors the CV and thus falls into "weaker positioning".

Dodging does not work against CVs.

Angling, and thus effective usage of armor, does not work against CVs.

[CptBarney]

1 minute ago, LoveZeppelin said:

every other counter to incoming fire is valid for incoming air squadron attacks and vice versa (smoke/island cover/=justdodging=/armour). The only true difference is that air squadron attacks can be mitigated/nullified by automated AA defences, a feature of warships which has no equivalent for incoming shell fire. Ergo, our Minotaurs are being unfairly deleted by enemy long range BB snipers to which they have no counter other than "JustDodge"

Except shells cant magically fly around the map and strike you and also most people in this game fail at map awareness and using their brain. And yes planes have HP but its not like you have to fly in an extremely linear and limited way, planes can bypass and will bypass the above by either going around, going at a different angle or striking certain parts of the ship.

 

Hence why we have OP prems, we have a game mechanic that demonstrates why surface combat died in naval warfare. Due to people 'wanting something more' instead of wondering if it would be a good idea.

Its why CV's are my highest winrate and damaging ships out of all the ships i play, because they are that much more flexible and easier than other classes.

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

8 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Except shells cant magically fly around the map and strike you and also most people in this game fail at map awareness and using their brain. And yes planes have HP but its not like you have to fly in an extremely linear and limited way, planes can bypass and will bypass the above by either going around, going at a different angle or striking certain parts of the ship. 

That's the point. You can't fly around with shells, but shells can't be shot. Different ships, different mechanics. If the CV should get limited like a BB, then it would not only get the disadvantages, but also the advantages. That's what most people forget. So Planes can't fly around, but then they are able to delete BBs and cruisers effectivlely without being able to get shot down.

But I see no reason to make a CV like a BB.

 

11 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Hence why we have OP prems, we have a game mechanic that demonstrates why surface combat died in naval warfare. Due to people 'wanting something more' instead of wondering if it would be a good idea.

Its why CV's are my highest winrate and damaging ships out of all the ships i play, because they are that much more flexible and easier than other classes.

That's right ,the CV is very flexible and in the hands of a good player, it's way more powerful, but when you remove the CV, then there will be another most-flexible type, and good players will get high win rates with that. I saw a Youtube video with exact that discussion, that the player would never go with a Heavy tank, because it's too slow and inflexible and a good player is more limited.

[DFens_666]

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

but when you remove the CV, then there will be another most-flexible type, and good players will get high win rates with that.

 

- No other class or ship can reach what best CV players reach

- A good played ship x can be countered by a well played ship y. Unicum CV will counter a unicum in any other class without retaliation.

Like DD vs radar Cruiser can be quite interesting when both play well. If CV plays well its just how fast he can crap you to death.

[AndyHill]

31 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Ergo, our Minotaurs are being unfairly deleted by enemy long range BB snipers to which they have no counter other than "JustDodge"

It is physically impossible for a long range BB to even engage a Minotaur in the first place unless the mino initiates the fight. Minotaur's concealment is likely to be less than 10km, so it's hard to see where those long range BB shells are coming from.

[El2aZeR]

17 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If the CV should get limited like a BB, then it would not only get the disadvantages, but also the advantages.

 

A CV currently has all the advantages of a BB without any of the disadvantages as, again, AA is too weak to inflict meaningful losses.

[Pikkozoikum]

50 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

- No other class or ship can reach what best CV players reach

- A good played ship x can be countered by a well played ship y. Unicum CV will counter a unicum in any other class without retaliation.

Like DD vs radar Cruiser can be quite interesting when both play well. If CV plays well its just how fast he can crap you to death.

As I said, if you remove CVs, there will be another most flexible class. I would assume a DD.

 

If I look at the top 5%, the top 5% CV players have mostly around 72% WRs except MvR. Any other classes have many ship types above 72%. Idk, if CV would be so broken OP, then the best players should way higher WR with CV than players with other ships? If I would see all CVs at 80% I would maybe agree. I think the CV is the most flexible class, maybe a bit more influence, but still not as broken as some people say. Or I still dont get these broken games after 1,5 years.

