Jump to content

Eagl3

Members
  • Content Сount

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1611
  • Clan

    [SAA]

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Eagl3

  • Rank
    Seaman Recruit
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, just some quick background: Brand new CV player here (yes I'm one of those guys that never bothered to touch carriers). When I heard of the re-work beta, i went ahead and signed up but also tried a few games of original current cv gameplay, seemed like generic topdown strategy game, was meh. Today I tried the new rework and honestly I think I like the classic way better. I am not at all impressed. My two biggest gripes: 1) We should be able to launch and control multiple squadrons. I understand this creates the issue of alpha strikes, but i don't think it will be as bad as classic gameplay because you can still only control one squadron at a time. 2) I absolutely dislike the fact that I launch a wing of 6 planes, yet I put all of my planes in the line of fire going to the target, and only 2 of them can shoot per run. Furthermore after the run completes, the planes circle around the target, eating up even more shrapnel, dying, and not really doing their job. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If they're not dropping payload on the run, they don't need to be going down to the target. My proposed solutions: 1) allow airplanes to be guided by AI, and attack by AI but at a big accuracy penalty. I feel like the type of gameplay for a CV should involve some level of macro management; therefore allow carrier player to freely control his own ship and each one of his multiple squadrons by hopping around in 3rd person view. Also, allow player to guide the main aircraft in the squad manually.. yaw ,roll, pitch. 2) I am still unsure what the design thought process was behind sending an entire squadron, but not engaging all payloads in the squadron while on a run. It is not logical. Instead i propose 2 ways this can be fixed: either A) Have player set a staging area where squadron goes on hold before they attack, then the 2/6 (for example) planes doing the run, are the only ones that head for the target, if they survive they head back to staging, after some delay (while planes return) then the next 2 go and so on until all have expended their payload. At any time this staging location can be moved but not while planes are sent for a target run. then captain skills later on can be trained to increase # of planes that go for active target run. OR B) Set a hard limit for amount of planes for each squad coming out of CV to 3. I feel like this is a good number for a squad that has to be manually controlled. they all fire at same time if they make it alive to target and then they return. 3) buff all ships AA, not in damage wise, but control wise. Your steps to focus on a particular side for AA are on the right direction, but I think instead you should give ability to switch to complete manual fire (via a crosshair for all aa guns simulatneously, similar to how main batteries are fired). I feel this would create an even more challenging, yet fun and rewarding experience at engaging a cv player vs a ship player in battle (when planes are involved)
  2. Eagl3

    Terrible dispersion on Iowa

    I think we both are misunderstanding each other. What you say is partially true in the sense that my survivability and in turn damage output is less because of my inability to position and play the ship correctly, and I can agree to that. However, what I am mainly complaining about in my original post is the fact that shooting at a ship from 14km away has about as much distance in between each shell by the time they land to comfortably fit 2 north carolinas side by side in that gap. Not to mentioned vertical ( from the shooter's perpective) deviation from where I aim and where the shell groupings land. I am not talking about lead time, that's offsetting where I aim in anticipation of where the target will be.
  3. Eagl3

    Terrible dispersion on Iowa

    If this is the case then the iowa is even worse than I thought. Having to get that close up to someone in a high tier match in a vessel as slow and easy to detect as this ship is a death sentence. The only way would possibly be if you had a good team or people dedicated to watching your flanks (but in random battles let's be real), but with how exposed the iowa citadel is even a t8 cruiser could cause massive damage in a few salvos if they're positioned as little as 15-20 degrees to the side of my bow
  4. Eagl3

    Terrible dispersion on Iowa

    Interesting, so are you saying that if that bug exists, if I were to fire at targets without locking onto them then there would be better dispersion accuracy?
  5. Eagl3

    Terrible dispersion on Iowa

    ah right. And when is the last time you took it out for a spin?
  6. Hello friends, I recently got the iowa after a long grind, and the first thing I did was install the artillery plotting room 2 modules for that -11% bonus. However playing it in the past few games has been anything but accurate. I constantly struggle to get past 40k damage on average for a game with this ship. First I thought I was just bad, but I do very well with cruisers and even when I took out the New Mexico again for a spin. I've seen videos from Noster, etc. on youtube playing with the Iowa and their shot groupings are very tight, however when I shoot most of the time my shots end up all over the place. I try to limit my engagement range between 13 to 16km so I should not be having these problems. Did something change in recent updates, why is the Iowa so bad?
×