Mad_Dog_Dante Players 6,636 posts Report post #1126 Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, OVanBruce said: It's mostly a psichological factor of "if there was no CV I could have done X, Y or Z" so instead of thinking on new tactics or methods to account for the presence of a CV most players simply blame the presence of the CV because it's easier. What are you basing this 'people don't adapt' on? People have adapted, I see it plenty when compared to their release over a year ago, the rework is still crap despite adaptation. I don't get killed much by carriers and hardly see one on the top 3 of matches because there is so much bad carrier play. Their shitty implementation and uninspired 'balancing' however still does make me cringe and annoys the heck out of me. Not in the least because they are so insanely boring to play, that I hardly play carrier myself anymore. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OVanBruce Alpha Tester 2,543 posts 16,031 battles Report post #1127 Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Procrastes said: Another funny thing: I just noted that the 'Juliet Charlie' signal, also known as the anti-detonation-flag, is crossed over - i.e., marked as not recommended - for CV:s. I can only take this to mean that carriers can't be detonated. If this is true, I'd really like to know the reasons for making them exempt from this fun and engaging mechanic...? In game what detonates is the ammo depot and since ammo depots aren't present on CVs they can't detonate. Such is the explanation provided by the devs. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1128 Posted May 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Alfa_Tau said: this is something I can hardly believe. Better believe it. I have Mino, Salem and Smolensk. but when I meet one of the forumites in his CV... Usually goes: hi BLUB! KABOOM... Bye BLUB... ^That said usually CV-players are not a problem at all. Because they are same as others... My Mino murders all their planes, in Smolly I go hunt the CV... I play CV myself, and have no problem fail-divving my (t^) Ark Royal into T9. And what do I do there? Well, kill a Friesland, of course. Granted it wasn't the smartest Friesland... 1 hour ago, Hawker_gb said: Players like El2aZeR dont have ANY problems and murders Minotaurs and Des with ease. Even worse, a "reasonably savvy" CV-player like me murders them too. T10 CV vs those? Not much of a problem for me. But indeed players like El2azer - muhahahaha no problem at all. 4 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said: In General I find it amusing how a lot of bad play is blamed on a CV’s presence. People do not adapt their behaviour to CV. In Clan Battles they do, CV means you have to adapt. If you do not, you lose. CB players seem to be much better at adapting. Even if those CV players usually are very very good, they still can't win all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OVanBruce Alpha Tester 2,543 posts 16,031 battles Report post #1129 Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Europizza said: What are you basing this 'people don't adapt' on? People have adapted, I see it plenty when compared to their release over a year ago, the rework is still crap despite adaptation. I don't get killed much by carriers and hardly see one on the top 3 of matches because there is so much bad carrier play. Their shitty implementation and uninspired 'balancing' however still does make me cringe and annoys the heck out of me. Not in the least because they are so insanely boring to play, that I hardly play carrier myself anymore. Yeah, you see players that actually know how carriers work and actually pay attention to what the carrier is doing and their position in order to make themselves not attractive targets, they also know how to properly mitigate or completely avoid damage from bombs and torpedos. The problem is that the vast majority of those desiring the removal of CVs have no idea about what I just said. I'll agree on the uninspired balancing given that this has been yet another half assed work by WG (as it was most of the work they did on the RTS CVs). Boring gameplay? Your opinion. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CPA] Procrastes Beta Tester 4,083 posts 4,481 battles Report post #1130 Posted May 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: In game what detonates is the ammo depot and since ammo depots aren't present on CVs they can't detonate. Such is the explanation provided by the devs. They are quoting historical accuracy as a reason for making carriers immune to going boom? Really? Leaving aside the thought that carriers presumably carried depots of bombs and torpedoes for their aircraft, which presumably could explode if hit by incoming bombs and torpedoes, I guess that puts another spin on their immunity to fire as well. Since no carriers were ever set on fire during the course of war... Spoiler List of sunken aircraft carriers From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Amagi, capsized in Kure harbor, 1946 With the advent of heavier-than-air flight, the aircraft carrier has become a decisive weapon at sea.[1] In 1911 aircraft began to be successfully launched and landed on ships with the successful flight of a Curtiss Pusher aboard USS Pennsylvania.[2] The British Royal Navy pioneered the first aircraft carrier as floatplanes, as flying boats under performed compared to traditional land based aircraft.[3] The first true aircraft carrier was HMS Argus,[2][4] launched in late 1917 with a complement of 20 aircraft and a flight deck 550 ft (170 m) long and 68 ft (21 m) wide.