Jump to content

WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    4,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9434
  • Clan

    [SSG]

Community Reputation

1,274 Superb

2 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,090 profile views
  1. WanderingGhost

    Why did they get rid of odd teir cv?

    Except the part where most of the information in that is out of date or half truths. Are CV's cheaper to get to now - yeah, because your not buying a tier but the XP economy has had at best negligible or no change at all. Not to mention it is 10x more painful to grind 2 tiers worth of XP on one ship. Higher tier CV's getting larger squadrons - except where they are the same and some have been made uniform because that was WG's solution instead of fixing the real damn problems with it. "they are too similar to their adjacent tiers and offer little difference in terms of gameplay." - Find a line where every ship is so unique and different - they are similar because in most cases nations had a specific design and combat philosophy. Barring the occasional change every few tiers, especially in the beginning tiers. 4, 5, and 6 of CV should be similar, other than 4 is DB and TB only, 5 introduces rockets, and 6 is just more planes/bigger squadrons than 5. This is the early stages, this is the beginners area, it should be so yo help teach them. And for how rigid everything else is for CV's tiers 7-10 unlike other classes there are plenty of options that can be made available in ordnance to create diversity in the tiers while also further increasing aircraft or reserves of them. USN you have the transition to HVAR with HE and AP options and more if we want to experiment, as well as systems like Tiny Tim, AP bombs, HE bombs, and load out options of the bombs where instead of just "here have x number of 1000 lb bombs instead of 500 lbs" higher tiers with planes that carry heavier loads could have say 4x 500 lb bombs, 2x 1000 lb or 1x 2000 lb bomb, of HE or AP. Each new tier becoming more customizable. UK has variants on the 6" RP-3 including anti-sub variants if those come in. UK has variation in bombs as well, aside from the fact they should be DB's not LB's, and could and should more easily have a focus on torps anyway more so than IJN. IJN has plenty of option in HE and SAP bombs, and even has options in rockets between more 'normal' ones roughly on par with a 5" FFAR, ones more akin to the German 21 cm, and if you borrow from an IJA spun off project from the joint research even an equivalent to Tiny Tim - not to mention if we actually put historical accuracy back only TB's could use true AP in the IJN - and only as a Level Bomber, Only the B7A could actually carry an 800 kg bomb and function in the DB role, itself also a TB (The D4Y could only carry the 800 kg bomb in Kamikaze outfitting basically welded to the plane). Which offers then a choice of level bombing AP planes against either SAP/HE equipped DB's or maybe even in place of the TB's. And true alternate lines can play on what ordnance is used or other factors based on what "role" the CV has, what type of ship it is best at hunting. Case in point for ordnance IJN - one line using the never really fielded rockets, the other using historically accurate bombs on fighters, that combined with the SAP of what IJN should be using on DB's also replicates IJN tactics of using HE and SAP together best we can in the rework. In the case of a role in the case of USN say one is a more "mixed/heavy strike" geared at heavy cruisers and BB's - uses heavy AP/HE bombs and torps heavily while the other line is geared a bit more toward anti-DD/CL and focuses more on the rockets and smaller bombs, possibly removing TB's for a group with SAP/smaller AP bombs or having a more limited number of TB's. While the CVL evens only line that's possible we add subs in focuses on that job they filled using rockets, bombs and depth charges. I haven't touched it in a while, I literally have at least 2 full USN and IJN lines, and I know for fact aircraft and ordnance options for USN absolutely done on them, possibly IJN, and would have had UK done had I not lost my notes on which planes go where, posted up on this forum and only because I'm not allowed to put links in my signature apparently do I not have it just embedded there directly. The nonsense of evens only their is material for 5 lines of USN, IJN, and UK, and at least 2 of Germany, Italy, France, and Russia. The only way they are 'too similar' or 'offer little difference' is either lack of vision, creativity, or knowledge of history - or rushing something out that isn't ready. 