 

Petropawlowsk

UdSSR

78.03 %

Alexander Newski

UdSSR

76.29 %

Venezia

Italien

74.07 %

Goliath

GB

73.27 %

 

Kremlin

UdSSR

73.37 %

 

Manfred von Richthofen

Deutschland

78.42 %

Hakuryū

Japan

72.03 %

Audacious

GB

71.51 %

Midway

USA

69.58 %

 

Yueyang

Panasien

73.28 %

Daring

GB

75.86 %

[DFens_666]

27 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

As I said, if you remove CVs, there will be another most flexible class. I would assume a DD.

 

Id call it influential. But i dont see a big problem with that. If there would be too many (good) DD players, id simply pick a Radar Cruiser to enhance my own chances.

With CVs in every game, it doesnt matter at all what i pick. No, strike that, some ships are worse, all others are equally mediocre, if the CV is capable enough to attack and kill me.

 

29 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Idk, if CV would be so broken OP, then the best players should way higher WR with CV than players with other ships?

 

@El2aZeR pretty much has a solo CV WR which is better than many 3x Divs?

Also looking at overall WR from non-CV ships including divs doesnt mean too much, since they might aswell include divs with CVs

[El2aZeR]

49 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If I look at the top 5%

 

Imagine thinking that top 5% total stats determines how influential a class is.

[Deckeru_Maiku]

2 hours ago, Europizza said:

I get your point about carriers playing alone in a seperate 'aireal' layer against a 'surface' layer. It is because WG made it so.

Add to it, that it was WGs goal to remove the "separate gameplay of CVs due to their own game mechanic" from the RTS CVs... or to remove or at least reduce the "skill gap" of CV players.

 

And they only achieved that CVs don't fight each others anymore. Wow, WG, you really know how to f*ck your game... ^v^

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Id call it influential. But i dont see a big problem with that. If there would be too many (good) DD players, id simply pick a Radar Cruiser to enhance my own chances.

I would expect, that a super-unicum DD player knows hot wo play against radar cruisers. 

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

With CVs in every game, it doesnt matter at all what i pick. No, strike that, some ships are worse, all others are equally mediocre, if the CV is capable enough to attack and kill me.

Ships, that I pick have no real issue with CVs, though they would have against the RTS

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

@El2aZeR pretty much has a solo CV WR which is better than many 3x Divs?

Enterprise is considered now as one of strongest CV, if not strongest. I see a 3% WR drop to RTS. That tells me, there is less influnece in the battle. Otherwise the best/one of the best should have way higher winrates.

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Also looking at overall WR from non-CV ships including divs doesnt mean too much, since they might aswell include divs with CVs

It's overall WR, it includes everything. The numbers are large enough to exclude randomness. Doesn't matter if there are divs or not. A div with a CV would just give both wins and since the winrates of non-surface ships are higher, the lower winrates of the CV would benefit from that. It's unlikely, that higher winrates are caused, because a lower winrate ship is in divison.

I mean, lets say for a hypothetical example you have a very bad designed CV with 55% WR for superunicums solo. And then there is a 75% WR DD for super unicums. Who would more likely benefit from the div? ;)

[MRGTB]

There should be more of an incentive for CV's to attack other CVs - instead of just going for surface ships all the time and Cv vs Cv never happens. An idea I thought about before, when a CV loses some ship HP, maybe it could effect the regen rate of its planes on deck. So then the eneny CV would have a valid reason to go for the other teams CV later in the game (or even early on) trying to damage it and slow his plane regen rate down.

 

I'm thinking the idea of adding Subs is also to pose more of a threat to CVs. Because to be honest, Cvs have it a bit too easy knowing they can just keep out range of enemy ships and pretty much be safe all match to do as they please until the end.

[UnterSeeBot]

1 hour ago, MRGTB said:

There should be more of an incentive for CV's to attack other CVs - instead of just going for surface ships all the time and Cv vs Cv never happens. An idea I thought about before, when a CV loses some ship HP, maybe it could effect the regen rate of its planes on deck. So then the eneny CV would have a valid reason to go for the other teams CV later in the game (or even early on) trying to damage it and slow his plane regen rate down.

