Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Radical_20

  • Rank
  • Insignia
  1. Interesting.. I'm working on my Independence at the moment. I find it curious... American have 1 and only 1 load-out. I just finished a game against a Ryujo, and it looked like it was an AS loadout. I looked on Wargaming wiki, and sure 'nough, that ship has 3 different load-outs available to it. Needless to say, I had my ______ handed to me. Really fair Wargaming, you shackle American CVs to 1 load-out, but let Japanese have multiple.... Really fair.
  2. Title says it all. Since the CV change a version or two ago, has anybody checked the win and survivability rates of American CVs? Personally, my win rate has dropped overall from 48% down to 47%, and that's after about 15 games. Right now, I'm winning, maybe 2 in 5, so I expect my overall rate will continue to drop. On the plus side, I've sunk more ships (4) in the few days I've been playing, but I'm loosing more matches and getting sunk more often. Personally, I prefer the specialist load-outs... at least I could be good in the Air Superiority mode. The new load-outs, while "general purpose" don't seem to help me all that much. I still think the large versus small squadron size is a detriment to the US CVs.
  3. Ok, I unlocked the Benson last week, and as I always do, I spend time in Co-Op battles skilling up the captain and getting XP for the various modules. I'm reading Wargaming's own wiki regarding the research path. "Like Mahan, Hull (B) is the best place to invest early experience gains. After that, captains are encouraged to research the upgraded Torpedo module for better reload times and more damage." But..! There seems to be a contradiction between their wiki and the game. The base torps have a reload of 109.0 seconds. The upgrade torps have a reload of 122.0 seconds. Sure the upgrade torps have more damage.. but is that enough to make it worth the longer load time?
  4. Proposed CV philosophy

    I hope one of us is right. Right now, from what I've read on these forums, CV play is too hit-or-miss. Too lopsided. Yes, my thoughts would make CVs more generic, in the base forms. But it also allowed ship modules and captain skills to personalize CV play to one's own style. Look at all the load-outs and captain skills the other ship types have... I want that for CVs too. But.. I don't want those load-outs to skew the personality to an extreme degree. If a newbie CV player gets totally wiped off the map by an experienced player.. or just plane dumb luck, they may not play CVs again. A newbie should at least feel they've got a fighting chance. The initial learning curve is extremely steep (IMO).. and easily frustration inducing. I've been on the receiving end of a butt-kicking, and I've been on the other end. Rarely have my CV battles been a long drawn out affair. And that's not fun for anybody.
  5. Proposed CV philosophy

    If you put in the time to learn to play well, you'd have many captain points to use to increase the stats of the airplanes, and you'd still be able to wipe the floor with a new captain who doesn't have captain skills.
  6. Proposed CV philosophy

    Within a few percentage points only. That way, a player could choose captain skills to improve a weak plane type to compensate, if desired. Example: The American Fighters could be a bit slower than the Japanese fighters, but have better HP. The Japanese fighters could be slightly faster, but less HP. Again, within a few percentage points.
  7. Proposed CV philosophy

    So.. you're saying that your manual drops and strafing are 100% consistent? Ok.. there's some RNG in there.. so are they 90% consistent? To you shoot down an entire squadron your strafing 80% of the time? 70%? What about manual drops. What percentage of the time you get 3 or more bomb drops? 100? 90? 80? Yes, I proposed removing strafing and manual drops, but I also proposed captain skills that would compensate, and in a more consistent manner. Is your bomb drop damage per game consistent? Again, I proposed captain skills to more consistently aid your automatic drops. But.. oh well. Question.. can you change the flight of a shell in mid-air? Last time I checked.. WoWs doesn't have guided cruise missiles.
  8. Proposed CV philosophy

    I was referring to the inconsistency and seeming inconsistency. I enjoy playing CVs, but some games are wildly great, others wildly bad. Very few are "average." Most CV battles for me are at the extreme ends of the enjoyment spectrum. I think I'd enjoy CVs more if they fell more towards the middle of the bell curve.
  9. Proposed CV philosophy

