reaper_swpz

Thanks :)

Can you explain?

Just want Azuma here, not sure why they can't like... sell her? $250 for all is pretty damn steep.

There is no such thing against CV - only applicable to: Rockets for USN Rockets and TB for IJN Bombs can be dodged fairly easily by any ship with situational awareness. Being hit b a successful DB attack requires the same unawareness to be hit by a broadside BB salvo. In both cases, none. In the case of BB vs anything but DD, BB can delete a target irrespective or the other player's interactions if that BB can over-match - bar one exception of max range. Angle doesn't matter in the least if the BB player knows where to shoot. What prevents deletions is not the player taking preventative measures, it's either: a) BB not firing at you, b) RNG causing a miss. But perhaps my usage of "delete" is exaggerated. "Cripple" is a better term - 2-3 citadels is game over for anything without a BB HP pool. Range is an advantage CV have, yes, but I'm not seeing an issue with it either as max ranged kiting is broken, especially on ships like Yoshino and Henri (more on this later). Not at all. A team with a crap DD and good CA/BB loses to a team with a good DD and crap CA/BB. In the absence of CV, DD dictate games via spotting which indicates a fundamental problem with the entire spotting mechanic. Spotting alone should not dictate a game yet it can. In games without CV or DD, is games where everyone has nearly equal vision and player skill on both sides decides matches. These games are also illustrations that there is something fundamentally wrong with spotting. They are not as my replays demonstrate. Being able to send out attacks but not attack at full strength where as other ships can continue attacking at full strength has no justification beyond an arbitrary "CV must lose offensive power as a game goes on". In the Midway games, I run effectively deplaned by the end of the battle which of course means limited offensive power - which at the end stages may or may not be crucial. 1) not possible as islands increase altitude causing rockets to fire further out. They're good for attacking a target beyond normally effective range but in no way does it allow you to hit a target camping beside one. 1a) Think bees-to-honey map, small islands just enough to cover hull from fire, enough to block vision but provides full AA cover outside that small narrow window. Very effective. More so if team present. 2) That's a good 20 seconds in DPS AA, against a solo ship it might work, against multiple ships the squadron is lost. 3) I noted that DB can ignore this - however, DB damage is limited per pass. 4) Cover works equally for all ships. A bow on ship abusing island cover to conceal broadside can be attacked frontally and destroyed. 5) Fighters die nearly instantly within same tier AA auras, I'm not sure why you think this works 6) vision works, if you are attacking successfully behind islands you either: a) guessed well, b) someone else spotted. If A, a good guess should be duly rewarded and B) that's just teamwork. I've found this to be more +2/3 rather than +1. It depends on the planes though. DB need +3 usually, rockets +2/3 and TB +2. Lower tiers are more forgiving. Any ship can fight at maximum effective range and use WASD to evade damage in turn. Even a 1k HP ship is a threat and can destroy targets if not neutralized. Yoshino and Henri are perfect examples of this, ships that can fight at 20km and cause significant damage even at low HP. Often times, it's impossible to kill these players without a CV sending in rockets. CV attacking with less than full squads is roughly similar to a low HP ship attacking, CV runs the risk of losing those last few planes and becoming a floating hulk. The low health ship runs the risk of being sunk in turn. The only advantage CV have is no hull damage - this is perception only as a hulked CV is as useless as a sunk ship. Maybe a solution would be to award no points for sinking a CV but award points for shooting down planes. Maximum planes / hull points = score per plane. Another thing that could be done is make it so that CV cannot contest points, being in a cap does nothing. That would also address the argument "shooting planes does nothing and hulk can still cap". Thanks, will try this. Seems to work only for DB/TB though, rocket planes de accelerate rapidly?