'We also intend to make different gameplay for the alternative branches focusing on other ways to impact a battle, considering unique approaches to victory and interaction with both allies and enemies. The word "different" can imply an array of diverse options. Alternative ships could concentrate more on helping their allies rather than dealing damage, for example, they might provide better spotting. It's possible that some aircraft types from alternative branches will be able to set small smoke screens, thus enabling them to save an allied cruiser from heavy shelling. Maybe they will even have the ability to help an allied battleship fight any fires that might be on board. Or perhaps even, some aircraft will gain the ability to land on water and capture control points, although they will be very easy to destroy.' - this is the last we actually heard about them basically - and I can only hope they have scrapped these ridiculous and infuriating ideas. The Alternate USN branch shown months ago had Essex at tier 10, and I think Yorktown at 8. And lets forget for a moment my issues with the fact that Ranger, leads to the development of Yorktown, that become the pattern that helps form Essex that leads to the improved Midway class and so on or in short my absolute dissatisfaction with the tree - tell me at what battle were carriers, designated as attack carriers later on and used to hammer enemy ships and positions, more so as CVL's became more numerous and available to leave scouting, CAP, and anti-sub work to them freeing up more space for attack planes on larger carriers, actively fight fires on battleships, or drop smoke screens for cruisers, or freaking land planes on the water that weren't ditching from damage or malfunctions? Long have us CV players shouted for the egregious omission of Yorktown, a key class in USN carrier development, to be rectified, and one of the concepts is a glorified fireboat? The Class that Launched the Doolittle raid? Another on which the capability to carry medium bombers was successfully tested though abandoned as bases in range of Japan became available? Forget the IJN side where a veteran ship of Pearl Harbor looks to be made the same. I'm pretty sure most of us who want our Hiryu back, and have wanted Yorktown properly in the tree, want to be trying to blow each other out of the water with them, and attack ships, some of which our planes may have historically attacked, not fight freaking fires. And the overall lack of information, even on te Dev Blog, concerns me greatly, because the last time they went silent on things regarding CV's like this - they dropped the rework out of the blue, we can debate on whether or not that announcement stream was a poorly planned and executed one as they had to wait for footage that no one saw before even on the stream, or was rushed together to get ahead of a leak they learned of to try and spin things in their favour, but they had clammed up for months and had 0 transparency on what they were planning with the community - who did not receive it well, did not receive it well in testing as to get a number that was positive, but still less than 50%, they had to throw out 16% of those that tested it's feedback, and kept insisting "we don't have enough data and have to push on" instead of getting the data, or y'know, releasing any of it when there is a lull in major events that is going to keep everyone off test servers or oh, right, CREATING AN EVENT TO TEST IT LIVE WITHOUT INTERFERING IN RANDOM BATTLES AND GET THE NUMBERS. You know, like what they did with SUBMARINES. And that now in month 6, it has met few, if any, of the stated goals, and has if anything, created more anger and frustration for both CV and non-CV players alike. And that in the middle of chaos that still requires major balancing tweaks that Wargaming seems unwilling or incapable of doing or acknowledging, has released a line that only added more chaos to any attempts in balancing and has the gall to work on Ark Royal as a premium to be released when the game is in a state of massive unbalance still, let alone the other 4 CV's that never should have been put back on sale. Cause now I'm waiting for "8.7 public test, were unveiling the other CV's and testing them on the PT for a couple weeks and shoving them out even if you all hate this other new concept".
  2. WanderingGhost

