Ships still without AA

[Andrewbassg]

24 minutes ago, Nagine said:

Why would anyone need premiums? We have absolutely NO defense against premiums with THOSE TOTALY OP 21 POINT CAPTAINS IN PREMIUMS!!!!! Are you an evil P2W griefer?

 

Erm.....there is no P2W in wows. Furthermore there are people who  play just T1. Otherwise... nobody. Well except Wedgie to...... make money. Questions?

24 minutes ago, Nagine said:

  Do you also blame.....

 

Erm....are you sure about this chief?. I can respond, but I'm not into..... abusing minors.

[Andrewbassg]

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

This whole idea of stopping air strikes with AA is a nonsense concept. It's mitigation, reducing the amount of strikes, it should never provide an invulnerability and it was never meant to be that.

 

Except....

 

"On the night of 4–5 May 1942, Błyskawica was instrumental in defending the Isle of Wight town of East Cowes from an air raid by 160 German bombers. The ship was undergoing an emergency refit at the J. Samuel White yard where she had been built and, on the night of the raid, fired repeated rounds at the German bombers from outside the harbour; her guns became so hot they had to be doused with water from the River Medina. Extra ammunition had to be ferried over from Portsmouth. This forced the bombers to stay high, making it difficult for them to target properly. The ship also laid down a smokescreen hiding Cowes from sight. The town and the shipyard were badly damaged, but it is generally considered that without this defensive action, it would have been far worse.

 

That was one, meaning 1 DD.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORP_Błyskawica#Operational_history

[Figment]

16 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Except....

 

"On the night of 4–5 May 1942, Błyskawica was instrumental in defending the Isle of Wight town of East Cowes from an air raid by 160 German bombers. The ship was undergoing an emergency refit at the J. Samuel White yard where she had been built and, on the night of the raid, fired repeated rounds at the German bombers from outside the harbour; her guns became so hot they had to be doused with water from the River Medina. Extra ammunition had to be ferried over from Portsmouth. This forced the bombers to stay high, making it difficult for them to target properly. The ship also laid down a smokescreen hiding Cowes from sight. The town and the shipyard were badly damaged, but it is generally considered that without this defensive action, it would have been far worse.

 

That was one, meaning 1 DD.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORP_Błyskawica#Operational_history

Wow, really, this bad argument again? You do realise that...

 

1. What you describe is not related to game design.

2. This is not a simulation game, so even if it had been a good example (it is not), it would have no real impact on game design for you cannot have complete immunity from another class of units in a gladiatorial rather than 100% rock-paper-scissors game setup (i.e. what we have is units designed around situational advantages that they need to exploit by proper positioning and tactics when faced with opponents with different setups. So any ships engaging a CV must try to get into a position where the CV is in a disadvantage due to not having a very fast DPS, unlike surface ships. They do however, have an indirect strike advantage if given the time and angle to use it. That said, some CVs, especially T10 and Russian CVs do not hold to that original weakness and have too small different weaknesses. That 's genuine balance issues.).

3. The bombers in your example stayed high up, but still engaged targets. "The town and the shipyard were badly damaged". It could have been worse -> MITIGATION, NOT STOPPING. In fact, the smoke factored in greatly as well.

4. Ever heard of the Battle of Midway? Or the rest of the battles in the Pacific theater? You think there was no AA involved there and no air strike ever occured against ships with far greater AA capacity than the Blyskawica?

 

Unfortunately, no, you don't realise anecdotes make for rubbish arguments and the text actually reinforces my arguments that AA is mitigation and attrition, not stopping power. :/

[ross1193]

Thankyou, for all the replys so far, and I do remember the good days when cv's couldn't launch aircraft if on fire etc. To me that was a better balance but since then a lot has changed for the worse in my opinion, which is a shame.

Still I really would like to see a change in this area as I still like playing the game and believe WG can easily make these changes that the vast amount of players want ( not just AA related).

One member mentioned before about WG's historical accuracy is king (so to speak), to them and I get that. Unfortunatly ( again my opinion), there credibility in this area has gone down the 'pan' since they have introduced subs as there overbloated stats just don't even reflect any kind of accuracy to what subs could ( or in game couldn't) do and what nations actually had operational homing torps ( only 1...germany from oct 43 onwards). Thats why I would love to see them put things right and come back down to the players level and actually see what we are experiencing and address our frustractions in a pro-active and fair manner...( phew, hope I'm not ranting!).