 

I'm thinking the idea of adding Subs is also to pose more of a threat to CVs. Because to be honest, Cvs have it a bit too easy knowing they can just keep out range of enemy ships and pretty much be safe all match to do as they please until the end.

For a CV to attack an enemy CV, they have to dedicate their efforts and time to first spotting, then attacking, one of the (if not the best) strongest AA assets on the enemy team, thus guaranteeing major losses to air squadrons. And this to the detriment of supporting their team elsewhere on the map, support that could be conducted more efficiently (shorter flight times, briefer presence in hostile air (AA) space).

 

Personally, I generally don't attack the enemy CV because

a) Few CV players are worth the time and effort in random battles (mediocre ability levels, limited influence on battle outcome)

b) Competent CV players are better encountered by outspotting, outdamaging, and by more timely and effective choice of enemy targets.

c) Competent CV players will neutralize attacks on their CV by the enemy CV, by moving constantly from the start of battle, and by flirting with their concealment to reduce flight times, they are often within range of their allied ships AA.

 

This was as true during the RTS CV days when I could delete an enemy CV in one (stacked) attack, as it is today. Enemy CVs are best and most efficiently attacked and sunk by ship launched torps, or shellfire, with the help of CV spotting if required. A shell  can, travel 20 km in seconds, an air squadron takes minutes to cross the same distance, for the same resulting dmg dealt, but at the cost of probably losing the squadron to AA. 

Now if one CV does delete the enemy CV from the map, early in the game, then who complains first? Those who believe that CVs have too much skill/power influence on battle outcomes, (and so sinking the enemy CV only exacerbates the skill/power gap)? Those who believe CVs lack counters, and so are now unhappy because for the rest of the battle, the principal counter to a CV (another CV) is no longer present.

 

During the glorious and happy reign of RTS CVs, this was a common event, the enemy CV being deleted. People complained, so WG nerfed the ability of CVs to sink one another as part of the rework. Now I suspect the same people are complaining again, for the opposite reasons.

 

The best and most efficient way to sink an enemy CV early in the (random) battle (10 minutes or less) is currently behind the lines DD penetration and ambush, long range BB snipîng via indirect spotting. I am quite efficient at taking down CVs with a dd ambush, honestly not very good with my Musashi.

Spoiler

 

 

[UnterSeeBot]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Smoke works - if you desire to be useless for the next few minutes, hence the CV is actually at an advantage. It is also temporary.

Using island cover heavily favors the CV and thus falls into "weaker positioning".

Dodging does not work against CVs.

Angling, and thus effective usage of armor, does not work against CVs.

to answer, one by one

Smoke is more effective as a defensive counter versus CVs, than versus enemy dds, cruiser or bbs, CVs squadrons lack Hydro and Radar, while RDF was removed from CV squadrons early in the Rework. Don't tell me you haven't been in a dd, found yourself spotted and target by enemy ships, forced to pop smoke, only to be detected again with hydro/radar. Or just as effective for enemies in this situation, RDF.

Island cover can be viewed as weak positioning in that it reduces manouvrability. But this is true versus both CVs and enemy warships, in all cases to attack a warship with hard cover (island) requires flanking, which takes time and which is predictable.

Dodging works as well against CVs as against enemy shell fire.

Angling does work versus rocket attacks just as well as versus shellfire. The penetration mechanics are identical. While Aerial torpedos are far less powerful than dd torpedos, they too are mitigated by torpedo bulges, while they also have a lower flood chance than dd torpedos.

 

Absolute statements that "Angling does not work versus CVs" are blatant hyperbolic nonsense. You might try an argument along the lines of "angling does not work well enough", if you did say this, in some cases I'd have to agree with you.

[UnterSeeBot]

7 hours ago, CptBarney said:

Its why CV's are my highest winrate and damaging ships out of all the ships i play, because they are that much more flexible and easier than other classes.

Might it also be because, facing (commonly) only one enemy CV with your one, unique CV on your team, you have a statistically greater chance of being influential on the battle outcome, than as just one dd cruiser among a half dozen allied cruisers, facing a half dozen enemy cruisers? 