    Swearing on Official Channel

    Funny things despite growing up before the internet became what it is today, Schoolyard (didn't play sports much) is not where I learned it. Family was a tad more liberal on some things so I listened to/watched stand up by Dennis Miller, George Carlin, Etc. School and Schoolyard was - Sand/dirt to the face is excellent for escape or creating an opening Be ready for anything - like someone trying to use a chain (legit chain not jewelry chain) to choke you in the lunchroom, and how to deal with that specific scenario How to subdue and disarm an opponent with a knife How to dislocate a shoulder The benefits of being unnoticed and listening, and the power that knowledge can at times have You don't need martial arts training, it can however be good to know what your opponent uses if he does Uncontolled rage = bad, controlled rage however can be incredibly useful How to engage multiple opponents when alone Suffice to say I was glad to be done with school when I graduated over a decade ago.
  3. WanderingGhost

    Question for you CV players out there

    I can't remember which patch did what anymore in the anarchy of the botched and ill advised releases wake but to be fair they did nerf Hak directly, in the dumbest of ways, when they messed with her torpedo planes leaving it that only the very skilled or very lucky are scoring reliable hits. And that really screwed it up because IJN AP, aside from being so painfully historically inaccurate in how it is implemented and used, is honestly pretty trash against most ships, and the rockets, that are the wrong damned ones and are AA rockets with about as much charge as a firecracker, are a joke as well. That and many of the changes that clipped Midway and USN were general ones that clipped IJN and UK as well. Only direct nerf I recall to Midway alone was torp damage - which was relatively minor. In truth, I don't have Enterprise, GZ, or tier 10 UK because of the stupid grind 10 takes because they foolishly removed odd tiers and didn't adjust xp, but of all the currently in game characters the only one that seems consistently viable is Kaga, the tier 10's all seem equally bad from what I've played and seen, as are the 8's. Ranger seems to be best at tier 6, but that says very little at the moment because that's more like saying "it's the least worse", all the tier 4's are garbage to play, only saving grace is lack of AA but that gameplay would not encourage anyone to grind to 6, and Saipan unless your in a top tier game with mostly 6-7 ships with at best mediocre AA is trash, however in previous stated scenario it's blatantly OP, but then again, Saga is 2x more OP in that scenario.
  4. WanderingGhost

    Question for you CV players out there

    Honestly - don't bother and save your free xp for now. If you hated them at the start - they are worse now and need massive work still, only this time accuracy has been screwed with to make it harder to hit and AA has even more power.
  5. WanderingGhost

    German Cruiser Captain Build?

