Jump to content

Alfa66

Members
  • Content Сount

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    25951
  • Clan

    [ROTTN]

Community Reputation

41 Neutral

About Alfa66

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. On thinking about it-- I believe it might be the Engineering Officer's voice-- the same one that replies to the Captain "...This is as fas as she can go, m'am." (above), and that on Speed Boost ending, imitates Star Trek's "Scotty" telling the Captain that if she doesn't slow down "...the whole thing'll blow!"
  2. No. I've never used any other voice mod. Note that it's not the "commander's" voice-- but one of the snarky underlings-- perhaps the XO? I will see if it comes up again when I play tonight, and perhaps find some way to send you the audio. Thanks!
  3. Hmmm... I could swear that I've heard that phrase just recently upon activating my DD's Speed Boost, but there've been a LOT of Aslain's Updates lately, trying to keep up with WG. Do you know what that phrase used to say? I.e., it sounded like: "You're so fast! Like tuuwooodies, you're so fast!" (In a playful voice tone an adult would use to talk to a newly-mobile baby or toddler.) Here, I've been wondering about it for a couple of years-- now I hate to think it's been deleted!
  4. Many of our clan use Mermaids' Wrath, and love it! ...That said, could you PLEASE clairify one particular phrase for me, one that despite the literally hundreds of times I've heard it, I can't quite make out: [player hits "Speed Boost" key]-- "You're so fast! Like ???dies you're so fast!" --What is the actual wording for this phrase? --Thanks
  5. Alfa66

    Shots landing short.....

    I too, have noticed that even with proper "perfect" aiming, and even using the very same aimpoint vs. a target-locked target, sometimes I'll get 1, and sometimes 2 in a row, "total-volley short rounds"--- the entire volley goes into the water short-- and not merely "slightly short"--- visibly short by a good 300-500 meters, as if the entire volley landed down at the very bottom end of the impact zone elipse. That would be extremely unusual, mathematically, but to have it happen 8 or 10 times in the past 2 weeks, on a couple of occasions followed by the next volley doing the exact same thing (and with no significant Lag, i.e., 35 m/secs), points to some sort of error in shot computation lurking somewhere. I only say this, because since I joined the game in 2015, I've never seen such a thing occurring with such "regularity" before-- maybe once or twice per YEAR, not many times in a mere couple of weeks. All the "...Well, just aim higher, then..." comments are kinda silly and pointless--- the reason folks are asking about it is because we ARE aiming properly, often just like a volley a few seconds earlier, and get such weird results. It's been mainly noticeable with BBs, but I've seen it on CAs/CLs, and I think maybe on DDs, although the latter is hard to be certain of, given that DD targets caught by my fire are "squirming" trying to evade-- but CERTAINLY I've seen it vs. slow, broadside, targets that I've just previously hit, and with same aiming technique.
  6. Alfa66

    0.9.6 Operations XP

    Me too ...
  7. Alfa66

    German CV First Impressions

    This is just stupid. Italian battleships or destroyers of which there were many in WWII.... NOOOOO, we get German CV's that didn't even exist on a napkin.
  8. Thanks for a good, constructive reply! I don't think WG is ever going to admit that CVs just really don't belong, so we're stuck with 'em, but your recommended fixes might help mitigate some of the serious imbalances that have resulted in the CV Rework and numerous nibbling-around-the-edge-in-the-wrong-direction "fixes" that've come down the pipe since. I'd certainly like to see your fixes incorporated, though I'm still hoping for WG to: 1) Have CV planes "spot" targets for other ships only on the Minimap; 2) Dial-down AA's power-- it's actually embarrassing when my little DD shoots down 41 CV planes in a match without any AA buff and without even bothering with evasive action, and on the vew few occasions I'm forced to play a CV, on at least a couple of occasions per match, my entire squadron vaporizes on the initial in-bound run; and 3) Increase the ability of CV planes to damage surface ships-- the torpedoes going off at odd angles at the limit of your "aiming fan"-- anywhere but where you aim seems silly, and bombs rarely do any significant damage-- CV aircraft bombs wreaked havoc during the war and, as you mentioned, changed the face of naval warfare to an entirely new paradigm-- they should be more "lethal" than they currently are-- perhaps giving some damage for "near-misses" (which actually inflicted considerable, and in many cases, fatal damage to the target during the war) might help some, but we all have to expect that any such "fixes" by WG.net will be promulgated in tiny little "baby step" increments, so this'll take a very long time...I'm willing to wait, as my 2 remaining CVs can ride at anchor, with occasoinal sorties to get a "Legion Of Honor" Crate or some such, awaiting that wonderful day.
  9. Alfa66