Equally, in battles where I am the only dd on my team, I am happy, and I am more likely to have a good result.

edit : obviously the solution would be to have a half dozen CVs, per team per battle.

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

18 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That's the point. You can't fly around with shells, but shells can't be shot. Different ships, different mechanics. If the CV should get limited like a BB, then it would not only get the disadvantages, but also the advantages. That's what most people forget. So Planes can't fly around, but then they are able to delete BBs and cruisers effectivlely without being able to get shot down.

But I see no reason to make a CV like a BB.

Nobody 'forgets' anything. Your 'point' is ignored because you are not making a compelling case. You keep resorting to weird comparisons and forced examples and subsequently claim they don't make sense. 

 

12 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

to answer, one by one

Smoke is more effective as a defensive counter versus CVs, than versus enemy dds, cruiser or bbs, CVs squadrons lack Hydro and Radar, while RDF was removed from CV squadrons early in the Rework. Don't tell me you haven't been in a dd, found yourself spotted and target by enemy ships, forced to pop smoke, only to be detected again with hydro/radar. Or just as effective for enemies in this situation, RDF.

Island cover can be viewed as weak positioning in that it reduces manouvrability. But this is true versus both CVs and enemy warships, in all cases to attack a warship with hard cover (island) requires flanking, which takes time and which is predictable.

Dodging works as well against CVs as against enemy shell fire.

Angling does work versus rocket attacks just as well as versus shellfire. The penetration mechanics are identical. While Aerial torpedos are far less powerful than dd torpedos, they too are mitigated by torpedo bulges, while they also have a lower flood chance than dd torpedos.

 

Absolute statements that "Angling does not work versus CVs" are blatant hyperbolic nonsense. You might try an argument along the lines of "angling does not work well enough", if you did say this, in some cases I'd have to agree with you.

Lets disagree on what you actually mean when discussing counters to carriers. Because that is where misinformation starts.

 

To counter something indicates an action that is aimed at damaging an opponents attack or argument to nullify it at a minimum, preferably damage the opponent in return when applied successfully. The only 'counter' the attacked ships have against air attacks is automated AA, static AI controlled fighters, and the ability to actually damage the carriers hull directly. Most of what you call 'counters' are in fact parries, deflections, mitigation or defensive stances.

 

To counter your answers one by one (pun intended ^^):

 

Take the magical 'defensive counter' for instance, smoke. Nice try. I googled it, because I never heared of 'defensive counters'. I found the definition of 'defensive counterair', which actually means 'All defensive measures designed to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy or negate enemy forces attempting to attack or penetrate the friendly air environment.' Other results mention counter attacks. Counter defense isn't a thing unless it is to destroy the enemies ability to attack. Smoke doesn't destroy planes now does it?

 

Islands. Where you say 'in all cases to attack a warship with hard cover (island) requires flanking'. Really? How exactly do dive bombers need to flank a ship that's sitting behind an island? They don't, and you as a carrier player knows that perfectly well, so you resort to a lie. Divebombers simply fly over the island directly, which is actually the best possible attack route. In fact, the island helps the carrier shielding it's incoming attack from AA damage. Also, time? Try flanking at 38 knts instead of 180 knts.

 

As for 'Dodging works'. Dodge DD torpedoes launched at you from 2 km distance. Or dodge incoming shells from a surface ship fired at you from 4 km. Because that is what ships dodging air attacks do. Dodging only works mitigating damage if the carrier pilot is bad or RNG messes up the air attack. Again, you as a carrier pilot knows this.

 

Angeling and torpedo protection is the only instance where the mechanics are somewhat simular. If you aren't able to place your air dropped torpedoes on aft or stern instead of straight into the torpedo buldge of battleships, you're not the carrier player you claim to be. Oh, and angling against AP bombs so they will deflect? X for serious doubt.