    I would take PM over PT to make sure my weapons aren't destroyed, or my ship disabled and made easier to shoot. But that's because I operate under the assumption if I'm spotted every ship in the game is pointing it's guns at me, so PT for me is kinda useless.
  6. There's a list of them - Kami R/Fujin - back in the day before they over nerfed IJN DD's, I always heard how bad these were compared to the tech tree counterparts (that had the same basic torps but 10 km range instead at the time) and all the other stuff - even back then I clicked more with these then the tech tree counterpart. The fact that they haven't put an unreasonable spotting range on these things torps (literally every other nation uses the same spotting ranges except PA's DWT's) is a plus. Still fails when BB players use WASD hacks (thought I was going to get a solo warrior last night against the 3 BB's and Exeter after I killed their Kami - yurns out they knew to not sail straight long enough for me to dev strike them) but can still devastate teams unseen. Baltimore - I got it back when it was tier 9 and 'sucked'. Sucked so hard in one battle the BB's cowered behind me as I tanked 3 million damage from tier 9 and 10 BB's, even getting close enough to ram AP in to their sides while out running the turrets. Thing has played more like a BB then a cruiser. Mutsu - I didn't place high enough to get a tier 7 option in the contest I entered way back when they seemed to be a thing, and this was the only one on the option list at the time I didn't have so figured sure, why not. Always heard about how it's stock hull armour was bad and all. Made no difference when 2 matches in at max gun range I citadeled Bismarck multiple times. Arizona - When it comes to BB's, I like being up close and changing the enemy. Suffice to say the style Germany has is more my thing. That said - you build a USN secondary line with my Pennsylvania in it that plays like Arizona I'm all over that regardless of speed. The thing just shrugs hits off from +2 ships. DoY - she may be inferior KGV in many respects - still do well in her. Nelson - Squishy, easy to citadel, slow - but that zombie heal and guns.
  7. I have been laughing at how inept they are hitting even my Kongo now due to shoot downs, let alone real AA ships. Hell even my FUJIN has been getting AA kills. Part of why I haven't taken a CV out today because I know the instant I do it'll be +2 ships with actual AA. Hell, my 10 point ARP Captain went though 3 red ships and only failed to get the CV because 3 more BB's opened up at range to save him. And not even an AA build one.
  8. Okay, lets toss out for a second statements such as "giving players too much say" and other comments made over the years and focus on that last line about "Subjective viewing of Data". Yes, players in the community could look at it and likely spin it to what they want - conversely Wargaming can do the exact same thing. Lets take carriers for just a moment. Last month Sub was on this forum and posted basically - if average Winrate, potentenial and dealt damage, and spotting damage (something Wargaming has seemingly wanted to remove from CV's) are good why do plane losses matter? If you wish I can go get the direct quote from the AA explanation related thread cause I've brought it up plenty since he said it. Then went on to mention the 'strengths' of Saipan and Kaga, and I use that term loosely. It certainly behooves WG to say that these are balanced and fine - despite community massively disagreeing as they try to pump out more premium CV's to make money and lines to add to the chaos. Or that people will go "Well Wargaming says it's fine so it's true". Because despite what that comment states, plane losses matter because that factors in to how all the other stats he listed are what they are. It's the difference in me banging my head because I go to attack isolated BB's with my Saipan or Kaga only for Worcester, Mino, or Salem to decloak and automatically waste half the flights planes before even being able to react and in Saipan's case, left with next to nothing when you add in post attack losses on anything that isn't a DD even when they aren't obliterated by Klingon and Romulan modified cruisers, or laughing like a maniacal toon while I blow through some of the tier 6-7 AA with minimum, if any losses, doing whatever I want to the red ships unless they are in a deathball. We can subjectively view stats - so too can Wargaming employees because they may find the numbers are what they want and prove that based on how they think it should work it works, while the players are outraged and fed up with gameplay they find boring, enraging, etc.
  9. WanderingGhost

    The NTC reset ( asking for clarification)

    Graf Zeppelin multiple times Enterprise Saipan Carriers et all due to rework to which balance has been, at best, poorly addressed and has been in just as broken a state as RTS the last 6 months with 0 signs of that changing with the half baked and tested rework as it was. Ceasre where it wasn't great at release then buffed to be OP Nikolai Grem Mo How many other examples would you like me to list between premiums and tech tree ships that were problems till you nerfed them? Should we talk about the DoY that to meet a deadline you made in to inferior KGV because you couldn't simply make the AA consumable x2 instead of x3 multiplier and make the players choose between heal and AA? How about Musashi - the tier 10 at tier 9 that stomps pretty hard on tier 7's? Asashio with it's torp and gun combo that makes it pretty bad unless some fool goes straight for a long time or banzai rush a BB/CV - the only ships it can reliably fight? The IJN torpedo line nerfed in to at best mediocrarity when every other line, including PA DD that took it's role over but with American style guns, even when other nations have comparable systems IJN's spotted that much sooner drags them down and unlike the others - they don't have the guns to back it up, or the HP, or in cases speed. I'll end my list there for now and summarize my point - even if it's not your intent to release unbalanced ships - you do it far too often especially in recent years. I don't know who's left there from my days in ST - but I know most of them would have told you about half of these issues unless your ignoring your testers. With the most annoying thing being that half the issues are simple bloody math, and the other half is like your Dev Team works on how things should work theoretically, not practically. The CV rework is a great example because in theory - many of the changes should have fixed certain things - problem is in the real world they actually don't or make things worse.
  10. You have 3 games and 40 planes - that tells us nothing did they all have CV's? Counter to your point I played at least 8 games 2 of which had CV's, and it was only at lower tiers with tier 6 ones. It's the same mayhem as RTS - lower tiers where AA is still a damn joke, your going to see more CV players because they can do more than just something. Higher tiers less likely because AA is too stupidly strong again. And even beyond that you have the nature of MM where sure, you get lets say 3 matches in a row with CV's, while others go ages without seeing one. For all the talk of changing them to be easier to play, more popular and more consistently seen in MM among other things - they have done the exact opposite and put us right back where we were in RTS days.
  11. WanderingGhost