Anyway TY so far for all the positive and good comments :))

 

[Andrewbassg]

40 minutes ago, Figment said:

Wow, really, this bad argument again? You do realise that...

No its not.

40 minutes ago, Figment said:

1. What you describe is not related to game design.

2. This is not a simulation game, so even if it had been a good example (it is not), it would have no real impact on game design.

3. The bombers in your example stayed high up, but still engaged targets. "The town and the shipyard were badly damaged". It could have been worse -> MITIGATION, NOT STOPPING.

4. Ever heard of the Battle of Midway? Or the rest of the battles in the Pacific theater? You think there was no AA involved there and no air strike ever occured against ships with far greater AA capacity than the Blyskawica?

1. Of course it is. However it is not implemented in wows.

2. Nobody claims that wows is a simulation game, However there is a not a small difference between a simulation game, and our case where AA magically stops dealing damage  to an attack run. Not to mention the release of the RU cv line which is specifically designed to circumvent attrition and its supposedly beneficial  effects.

3.And?. I never said that Cv's should not deal damage. Who would play them then? Furthermore I said that nerfing Cv's was never the answer. However there is a long way from not doing damage to what we have now. Tell me how it is possible to balance AA if Cv's can see +/-2 tier ships?  Or ships without any AA?

4. You mean where the TB's got quite famously massacred? That one?

 

40 minutes ago, Figment said:

Unfortunately, no, you don't realise anecdotes make for rubbish arguments and the text actually reinforces my arguments that AA is mitigation and attrition, not stopping power. :/

Yes and no. Actually persistent anecdotes can turn into quite powerful arguments Then there is the question why they are persistent And attrition is irrelevant when there is a whole line designed to circumvent that.

 

Look.....I don't have a problem with..."planes". However how Cv;s are a implemented, I have a big problem with that

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Well, that's one of the problems with game design. Whereas in the real world they'd be trying to make the AA as strong as possible, they wouldn't be worrying that much about whether that's going to be fun for the enemy or not. In the game world, you kind of have to find another way to go about it.

 

Let's assume they go for something like a historical accuracy in terms of stats perfomance. Then they'd need to use modifiers to adjust the performance to something that can be balanced. What can they do? There's a) skill; b) luck; c) God forbid, money; d) what else?

[Nagine]

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

didnt buy a single ship, yet I have a lot of them...

sarcasm isnt your thing.

Hm, CVs, Subs are also free, yet those classes are often called griefer classes in this forum. Is that because of sarcasm?

 

2 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

you mean the ships you can shoot back at? :D

There are ships with slow turrets, long reloads and many other WEAKNESSes that don't allow to shoot back. For example, DDs can fire while being invisible (via torps or smoke) - does that mean that all ships have to have a mandatory radar in order to be able to shoot back?

 

2 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Which workable AA? The one that doesn't stop strikes and eventually is broken if you live as long as 10 minutes due to various HE spam?

Maybe ablative armor plates would be a good addition also? At end game your 500mm plates are down to 50mm...

Note that original poster complains that there are SOME ships without AA, not that AA is weak in general.

[Nagine]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Erm.....there is no P2W in wows. Furthermore there are people who  play just T1. Otherwise... nobody. Well except Wedgie to...... make money. Questions?

 

Erm....are you sure about this chief?. I can respond, but I'm not into..... abusing minors.

So why is it bad to play Tier 1 if someone wants that ALL ships would have the same abilities and without any weaknesses?

[Andrewbassg]

23 minutes ago, Nagine said:

So why is it bad to play Tier 1 if someone wants that ALL ships would have the same abilities and without any weaknesses?

Yo chief......you are confounding gratuitous forum thingy's with argumentation on merit. Otherwise.... who said that is..... bad? 

 

Still apparently we are at the ABC, so... T1 is limited. How many daily containers can you collect, let alone to complete dockyard missions,  playing T1?

THAT many?  Hm......

 

Edit: oh man I miss Beastieboy. I just had a chat with him in the port.......