    Thunderer in a Nutshell

    Thanks, Mouse! Although brief, this is all the info I need to decide to wait a bit before squadering all my hard-earned Coal on Thunderer at this moment. Am still anxiously awaiting your review of Smolensk, before committing. I'm not usually one for "squishy" ships, and like brawling, but the differences in these two vs. other Tech Tree offerings make them verrrry interressstink...
  10. Re: CV Aircraft Spotting for entier fleet (currently the case)-- In a couple of the posts just preceding this one, it's advocated that CV planes are able to spot only for their carrier, but not at all for other ships, akin to Radio Location as now played, etc. Although I'm a firm believer in CV planes NOT spotting for the entire fleet, I think they should still be able to "spot" targets on the Minimap for the entire fleet, i.e., showing the enemy ship's type (BB, CA, DD...) as well as its rough course, and display this to the entire fleet about 6-12 secs after initial detection. Showing red-dashed outlines of the enemy ships spotted this way is already done vs. targets spotted by distant ships in "bad weather" or too far away for your ship to see itself-- but they do show up on the minimap, and that's what's important. This would also much more accurately reflect real life, as CV aircrews naturally reported enemy force compositions, and estimated course and speed back to their own carriers Combat Information Center-- note that they COULD NOT, normally communicate all this directly to other carriers' airborne squadrons.-- the other squadron's parent CV had to pass such info to its own planes. I agree with some of the posts (see above) that, in a like manner, for better game balance, if a targeted or spotted ship is able to fire AA at orbiting planes, then those planes (ONLY) should be able to see the AA-firing ship as well-- but not other friendly ships. [After all, how are the ship's AA gunners able to accurately track and fire on aircraft overhead, but the aircraft being fired upon can't see a ship, emanating tracer streams from automatic AA guns, and lit-up, end-to-end by muzzle flashes just below them?] Its is phyically very unlikely that even a ship generating smoke could hide from orbiting aircraft, for a variety of reasons-- In fact, it's almost impossible, except for perhaps very small (PT Boat size) vessels in near-perfect conditions. Fixing CV Aircraft Spotting by limiting "spots" to their own CV and to the Minimap for the rest of the fleet is urgently needed, and, if CV planes are allowed to see a ship firing AA at them, these two fixes will very quickly restore overall game balance, at least. Then, fixing "OP AA" the cumbersome, wacky "2-planes make an attack run while the rest just orbit, getting shot down" game mechanic can get some attention, but at least we'll have decent game balance in the meantime.
  11. 'Agree with FirebirdXIV above- and it's great to see Developers weighing in on the overall “CV Play Problem”— which has a number of subsets, a couple being “major” problems (CV aircraft spotting for all friendly ships, in real-time, being the one needing the most urgent fix) and OP ship AA vaporizing entire inbound squadrons another, somewhat less-urgent one of several). I can learn to live with tiny, impotent, little British 250-ib HE bombs; the wild swings of the flight model; the utterly non-intuitive, ahistorical attack scheme involving single flights attacking one at a time; spotter aircraft displaying the name of their “parent” ship for all to see; and other minor problems. Frankly, since I’m primarily a surface ship player, I don’t mind vaporizing carrier planes as they buzz around, making near-futile attacks most of the time— HOWEVER, allowing CV aircraft to spot targets for other ships’ gunfire, in real-time, is adversely threatening game balance to a serious degree. As I noted in another thread (from 7 April): “CV Rework Play Problems and Some Suggested Fixes” a few weeks ago on the Forum, carrier planes had no capability to spot for surface ships’ ballistic gunfire back in the WW2/Great Patriotic War Era, and they still have no such capability, not even TODAY, even with real-time data links, etc. Suggested Fix: Have CV aircraft detect targets for friendly ships, but display such enemy ships ONLY on the Mini Map, displaying ONLY the red, dashed enemy ship type outline and its current course, exactly the way distant enemy ships are currently displayed to other friendly ships that have their sighting range reduced by bad weather, or are beyond their own spotting range. I would also suggest that the spotted enemy ship(s) appear on the Mini Map only after a 6 or 12-second delay (like Radar Spotting, now.) This simple fix, using existing game mechanics, will help restore game balance for CV play. By doing so, WoWs might even find that non-Tier-X CV aircraft bombs could have their lethality dialed UP, a bit, even, for game balance— maybe even to allowing more than 2 torpedoes to be dropped per attacking flight, with at least one in the center of the spread, or allowing British dive bombers to carry appropriate anti-ship ordnance, as CV players will likely complain about the Spotting Damage they would lose with such a fix, but from my view as a surface ship player almost always on the receiving end of air attacks, aerial ordnance, in general, could use a bit of a buff, particularly HE