• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

53 Good

About senseNOTmade

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile senseNOTmade

Recent Profile Visitors

430 profile views
  1. When facing a CV with superior fighters people tend to feel an urge to get out there and do lots of complicated strafing. After all, in a straight up lock engagement you'll lose, so it has to be your job to turn the odds. However, that is the opposite of how you should be approaching things. Especially against a good player, it is necessary to wait until he is vulnerable and starts making mistakes before you engage his fighters. And the Saipan, with its small squadrons and limited hanger capacity, can afford to make surprisingly few mistakes. Further, because their fighters can exit strafe with no losses, Saipan players tend to over-extend themselves. I would therefore recommend hanging back over friendly AA as much as possible. Because of the high tier of their planes, Saipan players don't fear AA as they should, especially as it only requires one random dice roll to reduce their squadron by 25%. Next, attack lone squadrons. Most Saipan players are willing to temporarily accept these engagements because they feel they can exit strafe at no cost should your second squadron come in. Use this to engage him over friendly AA, or follow strafe him when he tries to leave. You should also (and this applies to all CVs) attack when the enemy is making a strike, because he will be busy microing other things during this time. If you can successfully get his squadron to 2 planes (which, as already stated, only requires two random dice rolls to turn out positive), then you can defeat his squadron in a direct lock engagement. And a Saipan player cannot afford to do that often.
  2. There were two threads which came up recently which addressed your problem. You may want to take a look at them: Note that I don't own the Spee, but overall my impression is that it is a cruiser-killer. As such, you want to use your ship's armour against cruisers by angling, while avoiding engagements with BBs whenever possible. If you have no choice but to fight a BB, then use islands, smoke and distance to conceal and protect yourself. 39k health is pretty awesome for a tier 6 cruiser, and the Spee's armour is also unusually good (again, relative to cruisers). As long as you don't get yourself into brawls with BBs or eat a face full of torps, you should do ok.
  3. This game tries to get people to work as a team by specializing the classes into the distinct roles which mutually support each other; a goal which is generally supported by most players. However, one of the oft-overlooked downsides of specializing classes is that it makes players dependent on their teammates performing their roles, in order to perform their own roles. This problem might be more blatant in the case of DDs because they rely on large alpha strikes, and it might be more obvious in the case of CVs because of the duel format MM. However, a BB is also reliant on DDs and radar ships to spot for him. A CA is reliant on the BBs to tank damage. A CV is reliant on CAs to protect his squadrons, a DD is reliant on covering fire to protect himself from radar. A BB is reliant on the DDs to contest caps, a RN CL is reliant on CAs to radar for him, a CV is reliant on all the other ships to protect him from sneaky DDs and the list goes on and on. If you could single handedly win the game and do massive damage despite half your team seemingly being complete idiots, that wouldn't be balanced either, and it certainly wouldn't encourage teamwork. I seem to remember discussions of win rates on this forum, and people talking about how, no matter how good you are, only about 20% of matches will be under your control. Hence most players' winrates are in the 40%-70% range. In the other 80% of games, either your team would have won regardless of what you did, or your team is made up of such potatoes that no matter how skilled you might be, you simply will not have the support you need to turn the match. And this is the case regardless of which ship class you play.
  4. As I said in my previous post, I do agree that CV planes are too good at spotting destroyers. However, as I said in my previous post, the usual counters of seeking AA cover and relying on the friendly CV, do still apply here. A destroyer with its high speed is far more capable of leading the planes into the AA bubble of a Neptune than a slow-[edited]BB would be, and the friendly CV should be just as busy pushing back any spotting planes as the enemy is in pushing them forward. Further, as I said in my first post, spotting destroyers does require microing, tends to involve losing planes to AA, has risks of being intercepted, and has a large opportunity cost, particularly for USN CVs, because you can't use that squadron to do anything else while you're spotting. Lastly, as I said in my previous post, what you are talking about are the problems of having the destroyer itself be spotted, and there are legitimate balancing complaints about this. However, this thread is more about torpedo spotting, not just for DDs but also for CA/CLs, and in particular how plane spotting compares with hydro. My argument was by no means that plane spotting is a perfect mechanic; only that it is preferable to simply giving everyone hydro.
  5. So ships with bad AA need to stay close to ships with good AA, and CVs need to provide air cover for their teammates. I mean, I'm not very happy with CV gameplay myself, but the methods which the enemy team has for countering aggressive moves by your planes apply here just as much as they do in any other situation. Plus, you're shifting the discussion more towards how easy it is for CVs to spot destroyers (which is rather unbalanced, at least for IJN DDs) rather than how easy it is for CVs to spot torpedoes. If planes couldn't spot torpedoes, then a CV could still park his DBs above enemy DDs. In fact, it might even force him to do this more, as revealing the location of the DD is now the only way he can protect his team from torpedo attack.
