Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Ace_Robz

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

524 profile views
  1. Ace_Robz

    USS Hornet and her B-25s

    Neither were the Ta-152, nor the BF-110, nor many other planes we already see being used on flight decks in the game. The difference from these is the B-25s were actually used on the deck of this ship, so again, they have more of a right to be there than other examples we already have in the game.
  2. Ace_Robz

    USS Hornet and her B-25s

    While the B-25s launched from Hornet were only used against land targets (unless you count hitting the carrier Ryuho), I don't think you'd be breaking any historical accuracy barrier by this addition. Despite their accuracy, it wasn't exactly uncommon for level bombers to go after moving ships at sea throughout the war, and we already have them in game with British carrier carpet bombers and Dutch level bombers that make up the airstrike ability. As for the B-25s not being naval aircraft, considering the ship actually went out and launched them, I don't think that's "immersion breaking" or anything either. Plus, B-25s did come in naval patrol bomber variants called PBJs that were used for shipping interdiction and were even trialed for standard carrier operations aboard the (funnily enough) Shangri La in 1944 (which was named after a Doolittle raid shitpost by FDR). At the end of the day, with all the things we see carriers doing in this game, I don't think Hornet using B-25s even comes close to being the most offensive.
  3. Ace_Robz

    USS Hornet and her B-25s

    Good eye! I missed that other landing gear and accidentally paired the starboard landing gear with the SB2C's tail wheel, which is much closer together and much shorter implying an F4F. I suppose the bright blue camo on the tail also threw me off as you usually see F4Fs sporting it as opposed to F6Fs often seen in their late-war darker tone.
  4. Ace_Robz

    USS Hornet and her B-25s

    Look at her, isn't she beautiful? Many people are really excited for the two upcoming Yorktowns and for good reason given their historical context. Now let's take a closer look at the Happy Hornet. They've really done a spectacular job with the model and the camo. Her anti-aircraft armament is on point, sporting the old 28mm Chicago pianos (Enterprise was the only one of her sisters to be upgraded with 40mm Bofors). What this means is that her anti-air can be considered fairly lackluster compared to her Tier 8 peers with late-war AA (not that it matters since AA makes no sense and isn't a big factor on a carrier in this game). I imagine Yorktown will be a similar case unless they give her a fictional retrofit. This seems to imply they will be carriers that have some lackluster stats bearing early-war equipment, but then will have something stronger to make up for it. The question is, what would that be, how gimmicky will it be, and how will they screw it up this time? Hold that thought for a sec and let's take a look at the aircraft on the flight deck. It's somewhat pixelated and one plane is behind another, but we can make out an SB2C Helldiver, the typical T8 dive-bomber as seen on Lexington and Enterprise. On its right, a plane I haven't been able to identify, it looks like a prototype of some kind but I haven't been able to figure out what exactly it is, but it appears to be the torpedo-bomber of the group. The last one is interesting, it is very difficult to identify given most of it is covered up, but the tail section appears to be that of an F4F Wildcat, and we can kinda see its distinct landing gear to support this. This is a very low-tiered aircraft for Tier 8 and it is close to how I expected the ship would work if she was ever brought into the game. This is all a very long way of saying that Hornet should get the B-25 Mitchell as one of her aircraft types. The B-25s could act as a very beefy wing that has a special carpet bombing attack similar to British bombers. These would be the main striking power of the carrier, with a few different ways it could work. Either you receive a very small amount of planes with low restock rate, or if they wanted to go ballsy, a large amount of bombers that DON'T return to the carrier and presumably fly off to China. Or a mix of the two. If they wanted to play around with it, they could give it a neat consumable or something to utilize the tail gunners and protect the planes from fighters. This special striking package is balanced out by the rest of her wings being made up of lower-tiered aircraft, F4F WIldcats, SBD Dauntlesses, TBF Avenger or even TBD Devastators with potentially low deck numbers (and weak ship AA). Heck, that gives the SBD Dauntless another chance to show itself, seriously, this plane is only found on stock Lexingtons. Still here? Nice, have a virtual cookie. balancing reasons aside, and whatever gimmic they choose to give the ship, aesthetically, they really should go with the B-25 over late-war aircraft the ship never carried or prototypes. I mean c'mon, they want gimmicks, this ship did one of the most gimmicky things in the war! It's like Ark Royal and her Swordfish, it will create neuron activation.
  5. Ace_Robz

    How well do you really know LWM?