[4] The last aircraft carrier sunk in wartime was the Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi, in Kure Harbour in July 1945. The greatest loss of life was the 2,046 killed on Akitsu Maru—a converted passenger liner with a small flight deck, carrying the Imperial Japanese Army's 64th Infantry Regiment. Contents 1France 2Germany 3Italy 4Japan 5United Kingdom 6United States 7See also 8Footnotes 9References 10External links France[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Biter later Dixmude Escort carrier 21 aircraft 10 June 1966 Mediterranean Sea — Out of service 1953. Sunk by United States Navy as target. Germany[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Graf Zeppelin Fleet carrier 42 aircraft 16 August 1947 Baltic Sea 55°31′03″N 18°17′09″E — Never completed during World War II and extensively damaged by retreating Germans. Raised but later sunk by USSR as target. Italy[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Aquila Fleet carrier 51 aircraft 19 April 1945 Genova Harbor, Italy — Never completed. Sunk by Italian divers to prevent use as a blockship by Germans. Sparviero Light carrier 34 aircraft 5 October 1944 Genova Harbor, Italy — Never completed. Sunk by Germans to block Genova Harbor Japan[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Akagi Fleet carrier 66 aircraft 5 June 1942 30°30′N 178°40′W 267 Crippled by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway later sunk by torpedoes from Japanese destroyers the following day. Akitsu Maru Escort carrier 8 aircraft 15 November 1944 East China Sea 2,046 Torpedoed by USS Queenfish Amagi Fleet carrier 66 aircraft 27 July 1945 Kure Harbor "Light" Sunk during the attack on Kure Harbour 24–27 July Chitose Light carrier 30 aircraft 25 October 1944 19°20′N 126°20′E 903 Sunk by torpedo bombers during the Battle of Leyte Gulf Chiyoda Light carrier 30 aircraft 25 October 1944 18°37′N 126°45′E 1,470 Sunk by cruisers USS Santa Fe, USS Mobile, USS Wichita, and USS New Orleans during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Chuyo Escort carrier 27 aircraft 4 December 1943 32°37′N 143°39′E 1,250 Torpedoed by submarine USS Sailfish Hiyō Fleet carrier 53 aircraft 20 June 1944 16°20′N 132°32′E 247 Sunk by torpedo bombers during the Battle of the Philippine Sea Hiryū Fleet carrier 53 aircraft 5 June 1942 Midway Atoll 385 Crippled by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway, later scuttled by torpedoes fired from the Japanese destroyer Makigumo Kaga Fleet carrier 72 aircraft 5 June 1942 Midway Atoll 811 Crippled by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway, later scuttled by torpedoes fired from the Japanese destroyer Hagikaze Ryūjō Light carrier 48 aircraft 24 August 1942 Solomon Islands 120 Sunk by torpedo bombers and dive bombers during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons Shinano Fleet carrier 47 aircraft 29 November 1944 32°0′N 137°0′E 1,435 Torpedoed by submarine USS Archer-Fish Shinyo Escort carrier 27 aircraft 17 November 1944 East China Sea 1,130 Torpedoed by submarine USS Spadefish Shōhō Light carrier 30 aircraft 6 May 1942 16°07′S 151°54′E 834 Sunk by dive bombers during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Shōkaku Fleet carrier 72 aircraft 19 June 1944 11°40′N 137°40′E 1,272 Torpedoed by submarine USS Cavalla during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Sōryū Fleet carrier 57 aircraft 4 June 1942 30°38′N 179°13′W 711 Sunk by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway. Taihō Fleet carrier 65 aircraft 19 June 1944 12°05′N 138°12′E 1,650 Torpedoed by submarine USS Albacore during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Taiyō Escort carrier 18 August 1944 18°10′N 120°22′E Torpedoed by submarine USS Rasher off Cape Bolinao, Luzon. Unryū Fleet carrier 57 aircraft 19 December 1944 29°59′N 124°03′E 1,238 Torpedoed by submarine USS Redfish Unyō Escort carrier 27 aircraft 17 September 1944 19°8′N 116°36′E 239 Torpedoed by submarine USS Barb Zuihō Light carrier 30 aircraft 25 October 1944 19°20′N 125°15′E 215 Sunk by aircraft from US Navy Task Force 38 during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Zuikaku Fleet carrier 72 aircraft 25 October 1944 19°20′N 125°51′E 843 Sunk by aircraft from US Navy Task Force 38 during the Battle of Leyte Gulf United Kingdom[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Ark Royal Fleet carrier 60 aircraft 14 November 1941 Western Mediterranean 36°3′N 4°45′W 1 Torpedoed by German submarine U-81 on 13 November 1941. Sank while under tow to Gibraltar. Audacity Escort carrier 8 aircraft 21 December 1941 North Atlantic 43°45′N 19°54′W 73 Torpedoed by German submarine U-751 Avenger Escort carrier 15 aircraft 15 November 1942 36°15′N 07°45′W 516 Torpedoed by German submarine U-151 Courageous Fleet carrier 48 aircraft 17 September 1939 North Atlantic 50°10′N 14°45′W 519 Torpedoed by German submarine U-29 Dasher Escort carrier 15 aircraft 27 March 1943 Firth of Clyde55°36′N 5°00′W 379 Sunk from internal explosion of unknown cause. Eagle Fleet carrier 30 aircraft 11 August 1942 38°3′N 3°1′E 131 Torpedoed by German submarine U-73 Glorious Fleet carrier 48 aircraft 8 June 1940 Norwegian Sea68°38′N 03°50′E 1,207 Sunk by gunfire from German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Hermes Fleet carrier 20 aircraft 9 April 1942 Indian Ocean east of Batticaloa, Sri Lanka 307 Sunk by Imperial Japanese aircraft. United States[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions America Fleet carrier 79 aircraft 14 May 2005 Cape Hatteras — Scuttled after being used as target Bismarck Sea Escort carrier 27 aircraft 21 February 1945 Off Iwo Jima 318 Sunk by two Japanese kamikaze