To a degree, I can agree with this. I attribute this, as explained above to CV attacking more frequently than other ships. BB players often hold their fire upon spotting due to wanting to save their shot rather than let fly at first opportunity. A CV player on the other hand is well motivated to attack as quickly as possible and to lose a plane or two so regeneration starts. The damage thus is a result of encouraging different methods of play. One is encouraged to hold fire until an opportunity presents itself where as the other is encouraged to attack ASAP. If we applied the "never stop shooting" principle to every surface ship, they are more capable of realizing their theoretical maximums than CV are as it's very easy for a CV to reach said maximum. Surface ships cannot spend even a moment not firing for said maximum to be reached. BB are generally able to reach these maximums easier due to only needing to fire 2 times a minute and having the longest reach of all ships. CA are next and DD last. The stats reflect this reality that attacking as frequently as possible as often as possible is what denotes how far up one can approach ones theoretical maximum damage per minute. CV make it easier by virtue of speed, that's basically the edge that they have over everything else. A BB deleting multiple targets in a row is pretty game breaking and without counter play either. CV can only do this to DD and select CA due to the relative damage they can out put and the target's relative HP. CV does not have high damage output, rather it has *fast* damage output due to the factor discussed above. They do have higher efficiency due to it being easier to aim and less RNG dependent than surface ships. Damage is what wins games as a competent BB can easily demonstrate by deleting multiple valuable targets in quick succession. CV in current version basically spots what's in their immediate proximity while doing damage. This is, again, no different from what any other ship can do, fire at those within its spotting range and allow the team to do so. One can argue that CV can do this *very quickly* but it does not denote a problem in it of itself. The enemy does not have to shut the spotting down (bar the fighter which can be shot down easily), the CV player shuts themselves down by attacking and withdrawing the squadron. The entire spotting system has always been broken for all WG games, from tanks to here. Romulan cloaking devices is simply bad game design.A better system would have been to make everything have realistic sizes but be spotted. Attack, get attacked back. Target size difference and evasive maneuvers determines whether or not one gets hit instead of this magical vanish into thin air crap they have going. I'd prefer they reworked the entire spotting system to begin with with concealment increasing enemy dispersion rather than making you magically invisible. Smaller ships would have increased dispersion when firing on them thus faster firing guns would be better to use against small ships. However, spotting would be based on realistic values. CV spotting serves to illustrate that rather than CV being broken, the spotting system itself is the problem at hand. This boils down to the problem at a hand which LWM raised in another thread. There is too much of a focus on hull damage while ignoring that squadron damage is effectively the same as CV hull damage. In this case you have a system that automatically fires at and causes guaranteed damage against the CV's planes without zero interaction required by you. I'd actually argue this is stupid on both sides. The CV player has no control over how much damage he takes and the player attacked has no control over where to fire the AA. Effectively, it's a system of RNG + guaranteed damage and WASD from both sides. Giving manual control of AA could be a possible fix as it changes the interaction directly to: CV player evasion vs target player aiming. However, likely the reason WG refuses to do this is it would be too complicated for most players having to switch between modes - same reason they won't give manual control of secondaries. Ships can use cover and concealment to avoid CV damage. Islands work as effective shields causing rockets to be unable to fire and torpedoes to hit before their arming distance if the player is positioned correctly. The only remaining threat while using cover effectively are bombs - but these require that the CV know the positioning and RNG to ensure hits. In fact I had a game just today where a Stalingrad player was able simply camp an island (his team controlled the other side and flying there would have been exposure to at least 3 more AA auras) while doing significant damage to my team where as I managed to land all of 3 bomb strikes for 40k - all of which was healed back. CV cannot spot ships through islands or terrain either, direct LOS is required at all times and any break leads to the target vanishing. Interesting analysis, thanks. Not entirely sure about that as by the end of the game, yes strikes were being launched, however, it was 2-5 planes per squadron which can easily be destroyed before it can drop. We should probably go back to the other point I made above which is: no other ship loses offensive power as a game drags on without turret destruction/tube destruction. CV are the only ones penalized in offensive power simply for attacking. This alone is an issue but the question then becomes, why should CV be losing offensive ability where as no one else does? And if there is a justifiable reason, how much loss is reasonable? A BB/CA/DD can be at 100% or 1% HP and it makes no functional difference to their offensive power. However, a CV losing 1 plane and 80 planes is the difference between can attack at full strength and floating hulk. In fact, ships gain offensive ability as hull is lost with AR. That's actually counter intuitive. I am for the idea of giving some sort of punishing effect based on how much HP is lost which could be balanced out by taking a perk (adrenaline rush) - basically, by default, say you are penalized X percentage to reload on everything per X% of HP lost on the hull. Or in the case of planes X% of damage taken to squadrons. This value could increase over time to mimic the effects of crew being killed/pilots lost and others pressed into service. However, this would have be applied equally across the board to everyone rather than just one class. The exact values and functionality would be more complicated than thus surface thought though as otherwise, AR would be a mandatory level 2 skill that no one could not take. I am also all for giving USN considerably strengthened AA power as has been the case for their lines the entire time. Rework CV effectively made USN lose their "national flavor" which has always been strong AA. Now, they are no different than any other nation. A simple solution to this could be provided by a special DFAA that only USN has. This consumable could have: 1) more charges, 2) increase the DPS aura by 300% *and* the flak explosions by 300% as opposed to +50/300 as it is now. A 300% increase would make USN DPS auras lethal yet at the same time give the CV player time to turn away to avoid. USN ships used to be no fly zones, especially with AA builds, rework removed this advantage from them without giving them a replacement. Assuming the CV does not turn away and presses in, aura damage at 4X normal would be sufficient to swat any squadron from the sky in short order.