    I met her in a battle wayyyy back when Atlanta and Sims and I think Texas were the only USN premiums. She was in her Warspite, I was in Atlanta, people in the battle were saying hello to her and she was responding but I had no idea who she was so ignored it, but I did end up escorting her and talking battle stuff. After the battle she actually sent me a message thanking me for the escort and congratulating me on the victory and I asked who she was, so she said she makes ship reviews and stuff and that's how I came across her work. A while later when Enterprise was in the works and I might've been a bit too hyped for my own good, I sent her messages asking things about the ship and she always responded, for as annoying as I might have come across. I have nothing but respect for her, she's compassionate, funny, and has an ungodly amount of patience to make all those reviews and in dealing with the community.
  6. Here's Baltimore and North Carolina. Baltimore Top Speed: 32.5kt Turning Speed: 26.0kt Turn1: 1:05.23 Turn2: 1:05.38 Turn3: 1:05.31 Turn4: 1:05.39 Turn5: 1:05.29 North Carolina Top Speed: 27.5kt Turning Speed: 20.3kt Turn1: 1:26.96 Turn2: 1:26.75 Turn3: 1:26.98 Turn4: 1:26.98 (Yep, got the same as the previous one, a glitch in the matrix I suppose) Turn5: 1:26.80 (Edit) Aw blast, they got checked off while I was doing the spins, whoops.
  7. Good Luck with the math part, try not to work yourself too hard! Iowa Top Speed: 33.1kt Turning Speed: 22.9kt Turn1: 1:33.48 Turn2: 1:33.40 Turn3: 1:33.35 Turn4: 1:33.32 Turn5: 1:33.46 Midway Top Speed: 32.9kt Turning Speed: 22.0kt Turn1: 2:09.76 Turn2: 2:10.22 Turn3: 2:10.19 Turn4: 2:10.20 Turn5: 2:10.19 Fletcher Top Speed: 36.5kt Turning Speed: 30.6kt Turn1: 42.53 Turn2: 42.59 Turn3: 42.78 Turn4: 42.48 Turn5: 42.62 Massachusetts Top Speed: 27.5kt Turning Speed: 20.6kt Turn1: 1:20.27 Turn2: 1:20.48 Turn3: 1:20.28 Turn4: 1:20.39 Turn5: 1:20.30 Cleveland Top Speed: 32.5kt Turning Speed: 25.0kt Turn1: 1:01.52 Turn2: 1:01.49 Turn3: 1:01.55 Turn4: 1:01.51 Turn5: 1:01.61 Prinz Eugen Top Speed: 31.9kt Turning Speed: 25.6kt Turn1: 1:09.75 Turn2: 1:09.91 Turn3: 1:09.96 Turn4: 1:09.87 Turn5: 1:09.82 Atago Top Speed: 35.6kt Turning Speed: 28.5kt Turn1: 1:04.69(nice) Turn2: 1:04.66 Turn3: 1:04.64 Turn4: 1:04.79 Turn5: 1:04.72 Exeter Top Speed: 32.0kt Turning Speed: 25.6 Turn1: 59.27 Turn2: 59.07 Turn3: 59.35 Turn4: 59.34 Turn5: 59.32
  8. Ace_Robz