bombs, which would also bring the damage they inflict on ships closer to historical reality-- even near and not-so-near misses by heavy HE bombs still caused a lot of damage— often Flooding, as well as knocking out critical ship systems. For a more detailed treatment of all this, and more suggested fixes, see my April 7 thread (above) and replies chain— ignoring the various “troll” responses of: “Let’s just get rid of CVs altogether” or: “If you don’t like CV Play now, then it’s your fault” or: “You only have a few dozen matches playing a CV, so you don’t know what you’re talking about” and other bull crap. For the record: I typically play 25-45 matches per day, but though I still have 2 Tier VIII CVs, I have rarely played them—but I play with former and current CV operators in my clan and otherwise, and we all regularly discuss what’s going on with CV Play since the Rework-- No, I DON’T LIKE the CV Play Rework yet-- not as an increasingly infrequent CV player, nor especially as an avid surface ship player, but am hoping that over the next several months, it can be fixed to an acceptable degree. WG.net can’t please everybody, to be sure, but at least, PLEASE end the highly unrealistic, non-historical, game-ruining ability of CV aircraft to spot ships in real time for massed fire by other distant ships. E.g., I recently had a MONTANA spotted by enemy torpedo bombers that kept their distance, and DID NOT ATTACK our team, but my BB was taken down in record time, just as I fired my fired my 3rd volley— i.e., about 90 secs (!!) after being spotted by air, solely from the massed fire of far-distant enemy ships. No Magazine Explosion (I had a flag up for that)— just a sudden deluge of shells. This is happening regularly now, particularly to DDs, which can no longer do their stealthy scouting job without being nurse-maided closely by an “escorting” CL or CA to vaporize enemy carrier plane spotters— It’s NOT due to carrier planes inflicting damage (typically none, or minimal), but rather the massed fire of every enemy ship in range as soon as the hapless DD (or CA, or BB, or whatever) is spotted by CV planes. Smart CV operators don’t even bother attacking ‘til their squadron’s fuel is running low— They simply fly circles on a flank, or behind the enemy line, while their allies mass fire, taking down each targeted ship, one by one, in what are often very short (and unsatisfying) matches. Our clan does it now, too. It’s not just DD players complaining, or getting blown away in mere seconds by CV aircraft spotting— it’s any ship, nowadays. Today, I read that WG.net’s response is a minor tweak to thin and lengthen the Dive Bomber Bomb Aiming Reticle and with Bomb Patterning now to be deliberately skewed to the edges of the bombing pattern ellipse— THIS WILL NOT FIX THE “BIGGEST” PROBLEM. Please fix the CV Aircraft Spotting, using the very same game mechanics that already exist for “Bad Weather” detection and display of detected ships on the Mini Map only— That will do it. Delaying carrier aircraft takeoff or passing of their spotting info by a few seconds will NOT. Worry about the Little Stuff later…
  12. FIXING THE CV AIRCRAFT SPOTTING of surface ships is the most serious, game-imbalancing flaw that needs an urgent fix. The wildly over-powered and unrealistic CV Plane Spotting for ships in real-time (i.e. resulting in mmediate massed fire from every enemy ship within range onto the spotted target) is threatening to ruin the game for me, and quite a few others are expressing strong reservations as well-- WG.net needs to spend some time in matches actually chatting with players that don't spend time on Forums, as so few players ever even visit a Forum, much less post in one. The complaints vs. the CV Rework continue to abound, and sentiment is running strongly against it as it currently stands. I still have YET to meet even one, single player that says the CV Play is now just wonderful-- at best, it's "tolerated" but most hate it. Re: CV Aircraft Spotting: CV aircraft COULD NOT, and DID NOT (and still do not, even today...) spot moving warship targets in real-time for surface warships, and could not do so, even for their "home" CV. They lacked the radios, navigation equipment, training and everything else that would be needed (i.e., modern real-time data links STILL don't spot enemy warships for unguided gunfire-- they just give a location for a ship to use its own sensors to acquire and aim fire at a target, unless firing terminal homing anti-ship missiles). BUT-- We ALREADY HAVE THE FIX mechanics built-in to the game to do it-- just allow CV aircraft to spot targets for other ships ONLY on the minimap, in exactly the same way they are spotted on the minimap by distant ships in bad weather-- showing only a red, dashed outline of the ship type and its last reported heading on the minimap. That is about all CV planes could do in real life, and would immediately address the wildly overpowered spotting of ships, especially the hapless DDs, that occurs now. As for PEBKAC? You seem to think that I'm the only one that says such things. I confess I don't spend much time on Forums, obviously, as I'm not even sure what that acronym means precisely-- but I get the context, and certainly have never claimed to be a good CV player, -- far from it, and with an increasingly number of players I know, or chat with-- currently have NO PLANS to ever