    PSA: Naval Training Center

    Now that I've read up on this mess - Are you people for real? Okay, let me make this real simple and I will use myself as an example for obvious reasons. I'm a player since Alpha testing. I have been here a long time, and partially because I bounce around lines, I only got my first tier 10's last year. So that you want me to undo years of hard work as one of the players that will likely benefit from the MM changes to get some performance increases? That already is me going "Ha Ha, no". However, more importantly while I may be unwilling to do so, especially given some of the ships I hated and ones that need fixing, anyone who has the insane amount of free xp, the money and will to convert it, or can easily go 1-10 in a couple weeks, gets to have even better performance than me? Allow me to summarize my response, and the general response of most players to the various other games that have implemented that or similar system as nicely as possible - "Go to hell". You think premium DCP is going to stop an increase in Torp damage that can lead to a OHK on some destroyers despite their overall 10% reduction in damage? From Cruisers being blapped out of existence due to even more accurate BB shells? DD's being hit by more accurate cruiser gunfire? That and that even if you drop these buffs by 50% that players in random battles, which is where we will see the biggest issue both in having these upgrades or not and even more seal clubbing, it will still be about getting the maximum upgrades for the maximum advantage? That players low on credits and all, part of why your changing consumables, will not be disadvantaged? I'm not sure if what I'm getting from this post is naivete or delusion on the part of Wargaming. Why not have some more events like the Snowflake one if this is based partially on input from that - those of us outside competitive and all that would certainly like some chances who earn more coal and steel without use of our wallets. Why put this in when CV's are still in need of major work. Why not take a page from WoT and instead take an easy to make clone with maybe a couple tweaks like the ones your on about with this system, and make it you obtain pieces/blueprints/whatever as you earn xp, win battles, or whatever through the tiers of a line/couple lines. Maybe even take older premiums in which sales have slowed as an option. Some premiums that test some tweaks and ideas that the masses can get over time and give you live data for in real matches since the entire excuse to put the rework live was us playing too differently on the test server. Things that don't make us reset, that everyone can participate in, that does not give any kind of advantage to the players with time or money to abuse the NTC. This, Graf Zeppelin, the handling of the rework and state of CV among other things - this is why I have stopped spending money on your game, and have had 0 inclination to resume.
  12. WanderingGhost

    ST: Priority Air Defense Sector

    My thoughts are we are getting to a point you should just damn well remove them. AS is, this will be yet another unneeded nerf to CV's, It'll likely add to the skill gap, again, odds are I'm guessing you can't use primary armaments making it unwieldy in an actual battle, and you are adding another chaos inducing system while trying to add premium CV's still - just stop. Put all CV development that isn't A: fixing what is in game or B: giving our odd tiers back on hold indefinitely until you have a remotely balanced system, that is more or less finalized and not going to have major changes. You want to improve sector AA? Have 3 keys, preferably with an option of players able to reassign them, assigned to act as focus left, balance, focus right, with a smaller but still visible permanent indicator where reinforcement is. Add it on to the damn compass or something if you have to. And if you want players to feel like they have some level of control then just do away with the shift times or make them drastically shorter. That way when maneuvering in the middle of a gunfight if they see the air attack they can keep at that and try and focus on knocking some planes down by pressing a button and if they see a dual attack can reset to center AA easily and plenty of other options here. Any of your Dev Team take one damn second to look past the weak AA ships to what the frakking Wor and Mino will do with that? As is they already slaughter planes. Now you want them and every other AA ship to have an instant damage burst? Tired of these half thought out ideas.
  13. WanderingGhost