  6. I actually think it's a really good mechanic. It requires the CV captain to think of his team, remember which ships have torpedoes, have map awareness of where those ships are and where they're likely to fire those torps, and keep in mind which of his teammates are most likely to need support (mostly those sitting still or in smoke). CVs also risk losing planes to AA or fighters by keeping them in front of their team's forward positions. It's a high teamplay, high skill, high risk, high reward tactic. If anything, it's the hydro that should be removed, as all it needs is a push of the button and is arguably more effective.
  7. Broadly I agree with you. Damage on battleships is by no means worthless, and if the strategic situation isn't favorable to cruiser hunting, firing on BBs is a perfectly acceptable tactic. I think my point was more that by deciding to go to A and by playing in such a cautious way, he made firing at BBs the only viable option. Given different choices at the beginning and during the match, he may have had more opportunities to fire at cruisers. Yea, np, I was very happy to give advice. Upon re-reading I feel like my original post was a bit too critical, so I just wanted to make clear that your game here was perfectly acceptable, you made generally the right decisions and played it smart. It's better to be a live damage dealer than a dead yolo potato. It's just kinda hard to improve your game on praise, so I focused a lot on the things you could have done better. You by no means played badly in that battle.
  8. So, I don't own the Spee, so all I can give you is some general cruiser notes. I don't like going to the A cap on that map in a cruiser because most cruisers have too little health and too low range to traverse the open waters between A and B without the support of their battleships, which can lead to you getting stuck or left behind if the enemy does not come out to meet you at A. This is largely what happened in that battle, but even so you were way too cautious. You played like a third line french cruiser, or an IJN battleship, both of which are ship lines with a lot more shells to waste on dispersion than you in the Spee. As a result, your damage output was severely neutered. This was made worse by you never switching to AP, which could have easily allowed you to citadel that broadside cruiser at the end (and maybe, according to other people in this thread, the broadside Fuso as well). In any case, your main mistake in the brawl at the end was that you did not wiggle your ship enough. You should use your long reload times to angle the ship, and then swing out to fire a volley once the guns are reloaded. As it was, you sailed mostly in a straight line at an angle where the cruiser (a mogami?) could consistently AP penetrate you from the front. There's no need to point your rear turret at him if it's not reloaded. Because you never deviated your course, you were also showing a full broadside to the Scharnhorst at the end, and it was only by his astronomically terrible aim that you avoided being deleted right then and there. Find an angle at which you show as much armour to both opponents in a brawl. If that is not possible, then wiggle to make yourself as difficult a target as possible. As a more overall note, you spent just about the entire game firing at battleships, which isn't really a cruiser's role. Maybe it's different for the Spee, especially as fighting DDs would be very difficult in it, but in general, fights against other cruisers should be preferred to fights against battleships, as your damage will be more valuable, your armour and angling more effective, and your shells more likely to citadel. THis was again a result of your extremely cautious strategy.
  9. So, there are a number of ways for CA/CLs to avoid being destroyed by battleships. The best is to use islands to your advantage to attack destroyers and other cruisers while never giving any enemy battleships a clear shot at you. However, this is usually not possible for any length of time, so you'll have to rely on another method depending upon the particular line you are grinding. Royal Navy cruisers have smoke and so can get pretty close to BBs and then just pop smoke when they start getting targeted. French, some Japanese and some American cruisers can be used as long range HE slingers, relying either on their speed or the great rudder shift time on USN cruisers to dodge shells. Other American cruisers, particularly in later tiers, have very high shell arcs, allowing them to sling shells over islands while remaining undetected. Lastly, more heavily armoured cruisers such as the German and Japanese ones can be used as second line cruisers, in which they basically act as support battleships. Because of their armour they can tank a fair number of shells from longer ranges as long as you don't go showing your broadside to everyone, but the main source of their survivability is never making themselves the best target for the enemy to shoot at. As long as there's someone else who's closer to the enemy, showing a better broadside to them, or in a better position to torpedo them, these cruisers will be safe.