    I made a comment on a different CV thread, but I thought I'd make a start a new, independent thread. CVs are too unbalanced, from one tier to the next, between Japanese, and American, (and eventually other countries).. And they are a hit-or-miss with skill. A dominant CV player can easily destroy a not-so-good one. They're frustrating to learn, and often not that enjoyable to play. So I came up with a few thoughts. 1) Squadron size is standard on a tier-by-tier basis. Tier 4 & 5 CVs will all have 3 plane squadrons. Tier 6 & 7, 4 planes. Tier 8 & 9, 5. And Tier 10 will have 6 plane squadrons. This is to build closer equity between countries. Also with match-making as it is, a CV is guaranteed to never encounter that's more than 1 plane larger. Launch, landing, and rearming speed of larger squadrons takes longer than smaller ones. This would be consistent for all CVs at the same tier as well. For the most part, this will fit with the current premium ships (Kaga, Enterprise, and Saipan). The Saipan might need changing. 2) Squadron number is standard on a tier-by-tier basis, furthermore, they have the same number of fighter squadrons, and have at least 1 squadron each of TBs and DBs. Their TB and DB squadron count may vary by no more than 1 squadron. This is to give all CVs (roughly) equal balance between Air and Strike. For example, under current system Langley has 3 6-plane squadrons. It would switch to a 6 three plane squadron, 2/1/2. Hosho would have something like 2/2/1 air group. A 2/3/0 and 2/0/3 air wing would not be possible. So, you ask how do we have country specific "flavor"? Well in the plane characteristics of course. If you think of airplanes like the main guns of BBs, CLs, and DDs. Each country has a flavor. Some have good AP, others good HE, others better muzzle velocity and so on. The planes could have (within a few percentage points) faster fighters, more HP, more DPS, more maneuverability, etcetera. 3) Remove strafing and manual drop, instead use other modifier techniques to enhance dog-fighting, TB and DB drop accuracy and effectiveness. 4) Introduce ship modules that enhance, separately, each plane type. For example: Air Groups Mod 1 will be changed to "Fighter Groups Mod 1" enhancing DPS of fighter guns. Other slot 1 upgrades will be added, "TB Groups Mod 1" and "DB Groups Mod 1" as separate upgrades, to enhance initial impact damage by 10%. These have to be separate mods, and not be 1 mod upgrades all planes. Why? It allows, and forces, the player to enhance just one airplane type. Player can choose to enhance a weakness of his planes for better balance, or enhance a strength for dominance. Let's say a given country's fighters are faster than other countries' fighters. The player could choose to enhance that strength, the player likes to play style of air superiority. Or, the player, knowing his/her fighters are good, my choose to enhance the weak TBs. 5) Introduce additional airplane related captain skills. Three captain skills at each skill level. Three skills, like ship modules, that are specific to each plane type. That makes for 12 different captain skills, but, would require 30 captain skills to master them all, but since captain skills only go to 19, the player has to pick and choose what to use. Like the ship upgrades, they can be used to enhance plane capability, and tailor a CVs airplane complement to the players game style. I play all types of ships, so I'm not BB-centric, or CV-biased. (At least I don't think I am) When I encounter another BB, CL, or DD, I pretty much know what I'm up against, but with CVs, I don't. This would bring equity to CVs of each tier. And with MM already matching CVs tier-by-tier, I know I'm going to have a fair fight. When I encounter those other BBs, CLs, and DDs... what I don't know is the play-style of the captain. What tweaks via upgrades and captain skills the player has made for that ship. This would now be the same for CVs. This will allow wargaming to make minute tweaks to planes that they currently can't do. Due to the squadron size being so different between American and Japanese CVs, a minute change to an airplane's specs could cause major swings in game results. This will allow wargaming to introduce more countries' CVs and give them each a country specific flavor. For example, they could give British TBs a tighter drop pattern (in honor of the Swordfish pilots) Admittedly, those that are good at manual dropping and strafing will complain, but the addition of ship upgrades and captain skills should yield a more consistent and predictable play style. This will also allow a more even growth as players advance up the tech tree. Squadron size and number grow at an even pace from one tier to the next. Anyway.. these are what I came up. I wanted to make the CV play style more consistent from country to country. Make the skills grow at a consistent rate from tier to tier. Have a "fair fight" between any two CVs. But I also wanted the players to be able to enhance a CV for their own play style, and I wanted the some "country flavor" as well. But not so much that it'd make the play style grossly different.
  10. Thoughts on USN CV rebalance.

    I've been thinking about captain skills vs load-outs. I rotate between all ship types. I'm currently on the tier 6 and 7 American ships. Which brings us to New Mexico. I can research and mount all the New Mexico modules... just like everybody else. There are 23 (I think) skills that tweak ship behavior. Some don't apply to BBs, but the point is, there's more skills than I have captain points to learn, even if I had a 19 point captain. So I have to pick and choose. When I see an opposing New Mexico in the game, I know what the base stats are.. but what I don't know is the captain skills. Is the captain spec'd for AA or something else? The same could be done for carrier based airplanes. If I see an opposing Independence, I know the load-out possibilities.. And once the 1-load-out change takes place, I'll definitely know the load-out... but what I don't know is the captain skills, does he prefer fighters? DBs, or TBs. Did he spend his captain skills on the ship's concealment? or on the planes? That's where the mystery could be. If there were 3 captain skills at each level, 1 that enhances each plane type, the captain would have to pick and choose how he/she wants to play a carrier and it's planes. Each ship is different, probably requiring unique captain skill setups.
  11. Thoughts on USN CV rebalance.