    Wargaming lacks direction

    Then when can we expect to see the gap in AA power closed between the lower tier and higher tiers? When can we expect to see adjustments to CV's to allow them to be able to comfortably attack targets with reasonable accuracy even though in most cases that require reduction in alpha damage? How about giving us back our historical accuracy especially on a premium like Kaga? Or the odd tiers of our lines because we do not deserve this evens only nonsense when there's practically enough material for 2 and a half USN, IJN, and UK CV lines going 4-10 with odd numbers and the 'half' line being evens only, hell UK has enough to actually have 2 tier 4's and not just branch at 5. As is this ill-advised method I can make 5 lines for those 3 nations and 2 for Germany, Italy, Russia and France - which is all excessive. When are you going to at least till you add back in odd tiers, reduce the required XP to research ships cause trying to grind 2 tiers worth of XP on these things is frankly Bull. More importantly - where is the actual listening? Is it yet again like RTS where your team is only listening to the extreme sides and usually siding with the surface ship players? Are they overly wrapped up again in some failed concept that led them to make changes like buffing USN fighter ammo when we the players told them a million times the issue with USN AS and USN vs IJN at that point was that fighters were too strong and they needed more anti-ship ability in the form of returning some of the over nerfed DB accuracy from way back when DD's had citadels still? Hak's damage was way too high in RTS with 12 TB's - so no it was going to be too high when they increased the torp damage on it's TB's a few hundred points - all they had to do was nerf the fraking damage not butcher the accuracy. Same with rockets - the accuracy isn't the issue it's the damage they do. It's also the fact that DD modules need more HP in the first place not just to deal with CV's but other ships knockout rudder and engines too easily as well. Where's the listening to the fact that many of these ships don't have the regen rate to deal with being thrown against higher tier opponents or even same tier opponents when it's nothing but high power AA ships, or even just reserves like Kaga that can take losses? How about the reverse fact on AA especially at lower tiers is too damn low and when many of these ships deal with higher tier planes, just like RTS, the planes waltz through and just obliterate them at will. I'd like to know, given the statement made by one of your companies Dev team members, on this forum, that they are actually aware that while winrate is influenced by the other ships around it in a match, that damage done, potential, and even spotting are not just affected by these losses, or lack thereof, of planes, but even more so by the bipolar nature of AA balance at this point that can give the illusion of "this is fine" when in reality it's a case of either CV curb stomping enemies, or getting curbstomped - WHICH IS NOT FINE. All of which is amplified by the fact that your company blamed us, the players, for the debacle with Graf Zeppelin, claiming "you gave us too much input" when the only ones claiming the ship was fine were people that owned it while plenty of us told you it was still too OP when you went to final version and low and behold - WE WERE RIGHT. I've been here since Alpha testing, I came here mainly for CV's and to some extent BB's - ships I was more familiar with historically at the time, other than a small handful of other types. I volunteered for ST back when Gunlion was part of it, who knew from Warplanes I knew my stuff on aircraft and the like. I have watched, year, after year, of promises of "this will be the year of the CV", "The rework will come this year", etc. Watched, only to have salt thrown in my eyes as every "year of the carrier" was more accurately "a year of carrier nerfs", as every "this year the rework will happen" came and went with no rework, hell it dropped off the map till you dropped it on us end of last year with barely any real adequate testing, in the middle of multiple big events, as if you intentionally wanted as little done as to have an excuse to force it live. Yet again, with this rework, we were told "it'll be the year of the CV". Yet again, they just keep getting nerfed in to the ground, usually, yet again the wrong nerfs to fix the actual problems. We were told this would be easier for the team to balance - were in month 6 and nowhere near balanced. We were told the goal was to get more players playing it - and many of the changes since launch have put us back at the same old faces of the best and the stubborn. That the goal was to decrease the skill gap between players playing CV, and yet many of the changes made have only once again increased it. "We hear you", "We value your input", "Continue to share your experience", this and phrases like it have been said for what, 5 years now counting alpha and beta? Where something as simple as changing the physical models of CV planes to be historically accurate, an issue modders fixed in a week, took over a year where it felt like we had to drag your team kicking and screaming to do it and even then it was only during a complete overhaul that broke balance heavily at low tiers as interwar and WW2 planes were sent against ships with WW1 and interwar AA respectively. I'm tired of words. I WANT ACTIONS.
  14. WanderingGhost