[DreadArchangel]

23 hours ago, ross1193 said:

I find it very surprising that WG can and does go out of its way to give adequate defense against submarines ( basically so people will play subs and give WG justification to have them in game), and yet we still have numerous ships that have absolutly NO defense against CV's!!!! I demand in light of WG response to submarines that they show the same enthusiasm and fairness to correcting this inequality within the game!!! Three things spring to mind immediatly they could do:

1. Give all ships AA ( as they have done with depth charges as an answer to submarines) .

2. Adjust Match maker so that all CV's and ships WITHOUT AA are never present in same mission

3. Delete subs!! ( if they can't do the above then subs have no right to be in game as there is a total bias within WG's development team to ensure that subs succeeed ingame regardless of a HUGE blotation of sub stats and other mechanics related to them (ie ALL tier subs having homing torps, when in FACT only the GERMAN navy had operational homing torps and it was there latest subs that carried them from Oct 1943 onwards). Hence why I say WG has no excuse NOT to give ALL ships AA in answer to CV's!!!

 

I would like the dev's of this forum to get behind this and activelly push this topic to the WG development team as I am simply a low end player (albeit being playing the game for years), and I do love the game but I believe they are loosing the plot a bit, and I would hate to see the game become disinteresting if you know what I mean?

What tier you talking about, if your talking upto tier 4 then thats  right because there was no need for it in that timeline, we're talking ww1 and earler.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

5 minutes ago, DreadArchangel said:

What tier you talking about, if your talking upto tier 4 then thats  right because there was no need for it in that timeline, we're talking ww1 and earler.

 

Part of the problem may be that the game throws some CV's in midst with the ships that never had any AA, and not any real need for it either. That includes ships up to tier 5, as well, unless I'm mistaken.

[Nibenay78]

46 minutes ago, Nagine said:

Hm, CVs, Subs are also free, yet those classes are often called griefer classes in this forum. Is that because of sarcasm?

You were saying premiums are p2w. I pointed they are free. Nothing else. Whatever your sarcastic comparison was supposed to be, it's not valid.

 

46 minutes ago, Nagine said:

There are ships with slow turrets, long reloads and many other WEAKNESSes that don't allow to shoot back. For example, DDs can fire while being invisible (via torps or smoke) - does that mean that all ships have to have a mandatory radar in order to be able to shoot back?

All the 3 regular classes generally have to risk their life despite strength and weaknesses. CVs mostly risk behing "less effective" as they lose planes.

 

And as for your example, smoke does not make DDs immune to dying, as I'm sure you very well know, nor is radar needed to deal with smoked up DDs.

If they are in spam range in smoke, they can also be shot at. It's not magic to hit a smoked up DD. Not to mention how smokes generally are torpedo magnets.

 

46 minutes ago, Nagine said:

Note that original poster complains that there are SOME ships without AA, not that AA is weak in general.

It is correct that OP said that (which is pathetic by WG, not that it really matters if they get a tiny amount of AA or nothing).

You were the one talking about how AA is workable...  

 

[Andrewbassg]

2 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

You were saying premiums are p2w. I pointed they are free. Nothing else. Whatever your sarcastic comparison was supposed to be, it's not valid.

So.....I may shred a bit of light there. I just looked up his profile and he has nothing but premiums......yeah.... I didn't know either, lolz.........

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Can you direct me to the workable "I don't take damage from enemy surface ships" counter batteries, please?

 

This whole idea of stopping air strikes with AA is a nonsense concept. It's mitigation, reducing the amount of strikes, it should never provide an invulnerability and it was never meant to be that.

 

The problem with statements like this is that by the stopping definition, there's never enough AA until you can simply cruise in a straight line without ever having to worry about air attacks. At which point CVs can't exist.

 

 

What AA should do, is create attrition on dps capacity for carriers. In the current design it hardly does. The RTS version had some better concepts in place. The initial CV design included deck fires stopping aircraft even launching as a CQB counter giving an excessive edge to ships attacking CVs. However, by this time it was often already quite likely that (like with some artillery in WoT) CVs would have ran out of aircraft, removing their striking threat with tiny wings that couldn't sustain AA barrages anymore. Unfortunately, rather than tweaking damage rates on both ends and different A2A combat balancing, devs went with an overhaul and had to start all balance lessons from scratch (and then barely ever made proper balance passes or explored balancing concepts further).