No, it's not, compare it with a BB salvo every 30 seconds which can land multiple citadel hits which can only be repaired 10%. CV lag way behind in damage in such a light. Maximum damage can be easily calculated and the only "guaranteed damage" is from rockets on lighter armored ships. A rocket pass on a VMF BB would amount to scratching its paint where as the same rocket pass on a USN or IJN BB would net roughly 10-14k of damage. But for the sake of discussion let us analyze the different damage types. For all weapons we assign an arbitrary hit probability of 60-100% to factor in misses/shatters. For torpedoes we use an average reduction of 25% TDS as can be expected for most tier 10 ships. USS Midway: HVARs: 2000 x 10 x 3 = 60k. Penetration only = 19800. 50-70% hits = 10-14k. Tiny Tims: 5400 x 3 x 3 = 48600. Penetration only = 16200. 50-70% hits = 8-10k. Torpedoes: 5067 x 2 x 3 = 30402. TDS reduction = 22801 damage. 60-70% hits = 13-15k Dive Bombers: 11200 x 2 x 3 = 67200. Penetration only = 22176. 60-70% hits = 13-15k IJN Hakuryu: Rockets: 3350 x 3 x 3 = 30150. Penetration only = 9950. 60-80% hits = 6-7.5k Torpedoes: 9333 x 1 x 2 = 18666. TDS reduction = 13999. Hit probability assumed to be 100% as Hakuryu torpedoes are fast enough to make evasion impossible Bombs: 8500 x 1 x 3 = 25500. If citadel = 8500/17000/25500 depending on number of bomb hits. Penetration only: 8415. 60-70% = 5-6k. Note: Hakuryu bombs are difficult to predict as the citadel hits are by no means guaranteed and are gimmicks in a way. With the exception of Hakuryu torpedo bombers, this is roughly equal to the output of a tier 9 BB citadel hit every minute and a half. It's not significant for tier 10, notably, unlike an actual citadel hit (bar AP bombs) most of it can be repaired. Fire is a MIdway gimick where as floods trigger very rarely (believe nerfed) so they hardly matter. ----- Now let's compare it to BB/CA/DD damage, we assign a 30% hit rate to guns and a 5% hit rate to torpedoes as are the server averages. IJN ships: IJN Yamato: 14800 x 9 x 2/min = 266400. Penetration only = 87912. 30% hits = 29010. +1 citadel hit (1 citadel every 2 salvos is very optimistic) = 38926. IJN Zao: 3400 x 12 x 4/min = 163200. Penetration only = 53856. 30% hits = 16156. IJN Harugumo (HE): 1200 x 10 x 20/min = 240000. Penetration only = 79200. 30% hits = 23760. IJN Harugumo (torpedoes): 23767 x 6 x 0.33/min = 47058. TDS = 35293. 5% hits = 1764. IJN Harugumo (combined): 25524 IJN Shimakaze (HE): 2150 x 6 x 10/min = 129000. Penetration only = 42570. 30% hits = 12771 IJN Shimakaze (torpedoes): 23767 x 15 x 0.39/min = 139036. TDS = 104277. 5% hits = 5213. IJN Shimakaze (combined): 17984 Now USN: USS Montana: 13500 x 12 x 2/min = 324000. Penetration only = 106920. 30% hits = 32076. +1 citadel hit = 41022 USS Des Moines (HE): 2800 x 9 x 10/min = 252000. Penetration only = 83160. 30% hits = 24928. USS Des Moines (AP): 5000 x 9 x 10/min = 450000. Penetration only = 148500. 30% hits = 44500. Not factoring in citadel hits due to lack of over matching ability but the numbers speak for themselves as to how fast DM can put down a broad side target. USS Worcester: 2200 x 12 x 12/min = 316800. Penetration only = 104544. 30% hits = 31363 USS Gearing (guns): 1800 x 6 x 20/min = 216000. Penetration only = 71280. 30% hits = 21384. USS Gearing (torpedoes): 19033 x 10 x 0.58/ min = 110391. TDS = 82791. 5% hits = 4139. USS Gearing (combined): 25523 --- It's notable that torpedo armed ships suffer drastically from the 5% server hit rate of torpedoes despite having tremendous burst damage. Obviously this burst damage is applied as is the higher the hit ratio but that's not relevant in so far as this discussion is concerned which puts damage output per minute. This number, however, only applies so long as one is always shooting. Hence the advice of actual good players generally goes "never stop shooting". CV do not deal more damage and are roughly average to other ships which hover in ranges of 15-40k a minute. It is arguable that CV may "appear" to have higher damage due to the issue of players not utilizing the maximum DPS their ships can output by holding their shots where as CV generally attack as often as they can as the longer they hold their attack, the more planes to AA are lost. Once the numbers are broken down like so, it's pretty obvious Wargaming actually did balance CV to output no more theoretical damage per minute than any other ship. They're all reasonably close to the other. The only reason CV "over perform" is in the hands of skilled players *and* most importantly, the redesign which emphasizes: "Fly at your enemy, attack, press F and repeat the process as quickly as possible". This is no different from "never stop shooting". Skilled players have higher hit rates and as such are able to output more damage closer to the theoretical maximum. This is most aptly demonstrated with non CV ships where high rating players average 100k+ easily in their ships where as the average player nets half of that. Take my stats with Tirpitz, 36 on NA with about 3500 PR in 500+ battles, 34% main gun hit rate, 10% torpedo hit rate for an average of 102k damage a game. The doubled torpedo hit rate and 4% higher on main gun hit rate is the difference. Does that mean the ship is over powered or over performs? No, actually it's considered to be one of the weakest T8 ships around these days. By this same virtue I don't consider CV to be a problem as the theoretical maximum is too low for it to be brokenly effective. No matter how much I improve with CV and push the hit rates up, they will not surpass other ship classes and ultimately, damage is what wins games. Once you hit a ceiling on CV that's it, with other ships the ceiling doesn't exist as the numbers are unrealistically high. Putting two equally skilled players together, the non CV player will be able to output more influence than the CV player. The only difference is perception, a CV player focusing someone is going to make that guy's life miserable. But the same can be said for a DM or a Worcester focusing on someone, is that any less annoying? It's not, and the only difference is perception, one has planes you can see, the other has fire rained on you by a ship that's either behind an island or WASD evades all return fire.