    It should have been a WWI game

    Or - Wargaming can simply start looking at carriers like any other surface ship so they can actually comprehend how they should have balanced these in the first place. Standard 5-6 inch rockets, bombs around I believe it's 250 lb's - roughly equal to the typical DD/light cruiser cruiser guns or BB secondaries, take your pick (I personally lean towards Rockets more akin to secondaries due to volume and bombs more like main battery guns). Basically these are the weapons best for agile and thinly armed DD's and light cruisers do to sheer volume/area coverage and accuracy, but have really low damage. Rockets in and around the 21 cm range and bombs of around 500 lbs - Typically for rockets that's German standard and is what IJN should be using (IJN's current ones are actually at best named wrong, at worst entirely wrong as the name corresponds to a rocket more akin to Germany's R4M AA rockets meant to damage an aircraft, not sure the small burst charge would even chip the paint on a DD let alone what it does in game). These would be equivalent to guns of roughly 8 inches and other heavy cruisers, and balanced similarly. Basically, meant to beat up on other cruisers, namely lights, but still okay against DD's, if not as consistent as the smaller ones in hits, but at least they hurt them when they do. Rockets like Tiny Tim and bombs of 1000 lbs - These are your low tier/smaller caliber BB guns of 12-14 inches you see on low tier BB's, Scharn, and the "super cruisers". Basically - while these will certainly wake up that sleeping BB player, these are cruiser killing weapons, same as you see on the likes of Scharn and the super cruisers, but not really the best for sniping DD's. 1600+ lb bombs - 16 inch and bigger guns, straight up BB killers, that if they manage to hit a smaller ship, really hurt. Balance on those actual ship weapons is fine, and as fact some of these aircraft weapons were in fact conversions of shells initially of these same types. If a 9 gun salvo from Iowa is balanced, than 8-10 bombs from DB's with a similar dispersion and all that are 2000 lb bombs is just as fair. The volleys of secondary fire off BB's with 5-6 inch guns that match counts of rockets a similar size covering the same area and all. Etc, etc. The only other thing is torpedoes. Torpedoes carried by planes were no where near as big and powerful as ship ones, but they could usually get closer. Put simply we need to go back to the old group sizes as attack waves (4-6 planes) based around what the role of the ship is or the history of them. So IJN gets it's old 4 planes more spread out with a bigger boom, say 4-5k damage per torp max (the fact they increased Hak damage from RTS's damage was just stupid) while UK has say 5 torps spaced a bit closer but a ittle less damage and then USN 6 but has the least damage but better shot at nailing say a cruiser or DD. Which then opens up "What is the CV's role" - Wargaming has made it clear, they don't want us scouting. But what sets one line apart from another, what is the loose job it has and that is where applying this logic further helps. Under RTS USN was more of an Anti-Cruiser CV, while IJN was more Anti-Capital ship. We can just bring that back. And because of the variety of options on ordnance just for those roles - we have plenty of options to differentiate through some tiers. As is tier 4-6 should be your very simple training wheels and beginner tiers, with tier 4 having only bombs and TB's, the main weapons of the CV (and accurate to history) 5 adding rockets and a few more planes and 6 getting to the group sizes your likely going to see even if numbers will still go up a bit. And then 7+ for USN line 1 you add options like 1000 lb bombs, 1000 lb AP, Tiny Tim's, maybe 2000 lb HE that gear it more to take out the cruisers or hurt larger ships a bit more. Meanwhile on the IJN side they are meant to take out bigger ships so either the historically accurate bombs many of the post A6M fighters could carry or the rockets more akin to the German 21 cm or co-opting the IJA anti-shipping rocket more akin to USN Tiny Tim's. Obviously the torps with a bigger bang, and then give it options of heavier HE bombs (less than 800 kg) on DB's or even upgrade them to what they should be, semi-armour piercing bombs meaning more chance for heavier damage/fewer non-pens, and give them, not UK, to have level bombing planes with 800 kg bombs or AP or HE swapping out for either the DB's or TB's. With UK shifting to more Rocket and TB based with standard DB's with usually lighter loads likely with an option to swap out for a smaller second set of TB's (if standard group is 5 planes, 3 flights lets say the DB replacement is 3 planes, 2 flights) or something where as a German line (because there is still plenty of material for one) given designs and doctrine is more anti-DD and Cruiser, relying just on bombs and Rockets but having plenty of options, perhaps instead of TB's a fixed AP using squadron. Which then just leaves AA - which is just the same issue they ignored for years in RTS and are ignoring again. They just need to close the gap in power between tier 4-10 AA, or at least 5-10 and shield tier 4 CV's from higher tier ships and tier 4 or lower ships from 5 or higher CV's, and properly and similarly adjust plane HP so that planes that are under tiered because lower tier carrier are not outright butchered by any lone ship despite it being two tiers higher and that planes of a higher tier are not just laughing and as they play "Can't touch this" or "Can't touch me" as they abuse they attack at will unopposed by nothing more than brokenly OP catapult squadrons if anything. In with that is the rate at which planes refill. As is CV's should have reserves mirroring their real world ones, like Kaga, and depending on the average losses have the rate they regen planes adjusted. Something like Kaga that has waves of disposable planes can afford and should have a bit of a long regen timer while something with fewer planes in reserve like Saipan should have a shorter time. Even if we balance it that AA is a bit on the high end, as long as CV's are compensated with faster regen of planes to replace losses, then that's fine too. As long as we close the AA power gap so we don't have it planes are either slaughtered or untouchable.
  15. WanderingGhost