 

There are certainly balance issues, but anyone talking about stopping air strikes is disingenuine or doesn't understand game balance.

 

To make my point clear then - I would appreciate the following scenario:

 

If I do well/CV farks up - squadron has the potential to be completely annihilated.

If I do bad/CV is good - squadron has the potential to completely survive

 

then toss some randomness into this mix so that newbies actually can be a bit lucky and pros can be a bit unlucky (both ways) - but right now the skill is almost entirely in the CVs hand.

 

Add on top the fact that a surface ship that farks up probably dies asap, while even a crap CV can suicide his planes for 10 minutes before coming ineffective and still not die.

 

I find the whole interaction extremely frustrating.

 

[Nibenay78]

26 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

So.....I may shred a bit of light there. I just looked up his profile and he has nothing but premiums......yeah.... I didn't know either, lolz.........

Fair point. I can see sims and tirpiz really do the p2w part.

[Figment]

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

No its not.

True, it is such an incredibly bad argument that should never have been made in the first place as a counter argument to what I said. You’re right, how could I not say this the first time.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

1. Of course it is.

No.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

However it is not implemented in wows.

Dude.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

2. Nobody claims that wows is a simulation game,

You did.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

However there is a not a small difference between a simulation game, and our case where AA magically stops dealing damage  to an attack run.

It does not “stop doing damage” within the range of AA…

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Not to mention the release of the RU cv line which is specifically designed to circumvent attrition and its supposedly beneficial  effects.

Didn’t I specifically mention the Russian CVs and TX CVs for not abiding by attrition rules? Oh wait, I did… Quite recently…

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

3.And?. I never said that Cv's should not deal damage. Who would play them then?

Then you should argue with the guy I countered, not me. Seeing as you specifically went against MY point that it is about mitigation and not stopping damage, you went there.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Furthermore I said that nerfing Cv's was never the answer. However there is a long way from not doing damage to what we have now. Tell me how it is possible to balance AA if Cv's can see +/-2 tier ships?  Or ships without any AA?

Is this where I have to remind you about me saying for years CVs should start at tier 5? Ah yes.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

4. You mean where the TB's got quite famously massacred? That one?

Attrition. Plenty made it back and attacked again. And for the record, they flew in areas with lots of enemy fighter squadrons attacking CV which are ships with most AA…

 

Which is actually one of the things they did do right in the latest version. Most aircraft attacking a CV die fast.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes and no. Actually persistent anecdotes can turn into quite powerful arguments

Or dead horses. Especially when they’re poorly applied out of proper context and supporting the opponent more than you.

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Then there is the question why they are persistent

You might wonder why a 40% WR player keeps doing the same things over and over too…

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

And attrition is irrelevant when there is a whole line designed to circumvent that.

Do I have to mention again that TX and Russian CVs are not balanced well? I mean… Again?

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Look.....I don't have a problem with..."planes". However how Cv;s are a implemented, I have a big problem with that

WoWs never got CVs right, not even close afaic though some conceptual elements were okay. Unfortunately a lot of players go straight to “this version doesn’t work, it is the only way it could be done, thus it cannot be done, remove it”.

 

Which is strange since they have had a couple versions so far, each mixing in some balance breaking elements that make those incarnations work poorly.

[Andrewbassg]

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

 

So... this is not PvP for me. Nonetheless...

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Didn’t I specifically mention the Russian CVs and TX CVs for not abiding by attrition rules? Oh wait, I did… Quite recently…

Oh ..."forgive me" I didn't look up your posts. I mean....

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Then you should argue with the guy I countered, not me. Seeing as you specifically went against MY point that it is about mitigation and not stopping damage, you went there.

Erm....... why that shouldn't be possible? if somebody is investing in all cap skills and upgrades... dafaq not? Coz the flybois are special or something? i mean ....yes the class is thoroughly dishonestly implemented....but why are you against the possibility?

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Is this where I have to remind you about me saying for years CVs should start at tier 5? Ah yes.

And  yet, you are, in a way, defending them, right? Why?

 

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Attrition. Plenty made it back ....