    A new concept for AA defense

    Interesting idea, it could be based on caps owned, making them even more important. They could also work with coastal defenses, though I remember the bastion gamemode had issues with that. I proposed an idea where initiating an attack splits off the attacking flight from the rest of the flight, meaning you only have to shoot down the attacking flight to prevent bombs rockets or torps from being launched instead of the whole squadron. There's still plenty of changes we can make so never be shy to share your ideas!
  9. Alright so the title might be a little strong, this isn't the ultimate "fix" for carriers and I am not going to pretend like I have the obvious solution that will solve every problem. This is simply an early idea that I think has potential if it is passed on and refined. So personally I like carriers, they are my favorite class of ship outside the game, and I am definitely for their inclusion. However their current implementation is... controversial at best, and I've been on both sides of the wild ride. The rework has made balancing carriers tricky, and while it's easy to suggest another rework, it's more realistic to work with the system we have now. One of the main issues I have singled out is simply the fact that the aircraft you control come in one large squadron. So when you encounter a carrier's air group, it is usually a massed formation (conservative players will sometimes return part of it to the carrier). The way anti air works is that it targets the rear-most plane in the squadron, so despite only the attacking flight being the only ones that drop their payload on the target, unless almost every plane in the squadron is shot down, anti air can't actually stop the aircraft from delivering the payload (unless the planes slam into flak clouds I guess). This makes balancing anti air more than a headache with the risk of making either side too powerful. Either the surface ship has no hope of stopping an attacking flight getting through, causing frustration for the surface ship player, or on the flip side, the anti air is strong enough to shoot down most aircraft, causing massive casualties and preventing the carrier from doing anything, causing frustration for the carrier player. So with all that out of the way, what do I propose. Well I think it would be a good idea to separate attacking flights from the rest of the squadron during an attack run. What does this mean exactly? Well again, as it works now, you can only stop aircraft from dropping their payload if you go through the entire squadron's aircraft. With this change, the moment the attacking flight breaks off to commit to the attack, anti air will focus on the attacking flight alone, and that attacking flight will not be reinforced from the rest of the squadron. Here's a simplified scenario (with very poor visuals) to show what I mean. A squadron of 9 torpedo bombers split into 3 attacking flights of 3 attack a target (I used a Kongo silhouette, but I should have used a Reference FusoTM like all the cool kids. Ah well, we'll just say we're recreating Hiei getting ganked by aerial attack). As the attacking flight flies through (poor visual quality) long range AA, and potentially AA from other ships, everything works the way it does now, with the last plane in the squadron being focused and taking the damage (excluding flak). Once the squadron commences the attack, the attacking flight splits off and commence their run. Anti air now focuses its fire on aircraft from the attacking flight. The AA shoots down one of the attacking aircraft, without the rest of the squadron reinforcing like they do now, leaving the two others to continue the attack. The two aircraft break through and release two torpedoes at the target (we're gonna end this scenario historically and just say Hiei eats the torps). The attacking flight then breaks off and returns to the carrier as normal. The important thing to note here is that by shooting down a single aircraft, the ship's AA defenses successfully prevented a third of the payload from being delivered. If the second aircraft in the flight was shot down, that's two-thirds of the payload denied. By focusing on the aircraft that are actually making an attack, AA can also *feel* more effective in dealing with the threat without having to make it overly powerful. Another advantage this can bring is increasing the viability of shorter range AA, as their DPM could be relied on more in the attack run, especially against dive-bombers. This might also help destroyers deal with aircraft, as they naturally don't have the anti air to stop, say a whole squadron of rocket planes, but could mitigate each attacking flight's damage output. I thought about this idea a couple months back when the rework was still going through all sorts of changes, and I thought it might be too much of a sledgehammer change. However, with the time we've had with the finalized version, I think this might be viable. Of course, there will be other things that will probably change somewhat with this, such as AA values being tweaked for the change and such. Again, I am no expert, but I do hope this makes it up the chain and considered. In regards to some "major" change I'd like to see with carriers, it would probably be a fighter overhaul, though I don't have any ideas as to what that might look like. One of the results of the carrier rework was reducing the carrier to carrier interaction, which I fundamentally disagree with and think should be reconsidered.
  10. This isn't game breaking, or even noticeable for the most part. But I thought i'd bring it up since its a little inconsistent and a fix likely wouldn't take a sweat (I hope). The description is basically that the Enterprise, which uses the F6F Hellcat as its fighter (summon fighter consumable and rocket attack plane) happens to instead use the F4U Corsair when using the consumable that actually protects the carrier itself.
  11. Ace_Robz

    A question to CV players new and old

    I made a post earlier about a few ideas for balancing and quality of life improvement.
  12. Ace_Robz