 

I'd like to close with the folowing thought experiment. Imagine a carrier is being attacked by a DD that weaves in and outside the carrier's secondary range, say the carrier has slotted manual secondairies, for a laugh. It has no planes to launch though. No manual way of attacking the incoming threat. None. How much chance you recon that carrier has using secondairies, dodging, angling and island hugging to 'counter'? Oh and the DD's teammates are shooting at you by the way, since you are spotted 

[El2aZeR]

7 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Smoke is more effective as a defensive counter versus CVs, than versus enemy dds, cruiser or bbs, CVs squadrons lack Hydro and Radar, while RDF was removed from CV squadrons early in the Rework. Don't tell me you haven't been in a dd, found yourself spotted and target by enemy ships, forced to pop smoke, only to be detected again with hydro/radar. Or just as effective for enemies in this situation, RDF.

Island cover can be viewed as weak positioning in that it reduces manouvrability. But this is true versus both CVs and enemy warships, in all cases to attack a warship with hard cover (island) requires flanking, which takes time and which is predictable.

Dodging works as well against CVs as against enemy shell fire.

Angling does work versus rocket attacks just as well as versus shellfire. The penetration mechanics are identical. While Aerial torpedos are far less powerful than dd torpedos, they too are mitigated by torpedo bulges, while they also have a lower flood chance than dd torpedos.

 

Smoke is actually less effective as it precludes you from using it to do something useful and a CV can force you to use it at any time or alternatively just kill you. There is no need for RPF on CVs due to the mass amount of information they receive anyway. You're either useless or more useless. The CV still wins.

There is no need at all for a CV to spend time "flanking" as he can just fly over the island.

Dodging does not work as a CV can adjust their approach, often without accuracy penalty, and time to target is extremely short unlike against shells.

Precisely, the penetration mechanics are identical. Does angling somehow work against HE shells nowadays? Aerial torps have a far higher hit chance than DD torps, are thus the more effective weapon by far and can be used to target the bow/stern for maximum flooding chance if needed.

 

7 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Absolute statements that "Angling does not work versus CVs" are blatant hyperbolic nonsense. You might try an argument along the lines of "angling does not work well enough", if you did say this, in some cases I'd have to agree with you.

 

The only one spouting blatant hyperbolic nonsense such as "every other counter to incoming fire is valid for incoming air squadron attacks and vice versa" here is you. Angling does in fact not work against CV ordinance and CVs are certainly not under the same limitations as surface ships. To even insinuate that is extremely laughable.

 

7 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

The best and most efficient way to sink an enemy CV early in the (random) battle (10 minutes or less) is currently behind the lines DD penetration and ambush, long range BB snipîng via indirect spotting. I am quite efficient at taking down CVs with a dd ambush, honestly not very good with my Musashi.

 

Attempting to snipe a CV in a DD is suicide unless the CV player is incompetent.

Attempting to snipe a CV with long range BB fire is a waste of time unless the CV player is incompetent.

So, "blatant hyperbolic nonsense", huh?

 

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Enterprise is considered now as one of strongest CV, if not strongest. I see a 3% WR drop to RTS. That tells me, there is less influnece in the battle. Otherwise the best/one of the best should have way higher winrates.

 

Ah, yes, and the thought that a low single digit percentage shift could be the result of a changing meta, luck, past game adjustments, etc. has ofc never crossed your mind. Everything has to fit your narrative or it is discarded.

And why even mention that progression shows the stats are still rising?

 

8 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's overall WR, it includes everything. The numbers are large enough to exclude randomness.

 

That it includes everything is precisely why it is laughably inaccurate and includes a large amount of randomness.

[UnterSeeBot]

21 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Take the magical 'defensive counter' for instance, smoke. Nice try. I googled it, because I never heared of 'defensive counters'.

Quite normal, such vocabulary is a specific description of what we are discussing. Counters which are purely defensive (mitigating/avoiding enemy fire), as opposed to counters which are offensive (sinking enemy). Thus I propose the brand new expressions of defensive and offensive counters. Google will index this forum forthwith, and the next time you look for the expression, wave a magic wand **tadaaa**!