Agreed, however, as I noted, losses are severe enough that usually, all you get is 1 pass. And let's be frank, 1 pass for 10-15k damage every minute is not much. Unless you get lucky with DOTs - which even with Midway DB, aren't always guaranteed. It's only exaggerated on DD due to their smaller HP - on a CA/BB, the damage is not even significant. It's smoke and mirrors though, most of these CV op threads are started by DD players and frankly, DD complain about everything - from being deleted by BB AP while charging at them to being deleted by CL rapid fire, to things that can spot them, etc. WG nerfed AP across the board due to DD complaints, thankfully they had sense enough to not touch HE damage or we'd be in for a real shitshow by now. The nerf didn't hurt BB as much as it punished large cruisers (who have HE that's effectively the same as 8" gun CA but with worse dispersion and longer reload) and German CA - in both cases, their class counter. CV hitting DD 15 times for 6k damage is not anything significant as Minotaur/Wooster could do the exact same in a single salvo or less, Smolensk could do double that easily. Smaller HP pools will always be punished by more accurate attacks. I had attached a replay a few posts ago showing a Midway 80 loss. A few replays are attached at the end of this post. Agreed but the thing is, we go back to achievable damage. If we can get 1 attack through per launch, then we can deal 10-15k damage per launch meaning 10-15k every minute or so of "guaranteed" damage - barring evasion by the target (yes, it's easy to dodge CV attacks unless rockets). This makes CV able to deal far less potential damage than any other ship in the game, BB can salvo for 200-300k potential damage every 20-30 seconds. CA can do the same. DD with torpedoes can salvo for 500k+ every minute and a half. CV can do 10-15k every minute. It's a huge disparity in terms of maximum potential and achievable damage. Even assuming 2 passes, with TB, you usually only get 70% of your listed torpedo damage and with DB, hits on turrets/saturated areas will net minimal to no damage at all. Thus, even with 2 passes, there is a best an upper limit of 30k damage every minute or so. This is still lower than other surface ships. Can't port it onto consoles. I liked RTS, the solution was to remove fighter strafe that was what broke CV vs CV play. A good CV player could strafe the heck out of a bad CV player and end that guy's game completely. CV sniping was already addressed by giving DFAA to CV which was enough to immediately shut down any snipe attempt. Removing manual drops from T4/5 then renabling at T6 was just dumb and raised the skill gap more - players went from click to "wth I have to aim now?" Of course the auto drop system was useless as even a GK could evade auto drops with ease where as the manual drop system was broken as "here's 12 torpedoes right next to you 300m away". A solution would have been to increase the cut off drop area to about 4km so that once planes were sent to attack at that range, couldn't just abort the attack if the target took evasive action - more planning required and better guessing. AP bombs were totally just to troll KMS ships - all other nations were literally unaffected but the Germans got shafted. "Oh want to brawl? Let me interrupt that attempt!" I'd say less influence as global map control is more valuable than what you can do currently. Say you have a very good BB player on the other side, that guy is going to be wrecking your team with little you can do about it aside from try to whittle him down. You don't have the alpha strike to intervene in a brawl to save a team mate, you can't hover over areas to provide vision without sacrificing your damage and your fighters are utterly useless. AP bombs are like a gimmick and CV's only way to "alpha strike" someone out of the game. What rework CV are good at are killing DD, this is also why DD complain more than any other class. Rework CV sacrificed everything for more front loaded accuracy in the form of rocket planes. Lost everything else that defined CV play. I consider BB to have more influence than CV as BB, with RNG and good aim, can instantly delete problematic players aside from DD (unless you are RN). I've attached a few replays. I consider the average damage net in all of these games to be acceptable so they are decent games - sea of hope was a throw on my part though as if I had started back, would have won it. However, I do note that plane losses are considerable and that damage dealt is not as much as one might imagine. Targets paying attention are entirely able to WASD and mitigate significant damage just as with shells/torpedoes. Sea of Hope is actually one which confuses me - especially the last minute flak spread back to back right after one had already spawned to the left by the FDG at under 2.5km that wiped an entire squadron instantly. NE north is interesting as it shows what a rework CV can do that RTS CV would struggle to by that stage of the game - kill a DD at close range. But that's actually something that RTS CV always needed, a way to deal with DD that got to within gun range as they were helpless. 20200228_224739_PJSA108-Shokaku_46_Estuary.wowsreplay 20200227_044947_PASA110-Midway_18_NE_ice_islands.wowsreplay 20200227_043408_PASA110-Midway_44_Path_warrior.wowsreplay 20200228_230433_PJSA108-Shokaku_25_sea_hope.wowsreplay 20200228_232650_PJSA108-Shokaku_15_NE_north.wowsreplay edit: An important consideration is this: No ship in the game is punished by having their attacks reduced short of from turret destruction which is not easy or in the case of torpedo armed ships, from HE blast destroying tubes. CV are the only ones who sustain detrimental effects to their ability to deal damage as a match goes on, no one else suffers from this. So the question then becomes, why should CV have to suffer such penalties to begin with and for what reason? It seems that there is an argument that CV should not only lose more planes but should lose enough planes that they can't even effectively attack by the time they sustain X losses. By such logic, guns should malfunction after firing X shells and require time to repair and torpedoes should have realistic loads and can also malfunction. As no other ship loses offensive power simply by virtue of simply attacking, this alone calls into question how much offensive power being lost is reasonable if losses are reasonable to begin with. Why should a CV not be able to launch complete attacks the entire match just like any other ship? A BB at 100% HP has the exact same offensive power as a BB at 1% HP, likewise for a CA or a DD. CV are the one class where their offense is not constant throughout the game, it depends on an arbitrary number of planes lost based on RNG flak spreads and calculable DPS auras. So for all the talk about unlimited planes, in such a context it's a poor argument unless in the same context we discuss capping shell numbers, torpedo numbers, probability of malfunction and etc. But that would be a simulator and not a shooter anymore. I recall LWM made an argument where number of planes are effectively CV health - by the time the planes are lost, the CV is hulked and effectively sunk even if the hull is still afloat. This makes sense if we compare CV to other ships where hull destruction is the end of all offensive power. In the CV's case, deplaning is the end of all offensive power.