aircraft during the Battle of Iwo Jima Block Island Escort carrier 24 aircraft 29 May 1944 Off the Canary Islands 6 Torpedoed by German submarine U-549 Gambier Bay Escort carrier 28 aircraft 25 October 1944 Off Samar Island in the Philippines 130 Sunk by Japanese surface ships of center force during the Battle off Samar Hornet Fleet carrier 90 aircraft 27 October 1942 Off the Santa Cruz Islands 140 Crippled by torpedo bombers and dive bombers from Japanese fast carriers, sunk by torpedoes from the Japanese destroyers Makigumo and Akigumo after failed attempt to scuttle. Independence Light carrier 30 aircraft 29 September 1951 Farallon Islands — Used as target during Operation Crossroads and later scuttled after decontamination tests Langley Seaplane tender (ex fleet carrier) 34 aircraft 27 February 1942 about 75 mi south of Tjilatjap harbor (Java) 16 Crippled by Japanese dive bombers later scuttled by torpedoes and gunfire from the escorting ships Lexington Fleet carrier 91 aircraft 8 May 1942 Coral Sea 216 Sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers during the Battle of the Coral Sea Liscome Bay Escort carrier 28 aircraft 24 November 1943 off Butaritari Island 644 Torpedoed by Japanese submarine I-175 Ommaney Bay Escort carrier 28 aircraft 4 January 1945 Sulu Sea 95 Crippled by a Japanese kamikaze, later scuttled by the escorting destroyer USS Burns Oriskany Fleet carrier 91 aircraft 17 May 2006 off Pensacola, Florida — Sunk to become an artificial reef Princeton Light carrier 45 aircraft 24 October 1944 Leyte Gulf 108 Sunk by land based Japanese bomber during the Battle of Leyte Gulf St. Lo Escort carrier 28 aircraft 25 October 1944 Leyte Gulf 143 Sunk by Japanese kamikaze aircraft during the Battle off Samar Saratoga Fleet carrier 91 aircraft 25 July 1946 Bikini Atoll — Sunk as target during Operation Crossroads Wasp Fleet carrier 76 aircraft 15 September 1942 Southeast of San Cristobal Island 193 Sunk by the Japanese submarine I-19 Yorktown Fleet carrier 90 aircraft 7 June 1942 North of Midway Island 81 Crippled by Japanese dive bombers and torpedo bombers during the Battle of Midway later sunk by Japanese submarine I-168 while under tow. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OVanBruce Alpha Tester 2,543 posts 16,031 battles Report post #1131 Posted May 11, 2020 12 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said: Better believe it. I have Mino, Salem and Smolensk. but when I meet one of the forumites in his CV... Usually goes: hi BLUB! KABOOM... Bye BLUB... ^That said usually CV-players are not a problem at all. Because they are same as others... My Mino murders all their planes, in Smolly I go hunt the CV... I play CV myself, and have no problem fail-divving my (t^) Ark Royal into T9. And what do I do there? Well, kill a Friesland, of course. Granted it wasn't the smartest Friesland... Even worse, a "reasonably savvy" CV-player like me murders them too. T10 CV vs those? Not much of a problem for me. But indeed players like El2azer - muhahahaha no problem at all. If you manage to perfectly blab without problems a Mino or Des Moines that is actively dodging, knows how CV aproaches work and have other 2 or 3 ships overlapping his AA let me give you my compliments. And no, blapping isn't spending your whole squadron and crippling your reserves for the rest of the match for a meager 10k-20k damage on a single ship. In case I didn't make it clear, I'm talking about tier X CVs in full tier X MM. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OVanBruce Alpha Tester 2,543 posts 16,031 battles Report post #1132 Posted May 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Procrastes said: They are quoting historical accuracy as a reason for making carriers immune to going boom? Really? That puts another spin on their immunity to flooding and fire as well, I guess. Since no carriers were ever set on fire, or sunk by torpedoes, or... Reveal hidden contents List of sunken aircraft carriers From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Amagi, capsized in Kure harbor, 1946 With the advent of heavier-than-air flight, the aircraft carrier has become a decisive weapon at sea.[1] In 1911 aircraft began to be successfully launched and landed on ships with the successful flight of a Curtiss Pusher aboard USS Pennsylvania.[2] The British Royal Navy pioneered the first aircraft carrier as floatplanes, as flying boats under performed compared to traditional land based aircraft.[3] The first true aircraft carrier was HMS Argus,[2][4] launched in late 1917 with a complement of 20 aircraft and a flight deck 550 ft (170 m) long and 68 ft (21 m) wide.[4] The last aircraft carrier sunk in wartime was the Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi, in Kure Harbour in July 1945. The greatest loss of life was the 2,046 killed on Akitsu Maru—a converted passenger liner with a small flight deck, carrying the Imperial Japanese Army's 64th Infantry Regiment. Contents 1France 2Germany 3Italy 4Japan 5United Kingdom 6United States 7See also 8Footnotes 9References 10External links France[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Biter later Dixmude Escort carrier 21 aircraft 10 June 1966 Mediterranean Sea — Out of service 1953. Sunk by United States Navy as target. Germany[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Graf Zeppelin Fleet carrier 42 aircraft 16 August 1947 Baltic Sea 55°31′03″N 18°17′09″E — Never completed during World War II and extensively damaged by retreating Germans. Raised but later sunk by USSR as target. Italy[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Aquila Fleet carrier 51 aircraft 19 April 1945 Genova Harbor, Italy — Never completed. Sunk by Italian divers to prevent use as a blockship by Germans. Sparviero Light carrier 34 aircraft 5 October 1944 Genova Harbor, Italy — Never completed. Sunk by Germans to block Genova Harbor Japan[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Akagi Fleet carrier 66 aircraft 5 June 1942 30°30′N 178°40′W 267 Crippled by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway later sunk by torpedoes from Japanese destroyers the following day. Akitsu Maru Escort carrier 8 aircraft 15 November 1944 East China Sea 2,046 Torpedoed by USS Queenfish Amagi Fleet carrier 66 aircraft 27 July 1945 Kure Harbor "Light" Sunk during the attack on Kure Harbour 24–27 July Chitose Light carrier 30 aircraft 25 October 1944 19°20′N 126°20′E 903 Sunk by torpedo bombers during the Battle of Leyte Gulf Chiyoda Light carrier 30 aircraft 25 October 1944 18°37′N 126°45′E 1,470 Sunk by cruisers USS Santa Fe, USS Mobile, USS Wichita, and USS New Orleans during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Chuyo Escort carrier 27 aircraft 4 December 1943 32°37′N 143°39′E 1,250 Torpedoed by submarine USS Sailfish Hiyō Fleet carrier 53 aircraft 20 June 1944 16°20′N 132°32′E 247 Sunk by torpedo bombers during the Battle of the Philippine Sea Hiryū Fleet carrier 53 aircraft 5 June 1942 Midway Atoll 385 Crippled by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway, later scuttled by torpedoes fired from the Japanese destroyer Makigumo Kaga Fleet carrier 72 aircraft 5 June 1942 Midway Atoll 811 Crippled by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway, later scuttled by torpedoes fired from the Japanese destroyer Hagikaze Ryūjō Light carrier 48 aircraft 24 August 1942 Solomon Islands 120 Sunk by torpedo bombers and dive bombers during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons Shinano Fleet carrier 47 aircraft 29 November 1944 32°0′N 137°0′E 1,435 Torpedoed by submarine USS Archer-Fish Shinyo Escort carrier 27 aircraft 17 November 1944 East China Sea 1,130 Torpedoed by submarine USS Spadefish Shōhō Light carrier 30 aircraft 6 May 1942 16°07′S 151°54′E 834 Sunk by dive bombers during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Shōkaku Fleet carrier 72 aircraft 19 June 1944 11°40′N 137°40′E 1,272 Torpedoed by submarine USS Cavalla during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Sōryū Fleet carrier 57 aircraft 4 June 1942 30°38′N 179°13′W 711 Sunk by dive bombers during the Battle of Midway. Taihō Fleet carrier 65 aircraft 19 June 1944 12°05′N 138°12′E 1,650 Torpedoed by submarine USS Albacore during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Taiyō Escort carrier 18 August 1944 18°10′N 120°22′E Torpedoed by submarine USS Rasher off Cape Bolinao, Luzon. Unryū Fleet carrier 57 aircraft 19 December 1944 29°59′N 124°03′E 1,238 Torpedoed by submarine USS Redfish Unyō Escort carrier 27 aircraft 17 September 1944 19°8′N 116°36′E 239 Torpedoed by submarine USS Barb Zuihō Light carrier 30 aircraft 25 October 1944 19°20′N 125°15′E 215 Sunk by aircraft from US Navy Task Force 38 during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Zuikaku Fleet carrier 72 aircraft 25 October 1944 19°20′N 125°51′E 843 Sunk by aircraft from US Navy Task Force 38 during the Battle of Leyte Gulf United Kingdom[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions Ark Royal Fleet carrier 60 aircraft 14 November 1941 Western Mediterranean 36°3′N 4°45′W 1 Torpedoed by German submarine U-81 on 13 November 1941. Sank while under tow to Gibraltar. Audacity Escort carrier 8 aircraft 21 December 1941 North Atlantic 43°45′N 19°54′W 73 Torpedoed by German submarine U-751 Avenger Escort carrier 15 aircraft 15 November 1942 36°15′N 07°45′W 516 Torpedoed by German submarine U-151 Courageous Fleet carrier 48 aircraft 17 September 1939 North Atlantic 50°10′N 14°45′W 519 Torpedoed by German submarine U-29 Dasher Escort carrier 15 aircraft 27 March 1943 Firth of Clyde55°36′N 5°00′W 379 Sunk from internal explosion of unknown cause. Eagle Fleet carrier 30 aircraft 11 August 1942 38°3′N 3°1′E 131 Torpedoed by German submarine U-73 Glorious Fleet carrier 48 aircraft 8 June 1940 Norwegian Sea68°38′N 03°50′E 1,207 Sunk by gunfire from German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Hermes Fleet carrier 20 aircraft 9 April 1942 Indian Ocean east of Batticaloa, Sri Lanka 307 Sunk by Imperial Japanese aircraft. United States[edit] Image Ship Type Aircraft component Sinking Date Location Casualties Conditions America Fleet carrier 79 aircraft 14 May 2005 Cape Hatteras — Scuttled after being used as target Bismarck Sea Escort carrier 27 aircraft 21 February 1945 Off Iwo Jima 318 Sunk by two Japanese kamikaze aircraft during the Battle of Iwo Jima Block Island Escort carrier 24 aircraft 29 May 1944 Off the Canary Islands 6 Torpedoed by German submarine U-549 Gambier Bay Escort carrier 28 aircraft 25 October 1944 Off Samar Island in the Philippines 130 Sunk by Japanese surface ships of center force during the Battle off Samar Hornet Fleet carrier 90 aircraft 27 October 1942 Off the Santa Cruz Islands 140 Crippled by torpedo bombers and dive bombers from Japanese fast carriers, sunk by torpedoes from the Japanese destroyers Makigumo and Akigumo after failed attempt to scuttle. Independence Light carrier 30 aircraft 29 September 1951 Farallon Islands — Used as target during Operation Crossroads and later scuttled after decontamination tests Langley Seaplane tender (ex fleet carrier) 34 aircraft 27 February 1942 about 75 mi south of Tjilatjap harbor (Java) 16 Crippled by Japanese dive bombers later scuttled by torpedoes and gunfire from the escorting ships Lexington Fleet carrier 91 