21 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Islands. Where you say 'in all cases to attack a warship with hard cover (island) requires flanking'. Really? How exactly do dive bombers need to flank a ship that's sitting behind an island? They don't, and you as a carrier player knows that perfectly well, so you resort to a lie. Divebombers simply fly over the island directly, which is actually the best possible attack route. In fact, the island helps the carrier shielding it's incoming attack from AA damage. Also, time? Try flanking at 38 knts instead of 180 knts.

 

As for 'Dodging works'. Dodge DD torpedoes launched at you from 2 km distance. Or dodge incoming shells from a surface ship fired at you from 4 km. Because that is what ships dodging air attacks do. Dodging only works mitigating damage if the carrier pilot is bad or RNG messes up the air attack. Again, you as a carrier pilot knows this.

 

Angeling and torpedo protection is the only instance where the mechanics are somewhat simular. If you aren't able to place your air dropped torpedoes on aft or stern instead of straight into the torpedo buldge of battleships, you're not the carrier player you claim to be. Oh, and angling against AP bombs so they will deflect? X for serious doubt.

 

Glad to see you accept my point about smoke, offering an effective defensive counter (barring someone using radar or hydro nearby, presently giggling at the happy thought)

Perhaps you have a point concerning bomber attacks that use islands as cover for AA on approach.

Large warships in WOWS have torpedo belts, dodging to mitigate dmg, means preferring to manage where and when torpedos hit, to minimize dmg. Smaller warships such as dds have little trouble avoiding torpedo drops, (there ar exceptions), indeed many dds can out run air dropped torpedos.

AP bomb dmg can be reduced or avoided by ensuring the bomber does not have an optimal line up (stern to bow for most CVs, 90 degrees to enemy flank for Graf Zeppelin.) Turning and changing speed are quite effective. I agree, that some CVs have too easy a time lining up their AP bomb drops, but the reasons for this are debateable. 

happy to see we agree on so many details. 

20 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

CVs are certainly not under the same limitations as surface ships.

I agree with you on this.

[El2aZeR]

18 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I agree with you on this.

 

Funny, you literally stated previously that you do not.

13 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

every other counter to incoming fire is valid for incoming air squadron attacks and vice versa

 

18 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Glas to see you accept my point about smoke, offering an effective defensive counter (barring someone using radar or hydro nearby)

Perhaps you have a point concerning bomber attacks that use islands as cover for AA on approach.

Large warships in WOWS have torpedo belts, dodging to mitigate dmg, means preferring to manage where and when torpedos hit, to minimize dmg. Smaller warships such as dds have little trouble avoiding torpedo drops, (there ar exceptions), indeed many dds can out run air dropped torpedos.

AP bomb dmg can be reduced or avoided by ensuring the bomber does not have an optimal line up (stern to bow for most CVs, 90 degrees to enemy flank for Graf Zeppelin.) Turning and changing speed are quite effective. I agree, that some CVs have too easy a time lining up their AP bomb drops, but the reasons for this are debateable. 

happy to see we agree on so many details. 

 

Again, smoking up against a CV is not you countering the CV. It is the CV countering you since he just made you useless for the next few minutes.

You can also use TBs and rockets while using island cover to your advantage. And contrary to what you believe it does not take a significant time to do so.

You are in no control over where an air dropped torpedo lands. The CV player is in full control over that. Why you would attack a DD with torps is beyond me.

And the idea that the CV can just turn with you has ofc never crossed your mind.

 

Ingame application:

 

 

Most AP DBs and DBs in general can adjust their approach without accuracy penalty.

Oh yeah, you see that last gif? That's a Smolensk and a Worcester in that smoke. Weird how they're incapable of shooting down a meaningful amount of planes, isn't it?

 

18 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

happy to see we agree on so many details. 

 

More like you're putting your ignorance on the subject on blatant display.

[DFens_666]

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I would expect, that a super-unicum DD player knows hot wo play against radar cruisers. 

Kinda depends on the radar ship. Point is, you can force the DD to be less influential.

 

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Ships, that I pick have no real issue with CVs, though they would have against the RTS

CVs?

 

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Enterprise is considered now as one of strongest CV, if not strongest. I see a 3% WR drop to RTS. That tells me, there is less influnece in the battle. Otherwise the best/one of the best should have way higher winrates.