Shokaku reserves are: 14/15/14 initially. 80-90 is not realistic nor possible with such starting numbers. To reach 80-90 from a starting number of 43, we will need to generate 37 extra planes. This is often times not even possible due to the 1 per minute per type. I cannot recall a single instance where I have lost 80+ planes with Shokaku. Usually I'm deplaned by 60 or so losses. The Midway game is a good example of deplaned at 80 losses and Midway has more starting aircraft than Shokaku. I disagree as my replays can easily show - losing 50% of a squadron to AA DPS auras is a regular occurrence rather than a rarity. This is made even more apparent with DB as noted. TB are the least affected - mostly due to the heal and the attack range - you can drop further out and just get out of there. Yes, slot 5 mod increases deck planes by 2, but as noted with the Midway example, this is not enough to bring losses to 80+, there isn't enough time outside of rare cases. Shokaku starts with: 14/15/14 and 9/10/9, so 23/24/23 planes. Midway starts with 9/9/12 and 14/14/18 for 23/23/30 planes starting. So there is a 6 plane difference in the two. In my aforementioned replay, even before I had reached the 80 loss point, sending full strength squadrons was out of the question. Assume one is losing 25% strength per strike, then one's deck reserve will be gone by the 4th attack, subsequent attacks will no longer be full strength. If losses are higher (in my experience they are closer to 30-50% per attack), then one can launch 2-3 complete attacks before having to use under strength squadrons. This continues to deteriorate throughout the game at which point by the 6th attack of the same type, one should be out of planes. This can happen quite quickly. My numbers are obviously somewhat off, thanks for the correction. In the worst rework battle as can be seen, I've lost roughly 30/30 TB/DB, this means I would still have a full strike by the end of the game where as by the end of the game I posted - I was stuck launching 2-4 planes per attack and losing most of them. Skill mattered more before I'd say than it does now. The moment you go into attack mode with rework, you lose control and ability to defend the rest of your squadron from attack, this leads to unnecessary loses that one cannot mitigate. T8 RTS CV usually had 2 less strike squadrons than T10 and 33% less aircraft HP, so the difference is significant. This is the part I dislike the most about the rework. It relegates a CV to nothing more than a damage farm where as RTS CV was a jack of all trades - damage, map control, team defense, etc. The rework is a failure, on this I completely agree. RTS were better in every single way but it should be noted that a good RTS CV player would simply make the other CV player quit without a chance to even respond - AS Saipan is a good example of one of the prime offenders of "good CV play". Rework CV though, made it so that even the most brain dead player could do damage, naturally with a good player the ability to do damage only increased. Case in point, after I learned how to play rework CV, my average damage (yet to reflect on stats) is mostly higher on a per game basis than even RTS. What I give up though is the ability to support the team, to defend the team and to control the map. Regardless of the increased damage though, I consider RTS CV to be deadlier by far. Removing alpha strike is removing the ability to take any player out of the game by sinking or crippling them. Instead of being able to do this, CV can only have meaningful alpha strike on DD - of course DD players are up in arms about how "OP" CV are.