    Very good point. I'm not very good at strafing, and it's a tough day at the office when I run into a CV player that is. I know this is going to torque off the CV players that are good at strafing, crying out "Dumbing down the game..", but I'll say it anyway. Take away Strafing and Manual drops. Instead add captain skills like "advanced dog-fighting" and "precision bombing" to enhance the fighter and bomber skills. Wargaming could add many skills that enhance plane behavior. If they add enough skills, more skills than a 19 point captain could possible train for.. this would 1) encourage additional training and game play for carrier captains, and 2) allow captains to personalize their skills for their game play style.. For example, a captain could say.. "I want to be good at dogfighting." He could choose the dogfighting related skills at the sacrifice of bombing skills. Or he could choose to enhance Dive bombing at the price of Torpedo bombing.
  12. Thoughts on USN CV rebalance.

    Let's take a mathematical look at "Demolition Expert" captain skill for American CVs Wargaming's wiki "fire" web page states the formula for fire chance as: (http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Fire) [Fire Resistance Coefficient] x ( 1 - [Damage Control Modification 1] - [Fire Prevention] ) x ( [Projectile Base Fire Chance] + [Demolition Expert] + [Signals] - [Inertial Fuse for HE Shells]) = Fire Chance Now, let's take some solid examples: Since I'm currently sailing my Tier 6 Independence, let's go with that, and a Tier 6 German Bayern. With the stock hull, the Bayern had Fire Coefficient of 0.8002, with upgrade hull 0.7669 Projectile Base Fire Change: 1.41 First with stock hulls and no modifiers all 'round. 0.8002 X (1 - 0.0 - 0.0) X (1.41 + 0.00 + 0.00 - 0.00) = 1.12, or 112% that a single shell will cause a fire Now let's add fire control mod 1 for the target 0.8002 X (1 - 0.05 - 0.0) x (1.41 + 0.00 + 0.00 - 0.00) = 1.07, or 107% chance that a single shell will cause a fire. Now let's add captain skill "Fire Prevention" to the Bayern's captain 0.8002 X(1 - 0.05 - 0.10) x (1.41 + 0.00 + 0.00 - 0.00) = 0.95, or 95% chance that a single shell will cause a fire. Now, let's get the Bayern the B hull. 0.7669 X (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) X (1.41 + 0.00 + 0.00 - 0.00) = 0.91, or 91%. Now let's improve the Independence. First Demo Expert 0.7669 X (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) X (1.41 + 0.02 + 0.00 - 0.00) = 0.932, or 93.2% Now for the flags. Victor Lima add 1% and India X-Ray add 1% I'll do them together. 0.7669 X (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) X (1.41 + 0.02 + 0.02 - 0.00) = 0.945 or 94.5% So let's look at the extreme's.. a totally modified Independence against a totally stock Bayern 0.8002 X (1 - 0.0 - 0.0) X (1.41 + 0.02 + 0.02 - 0.00) = 1.16 or 116% In conclusion, these two ships, there's any where from a 91% to 116% chance that a single bomb, if it hits, will cause a fire. That "Demolition Expert" skill does indeed enhance the chance of a shell causing a fire. Render your own conclusions. Good luck and smooth sailing.
  13. I just checked.. Stock Ranger, no modules, no captain skills.... F6F-3: 1380 hit points F6F-5: 1560 hit points Stock Lexington, no modules, no captain skills. F6F-5: 1560 hit points Captain: Aircraft Servicing Expert adds 5% Hit points to all carrier based aircraft.
  14. Thoughts on USN CV rebalance.

    As I see it, is the size of the squadrons. The smaller, but more numerous, squadrons of the Japanese CVs allow for more flexibility, and potential higher Damage-over-time. For example, A Japanese CV with 2 TBs can cross drop, nearly assuring a hit.. or a delayed drop. Letting the 1sts drop bring our Damage Control, and let the second drop get a full length flood Damage-Over-Time. But, American CVs don't have that ability.. until higher tiers. Only 1 squadron of DBs they drop on a ship, which brings out the DC. But by the time the squadron returns to the ship, rearms, launches, and returns, the ships DC cool down is done. This limits the DOT that large squadrons can actually do. They... might.. get a bigger initial damage with more hits, but they don't get damage over time. Until we see uniform squadron size between all CVs.. tier for tier.. there will always be an imbalance. Second, there needs to be appropriate DB vs TB captain skills. There are more captain skills that benefit TBs, than there are for DBs. Personally, I believe the win percentage for American CVs is going to drop. According to Notser's conversation with Wargaming, Japanese win percentage is about 52-53% and American CV is 47-48%. American win percentage is going to drop.
  15. Hello all, I'm currently skilling up my tier 6 and 7 American ships. Currently I'm working on my New Mexico. I have 16 captain points working on #17. (It's just how I play that's not the question). I was in a game last weekend and I had a 1-on-1 battle versus a Queen Elizabeth. I was at 3/4 health, enemy was at about 1/2. I was angled, and he was mostly broadside. I lost. He was firing HE, and knocking 8-10K damage a salvo. And I was doing 3 or 4K tops. Maybe I was angled too much. I don't know. And I'll admit I could've played that duel better. But the question is... has the strategy of gameplay changed with the British BBs? Has the choice of upgrade modules and captain skills changed because of their HE? What are other BB players doing to counter the British HE?