even try to become one-- which is the crux of the whole issue: CV Play not being "enjoyable" & "rewarding" vs. that of other ships. I've only played 16 PVE matches with CVs, and the max damage I've ever achieved with a CV was 68k-something, but played CVs in the Training Room long before I ventured out even into Co-op with CVs, and play 25-40 WoWs matches per day, EVERY day (as my "wargame widow" wife will attest), and some clan mates have run CVs for years before the infamous Rework, back to Alpha testing, but a scant few still run CVs regularly now, so I also hear their comments, and see their results, live, and solicit comments myself during the match in Chat--- so it's not just my own opinion I'm expressing here. Yes-- AA is over-powered-- Don't tell me that YOUR CV planes don't often "vaporize" while attacking a target, particularly with a Tier VIII CV in a Tier X match, in Co-op or Random, or that your ships don't vaporize a chunk of planes in a match where they actually approach, instead of avoid you. My ships certainly vaporize them by the dozen- and I'm NOT running CVs in Random, and barely at all even in Co-op, as I've given up on running a CV, for the time being. But, I don't have to run double-up-tiered CVs for hundreds of futile missions, nor develop the timing and hand-mouse coordination to become a "CV Badass" to see the glaringly obvious flaws in the new CV Play system, nor to suggest fixes that might help-- Which brings me to my #1 concern on the current state of CV Play: The ability of CV aircraft to spot targets for distant ships' gunfire, just like a surface ship in the game. This needs an urgent fix, as proposed above, using existing game mechanics, and will be appreciated by CV and "gun" warship players alike. You seem to be defending the current state of CV play by merely calling me names-- and I'm just one of the myriad critics of it, most of 'em much harsher than I am, but at least I'm suggesting viable fixes. If you know someone that is really in love with the current state of CV play, please tell us, so we'll all know there's at least ONE out there that actually loves it, rather than merely tolerates or hates it. ...But I would venture to say that even coming up with one or two that provides the exception that proves the rule. I just finished 4 Randoms a few minutes ago, in which my ship was spotted by CV planes, and focused-fired and destroyed in short order by multiple enemy ships-- once in a MONTANA, which lasted only about 2 minutes from that point,-- a new low record time for me, and the other 2 in DDs. The other match, the planes were a major nuisance, constantly getting me spotted, fired upon, and damaged (no damage from the planes, as usual) but I ultimately died to a couple of CLs running me down due to my teammates getting island-masked (and not moving to support the Lone DD in the match. I'm taking a break at the moment, as we're doing our Naval Battle attempts. However, I reiterate-- CV Spotting is, by far. the most serious flaw in the CV Rework that MUST be fixed. As it currently stands, CVs are waaaay overpowered, but NOT due to the relatively paltry damage they manage to inflict, even assuming they manage to get some occasionally. It's their omniscent spotting for their team that makes them un-balancing. There are some very good CV players out there, though most are not (-- I'm one of the latter, and sadly, currently don't plan on ever developing the skills for making me a decent CV player 'cause I simply DON'T LIKE CV Play with the Rework. Now, if that was the only issue, it wouldn't be a problem, 'cause I never played CVs in the previous years, while awaiting the "imminent" CV Rework, so I'd just continue to not play 'em, and enjoy the game. But as-is, CVs threaten to ruin the game for other ships via their wildly OP and unrealistic Spotting abilities. A pity, as I have a LOT of time and $$ invested in WoWs in past couple of years, after taking a 2-year hiatus after Beta testing. I really hope WoWs can address the CV Play problems mentioned above, so as to salvage the CV Play system as much as possible. I, and probably most players, can "adapt" to most aspects of it (dive bomber aiming, impotent Brit GP bombs, OP AA defenses, etc.,-- HOWEVER, if this CV Aircraft Spotting silliness continues to increasingly ruin the game even for surface ships, then I'll be quite sad-- but I can gladly spend my precious gaming time and $$ playing with my War ThunderTM squadron, which I've badly neglected since my "return" to WoWs. There's only so much time for "gaming enjoyment" in any given day, and if WoWs gets any worse with all these silly CV Play non-fixes, then I'll likely become an "occasional" or even "lapsed" WoWs player again-- It's not like I don't enjoy the heck outta War Thunder, after all, and there's a whole world of on-line gaming that I've not even sampled yet... And with that, I'm off to watch the G.O.T. Season 8 Premier...