    Some Ideas for the New Carriers

    I'm not exactly new to the game, I've been playing since German cruisers and Russian destroyers were a novelty, and a decent chunk of my playtime was spent on carriers (I started playing this game for them), I'd say I was even one of those "good" carrier players, enough to receive compliments from the team for helping them (squeal!). I just don't have the thousands of hours in the game as many other players do, and I didn't want to sound like I'm some sort of expert, I guess I miscommunication that, whoops. That being said, I completely understand how you feel, there are so many elements I miss from the old system (mostly the fight for air superiority) and for the historic flavor of what carriers do, we seem to have taken a step back. However, there are a lot of positives with the new system. As an aircraft enthusiast, I get a kick out of the ability to actually dive-bomb an enemy ship, with the bombs being modeled in, as opposed to clicking the squad to fly over, with explosions appearing at a random point. This is very subjective though, and everyone has fun in different ways, but I completely understand what you long for that has been taken away.
  13. So it's been a little while since the carrier rework has gone live, We've had time to all play with them and against them for a bit, and we've seen discussions with different thoughts on it. Sooooo, what I want to do here is simply show a few ideas I personally have come up with, get them out there, and see if it catches anyone's interests, or sparks further ideas. Disclaimer, I don't have as many hours in the game as many other players do, and I don't want to act like I do. I've been playing the new carriers since the last two rounds of the PTS, and on the live server, I've mostly been playing with the Enterprise at tier 8, so I have not reached top tier, haven't touched the Japanese line, nor have I spent too much time on the lower tiers at all. I've also been mostly playing as the carriers, and not as much against the carriers. My personal thoughts on the rework so far are very positive, it's been very fun, and personally, that's what matters most. Although I think war gaming going all or nothing on the idea of it being only action and not so much strategy is not a good idea. Warships is sometimes known as the "Thinking man's action game", with strategy being core to the game play in every class. Even with the RTS taken out of it, denying ideas that sound even remotely too complicated for the player or non-action is very limiting. Anyways, with all that out of the way, here we go. Time Delay for the first launch of carrier-borne aircraft So one of the most prominent things people bring up is the whole "perma-spotting" apocalypse. With the massive change brought with the new carriers, the meta has been completely changed, and concealment value has been reduced significantly. Some want this overhauled to reduce how much spotting a carrier can do, others want to see where this new meta will go and roll with it. Personally, I think the amount of spotting a carrier can do mid-game is fine, and the new meta is interesting (you can disagree with me here), however, I do think the spotting potential at the start of the game is a bit much. This is the preparation stage, where ships decide on where they go and what they do, having most of the ships from each team spotted at the very start of the match by a squadron of fighters (attackers but I will be calling them fighters, fight me) can limit some game plans, as both teams know the deployment of the other right off the bat. For destroyers especially, not only is their position compromised, but they tend to get harassed from the start. My idea is simple, and I'm pretty sure many have thought up this obvious solution, have timer at the start of the match that prevents the carrier from launching aircraft for a small duration. How long this should last is up for discussion, but a little bit of time for both teams to get into position would help the game a lot in my opinion. It can also allow the carrier to start setting a course and speed, instead of being pressured to launch his planes and get in there before the other carrier. Fighters (not attackers this time, the ones that pew pew other planes) I think an area where almost everyone is dissatisfied in is the way fighters work now. Personally I would like to see fighters completely redone in a separate way, but war gaming really want to do it as consumables, and it seems its too late for a massive rework in fighters. We have to be realistic about this, so the fighter consumable is what we have, this is what we must work with. So, the problems with the way it is implemented now are.... well fighters are next to useless. To begin with, it can be difficult for a squadron to fly over and deploy fighters to cover a teammate in time. And even if fighters are deployed and covering an area, first off, the area is minuscule. It is extremely easy for attacking aircraft to simply fly around the zone, and either attack a different target in the area, or the same target they wanted to go for anyway because he's sailed out of the protection bubble due to its size. The fighters also aren't reliable in actually attacking the enemy when they do fly into the zone. it is hard enough to be able to successfully have your fighters attack another target, and when they do, they barely shoot anything down before they make their drop, or just F out of there entirely, and bam, consumable wasted! Or in my opinion, the most ridiculous case, an attacking squadron simply flies through as the fighters cannot keep up with them anyway, so they don't even matter! I very much don't agree with the idea that only surface ships are to deal with incoming aircraft, and carriers's role should only be focused on attacking other surface ships. So, in trying to make this current system work, the best solution I could come up with is to significantly increase the effective radius covered by fighters. It seems Enterprise has a larger patrol sector than other carriers, this seems like a bare