Salty players be salty.

Except they don't. Refer to second series of SS for Shokaku. This is very relevant. What I posted disagrees with that memory. Memory obviously failed me here; I do recall some USN CV had 3x DB, maybe it was Essex and 1 TB. No way. We can easily do the math for this. A SD class AA was around 400 long range, 700 close range with full AA build and spec. T10 planes had 2500 HP so 400/2500 = 16% chance per second to drop a plane at 7.2km - this would last 3-5 seconds, estimate 1 plane lost per squadron. 700/2500 = 28% chance to destroy a plane at under 3km, this would be the drop itself so 1-3 seconds max. Estimated loss from total strike - 1 plane per squadron on initial approach, 1 per squadron from drop phase, 4 squadrons so 8 planes lost. Massachusetts sunk. Losses can actually be mitigated by using DB first - the HE would wreck a considerable number of AA emplacements leaving less AA for the TB to face. In fact this was my go to method back in the day. Stacking fighters into the attack also helped absorb AA from the strike planes. Midway AP bombs were not broken, USN HE was far better. The aiming circle was an oval of (iirc 150x300m) as opposed to a circle (of 100x100m) on GZ so USN AP could be dodged fairly reliably. Personally I never found USN AP useful. 30k HE drops from 2x squadrons were common though. RTS vs rework. It's far easier to lose planes in the reworked CV than RTS.