aircraft 8 May 1942 Coral Sea 216 Sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers during the Battle of the Coral Sea Liscome Bay Escort carrier 28 aircraft 24 November 1943 off Butaritari Island 644 Torpedoed by Japanese submarine I-175 Ommaney Bay Escort carrier 28 aircraft 4 January 1945 Sulu Sea 95 Crippled by a Japanese kamikaze, later scuttled by the escorting destroyer USS Burns Oriskany Fleet carrier 91 aircraft 17 May 2006 off Pensacola, Florida — Sunk to become an artificial reef Princeton Light carrier 45 aircraft 24 October 1944 Leyte Gulf 108 Sunk by land based Japanese bomber during the Battle of Leyte Gulf St. Lo Escort carrier 28 aircraft 25 October 1944 Leyte Gulf 143 Sunk by Japanese kamikaze aircraft during the Battle off Samar Saratoga Fleet carrier 91 aircraft 25 July 1946 Bikini Atoll — Sunk as target during Operation Crossroads Wasp Fleet carrier 76 aircraft 15 September 1942 Southeast of San Cristobal Island 193 Sunk by the Japanese submarine I-19 Yorktown Fleet carrier 90 aircraft 7 June 1942 North of Midway Island 81 Crippled by Japanese dive bombers and torpedo bombers during the Battle of Midway later sunk by Japanese submarine I-168 while under tow. Carriers ain't inmune to flood. The fire thing is mainly for gameplay purposes as a landing deck on fire couldn't launch or recover aircraft back in the RTS so they decided to ditch that 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redraven Players 247 posts 4,842 battles Report post #1133 Posted May 11, 2020 15 hours ago, Sunleader said: I agree that it is a Horrible Idea. However I disagree that getting Rid of CVs would Fix anything. In fact getting Rid of CVs at this Point is pretty much Impossible. Reinbursement, Community Backlash and massive Rebalancing are an Unsourmountable Challenge that would take several Months to Cover. And despite taking up Months of Effort would likely still result in massive Losses. While CV Players are much more Rare than other Classes even now. The Fact is that quite alot of us do have CVs. And Play them. AW is a Bad Example in this Regard. Because of something that you yourself Explained. For AW losing 5% of their Playerbase was not a Problem. Because 5% of such a Tiny Number was not Relevant at this Point anyways. For WG these few % of CV Players still Represent over 10.000 People. Likely way more if you count People that Own CVs but dont Play them on a Regular Basis. So this kind of Idea is a Non Starter. CVs will need to be Fixed somehow and Implemented Properly. If this Leads to them being a Rarely Played Class again then this is Fine. Because then only the 1000-2000 Players that are Focused on CVs will Complain. But Removing them will Inflate that Number to way over 10000 People. Well yes i can agree with the fact weegee has gotten itself neck deep in this shitstorm because they have failed the rework at the basic level. And how it would be far too complicated to pull the plug without screwing up. (and you can best you Sweet bottom they would screw up) But than what are we left with? Suffer from their horrible decisions for god knows how long? Because rest assured with subs on the horizon CVs are not the priroty work for them. And yes in hindsight the AW example wasnt exactly best. Mainly because the game was in a very early stage back than. But that was the only situation similar to what we have here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mad_Dog_Dante Players 6,636 posts Report post #1134 Posted May 11, 2020 15 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: Yeah, you see players that actually know how carriers work and actually pay attention to what the carrier is doing and their position in order to make themselves not attractive targets, they also know how to properly mitigate or completely avoid damage from bombs and torpedos. The problem is that the vast majority of those desiring the removal of CVs have no idea about what I just said. I'll agree on the uninspired balancing given that this has been yet another half assed work by WG (as it was most of the work they did on the RTS CVs). Boring gameplay? Your opinion. Your 'arguments' don't really warrant a reply other then this: Your opinion is as beautiful as mine. EDIT: And by the way, a year + forum carrier complaints that are hard to contain are a vague indication something is off. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redraven Players 247 posts 4,842 battles Report post #1135 Posted May 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: Carriers ain't inmune to flood. The fire thing is mainly for gameplay purposes as a landing deck on fire couldn't launch or recover aircraft back in the RTS so they decided to ditch that And thats a BS level reason. There was even a cap skill that allowed to launch planes on a burning deck. It pushined a cv player if he got spotted. Now CVs can hardly be punished. Again this is just further proving that WG screwed up the reeework. As for them not having ammo racks. Thats just straight up nonsense. Same as dds not having citadels. Also. How does one make himself not attract the CVs attention? Play like an idiot and be useless to the team? Great advice you got there. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1136 Posted May 11, 2020 23 minutes ago, Yoshanai said: The problem is that if you actually find yourself against a good CV player that you won't be able to just push or make him panic. That CV player will know what is happening and going to happen and already have either moved his ship or has in the meantime dealt with the other flank while moving with the fleet. One could argue that these kind of players deserve their superiority because they played mostly flawlessly and reacted correctly but that doesn't change the fact that such players have much more influence over all the battle outcome than anyone else. That's not as much upto the CV player as you might think. I often get those teams where it is best to hide behind a mountain, because that way at least you don't get blapped by the OTHER lemmingtrain... What "other flank"...? Oh you mean that single Yolo-DD that capped, found nothing on other end and now comes after the CV... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CPA] Procrastes Beta Tester 4,083 posts 4,481 battles Report post #1137 Posted May 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: Carriers ain't inmune to flood. The fire thing is mainly for gameplay purposes as a landing deck on fire couldn't launch or recover aircraft back in the RTS so they decided to ditch that Thanks for telling me about carriers not being immune to flooding; I have amended my post accordingly. I guess I just assumed they would have been made impervious to that as well. As for the immunity to fire, wouldn't it have been enough to just give them magical asbest planes that could take of and land on a burning deck? They even had a special commander skill for that, back in the olden days... I suppose it's a Darth Vader style of leadership thing, providing the right kind of motivation and encouragement...? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OVanBruce Alpha Tester 2,543 posts 16,031 battles Report post #1138 Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Procrastes said: Thanks for telling me about carriers not being immune to flooding; I guess I just assumed they would have been made impervious to that as well. As for the immunity to fire, wouldn't it have been enough to just give them magical asbest planes that could take of and land on a burning deck? They even had a special commander skill for that, back in the olden days... I guess it's a Darth Vader style of leadership thing, providing the right kind of motivation and encouragement...? Well, they aren't "inmune" to fires, they burn for 2 seconds with increased fire damage per tick compared to other classes, furthermore they got no heal so fires can actually hurt even if their duration is short. And that old commander skill was so bad no one ever took it. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HAKUY] Yosha_AtaIante Players 8,032 posts 19,168 battles Report post #1139 Posted May 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said: That's not as much upto the CV player as you might think. I often get those teams where it is best to hide behind a mountain, because that way at least you don't get blapped by the OTHER lemmingtrain... What "other flank"...? Oh you mean that single Yolo-DD that capped, found nothing on other end and now comes after the CV... I'm talking about the usual game flow here. Not all games are lemmings. As a CV player you should usually focus the flank that your team is pushing to gain ground because the other flank which is stalling usually loses ground. You can move into gained ground with your CV hull making the other flank being pushed a non-issue for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1140 Posted May 11, 2020 11 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: If you manage to perfectly blab without problems a Mino or Des Moines that is actively dodging, knows how CV aproaches work and have other 2 or 3 ships overlapping his AA let me give you my compliments. And no, blapping isn't spending your whole squadron and crippling your reserves for the rest of the match for a meager 10k-20k damage on a single ship. In case I didn't make it clear, I'm talking about tier X CVs in full tier X MM. I do not manage to do that perfectly, however some like El2azer and Bear_Necessities can do it that way. I'll not attack those ships unless I have to, as they are a high risk/reward thing. But then they are not really a problem. I'll not lose a whole squad nor be depleted for the rest of the game. For example, Smolly sitting in smoke, next to a Mino and IKEA-DD. Just use the torps... For example, DM sitting next to mountain with a few buddies . Come from behind mountain with AP bombs. Or use torps at longer distance. Actively dodging ships are no problem either. Split them up. Same as blobs. Works even with T8 Cv vs T10 MM. Kaga, Lexington. OK Audacious not so much (...LOL). 1 minute ago, Procrastes said: Thanks for telling me about carriers not being immune to flooding; I have amended my post accordingly. I guess I just assumed they would have been made impervious to that as well. As for the immunity to fire, wouldn't it have been enough to just give them magical asbest planes that could take of and land on a burning deck? They even had a special commander skill for that, back in the olden days... I guess it's a Darth Vader style of leadership thing, providing the right kind of motivation and encouragement...? They're not immune to fire or flooding, however they have auto-repair... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CPA] Procrastes Beta Tester 4,083 posts 4,481 battles Report post #1141 Posted May 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: Well, they aren't "inmune" to fires, they burn for 2 seconds with increased fire damage per tick compared to other classes, furthermore they got no heal so fires can actually hurt even if their duration is short. And that old commander skill was so bad no one ever took it. And the increased fire damage per tick was another thing I didn't know about; thanks again! It just goes to show that one should not go overboard with complaints from an uniformed point of view (although I still think they could have made carriers a fair bit more susceptible to damage without upsetting the game balance). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1142 Posted May 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Yoshanai said: I'm talking about the usual game flow here. Not all games are lemmings. As a CV player you should usually focus the flank that your team is pushing to gain ground because the other flank which is stalling usually loses ground. You can move into gained ground with your CV hull making the other flank being pushed a non-issue for you. I know mate, but I usually play weekends... every other game is either a lemmingtrain or a ROFLSTOMP. Else I'd have 80k average in Ark Royal. And yes it is really that bad. Five-minute-game and then you hear "you are the last hope". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OVanBruce Alpha Tester 2,543 posts 16,031 battles Report post #1143 Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, BLUB__BLUB said: For example, Smolly sitting in smoke, next to a Mino and IKEA-DD. Just use the torps... That requires the Smolensk or Mino to be clueless enough to not see your planes on the minimap and prepare for a possible attack. Just now, BLUB__BLUB said: For example, DM sitting next to mountain with a few buddies . Come from behind mountain with AP bombs. Again, DM's fault for not paying attention to the minimap while leaving an avenue of aproach available through which your planes can do a safe aproach Just now, BLUB__BLUB said: Actively dodging ships are no problem either. Split them up. Same as blobs. I already mentioned earlier, individually these ships aren't a problem to strike but 2 or 3 with overlapping AA, not so much Just now, BLUB__BLUB said: Works even with T8 Cv vs T10 MM. Kaga, Lexington. OK Audacious not so much (...LOL). Ironically, tier VIII CVs have an easier time striking tier X targets due to more accurate attacks, faster aiming and less overall AA on the opponeent team. tier X CV against a full tier X opponent team? Not so much. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CPA] Procrastes Beta Tester 4,083 posts 4,481 battles Report post #1144 Posted May 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said: They're not immune to fire or flooding, however they have auto-repair... When it comes to setting fires at least, it boils down to more or less the same thing. Or maybe be the meta has changed without me noticing; that has happened before. As I wrote above, I didn't know about the increased fire damage per tick! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1145 Posted May 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: That requires the Smolensk or Mino to be clueless enough to not see your planes on the minimap and prepare for a possible attack. Again, DM's fault for not paying attention to the minimap while leaving an avenue of aproach available through which your planes can do a safe aproach What preparations? Granted if they are very very smart they'll see me coming. Maybe they'll even use sector or (if they have it) DEF AA. Then I'll just trick it. And return 5 secs after it has gone into cooldown. Granted I usually ff it up, that is the difference between me and somebody like El2azer. He'll do it 100% perfect and drink tea in the meantime as well. 2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: I already mentioned earlier, individually these ships aren't a problem to strike but 2 or 3 with overlapping AA, not so much Overlapping AA is overrated. All that happens is the FLAK gets multiplied. And FLAK is 99% avoidable. I suppose you know that, too, since you play CVs. 2 minutes ago, OVanBruce said: Ironically, tier VIII CVs have an easier time striking tier X targets due to more accurate attacks, faster aiming and less overall AA on the opponeent team. tier X CV against a full tier X opponent team? Not so much. They also do less damage. Have slower planes. I'd say you know how it is done, your stats are higher than mine. Why are you whining for tier 10? I find that easier than others. Main thing: you never get uptiered. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-YR-] Alfa_Tau Players 887 posts Report post #1146 Posted May 11, 2020 48 minutes ago, Europizza said: and hardly see one on the top 3 of matches because there is so much bad carrier play Well after WG has penalized all CV in XP gain … now it's a little more difficult for CV to top the team. Plus all Ships get bonus for each plane shot down including the harmless fighters… YES another reason to quit CV playing above tier VI 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1147 Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Alfa_Tau said: Well after WG has penalized all CV in XP gain … now it's a little more difficult for CV to top the team. Plus all Ships get bonus for each plane shot down including the harmless fighters… YES another reason to quit CV playing above tier VI I think that is just risk vs reward. DD killing should be even less XP. Because they are meagre and too easy to kill. Except perhaps the IKEA DDs but even these are not that much, really. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunleader Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters 5,710 posts 13,400 battles Report post #1148 Posted May 11, 2020 35 minutes ago, redraven said: Well yes i can agree with the fact weegee has gotten itself neck deep in this shitstorm because they have failed the rework at the basic level. And how it would be far too complicated to pull the plug without screwing up. (and you can best you Sweet bottom they would screw up) But than what are we left with? Suffer from their horrible decisions for god knows how long? Because rest assured with subs on the horizon CVs are not the priroty work for them. And yes in hindsight the AW example wasnt exactly best. Mainly because the game was in a very early stage back than. But that was the only situation similar to what we have here. Well Mate. When your with the Back to the Wall and its go Forward or Die then I for my Part at least know the Choice I will make. At this Point they really dont have a Choice if you ask me. They have to somehow Fix the CVs and make them an Acceptable Part of the Game. And for Fairness Said. WG is not as Deaf as most People think. I pointed this out recently already. But WG has Silently taken Step after Step to bring CVs down. WG is still Scared to just bring out the Nerf Hammer as they dont want to Lose the few CV Players they Finally got. So they dont make any Big or Obvious Moves. But Check the Ships coming out Lately. Check the New CVs they are making. Russian BBs ? AA Monsters. Italian Cruisers ? Friggin Smoke and Decent AA. British Cruisers ? Friggin Super Heal and Strong AA. Swedish DDs ? Yep you Guessed Right. Friggin Heal and AA Monsters on top Equipped with DefAA lol. Upgrade Rework ? Yep. Suddenly the Secondary Guns Upgrade also Improves AA. So most German BBs just got AA Buff. Have you Checked the Russian Cruisers they are Adding. Wanna take a Guess yourself or should I just tell you ? Yep. Freaking Silly Strong AA with High Range and Def AA.... How about new CVs ? Roosevelt is gonna be Super Slow. German CVs will be AP Rockets and Torpedoes that my Grandma could Dodge if she Saw them 2 Minutes after the Match Ended. Prior New CVs werent exactly Hits either. Indomitable is basicly good against DDs and thats it. Ark Royal is pretty Strong but also Super Slow so you get like 1 Strike every 2-3 minutes. Lately for some Reason WG has been Stacking the Deck more and more Against CVs. Subtle and in Tiny Steps one by one. Why do you think they are doing that ? :) The Reason is Called Spreadsheet. WG might Claim otherwise. But Spreadsheet tells em that CVs are too Strong. But Spreadsheet works by Averages. So the more Ships CVs have Problem with. The more CVs are Pushed Down. And WG will keep adding more and more Ships that CVs will have Problems with. Till there is so many of them that CVs are Reigned back into the Average. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BBMM] BLUB__BLUB [BBMM] Players 8,818 posts 17,199 battles Report post #1149 Posted May 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Sunleader said: Ark Royal is pretty Strong but also Super Slow so you get like 1 Strike every 2-3 minutes. I think all CVs should be more like that. It is actually a challenge to do well in it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveraptor Players 392 posts 3,934 battles Report post #1150 Posted May 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, Sunleader said: Well Mate. When your with the Back to the Wall and its go Forward or Die then I for my Part at least know the Choice I will make. At this Point they really dont have a Choice if you ask me. They have to somehow Fix the CVs and make them an Acceptable Part of the Game. And for Fairness Said. WG is not as Deaf as most People think. I pointed this out recently already. But WG has Silently taken Step after Step to bring CVs down. WG is still Scared to just bring out the Nerf Hammer as they dont want to Lose the few CV Players they Finally got. So they dont make any Big or Obvious Moves. But Check the Ships coming out Lately. Check the New CVs they are making. Russian BBs ? AA Monsters. Italian Cruisers ? Friggin Smoke and Decent AA. British Cruisers ? Friggin Super Heal and Strong AA. Swedish DDs ? Yep you Guessed Right. Friggin Heal and AA Monsters on top Equipped with DefAA lol. Upgrade Rework ? Yep. Suddenly the Secondary Guns Upgrade also Improves AA. So most German BBs just got AA Buff. Have you Checked the Russian Cruisers they are Adding. Wanna take a Guess yourself or should I just tell you ? Yep. Freaking Silly Strong AA with High Range and Def AA.... How about new CVs ? Roosevelt is gonna be Super Slow. German CVs will be AP Rockets and Torpedoes that my Grandma could Dodge if she Saw them 2 Minutes after the Match Ended. Prior New CVs werent exactly Hits either. Indomitable is basicly good against DDs and thats it. Ark Royal is pretty Strong but also Super Slow so you get like 1 Strike every 2-3 minutes. Lately for some Reason WG has been Stacking the Deck more and more Against CVs. Subtle and in Tiny Steps one by one. Why do you think they are doing that ? :) The Reason is Called Spreadsheet. WG might Claim otherwise. But Spreadsheet tells em that CVs are too Strong. But Spreadsheet works by Averages. So the more Ships CVs have Problem with. The more CVs are Pushed Down. And WG will keep adding more and more Ships that CVs will have Problems with. Till there is so many of them that CVs are Reigned back into the Average. I agree with all of this. The "Response" from the 80% of the CV population to this is, Simpy seal-club in T4, that's why you have like 40+ CV players in queue in T4, and less than 10 in tier 8 and 10, which also results in the infamous 2 CV per team problem. I think T4 CVs, namely Hossho, actually, is the only problem WG has hard time to solve right now, and this is also where a good chunk of the CV complaints come from. WG claims that the CV pop is at around 9% right now, I can almost be certain that at least 4% playing T4 mostly, 1-2% T6 and the rest at tier 8 and 10. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