  13. WG-- As a minimum, please remedy the ability of CV aircraft to spot ships in the same way that surface ships, as per the bottom of my extensive original posting on this topic, above. It's primarily the SPOTTING that they do that seems to be determining success or not one side or the other in battle-- certainly not the damage that CVs inflict, in my experience since the CV Rework. And please give the British something other than the woefully inadequate and highly unrealistic (and impotent) 250-lb GP bombs. No air fleet of the period would go out to fight armored warships solely with such puny bombs. To answer some of the comments on my original post: Yes, my first paragraph is exactly how I feel nowadays, and yes, a bit of a rant-- but no, the use of quotation marks throughout the Original Post wasn't meant to be a joke, nor sarcastic-- We really need to fix what's wrong with CV Play since the Rework, and obviously, WG.net/WoWs is going to fall on its sword rather than admit the "Old" CV system, for all its faults, was better-liked and more game-balanced than the current one, and obviously, CVs will never be removed from the game. So let's drop all the Troll-ish remarks and try to analyze what's wrong, and come up with some fixes that use already existing game mechanics, shall we? ...And ideally, fixes that reflect at least some tiny bit of historical reality, rather than depart further and further from it. Yes, I fully realize WoWs isn't a "simulation"-- it's a game, but we should be able to use SOMETHING from historical experience as a guide, please, so that players don't have to resort to seemingly silly little "tricks" to have a chance at succeeding in CV Play. E.g., to "beat" the current hyper-lethal AA defenses, smart CV players launch a squadron, then immediately dump one or two flights' ordnance into the water, so those flights immediately return to the ship, and thus, not take part in the squadron's attack, but also prevent the entire squadron from being wiped out immediately and thus, reform quicker on the deck for the next launch. It's even recommended in a couple of on-line videos, but such a work-around is SILLY- as far as "reality" goes-- can you imagine a real-life combat squadron dumping their bombs to send a third or half of their number back home, to keep them "safe" from enemy fire, rather than attack the enemy? ...And yet, CV players must now resort to such wacky things-- I've done it too, and it works-- Showing things just aren't right! I want to play CVs in the future— but not as they are right now. Along this line, I find it strange that a number of posts on CV Play across the various Forum topics express the opinion that CVs are over-powered now. (??!!?) That's far different from my experience, and I play about 25-40 matches per day, or more, for the past year and a half. In my experience since the CV Rework, attacking CV aircraft can pretty much be ignored except for a brief evasive maneuver as they attack, until you get to Tier VIII, and if you're playing a Tier VII, IX or X ship you can still virtually ignore Tier VIII carrier planes, for the most part, as even if they manage to hit you --- and I've seen a rare few very skilled CV players out there now, the damage they inflict is paltry-- nothing like getting pounded by an enemy cruiser or battleship, or torpedoed by a DD. Yes, air attacks can be annoying— but far less so, than, say, a distant, unseen HMS Minotaur or USS Des Moines pounding you, machinegun-style, from a smoke screen. Just as in the "Old" game, Tier X CVs aren't to be ignored-- They were, and now can be highly lethal, and often help decide the match if well-run-- and mostly they inconvenience DD players, with their constant spotting, and yes, even their damage. Tier X CVs should be scary and lethal-- just as they were in real life, rendering "big gun" surface warships obsolete after all-- but the lesser CVs in the game now? Meh... I don't have "AA-Build" ships at all now, though I tried some before the CV Rework, and I don't need them, now as enemy planes simply melt away -- although I do take the precaution of putting up a "heavy" AA side vs. approaching planes, I don't worry about the damage they might do unless I'm already at low health. That said, SPOTTING by carrier planes enabling many enemy ships to suddenly focus distant guns on me, is much, much nastier, and a far greater factor determining which side wins-- however wildly unrealistic that may be. It is primarily their spotting mechanics, I think, that perturbs so many "gun" ship drivers, DD players in particular, and me included. I read elsewhere today that CV Play stats were "up" recently, to the point that whiny players were complaining of 2 CVs on the enemy side in a match (...and to think we used to have up to 3...), and that WG.net was going to implement a "matchmaking fix" to limit the number of CVs per side at high tiers-- but there's also been a Fly-Strike-Win task promoting CV Play (for a big batch of Coal) this past week, which corresponds directly with the sudden increase in the number of CVs I've encountered this week, so I believe that without such an incentive, I'd still be going 4 or 5 matches out of about every 6 in Co-op, and about 4 out of every 5 in Random, without encountering CVs, and since they're still so under-powered these days, my clan mates and I cringe whenever we see a CV in our mix for a Scenario Operation, as other than for the situational awareness they confer via their Spotting, they're usually not very useful. In Chat, the vast majority of sentiment I read during matches on the subject of CV Play, is typically: "CVs suck now!!" -- or words to that effect, and even the most favorable remarks I've read in Chat, or heard in Voice comms go something like: "Well... they're not so bad, and some things are a little better. You'll get used to