 

Erm......maybe we talk about a different battle

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT-8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-35_(U.S._Navy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_E._Lindsey of VT-6

 

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

 And for the record, they flew in areas with lots of enemy fighter squadrons attacking CV which are ships with most AA…

 

I know. Also with plenty of AA, even if it was IJN. However remember how IRL TB's; actually worked.

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Or dead horses. Especially when they’re poorly applied out of proper context and supporting the opponent more than you.

  I don't consider as having opponents. Cv's are nothing more than a big pile of B.S actually layered. Otherwise.... nope. Wedgie made sure of that.

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

You might wonder why a 40% WR player keeps doing the same things over and over too…

Because he doesn't know better, ergo has no other choice. Does that  (having no other choice) sounds...... familiar?

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Do I have to mention again that TX and Russian CVs are not balanced well? I mean… Again?

Ermm...balance and design are two different things. How can one balance them, when they are designed in a specific way around a specific concept? Ah....yes. Remember "dutch cruisers".

 

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

WoWs never got CVs right, not even close afaic though some conceptual elements were okay. Unfortunately a lot of players go straight to “this version doesn’t work, it is the only way it could be done, thus it cannot be done, remove it”.

We kinda agree on that, but the main problem is that they truly are different, they are a strategic class in a tactical shooter. And they kept piling on the BS. And on and on.

 

[Nagine]

12 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yo chief......you are confounding gratuitous forum thingy's with argumentation on merit. Otherwise.... who said that is..... bad? 

 

Still apparently we are at the ABC, so... T1 is limited. How many daily containers can you collect, let alone to complete dockyard missions,  playing T1?

THAT many?  Hm......

 

Edit: oh man I miss Beastieboy. I just had a chat with him in the port.......

That is why I suggested Tier 1 for the OP. It is not bad, it is enough for making ships explode. If you want ADVANTAGES (eg. mission rewards), be ready to fight DIFFICULTIES (eg. CVs, subs and limitations of a specific ship).

Good stuff in life comes at a price.

[Nagine]

12 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

You were saying premiums are p2w. I pointed they are free. Nothing else. Whatever your sarcastic comparison was supposed to be, it's not valid.

You should read again what I was saying. Use dictionary, if needed.

 

12 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

All the 3 regular classes generally have to risk their life despite strength and weaknesses. CVs mostly risk behing "less effective" as they lose planes.

 

And as for your example, smoke does not make DDs immune to dying, as I'm sure you very well know, nor is radar needed to deal with smoked up DDs.

If they are in spam range in smoke, they can also be shot at. It's not magic to hit a smoked up DD. Not to mention how smokes generally are torpedo magnets.

This thread is not about the brokeness of CVs, just about the "defenselessness" of SOME ships vs. SOME other ships. Ships with no AA (that are being discussed in this thread) can fight CVs in a similar fashion as ships with no radar can fight smoked DDs or hill-armored CLs - by using their personal intelligence, and not relying on artificial intelligence.

Btw, CVs have a similar risk of dying as the A line long-range snipers - they require spotting, reaching and killing (yet, they are not immune).

 

12 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

It is correct that OP said that (which is pathetic by WG, not that it really matters if they get a tiny amount of AA or nothing).

You were the one talking about how AA is workable...  

You were able to read what OP have said, so you can put that same skill in reading what I have said. I believe in you...

Hint - I was not talking about AA in general.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

This thread is not about the brokeness of CVs, just about the "defenselessness" of SOME ships vs. SOME other ships

Lolz.. of course it is. Cv's seeing ships without AA is part of their flawed implementation. No amount of mental exercises will change that

 

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

Ships with no AA (that are being discussed in this thread) can fight CVs in a similar fashion as ships with no radar can fight smoked DDs or hill-armored CLs - by using their personal intelligence, and not relying on artificial intelligence.

Lolz... and how is that possible when the Cv can fully dictate the when, how and where? And in case you forgot, this game ain't about "fighting" the Cv  It is about playing the objectives..  Just ...lolz...also for the examples.

 

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

 Btw, CVs have a similar risk of dying as the A line long-range snipers - they require spotting, reaching and killing (yet, they are not immune).

And lolz again...... this is outright false. "Snipers" firing their guns reveal their position so....wazz are you talkin about?

