So after reading some comments (not all) on pages 1 and six and playing in game, mainly as a TIV Langley, MY contribution to the topic is this:
1: General take on Carriers) I rather like the new Carriers for the most part. So far I've only tried TIV Langley though but I'm getting close to next level. 68,000xp for TV USA carrier though? :O that's pritty steep since it's pritty hard to earn that much xp from battle as a carrier. About 1,300 xp is the high end on a Langley. I personally find them much easier to control and I think the high leveling xp is somewhat justified because they're in direct confrontation a lot less now. and if one team has a bad CV player it's not quite such a decisive factor in victory or defeat as it was previously. They feel rebalanced to me in favour of team play rather than the be all and end all to victory during battle.
2: DD VS Carriers) Read plenty of comments in game and on forum about how rockets are too accurate against DDs. They are very accurate but DDs are also extremely quick and maneuverable. I think whilst the firing radius on rockets could be wider to reduce accuracy, I also think the turn rate, rudder responsiveness and speed counter balance rocket planes nicely. I've seen some seriously good DD players dodge, duck and dive these shots. So if you make Rockets too hard to aim, then you'll be swinging the unbalance in the other direction. because defending against a DD as a CV would become impossible.
2.a} Also, I'm not getting why people are saying it's too easy for planes to spot DDs. As a guy that's gotten in to carriers since the update, it's almost impossible to spot a DD in game until you're almost on top of it. Only way to effectively find them is to figure their general area (often based on last known position) and search it. If you reduce it further then we'll have flown over them before they even become visible.
3: Strategic value of carriers and their players) I don't really understand why people are saying their strategic importance has been reduced. If anything it's increased. Previously it was a click fest with a ton of micro attached to it. You could launch many squads at once then have to constantly reposition all of them as they flew to avoid danger and/or find their target and effectively attack it with huge and often devastating arial ambushes. Don't get me wrong you had to be really good to do this and succeed but there wasn't really a lot of strategy involved, just clicking and taking in information at a ridiculous pace. Tactical prowess might be more accurate.
Now carriers have less immediate firepower but can still have an effective influence in battle within a team. Their accuracy and their near endless supply of planes makes up for the lack of firepower (except in the case of rockets). and no longer is the case where if one team had a bad CV player where the other team had good player(s) was that a completely deciding factor. Now teams are able to work around it because of the reduction in immediately available firepower for CVs. If anything, I feel like the changes really bring CVs into their role in this game even if it still isn't especially historically accurate where as the previous CV's gameplay style was more historically pleasing but was also wayy more game changing to the point of unbalance.
You only control one squadron at a time now, which I personally find way more relaxing than having to constantly micro manage half a dozen+ all at once. That also gives me a lot of time between take off and target area to examine the map, plan, see what is what and who is where. Who needs support most and if anyone needs a kick up the [edited]. This puts me in a unique position to manage the fleet, warn the fleet of imminent danger and actually strategize battle as part of a team, which is exactly what World of Warships is aimed at being, even in co-op mode. and in Co-op mode, if you don't coordinate with your carrier, it can cost you the battle. Simple as that.
4: Carriers VS average cruisers) In TIV Langley, I find that CVs VS cruisers to be highly unbalanced. The fact that I'm generally finding only 1-2 cruisers in the average battle should be testament to that. Rockets are horribly effective against cruisers, with a good strike being almost as effective against them as an average battleship strike. They're to slow to effectively dodge, paper thin armour and it's wayyy to easy to land 8 rockets in one strike at just about any attack angle. The one and only counter they have is to stay near a battleship or two that has effective AA. (which honestly is what they should be doing to begin with, OR supporting DDs in skirmish and ambush. Torps against cruisers is reasonable and so is dive bombers, though I'm not terribly effective with dive bombers myself.
5: Carriers VS Battleships) At TIV, I'd say rockets are fairly well balanced against battleships. They deal effective damage but not an obscene amount of it. Just enough so that it can swing an otherwise even one on one engagement to an allies favour. Most TIII-V Dive bombers are pritty effective against most BBs as well. Torpedo bombers are more hit and mis. They're either obscenely effective or they just aren't effective enough (mostly due to AA but it also depends of angle of approach.
If I send torp bombers against a Texas battleship, I might be able to launch one single torpedo out of two three plane squadrons if I approach it from the front or sides but never from behind. I'd say that's pritty well balanced . AA also seems to depends a little bit on luck and I rather like that. However, on other BBs, they are just too accurate. CVs can't launch a volley of 4-5 torps anymore with two squadrons all at once so that huge damage reduction per strike helps counter balance this somewhat, but unless the CV player makes a mistake or gets duped by the BB player, the BB player has zero chance in dodging the launched torpedo. BBs like the American and Japanese TIII - TIVs have almost no hope at all on their own.
5a) To ofset this unbalanced aspect of the game, I would suggest that just like in the great worl wars of the time, some torpedos should be duds. Maybe someone goofed during manufacture or the trigger mechanisms were knocked in transport or AA nicked it. Either way, I would suggest that introducing a chance for dud torpedo, both for DDs and Carriers to be introduced. I also think that increasing chance for flooding along with a introducing a chance for duds would add an element of luck in to the game and together would work to counterbalance most BBs helplessness against torpedoes just like it actually did during both world wars.
You make it say, 1-20 out of every 100 torpedos in game are duds and one in about every 20 will cause flooding. That would be a perfect balancing mechanism for torps as they are.
6: CV VS CV) People saying CVs can't hunt CVs anymore are talking from their butts, (they edited out rears but not BUTTS? lol) HOWEVER, it does take the larger part of an entire match to take one out one on one if starting from the beginning. The only thing I'd really change about it is the auto activated fighters consumable. Carriers get four of them and each lasts for about 10 minutes at a time which is also affected by ammo usage. I'd suggest taking out the active time entirely and just stick to showing how much ammo each squadron has and then have a cool down period of 2-3 minutes once the squadron lands again. You could even make it an unlimited use item rather than just four of them. With a cool down like that and under constant attack, how many squadrons they get up would depend on how much ammo they have and how fast they spend it. and you can vary this even further by making nationality of carrier a factor in tming and ammo amount.
Right now, I believe they can defend against 2-4 squadrons before having to land again. It's only really the auto fighter squadron that unbalanced it at all. Otherwise this aspect is pritty sound.
There's probably a few things I missed. If I remember them later then I'll expand my post.