    The date the rework needs to be done by.

    Problem is - were in month 6 of the rework as it is, with only about a month till that film is out. And even if we take out the historical accuracy fixes like Kaga and the return to full tiers of CV's not evens only, the stupid amount of work required isn't getting done in a month. AA needs massive reworking, Changes made to plane mobility and accuracy need to be reversed while damage reduced, flood and fire rates need to be adjusted (for the most part upward), and that is the short undetailed list. And when Dev's are saying "If average win rate, dealt and potential, and spotting damage are good, why do plane losses matter" - good luck getting their dev team pulling all nighters to actually fix this mess and not continue the mistakes of RTS even more in the new system. Because apparently if lets say 50k damage dealt, spotting, and potential is a good statistic by their standars it apparently doesn't matter that it's made up by matches the CV is -2 is 25k or less damage due to AA and speed of matches while when CV is +2 it's racking up 75-100k plus with no problem and killing the fun of any other ship. To be fair - when you remove all the stupid love story drama nonsense, it's actually not that bad, and given it's Michael Bay, I'm surprised at what he did actually get right. Even if his film had a slightly more 'Pro-America' bent and misconstrued things (most, if not all civilian casualties were actually caused by US Ordnance that did not self destruct due to improper settings in the chaos) as opposed to the balanced (as both sides worked on it) view of Tora. I also have to give him credit for details he got right on planes and all that he could have easily bi-passed without most people knowing. Namely he did actually get the right ordnance on the IJN bombers, and unlike Wargaming currently he even got right that the 800 kg bombs were not carried by Dive Bombers but Kate's acting as level bombers, but that much of the strike that wasn't TB's was more HE bombs from Val's. Meanwhile they have U CV planes acting like they should be B-25's or the like when they dropped from Dive's/Shallow dives, much as the Royal Navy put more stock in TB's and the like. Which it's pretty sad that Wargaming can't clear a historical accuracy bar that Michael Bay could.
×