minimum that every carrier should have in order to effectively protect it. Larger areas would offer greater protection to not only one, but multiple surface ships, if the carrier goes out of his way to fly to his teammates to give assistance, more importantly, it would make it more reliable as the fighters would begin their pursuit earlier and have more time to intercept. Additionally, I think the number of patrolling fighters, as well as their action time should be increased. This is to further increase their effectiveness (lower tier carriers with few patrol fighters successfully attacking a squadron barely makes a difference). I would also say this is a consumable that should be given unlimited charges, however I am on the fence for this one. Perhaps it can be a gimmick for a premium carrier, Enterprise comes to mind as her role used to be one of air superiority, so this would be equivalent to Atlanta having unlimited Defensive Fire. Carrier patrol fighters (the ones that take off whenever the carrier is spotted but are never around when you're under air attack) Not much to say here, a lot of issues with the carrier's own CAP system is similar to everything mentioned before. Again, probably a good solution is to significantly increase the sector they patrol, so they engage the enemy before they make their first drop, as well as increase the squadron size. But another solution I want to propose is to make the action time of the patrolling fighters unlimited. This means that as soon as the game starts, the fighters take off and protect the carrier for the entire match. I have two ideas for how to make this work. So while their time in the air is unlimited, if they end up getting shot down down, then a timer will start until you can relaunch them. The second idea is to have it similar to the deck regeneration of the rest of your aircraft. What this means is that the squadron will take off at the start of the game at full strength. If a few planes get shot down, there will be a regeneration time for each plane, like how it works for the rest of your squadrons. Once that plane is ready, it will take off and join the squadron. If all your planes get shot down, it will take a moment for your protective fighters to come back to full strength. Anti Aircraft The current system requires a LOT of work. While I haven't looked into it, it seems the amount of flak per burst doesn't relate much to the actual number of guns on the ship (I am probably wrong here but eh). An idea I personally really liked was brought up by iChase, who suggested a manual control over your long-range AA. What this means is that you can chose to switch over to your AA and aim the flak bursts yourself (a completely new system of aiming will have to be added here), this means AA will have a skill element to it, which makes it less frustrating on both sides. I heard players complaining that they didn't sign up to shoot AA guns, but hey, you signed up to use warships, AA gunnery was no small part of what warships had to do in battle, one could argue it was more important than surface gunnery. Besides, it sounds really fun and strategic, if in your situation it would be more beneficial to switch over to your AA and deal with incoming aircraft before switching back to surface shooting, the better player will make the right call. However this is a very radical idea, and as I said before with the fighters, which I would like redone entirely, it is probably too late to change the foundation, and we have to work with what we have, even though I would really like to see that. That being said, one of the main confusing issues we have right now is related to the split between short, medium, and long range AA, specifically with the sort-medium AA. The fact that the medium range AA is more effective if you lack short range is very strange. The devs are likely having their own issues with figuring this one out. My solution to this is to simply have short and medium range AA overlap. I know this is what wargaming wanted to remove (for some reason), and I somewhat understand limiting long-range AA to a minimum range, but with the whole complications of trying to balance ships that have and don't have short range AA, it seems better to just let both sides's medium range have the ability to engage from point blank, with short range AA being a useful addition to DPS for ships that have it. The aircraft models themselves (not important at all but I wanted to include this :D) Well, I've basically gone over pretty much all of the important stuff, this is just something I wanted to bring up because... well, I wanted to bring it up. That is to do with the selection of which aircraft are being used by a carrier. This is really nit picky and pretty useless, and its mostly a personal gripe, but here we go. The prominent ship that seems to have people's attention about her aircraft selection is the Graf Zeppelin, specifically in relation to her Stukas. I don't think anyone minds the Me-155 replacing the Bf-109T, but replacing her iconic Ju-87C Stukas with Ta-152s was a bit random. The reasoning for this was that they wanted the Zeppelin's aircraft to be fast, which is fair enough. However, I think it would have been better to keep the Stukas and just make them very fast, instead of introducing an aircraft that nobody ever though of converting for carrier ops. Of course, the issue here is the amount of time it actually takes to model an aircraft. People worked hard to make the stunning model of the Ta-152, and I can see why, even with people wanting the Stukas back, war gaming is reluctant given the resources spent on this change. Oh I also want to mention how Enterprise's F6F hellcats are still called F4U Corsairs for some reason, though I'm sure it's already been brought to the attention of the devs. In terms of Enterprise, while this is a completely pointless request, I personally would like her to be fitted with her iconic SBD-5 Dauntless Dive Bombers. Yeah, the Helldivers drop two bombs but hey, maybe double the squadron size, and number of attacking planes per attack run? Ok i'll stop....