That makes absolutely no sense. The Shokaku replay is from 8.11 which is not what CV are today. Read my reply to El2aZar for details. If people are watching that old replay to say CV are whatever - this is simply inaccurate. Shokaku does not rock 16/17/16 squadrons, she has 9/10/9. Accordingly the plane reserves are down significantly. Shokaku loses about 60-70 planes before entering a mostly deplaned state. I haven't the slightest idea where you get 100+ from unless it's a 2x CV battle. Refer to this SS: TB are completely gone, DB and rockets mauled. 20 minute game so full regen accounted for. T8 top tier. Double CV game. Notice the full rocket squadron in the screenshot, or almost full - this is only because rockets were used once - for one attack and conserved there on after. DB were able to make 4 attacks, and the majority of attacks was carried out by TB. The TB were wiped out. From the SS we can also see what I was attacking: Atago 2x, Colorado, Sinop. Plane losses: 13, 13, 14, 7. The damage lets us known what weapons were used - likely TB at 9k per hit. Atagos took 2-4 torpedoes each, Colorado 4+, Sinop 4+. Attacks required would thus be: 1-2, 2+, 2+. Thus to attack the Atagos, in 2 attacks, 13 and 13 planes were lost, ie 60% of a full strength squadron was destroyed for one attack pass. To attack Colorado, each attack cost 3-4 planes, and Sinop 1-2 planes. AA works. No, with RTS I would have easily sunk all 3 of the problematic ships with minimal losses. No CA can survive a triple DB/2x TB drop. DFAA would have been baited way out. Also no way a SD class BB alone would have survived a Midway strike in RTS. They are not the same. For a 127k damage game, it's not a bad game by any measure. The damage alone puts it in the top 10% of games. edit: Midway game was today. Shokaku game was a week ago. Screenshots from much older patches are not relevant, so please check your screenshots to see if they are current. 20200227_044947_PASA110-Midway_18_NE_ice_islands.wowsreplay

Refer to my screenshots above. This was a full 19 minute game. 80 planes lost on Midway for an effective deplane state. RTS Midway could absorb 130 losses before deplaned state. The obvious conclusion is that RTS CV had more planes at their disposal than rework CV despite rework CV not having a plane number. Rework CV do not have unlimited planes. To argue otherwise is simply an attempt to shout down evidence. To argue AA is ineffective is also an attempt to shout down evidence. A T8-10 game contains enough AA to deplane a T10 CV with the kills spread evenly across the tiers rather than being focused at T10. An exclusive T10 game would have likely deplaned a T10 CV by the middle of the match if not earlier. I could upload the replay so one could see how the planes were lost as well - from aura DPS rather than flak, I have no issues dodging flak (aside from those random bursts that randomly spawn not in the path of but directly on the planes).

This is interesting and based on the numbers of 16/17/16 I do agree that is excessive. However, as the current numbers are only 9/10/9, it isn't exactly the same comparison. With 16/17 17 planes to lose, losing 2-3 planes to execute an attack is significantly less punishing (a loss of 15-17%) vs 9/10/10 planes (a loss of 20-30%). I'd have to check the entire video but for rockets, losing a full squadron is acceptable, where as losing 2 will deplane the rockets. TB, one generally can attack with only 3-4 due to the range and disengagement. DB is another story - a problem I associate with USN carriers in particular as DB attacks expose planes to longer duration in AA and generally lead to higher losses. Quite, it was ridiculous. Planes per squadrons were changed and total number of planes on deck were reduced, this has a direct impact on reserves as one starts the game with less planes than before. Shokaku currently has: 9/14, 10/15 TB, 9/14 DB. This is a 30% reduction across the board on the number of starting planes compared to the video. Regeneration only kicks in once planes are lost, so effectively plane capacity has already been cut by at least a third. With these numbers it is entirely possible to deplane Shokaku through misplaying as in that video. As noted, by the time of sinking Prinz, 5 minutes had passed, 16/16, 3/17, 9/16 were the numbers not accounting for one full rocket squadron lost. Thus the losses would be: -16, -14, -7. Assigning of these losses on current Shokaku would net: -2+5 rockets, 1+5 TB and full strength DB. Had losses that heavy continued deplaning is almost guaranteed. These numbers are now only seen on the T10 CV with 18/24/18 (Hakuryu) and 16/16/20 (Midway). I'd actually say a reduction in the number of planes for Hakuryu might be justified but Midway is in a fairly decent place given the increase in AA power. I have been deplaned in Midway against heavy AA clusters, so in so far as that anecdote goes, with 16/16/20 on deck, it's not unlimited. Thanks :) Stalingrad would like a word with you. That thing has both the accuracy and penetration to destroy turrets with relative ease. It's actually possible to destroy turrets by aiming specifically at them, the ship will not sink, just end up as a useless hulk. The speed advantage was a huge, but Saipan fighters ran out of ammo real quick due to the size of the squadrons - this was basically the catch, if you could bait even 1 strafe and avoid it, you had them. edit: example of deplaned with Midway attacking heavy AA clusters. Those random flak bursts that spawn on the planes do quite a bit. Was launching strikes with 6-8 planes by the middle of the game. Of those, maybe 3 would get through, so one successful attack for the loss of everything else. Planes are definitely not unlimited as maximum lost 28+30+22 = 80 planes lost. With RTS Midway I had a hanger size of 130, would still be sending strikes at full capacity where as with rework Midway, losses resulted in strikes of 2-4 planes by the end of the game. A break down of the losses per ship indicate a pretty even spread. Even T8s were killing T10 planes. Conclusion - AA is effective, if AA was not effective, there should be no way a bottom tier can destroy that many planes - and not be sunk from a strike. RTS Midway would have deleted any of those targets: Salem, Bayard, Massachusetts, without losing 14 planes in the process.