Implying that >81% Solo would be fine, while >84% is not

Still wont change, that any surface ship would stop at ~70ish % solo WR because the ship is incapable of carrying more.

 

9 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It's overall WR, it includes everything. The numbers are large enough to exclude randomness. Doesn't matter if there are divs or not. A div with a CV would just give both wins and since the winrates of non-surface ships are higher, the lower winrates of the CV would benefit from that. It's unlikely, that higher winrates are caused, because a lower winrate ship is in divison.

I mean, lets say for a hypothetical example you have a very bad designed CV with 55% WR for superunicums solo. And then there is a 75% WR DD for super unicums. Who would more likely benefit from the div? ;)

 

Here an example:

Erazer has 81% Solo WR with Enty. if i would play with him, doing exactly what his teammates do on average, id also get 81% WR in any ship. If i play better, id get higher WR. If i play in a division without a CV, i can roughly expect 80% WR. So adding a SU CV player already grants me more than 2 other surface ships in my division.

We can expect new ships like Petro and Nevsky to be played by good players and most likely in divs, which results in higher WR. If you get more and worse players to play them, overall WR will drop, also for the top 5% since there will be more people included in that group.

And there are apparently some people, who are able to get the maximum out of CVs, so the influence is there - cant deny that. If most players cant do it, doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. But it shows the huge skillgap CVs still have today. Most people are not interested in playing CVs to begin with. Imagine you would get all top players to play them. Im confident if id play them more, i could perform very well, but i simply dont like to play them. And i assume this would be the case for most of those players, seeing that its not rocket science how to dodge flak.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

 

1 hour ago, LoveZeppelin said:

Quite normal, such vocabulary is a specific description of what we are discussing. Counters which are purely defensive (mitigating/avoiding enemy fire), as opposed to counters which are offensive (sinking enemy). Thus I propose the brand new expressions of defensive and offensive counters. Google will index this forum forthwith, and the next time you look for the expression, wave a magic wand **tadaaa**!

 

Glad to see you accept my point about smoke, offering an effective defensive counter (barring someone using radar or hydro nearby, presently giggling at the happy thought) (*1)

Perhaps you have a point concerning bomber attacks that use islands as cover for AA on approach. (*2)

Large warships in WOWS have torpedo belts, dodging to mitigate dmg, means preferring to manage where and when torpedos hit, to minimize dmg. Smaller warships such as dds have little trouble avoiding torpedo drops, (there ar exceptions), indeed many dds can out run air dropped torpedos. (*3)

AP bomb dmg can be reduced or avoided by ensuring the bomber does not have an optimal line up (stern to bow for most CVs, 90 degrees to enemy flank for Graf Zeppelin.) Turning and changing speed are quite effective. I agree, that some CVs have too easy a time lining up their AP bomb drops, but the reasons for this are debateable.  (*4)

happy to see we agree on so many details. 

I agree with you on this.

Interesting to see you choose dodging over countering ^^ Too bad you are deepening your dishonesty instead of actually making a decent point. I love a good debate, but I hate gaslighting. Your proposition to make up stuff as we go along is hereby rejected. The closest thing to 'defensive counter' is defensive counterair which includes damaging the enemy and denying them access to airspace. If you are going to make up new terminology, at least make an effort.

 

We do not agree. Sorry to dissapoint. You looked really happy thinking we did. ^^

 

(*1)  We disagree on smoke being a counter of any sorts. Smoke does not counter a carrier attack. It deflects it.

(*2)  'Perhaps' you were lying about islands. Nope. You defenitely were.

(*3) So you can't reliably hit air dropped torpedoes on aft or stern of battleships to avoid torpedo buldges and enhance your chances on floodings I guess? M'kay. 

(*4) Yup, angling doesn't deflect AP bombs. So you deflect the point made about AP shells vs. AP bombs to dodging. It is, yet again, not a counter of any sorts, it mitigates damage.

 

15 hours ago, LoveZeppelin said:

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

Stop farting in our general direction ^^

Spoiler

Yes that is a reference to gaslighting.