it..." -- Pretty faint praise, indeed. I have YET to encounter a single "enthusiastic" CV player that gives the new CV Rework sparkling reviews. This has gotta be fixed, somehow, for all concerned. As far as all the various comments on "under-powered AA defenses" in the Forums— I have a hard time believing there are folks that think AA "under-powered"— My experience, and that of my clan mates, is that AA is far and away, OVER-powered these days. E.g., I've had mere Tier VI Leander CLs, which have pretty crappy AA even for their tier, as well as other CLs caught alone, without supporting ships, vaporize entire in-bound squadrons, and not just occasionally, but often. Higher-tier ships, or those with better AA are even worse. If I manage to get a 3rd attack pass, the vast majority of the time, it's almost always with 2 planes left alive, 1 of which is on fire, and both of which will die in the attempt-- and the total damage inflicted for any game is almost always paltry by comparison with other ships. Normally, I just send the planes home if they survive a 2nd pass, even though they could still attack (see "tricks" above). Sure, there are CV players that are much more skilled than I am, and I'm quite sure that I can develop the timing and skill required to be one of 'em, in time-- but the sad fact is: From my personal viewpoint—now, I just don't want to. I don't yet find the current state of CV Play enjoyable, and certainly not rewarding. Silver Credits and gaming time are too precious to be squandered on CV play at the moment, so I've sold off my Tier IV and VI CVs, and keep only a Tier VIII for future "Spotting" tasks, should they arise, but strongly doubt I'll play it much when I've got other, more important and effective ships and captains to develop. I'm fervently hoping that WoWs/WG.net will implement some solid "fixes" that improve CV Play,-- please-- not just constantly tweaking Match-making-- that's by far, the LEAST of the problems-- and I'm sure it will take months to work out, so until then, I'll just wait and hope.
  14. In my last post on this subject (CV Play) the CV Rework was just coming out, and I said I'd keep an open mind, and try it out for awhile, then see how it went. Well, here's my take pm it, at this point (6 Apr 19): The current Update to Carrier Play has caused quite a few players I know personally, as well as others I chat with during matches to simply refuse further CV Play, and many former CV players have even sold-off their carriers in disgust. I have tried to keep an open mind, hoping further "fixes" will make CV Play viable and enjoyable, but so far, have found it to be neither, and in fact, an extremely annoying WASTE of my precious gaming time, particularly when my Tier VIII CV is pitted vs. Tier IX and X ships—even a single, lone CL wipes out my planes before they can drop a single bomb. The CV aircraft flight model continues to be "jerky" (due to the time compression needed) and overall, CV Play has become increasingly "unrealistic" with each new "fix", causing some players resort to unrealistic "work-arounds" to "game the system" --departing even further from logic and historical practice so as to succeed in the faulty CV Play system. Although with practice, I will no doubt develop the proper technique for accurate aerial attacks-- while losing most or all of my attacking squadron by the end of my 2nd pass-- in its current state, I doubt I will ever find CV Play "enjoyable," much less "rewarding" and thus, will avoid it, keeping a token CV for "Spotting" tasks and little else. I have so far resisted selling-off my last CV in disgust, and have not enjoyed even a single mission yet. HOWEVER— aside from a much-needed toning down the fantastic hyper-lethality of AA in general, with some minor "fixes" using existing game mechanics, some of the more frustrating aspects of Carrier Play for both carrier and surface combatant players might be alleviated, as follows: SUGGESTION #1: British Dive Bombers should be allowed to carry, at minimum, 500-lb/230 kg bombs, and ideally, 1,000-lb/500 kg and heavier bombs, just as they did in real life. No aviation force would ever seek to attack armored warships with piddly little 250-lb General Purpose bombs, though they may have been adequate vs. small craft (E-boats, F-lighters, armed trawlers) and coastal freighters-- 500 lb bombs were the rule vs. smaller combatants, such as frigates and destroyers, and were the minimum vs. armored warships. E.g., in a 1944 attack, Fairey Barracudas attacked the battleship Tirpitz with with 1,600 lb (730 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, scoring 14 direct hits, which even so, only put the Tirpitz out of action for 8 weeks. Had they used mere 250-lb bombs to which the game currently limits them, there likely would've been no significant damage whatsoever. [Note that of 42 attacking Barracudas, only ONE was lost to enemy AA-- a far cry from the uber-hyper-collossal lethality of AA as it currently exists, and I'm primarily a surface ship operator, and yet I'm embarrassed by just how unbelievably lethal even my little Leander's AA is-- enemy planes just melt away and do nothing, and I've removed all my AA builds, upgrades, and skills-- they're no longer needed, and I pretty much ignore attacking planes.] SUGGESTION #2: Have the ENTIRE attack aircraft squadron, whether Torpedo, Dive Bomber, or Rocket Aircraft