Think you don't understand how spotting works, ships have their own individual detection ranges, CV planes have theirs. For a CV to spot you, they must be within the range as listed in the port screen of your ship. Otherwise, you see them, they can't see you. Planes do not spot things from 10km out, they spot things that enter range, whatever this may be. On a DD it's usually 2-4, on a CA it's 6-8, on a BB it's 9+. On anything but a BB, usually you see them before they see you. On a CA, usually you see them before they see you, by the time they see you, your AA is firing. -- Damage 1:30 in, presumably OP feels the same way about an RTS CV sniping another 2 minutes in to the game and taking that player out of the game. Or a BB using spotter plane and deleting a player from across the map at the start of the game, right? If anything CV are very vulnerable to early game snipes - by BB, so long as they 1) run a spotter and 2) friendly CV spots other CV.

This is a very interesting replay as it demonstrates well enough how effective AA is - you're losing 30-50% of your squadrons "diving into formations" to execute 1-2 attacks. In fact you don't even start dealing major damage until much later in the game - early game your influence was nearly zero. It doesn't show AA Is useless or CV have an undue influence, rather it shows the exact opposite, the team influences more than the CV - you piggy backed off the team's previously dealt damage to farm for that final near 200k number when AA was reduced to "safe" levels. Examples: 1) first attack by rocket planes wiped out doing a mere 700 damage. AA proved effective 2) attack on Republic - 2 torpedoes hit, 2 planes lost, attack on Yamato, 3 planes lost 1 hit. 3) attack on Colbert (solo), 3 hits, complete squadron destroyed 4) attack on lone Colbert again - slingshot exploit used - 2-3 planes lost, no hits 5) attack on Prinz Eugen + Colbert (Prinz shows significant HE damage on the port side, likely lost a lot of AA) - 3 hits (Prinz sunk) 5 planes lost 6) noting plane reserves at conclusion of Prinz attack: 16/16, 3/17, 9/16, in short, rockets full strength, TB reduced to 15% strength, DB at 60% strength in exchange for 52k damage. Doesn't seem unreasonable. 6a) Plane reserves have since been reduced, you don't get 16/17/16 planes per squadron anymore. Current Shokaku would have: 9/9, -2/12, 5/12 ... 7) the other team having clear shots at you and NOT sinking you is... truly something. CV hulls are citadel pinatas the moment they're spotted, that win says more of the incompetence of the enemy team than anything. I'm not dissecting the entire battle but those planes are dropping as they should and AA is working. You've simply got good aim/good RNG (as I have no idea how on earth that final bomb on Colbert hit with the single plane that was destroyed immediately after) so you're hitting with your attacks even if your planes die. This isn't applicable to most CV players. What I see from that replay is that you as the CV was merely picking off scraps and lone ships until enough AA was destroyed on the remaining targets that you were able to actually land attacks. This is no different than RTS CV where say one could coordinate with an HE slinging ship to destroy some AA before going in. The first Colbert attack is perhaps the best example, entire squadron destroyed for 3 hits. If those were not citadel hits and were mere penetrations/over penetrations, a full squadron lost for 3 hits? Hardly an even trade. tldr; This video shows the capability of a CV to be a vulture, a very effective vulture but that's about it. It's arguable planes need to be reduced from that video but they have been since. By the way what sound mod are you using? Reminds me of Kancolle but not totally sure.