  10. As ship lines progress through the tiers, most improve more in firepower than they do in raw protection. This may be because there are a lot more parameters in attack, such as range, accuracy, penetration, damage, fire chance etc. which multiply each other's effectiveness, than there are in tankyness, which is mostly dependent on armor and health. As a result, I find that the focus of gameplay tends to shift from doing damage in the early tiers to trying to protect oneself from damage (mostly by avoiding being spotted,) in the higher tiers. Even ships like the mighty Yamato can feel like glass cannons if spotted into the wrong positions. While low tier games can feel like a cluster of ships sailing and firing in every direction, high tier games often involve a lot of tense sitting around next to islands; ready to dash into cover like a scared rabbit. Most people enjoy the happy middle; tiers 5-7. Guns are inaccurate enough that it is possible to get away with mistakes, but lethal enough that one can consistently perform if one plays it correctly. Meanwhile, player skill is a mix between experienced and new players, so one can get a smug sense of superiority by thrashing the newbies, but engagements rarely turn into the illogical cluster [edited]s one sees at the really low tiers.
  11. I got insane number of citadels with the Danae. Maybe I just had a lot of luck; I only played a couple battles in her. Overall, if you're going for a large number of citadels, it's rapid firing cruisers with a focus on AP that you want. So, RN and higher tier USN CA/CLs. Then, just island camp until you find the legendary trove of broadside cruisers that everyone is looking for. *Edited for spelling.
  12. Ive found Priority Target, Expert Marksman, Adrenaline Rush, Superintendent and Concealment Expert to be pretty universal amongst my cruisers. Other skills generally depend on the particular line you are grinding. Depending upon the caliber of their guns, IFHE can increase the effectiveness of your cruisers significantly, especially if your play style involves lots of long range HE slinging at BBs. Demolition Expert is best for ships which rely on rapid fire HE spam. RN and other cap-support CLs benefit from Smoke Screen Expert and Vigilance, but I would consider both of these more as luxury skills (especially given the recent changes to RN smoke). Radio Location might be useful for DD hunting cruisers (especially if you need to compensate for not having radar), but I don't have much experience with it. One thing I'd advise against is taking an AA build (and not just because I play CV a lot). There are two types of cruisers in the game: cruisers with good AA and cruisers with bad AA. The cruisers with good AA are feared by CVs, so planes will avoid them like the plague. The cruisers with bad AA could surprise a CV and get some plane kills if they equip all the AA skills and mods, but it will never be enough to wipe out more than one squadron. If you're really scared of being attacked by enemy aircraft, defensive AA will protect you far better, regardless of the base strength of your AA and regardless of how many of your AA guns get knocked out over the course of the match. Plus there's like, no CVs ever. So this will only ever be a problem for you in 1/5 of the battles.
  13. As a CV player, I wholeheartedly agree. WG have said they're planning to address this... Over the coming decades. _________________________________ Maybe it's because I wrote the post just after waking up, but people seem to be confused about what I meant. Edit: I tried describing the concept I'm going for, but this video explains it much better. So just go watch this: (No, I don't care if you find his voice annoying. Watch it.) The point I was making is that while I think the game has a great variety of gameplay styles, both the progression system and the optimal strategies of many ships reward players for ignoring this variety in favor of grinding and passive play. Too often players play ships because they want to unlock the next one, even though it isn't fun anymore. Too often players play ships in the same way for the entire match regardless of situation because the design favors passive, long range attrition. I don't mind grinding per se; I just mind when it makes the game less fun to play. I don't mind passive play, I just mind when people do it for the entire match. It simply is not true that people will choose whichever ship and play style is most fun. If farmville has taught us anything, then it is that players WILL spend hours upon hours grinding things they have no interest in because they want the shiny rewards. Players WILL play passively, even when it is less fun, because that's how they get those shiny unicum stats. Players WILL keep doing the same thing over and over again, if it means getting that sweet, sweet XP. The game MUST nudge people towards variety. I think this problem is mostly a result of the developers porting over the progression system of WoTs to a game with a far more positioning (as opposed to dexterity) based combat system. It probably isn't the biggest issue in the game, but I do think it is underappreciated and deserves addressing.
  14. Yesterday a USN DD shot down 56 of my Taiho planes. Admittedly I was mostly stock (so tier 8 planes), but it was still the most embarrassingly inept CV game I've ever played. The guy sailed around the middle of the map and denied me access to either the north of the south caps while staying almost completely invisible. I really had no idea how to cope, and ended up derping around in confusion; flying my squadrons in random directions and letting the few which got past him get strafed. I had no idea what had hit me. That'll teach me to read patch notes.
  15. I find it hilarious that if you count up all the too weak/too strongs, people seem to be far more concerned with ships and nations being too weak. 5 more people said that a particular navy is too weak than said that a particular navy is too strong, and 21 more people said that a particular ship class is too weak than said that it is too strong. Strength is relative; how can everyone be too weak?