launch its ordnance near-simultaneously with the "Squadron Leader" (the central aircraft on the screen the carrier player "flies"). When the player hits his mouse key to "launch ordnance", remaining aircraft of the flight also launch their ordnance, but with a delay of, say, 0.1 seconds to 5 seconds. This will prevent unrealistic "robotic perfection" in the resulting bomb or torpedo pattern that surface ship players used to complain about. In the same manner, the Squadron Leader's (center aircraft) places its strike at the exact center of the "crosshairs" (or torpedo arc), subject to normal "dispersion", and remaining aircraft of the squadron launch their ordnance subject to dispersion from that point, as well possibly a short time delay, just as a volley of warship shells deviates within its "Maximum Dispersion" ellipse already. This is already included in the game mechanics, I believe, but it should be able to be "improved" via certain "Captain Skills" and/or via ship "Upgrades" (see further below). E.g., for dive bombers, bombs other attacking aircraft would have a similar "dispersion" within the "ellipse" that appears on the aiming diagram the player uses, and torpedoes deviate a few mils left or right (randomly) from the "center" of their assigned point in torpedo squadron formation. I.e., torpedoes would also have a "dispersion" of a few mils, left or right, and in time of drop, for each torpedo the squadron successfully drops. Thus, mass torpedo drops will have an appearance similar to a volley of shells, with each individual torpedo deviating slightly, at random, within the Maximum Dispersion parameters for the ship/squadron, just as in real life, and as surface ship shells do already. This would eliminate the unrealistic (and silly) game mechanism that allows only 1 or 2 bombs/torpedoes to "launch" from an entire flight of 4 to 8 aircraft, while the remaining aircraft of the squadron do nothing but fly along as targets, waiting their turn on the next target pass (which is utterly unrealistic, and NEVER done in combat). But it would also prevent the target ship from being overwhelmed with huge numbers of "un-dodgeable" torpedoes or bombs, as many will certainly miss, unless the attacking player is very lucky (as per warship volleys now). So— having the entire squadron attack at once, but with a slightly varying "time of drop" by say, 0.1 to 5 seconds after the "Leader" aircraft (reduced by certain "Crew Skills", as well instituting a "Maximum Dispersion" variance for torpedoes, etc.), targeted ships won't be overwhelmed by a concentrated "perfect" swarm of torpedoes, especially as they "shoot holes" into the attacking formation, and carrier aircraft will be far less exposed to the (already excessively lethal) ship AA defenses, but make attacks like their historical counterparts did, and with similar results.As a starting point, I suggest that the "mil dispersion" for Torpedo Aircraft be placed at +/-10 mils dispersion for early (Tier IV) carrier planes, and reduced slightly for each carrier tier above that, i.e., +/-8 mils @ Tier VI, 7 mils @ Tier VIII, and +/-6 mils @ Tier X, to reflect improved aiming equipment, torpedoes, aircraft, and training of torpedo pilots as the war progressed. Note that this mil dispersion is from each individual plane's position in the FORMATION, not from the Squadron Leader's aim point, as torpedo planes attacked in an on-line formation, spaced at intervals of 50 to 100 meters or more, ensuring a wide "spread" to increase the possibility of a hit for the squadron as a whole. Note that this also assured that it was virtually impossible for every torpedo, or even most of the torpedoes in the squadron's "volley" to hit the target, as many would automatically miss, depending on the target ship's relative course and subsequent reaction. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian) is a measure of angle, typically used in ballistics, i.e., a minute fraction of a circle. Easy to look up, if you're unfamiliar.]kills such as "Basic Firing Training" and "Advanced Firing Training" could be modified to give air squadrons a tighter Maximum Dispersion pattern, by, say, 2 mils each, as well as a "tighter" ordnance drop time relative to the Squadron Leader, say, by 1 second each. Thus a Tier VIII torpedo squadron with both Basic and Advanced firing training would improve its Maximum Dispersion to +/-6 mils, left or right, and drop their torpedoes within 0.0 to 3 seconds of the Squadron Leader's torpedo. For Dive Bombers, the Maximum Dispersion ellipse (that already exists) could be reduced in a similar manner, by say 5 mils "tighter" for both Basic and Advanced Firing Training, each. Thus, a dive bomber squadron with both skills would have its Maximum Dispersion ellipse reduced by 10 mils width and length. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian") is a measure of angle used in ballistics , surveying, etc. I.e., a tiny fractional "slice", if you will, of a circle. Easy to look up if you're unfamiliar.] "Sight Stabilization" Skill would remain as-is; "Aiming Systems Modification-1" might be extended to include reduced aircraft ordnance Maximum Dispersion as well. Later-war (Tier VIII and X) aircraft should be able to attack from higher up, and at much faster airspeeds, as improved torpedoes obviated the need for very low, very slow torpedo drops to prevent destruction of the torpedo. SUGGESTION #3: Aircraft Spotting of Surface Ships— THE PROBLEM: Aircraft are able to spot an enemy ship, so that other ships can fire upon it too easily and in real time, and yet, the range for aircraft spotting of an enemy ship is so limited that a flight of planes often loses sight of its target between passes. Currently, aircraft not only reveal far too much information to allied players, enabling any enemy ship they spot to be fired upon by all; they are also often taken under intense AA fire without even being able to spot the enemy ship that is firing upon them. DISCUSSION: Carrier aircraft of the period were totally unable to provide more than an enemy ship type and rough location and course to distant stations, and typically were, at most, in radio contact only with their own ship's Combat Information Center, assuming it was even in radio range, and long-range radios of the day were often Morse Code key sets, not voice comms, and the enemy ship type and course reported was typically vague at best, and more than not, inaccurate. So as to go undetected, attack aircraft typically flew on "radio listening silence" until commencing their attack, could not communicate with other ships in real time, and went silent again for their return to their carrier, so as to not reveal its location. SOLUTION: To reflect this and improve Aircraft Spotting of Ships, non-spotter aircraft should be able to see enemy surface ships well before they enter the enemy's AA zone— but unable to pass anything more than that ship's type and location for at least 6-12 seconds afterward. Thus, non-spotter, attack aircraft and fighters should UNABLE to spot targets spot enemy ships in real time as if they were a surface ship—they could only reveal an enemy ship's basic type (not name), and only on the Mini Map. Sighting of surface ships by non-spotter aircraft should provide a player's allies ONLY a "shaded red/dashed red" outline of an enemy ship on the Mini Map ONLY, in exactly the same way an enemy ship obscured by bad weather, or spotted by others beyond one's ship's sighting range is currently shown on the Mini Map. Such "spotting" should be revealed to friendly players only after a slight delay— of say, 6 to 10 seconds, to reflect the time required for an aircraft's "home" ship to pass enemy location data to other friendly ships. Spotting Aircraft Use and aspects would continue unchanged. PROBLEM: Overly Lethal AA's Severe Impact on Game Balance: AA is so lethal now that I pretty much ignore incoming planes unless they're from a Tier X CV. The rest just "evaporate" and even if they hit me, they do about as much damage as an 8-inch shell strike, and torp hits virtually never flood. When operating a CV, I suffer from having my planes wiped out on approach to higher-tier and even sometimes to lower-tier ships. My planes are often "surprised" by hidden enemy ships and downed before they can escapey, even with Engine Boost and calling for Fighters to help absorb attacks. Such hyper-lethal AA guarantees that I can never even make it into the upper half of scorers on my team, and am almost always at or close to the bottom. SOLUTION A: Have dual-purpose guns (e.g., Atlanta's 5" guns; the 105mm dual-purpose guns of Prinz Eugen or Tirpitz; 100mm guns of Akizuki…) either fire upon surface targets, or vs. aerial targets, BUT NOT BOTH at the same time. The player must choose, or let the ship's AI decide— When under aerial attack, it fires all guns vs. attacking aircraft, or at least all guns on the "Priority AA" Side, unless the player chooses otherwise, by clicking on a surface target. Medium and Short-range AA guns, of course, would continue to defend the ship, as usual. SOLUTION B: Halve the Hit Probability of all ships— Really now, Continuous Damage Ph's of 88% and 95% (Tier VIII) and 100% (Tier X) are ridiculous for that era, and even for today. Leave Continuous Damage and Burst Radius Damage as is, but entire squadrons vanishing as they approach a lone Leander CL is just awful. Even if this is done, I predict that another "halving" will be needed in the future to bring CV Play into balance with surface ships. This will work, and be balanced as well, if the changes above are implemented I think. SOLUTION C: Stop listening to whiny surface ship players that complain they "…can never see an enemy CV, and therefore can't fight vs. such an "unseen enemy"— That's the just way it was, and is. A ship fights vs. an enemy CV's AIRCRAFT, as the enemy CV is hundreds of kilometers away, not lurking on a tiny map, trying to avoid surface detection and destruction by nearby enemy surface ships, as in the game. In all history, only three (3!) CVs are recorded as lost to enemy surface gunfire. If anything, CV players should be whining about the tiny maps. But don't think because I say this that I'm a CV fan boy, or even "enthusiast"— as, so far, I hate CV Play, and plan to run a CV only as a last resort for a battle task, as it's become a waste of my precious gaming time, unless things improve. Obviously, all this needs to be play-tested, but such changes, using existing game mechanics, could be easily incorporated to make Carrier Play more rewarding and enjoyable, while at the same time allow players to use Naval History (somewhat) as a guide for their tactics. OK-- Thoughts, anyone? Trolls need not reply-- we already know what you (don't) think...
×