[Nagine]

26 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Lolz.. of course it is. Cv's seeing ships without AA is part of their flawed implementation. No amount of mental exercises will change that

I'll just repeat my previous statement: "Ships with no AA (that are being discussed in this thread) can fight CVs in a similar fashion as ships with no radar can fight smoked DDs or hill-armored CLs".

 

28 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Lolz... and how is that possible when the Cv can fully dictate the when, how and where? And in case you forgot, this game ain't about "fighting" the Cv  It is about playing the objectives..  Just ...lolz...also for the examples.

I'll just paraphrase my previous statement: "CVs fighting ships with no AA (that are being discussed in this thread) can fully dictate the when, how and where in a similar fashion as DDs fighting ships with no radar can fully dictate the when, how and where"

 

31 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

And lolz again...... this is outright false. "Snipers" firing their guns reveal their position so....wazz are you talkin about?

Do you even play this game? Backline snipers tend to anchor behind islands. So they need some enemy actions (eg. movement) to be spotted while firing. Just like CVs can be spotted and deleted early via enemy actions.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

I'll just repeat my previous statement: "Ships with no AA (that are being discussed in this thread) can fight CVs in a similar fashion as ships with no radar can fight smoked DDs or hill-armored CLs".

Lolz......I'm feeling generous today, is your definition include or exclude ships with Hydro? :) Not that actually matters because a) a smoked up Dd can't spot for himself b) a dd can't  ignore geography, at will c) the dd takes risks engaging other ships, while the Cv does not d ) Nobody fight the Cv until in guns range. One  actually "fights" the Cv's actions ( i.e his planes)

 

Idk what that hill armored Cl is supposed to meant...

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

I'll just paraphrase my previous statement: "CVs fighting ships with no AA (that are being discussed in this thread) can fully dictate the when, how and where in a similar fashion as DDs fighting ships with no radar can fully dictate the when, how and where"

You can paraphrase all day long, it is still false and wrong coz  a) a dd still can't ignore geography b) a dd can't just hop around  to attack from any sides he wants. c) a dd still have to take risks to himself while the Cv does not.

1 hour ago, Nagine said:

Do you even play this game? Backline snipers tend to anchor behind islands. So they need some enemy actions (eg. movement) to be spotted while firing. Just like CVs can be spotted and deleted early via enemy actions.

 :) We talk about implementation, ergo capabilities, which is objective,  not usage which is subjective .

[Nagine]

14 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Lolz......I'm feeling generous today, is your definition include or exclude ships with Hydro? :) Not that actually matters because a) a smoked up Dd can't spot for himself b) a dd can't  ignore geography, at will c) the dd takes risks engaging other ships, while the Cv does not d ) Nobody fight the Cv until in guns range. One  actually "fights" the Cv's actions ( i.e his planes)

 

Idk what that hill armored Cl is supposed to meant...

You can paraphrase all day long, it is still false and wrong coz  a) a dd still can't ignore geography b) a dd can't just hop around  to attack from any sides he wants. c) a dd still have to take risks to himself while the Cv does not.

 :) We talk about implementation, ergo capabilities, which is objective,  not usage which is subjective .

So, essentially you are cherry-picking cases where CV is at advantage over a SPECIFIC ship and ignoring cases where DD (or other class) is at advantage over a SPECIFIC ship... Let me guess, Shima obviously doesn't have any advantages against a Yamato that a newbie will feel hopeless and defenseless, but an experienced player will be able to counter... Note that Shima (and DDs as a class) has OBJECTIVE advantages vs. BB. (for example, camo).

 

Again, this is discussion about SOME ships that have a designed weakness, not general brokeness of CVs. Rock is OP vs. scissors by design. The fact that rock is an ultimate thing in general is totally another discussion. But, I guess, you'll start talking about pop :)

[Port_Authority]

What kind of a moron of an admiral would send some ship without a single AA mount, not even 1 machine gun on deck, to go 100 miles near any sort of a carrier?

[Andrewbassg]

14 minutes ago, Nagine said:

So, essentially you are

Lolz......no. Actually it is the other way around:). Look...this is not PvP for me, I already know that there is not one argument that could defend Cv's...Otherwise... no rock is not always the, winner it depend on several factors, like size and composition :)